9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell? - Page 4

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lY...eature=related
...

At 2:24 we see that the Fire Department New York has a special truck labelled "COLLAPSE RESCUE".
I wonder why they have such a thing if buildings can't collapse from fire...

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!!

Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11.

Liar.
Kader Toy factory, 1993.
Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11

I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely.
There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire.

TruthersLie · 11th January 2011, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Alienentity, do you expect 47 storeys of building debris not to spread horizontally? How would you fit 47 storeys of broken building into the building's design footprint? A: Don't let it collapse.

just a quick question Ergo.

how does the "debris piles spread horizontally" to the 8th story of the building right next to wtc7, when the "debris pile" (according to most truthers) was tidy, small and tiny? (in fact the images show it was less than 3 stories tall).

How does this "debris pile" manage to strike a roof that is 8 floors up? Hmmm?

TruthersLie · 11th January 2011, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.

The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint.

There you go again.. using words you don't know incorrectly.

So we add in symmetrical (I knew it would show up) to your spelling and vocab list

Please tell me how a building which has the eastern mechancial penthouse collapse 8 seconds before the rest of the building has a "symmetrical" collapse? Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed 8 seconds AFTER the rest of the collapse?

or do you mean how seeing 3 corners collapse and you then extrapolate the 4th corner which we can't see to try to say that shows "symmetry?"

Or do you mean the roof line? (which kinks, so we know that wasn't symmetrical)

I love it when twoofs use words that they don't understand.

JAStewart · 11th January 2011, 02:10 AM

Honestly guys I don't know how you can stomach this stuff anymore. Ergo was putting words into people's mouths, entirely disregarding everyone else's posts and expecting full attention to be paid to his.

Four pages later and I see no different. You'd almost be better withdrawing, letting him believe that he had "made an victory" and the world would be better off.

Cuddles · 11th January 2011, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by adkinsjr

The the "truth" cult teaches that the building collapsed into its own footprint, just like a CD.

Another thing probably worth clarifying is that a controlled demolition does not make buildings collapse into their own footprints. A CD makes a building collapse where the people demolishing it want it to. That is often into its own footprint, but by no means always. For example:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hell, just go here and see as many non-footprint CDs as you like.

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. Where the buildings ended up is completely irrelevant to the question of a conspiracy. All you have to do is say that the buildings were demolished in such a way as to spread the rubble around a bit. This has a huge advantage over most conspiracy claims of not only being possible, but also actually matching what is seen (assuming the standard hush-a-boom explosives and space lasers of course).

So why do people like ergo insist on telling such obvious lies, when the things they're lying about are utterly irrelevant to the larger claim that they're trying to support? WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, and there's no point arguing about it with anyone who has eyes. So why bother when you can make exactly the same claims of conspiracy without lying about where it collapsed?

ergo · 11th January 2011, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

You do understand what "moving the goalposts" means, don't you? (Hint: It doesn't mean "saying something factually incorrect".)

No, what it means is when you are asked for precedents or other examples of an event that is not explainable by the facts presented, those precedents and examples need to match, or at least come close, to the particulars of the situation in question.

In this case, those are: Steel-framed highrises. Fire. Complete, rapid collapse.

Those are the goalposts that have always been there. What did you think were there?

I personally would also throw in complete pulverization of all contents, but that would have you all shrieking "UNFAIR!!" "TOO HARD!!"

ergo · 11th January 2011, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier.

I'll concur with this.

Quote:

WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint,

Where did it collapse?

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. Where the buildings ended up is completely irrelevant to the question of a conspiracy. All you have to do is say that the buildings were demolished in such a way as to spread the rubble around a bit. This has a huge advantage over most conspiracy claims of not only being possible, but also actually matching what is seen (assuming the standard hush-a-boom explosives and space lasers of course).

So why do people like ergo insist on telling such obvious lies, when the things they're lying about are utterly irrelevant to the larger claim that they're trying to support? WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, and there's no point arguing about it with anyone who has eyes. So why bother when you can make exactly the same claims of conspiracy without lying about where it collapsed?

That's why internet warriors like ergo crack me up. He spends 4 pages of this thread asking a stupid question because he thinks he's clever and sharp and all truthy and he's got the "bee dunkers" on the ropes when it actually makes no difference at all.

If WTC7 was a CD, why would it necessarily fall into its own footprint? Why would it necessarily be symmetrical? Why on Earth would whoever decided to take that building down want to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A CD in the first place?

You'd think that the "controlled" part of the CD in that situation would be to make it look like it collapsed from fire and damage alone. In that respect, they did a GREAT job!

ergo · 11th January 2011, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Liar.
Kader Toy factory, 1993.
Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11

I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building.
There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely.
There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire.

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.

Quote:

Initial reports following the May 1993 fire noted that there were four buildings on the Kader site, three of which were destroyed by the fire. In a sense this is true, but the three buildings were actually a single E-shaped structure (see figure 39.13), the three primary portions of which were designated Buildings One, Two and Three.

Quote:

Between the time the factory reopened and the May 1993 fire, the facility experienced several other, smaller fires. One of them, which occurred in February 1993, did considerable damage to Building Three, which was still being repaired at the time of the fire in May 1993.

None of the steel had been fireproofed.

Jackanory · 11th January 2011, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I'll concur with this.

Where did it collapse?

Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'. Architects, builders and planning departments use the term 'footprint'. It is specifically used in the UK to specify the area that a developer or builder can build up from. Due to the 'green belt' areas we are restricted in where we can build. Many developers are therefore resorting to demolishing existing dwellings and rebuilding modern property. The planners stipulate that they can only rebuild using the existing 'footprint'. i.e The existing footing or foundations. The 'footprint' does not include the land, garden or surroundings area that the property sits upon. When submitting plans, the 'footprint' is a key detail and is clearly visible as the footings/foundations at the extreme perimeter of said building. The very term 'footprint' is a simple one. The print of a foot. The area covered as we stand.

By that definition, which in the UK is very clear, no building on 911 fell within its own 'footprint'. Does the USA have another use for this term?

tsig · 11th January 2011, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.

None of the steel had been fireproofed.

Why would it have to be since fire can't cause steel to fail.

Footshot!

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.

The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Jackanory

Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'.

How Stuff Works: Building Implosion

Quote:

When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

Building Implosion - Wikipedia

Quote:

Large buildings, tall chimneys, smokestacks, and increasingly some smaller structures may be destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast — the collapse itself only takes seconds — and an expert can ensure that the building falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighboring structures.

Building Implosion

Quote:

This controlled demolition technique refers to a specific need: when a building has to collapse as close as possible to its footprint to minimize physical damage to its immediate surroundings

Controlled Demolition Inc.

Quote:

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called the Hudson's project "the greatest dynamic-structural-control challenge the company had ever faced." CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft. by 220 ft. footprint of the structure.

Cooling Tower Implosion Details

Quote:

To implode the tower, CDI will place explosives in the lower half of the tower which, when detonated, will cause the tower to fall into itself. Debris will be contained almost entirely within the tower's footprint. The implosion, from the first detonation of explosives to the settling of the tower, will take about 8 seconds.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field.

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

How Stuff Works: Building Implosion

Building Implosion - Wikipedia

Building Implosion

Controlled Demolition Inc.

Cooling Tower Implosion Details

And did you notice that every one of these uses of the word "footprint" refers to the design footprint of the building, and none of them to the alternative meaning that you made up, attributed to the demolition industry, and then refused to define?

You weren't lying, by any chance, when you said "footprint" meant something different to the demolition industry, were you?

Dave

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:17 AM

Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...ofdamagetowtc7

You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half.

(Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.)

Dave

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.

You'll have to accept the dozens of eye witness accounts because they damage was on the side of the building facing the WTC1 and 2, where of course nobody had cameras.

But you know that, huh mister clever debate guy?

http://representativepress.blogspot....-on-south.html

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.

And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up.

Dave

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 05:23 AM

Well, now the fun comes. Ergo can't deny there was any damage, even if he wanted to, so now here comes 8 pages of "well it wasn't as bad as people say it was".

I can't wait.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...ofdamagetowtc7

You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half.

(Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.)

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up.

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 05:30 AM

I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...tsofwtc7damage

To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...tsofwtc7damage

To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery.

Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report.

twinstead · 11th January 2011, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report.

So? According to you the NIST report is full of crap. Why use it as your bible now? What were those people seeing?

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it.

Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand.

Originally Posted by ergo

And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

Eyewitness reports very rarely describe anything consistently. And, again, the upper gash was obscured from ground level witnesses by smoke. But a couple of people saw something at some point.

"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. "

Chris Boyle (Firehouse magazine).

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower."

Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 truth. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the truther's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

Dave

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed. I'd ask you what your made-up term "demolition footprint" means, but you've carefully avoided answering so far, and I see no reason why you should get a sudden attack of honesty right now.

Dave

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand.

So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that?

And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!"

But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 beedunking. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the bee dunker's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed.

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.
...

"Highrise" wasn't in your lie.

So you knew you were lying. Great.

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that?

Did you notice the use of the words "may have"?

Originally Posted by ergo

And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!"

Did you notice the bits about the smoke?

Dave

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying.

See, I can use strawman fallacies too.

Dave

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Did you notice the use of the words "may have"?

Yes, they were your words. As far as I understand, the gash is not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC7.

Quote:

Did you notice the bits about the smoke?

There were lots of pictures of smoke from that day. Why would that stop anyone?

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

Liar.

The NIST report has lots of details on what kind of damage there was on what floors and columns.
NIST was very conservative in their estimate, listing structural damage to perimeter columns only where they had PROOF of it.
There was lots and lots.

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying.

See, I can use strawman fallacies too.

Yes, you can. And you and other bee dunkers have for two separate threads now. All about the definition of the term "footprint".

Oystein · 11th January 2011, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

You made the claim that it fell in its footprint.
So you tell us!

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

only where they had PROOF of it.
There was lots and lots.

Did they not have access to the news camera footage of the 20 storey-gash?

ergo · 11th January 2011, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

You made the claim that it fell in its footprint.
So you tell us!

It means that you can't contain 47 storeys of broken building in its literal design footprint.

It's sad that it's taken two threads to get to the point where you will actually acknowledge this.

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2011, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yes, they were your words. As far as I understand, the gash is not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC7.

So, how do you reconcile the existence of a short and poor-quality piece of video showing the gash with the absence of any mention of it in the report? Or aren't you interested in actually understanding things, because that would spoil the fun?

Originally Posted by ergo

There were lots of pictures of smoke from that day. Why would that stop anyone?

It didn't. Lots of people took pictures, and got pictures of smoke. The smoke stopped the pictures from showing what was behind the smoke. Is the five-year-old-child level of explanation clear enough for you?

Dave

11th January 2011, 01:51 AM	#123
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by ergo Alienentity, do you expect 47 storeys of building debris not to spread horizontally? How would you fit 47 storeys of broken building into the building's design footprint? A: Don't let it collapse. just a quick question Ergo. how does the "debris piles spread horizontally" to the 8th story of the building right next to wtc7, when the "debris pile" (according to most truthers) was tidy, small and tiny? (in fact the images show it was less than 3 stories tall). How does this "debris pile" manage to strike a roof that is 8 floors up? Hmmm?
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

11th January 2011, 02:00 AM	#124
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by ergo Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over. The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint. There you go again.. using words you don't know incorrectly. So we add in symmetrical (I knew it would show up) to your spelling and vocab list Please tell me how a building which has the eastern mechancial penthouse collapse 8 seconds before the rest of the building has a "symmetrical" collapse? Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed 8 seconds AFTER the rest of the collapse? or do you mean how seeing 3 corners collapse and you then extrapolate the 4th corner which we can't see to try to say that shows "symmetry?" Or do you mean the roof line? (which kinks, so we know that wasn't symmetrical) I love it when twoofs use words that they don't understand.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

11th January 2011, 02:10 AM	#125
JAStewart Graduate Poster Tagger Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Shetland Islands Posts: 1,523	Honestly guys I don't know how you can stomach this stuff anymore. Ergo was putting words into people's mouths, entirely disregarding everyone else's posts and expecting full attention to be paid to his. Four pages later and I see no different. You'd almost be better withdrawing, letting him believe that he had "made an victory" and the world would be better off.
	__________________ Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60

11th January 2011, 04:35 AM	#127
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd You do understand what "moving the goalposts" means, don't you? (Hint: It doesn't mean "saying something factually incorrect".) No, what it means is when you are asked for precedents or other examples of an event that is not explainable by the facts presented, those precedents and examples need to match, or at least come close, to the particulars of the situation in question. In this case, those are: Steel-framed highrises. Fire. Complete, rapid collapse. Those are the goalposts that have always been there. What did you think were there? I personally would also throw in complete pulverization of all contents, but that would have you all shrieking "UNFAIR!!" "TOO HARD!!"
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 04:37 AM	#128
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Cuddles Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. I'll concur with this. Quote: WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, Where did it collapse?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 12:56 AM	#121
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by triforcharity ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lY...eature=related ... At 2:24 we see that the Fire Department New York has a special truck labelled "COLLAPSE RESCUE". I wonder why they have such a thing if buildings can't collapse from fire...

11th January 2011, 01:08 AM	#122
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by ergo Ooo, ya got me again on the semantics. You're so tricky and clever!! Steel-framed buildings. None have ever collapsed. Completely. From fire. Before or since 9.11. Liar. Kader Toy factory, 1993. Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11 I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here. There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building. There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely. There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire.

11th January 2011, 04:40 AM	#129
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	Originally Posted by Cuddles Which just makes this whole argument even sillier. Where the buildings ended up is completely irrelevant to the question of a conspiracy. All you have to do is say that the buildings were demolished in such a way as to spread the rubble around a bit. This has a huge advantage over most conspiracy claims of not only being possible, but also actually matching what is seen (assuming the standard hush-a-boom explosives and space lasers of course). So why do people like ergo insist on telling such obvious lies, when the things they're lying about are utterly irrelevant to the larger claim that they're trying to support? WTC 7 did not collapse in its own footprint, and there's no point arguing about it with anyone who has eyes. So why bother when you can make exactly the same claims of conspiracy without lying about where it collapsed? That's why internet warriors like ergo crack me up. He spends 4 pages of this thread asking a stupid question because he thinks he's clever and sharp and all truthy and he's got the "bee dunkers" on the ropes when it actually makes no difference at all. If WTC7 was a CD, why would it necessarily fall into its own footprint? Why would it necessarily be symmetrical? Why on Earth would whoever decided to take that building down want to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A CD in the first place? You'd think that the "controlled" part of the CD in that situation would be to make it look like it collapsed from fire and damage alone. In that respect, they did a GREAT job!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 04:50 AM	#130
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Oystein Liar. Kader Toy factory, 1993. Steel-framed building.has.collapsed.completely.from fire.before 9/11 I call you a liar because you already have discussed Kader here. There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 was a steel-framed building. There is no doubt that Kader Building 1 collapsed completely. There is no doubt that it did so solely due to fire. The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one. It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building. Quote: Initial reports following the May 1993 fire noted that there were four buildings on the Kader site, three of which were destroyed by the fire. In a sense this is true, but the three buildings were actually a single E-shaped structure (see figure 39.13), the three primary portions of which were designated Buildings One, Two and Three. Quote: Between the time the factory reopened and the May 1993 fire, the facility experienced several other, smaller fires. One of them, which occurred in February 1993, did considerable damage to Building Three, which was still being repaired at the time of the fire in May 1993. None of the steel had been fireproofed.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 04:50 AM	#131
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by ergo I'll concur with this. Where did it collapse? Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'. Architects, builders and planning departments use the term 'footprint'. It is specifically used in the UK to specify the area that a developer or builder can build up from. Due to the 'green belt' areas we are restricted in where we can build. Many developers are therefore resorting to demolishing existing dwellings and rebuilding modern property. The planners stipulate that they can only rebuild using the existing 'footprint'. i.e The existing footing or foundations. The 'footprint' does not include the land, garden or surroundings area that the property sits upon. When submitting plans, the 'footprint' is a key detail and is clearly visible as the footings/foundations at the extreme perimeter of said building. The very term 'footprint' is a simple one. The print of a foot. The area covered as we stand. By that definition, which in the UK is very clear, no building on 911 fell within its own 'footprint'. Does the USA have another use for this term?
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

11th January 2011, 04:54 AM	#132
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,804	Originally Posted by ergo The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one. It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building. None of the steel had been fireproofed. Why would it have to be since fire can't cause steel to fail. Footshot!

11th January 2011, 05:11 AM	#133
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	Originally Posted by ergo It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building. The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 05:11 AM	#134
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Jackanory Demolition companies do not use the term 'footprint'. How Stuff Works: Building Implosion Quote: When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint. Building Implosion - Wikipedia Quote: Large buildings, tall chimneys, smokestacks, and increasingly some smaller structures may be destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast — the collapse itself only takes seconds — and an expert can ensure that the building falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighboring structures. Building Implosion Quote: This controlled demolition technique refers to a specific need: when a building has to collapse as close as possible to its footprint to minimize physical damage to its immediate surroundings Controlled Demolition Inc. Quote: Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called the Hudson's project "the greatest dynamic-structural-control challenge the company had ever faced." CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft. by 220 ft. footprint of the structure. Cooling Tower Implosion Details Quote: To implode the tower, CDI will place explosives in the lower half of the tower which, when detonated, will cause the tower to fall into itself. Debris will be contained almost entirely within the tower's footprint. The implosion, from the first detonation of explosives to the settling of the tower, will take about 8 seconds.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Last edited by ergo; 11th January 2011 at 05:12 AM.

11th January 2011, 05:14 AM	#135
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by twinstead The fact it didn't have huge pieces of skyscraper fall on it like WTC7 did kind of even out the playing field. Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:15 AM	#136
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo How Stuff Works: Building Implosion Building Implosion - Wikipedia Building Implosion Controlled Demolition Inc. Cooling Tower Implosion Details And did you notice that every one of these uses of the word "footprint" refers to the design footprint of the building, and none of them to the alternative meaning that you made up, attributed to the demolition industry, and then refused to define? You weren't lying, by any chance, when you said "footprint" meant something different to the demolition industry, were you? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:17 AM	#137
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:18 AM	#138
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...ofdamagetowtc7 You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half. (Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.) Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:18 AM	#139
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	Originally Posted by ergo Let's see some pics of this major structural damage to WTC7. You'll have to accept the dozens of eye witness accounts because they damage was on the side of the building facing the WTC1 and 2, where of course nobody had cameras. But you know that, huh mister clever debate guy? http://representativepress.blogspot....-on-south.html
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 05:19 AM	#140
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo Jackanory said that the demolition industry doesn't use the term. And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:23 AM	#141
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	Well, now the fun comes. Ergo can't deny there was any damage, even if he wanted to, so now here comes 8 pages of "well it wasn't as bad as people say it was". I can't wait.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 05:23 AM	#142
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...ofdamagetowtc7 You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half. (Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.) I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:26 AM	#143
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up. What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:30 AM	#144
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...tsofwtc7damage To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 05:33 AM	#145
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by twinstead I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...tsofwtc7damage To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery. Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:35 AM	#146
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,581	Originally Posted by ergo Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report. So? According to you the NIST report is full of crap. Why use it as your bible now? What were those people seeing?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th January 2011, 05:36 AM	#147
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand. Originally Posted by ergo And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole. Eyewitness reports very rarely describe anything consistently. And, again, the upper gash was obscured from ground level witnesses by smoke. But a couple of people saw something at some point. "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. " Chris Boyle (Firehouse magazine). "The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower." Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213) But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 truth. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the truther's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!" Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:38 AM	#148
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"? Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed. I'd ask you what your made-up term "demolition footprint" means, but you've carefully avoided answering so far, and I see no reason why you should get a sudden attack of honesty right now. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:40 AM	#149
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand. So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that? And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!" But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 beedunking. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the bee dunker's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:42 AM	#150
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed. Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:43 AM	#151
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by ergo The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one. It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building. ... "Highrise" wasn't in your lie. So you knew you were lying. Great.

11th January 2011, 05:43 AM	#152
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that? Did you notice the use of the words "may have"? Originally Posted by ergo And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!" Did you notice the bits about the smoke? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:45 AM	#153
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint? So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying. See, I can use strawman fallacies too. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th January 2011, 05:46 AM	#154
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Did you notice the use of the words "may have"? Yes, they were your words. As far as I understand, the gash is not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC7. Quote: Did you notice the bits about the smoke? There were lots of pictures of smoke from that day. Why would that stop anyone?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853

11th January 2011, 05:46 AM	#155
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by ergo I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole. Liar. The NIST report has lots of details on what kind of damage there was on what floors and columns. NIST was very conservative in their estimate, listing structural damage to perimeter columns only where they had PROOF of it. There was lots and lots.

11th January 2011, 05:47 AM	#156
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying. See, I can use strawman fallacies too. Yes, you can. And you and other bee dunkers have for two separate threads now. All about the definition of the term "footprint".
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853