911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

reply to post by davec0021


Estimate the amount of WTC7 debris that fell into the footprint with a percentage.

Then estimate the amount that fell OUTSIDE of he footprint with a percentage.


This should be interesting. Interesting as in to see whether or not you need to see an optometrist.

Here are some images to help you estimate.


The one "Gen" posted earlier:







Go ahead. Don't be shy, just ballpark it.

What percentage fell INSIDE of the footprint, and what percentage fell OUTSIDE do you think?

I'm wondering if it's also possible to also post their opinions of how they think West 30 got damaged, i.e. what parts of WTC 7 actually made contact with the building.

Oh come on guys, I know you're still hanging around.

Give me a percentage like, __% fell into the footprint, and __% spilled over into the streets.

The only rule is they have to add together to 100%.


Do you remember learning about estimation and percentages in elementary school?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh come on guys, I know you're still hanging around.

Give me a percentage like, __% fell into the footprint, and __% spilled over into the streets.

The only rule is they have to add together to 100%.


Do you remember learning about estimation and percentages in elementary school?

I'll concede BSBray a lot did fall into the streets, how much exactly I don't know. Do you know the exact percentage? How much is supposed to fall into the streets for a controlled dem, my guess is not very much? My picture does show clear damage to West 30 starting higher up.

So how about answering my question or proposal?
Seriously how delusional are you to believe that if there was a conspiracy to bring down WTC7, they would have really cared about bringing it down in its own foot print? Ah yeah we just took down the WTC1 and 2 and did billions of dollars in damage, but you know what let's really take our time with WTC7 and make it neat. Again I repeat your arguments border on schizophrenia.

Originally posted by davec0021
I'll concede BSBray a lot did fall into the streets

Oh a lot fell into the streets, but only a little fell into the footprints?

Do you know the exact percentage?

I didn't ask for an exact percentage. I said ballpark it. I want to see how warped your eyeballs are exactly.

Come on man, just give me the best estimate you can. Do you think NOTHING fell into the footprint? Do you think more fell into the streets than landed in the footprint?

I had a feeling you wouldn't actually answer this question.


Let's look at "Gen" 's image again:




Now I'll make it even easier for you.

Is more debris in the street, or is more debris in the footprint?

Now it's just a simple choice between 2 options. Either more in the street, or more in the footprint. What's your response?


Again:





I swear to god this is like pulling teeth. And over such stupidity. It blows my mind it even comes to this.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021
I'll concede BSBray a lot did fall into the streets

Oh a lot fell into the streets, but only a little fell into the footprints?

Do you know the exact percentage?

I didn't ask for an exact percentage. I said ballpark it. I want to see how warped your eyeballs are exactly.

Come on man, just give me the best estimate you can. Do you think NOTHING fell into the footprint? Do you think more fell into the streets than landed in the footprint?

I can see you're playing the disinfo game and I'm not going to fall for it. I answered your question. You tell me how much debris it takes in it's own foot print to qualify as a controlled dem?

Please also answer the following
Seriously how delusional are you to believe that if there was a conspiracy to bring down WTC7, they would have really cared about bringing it down in its own foot print? Ah yeah we just took down the WTC1 and 2 and did billions of dollars in damage, but you know what let's really take our time with WTC7 and make it neat.

Does that really seem plausible to you?

Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

reply to post by bsbray11


In my estimate, as a non-authoritative,

I put the ratio 20:80; 20% of the structure onto non-footprint.

From the pictures only, and some denial ignorance....

Originally posted by davec0021
I answered your question.

No, you did not, you liar.

This is not disinfo, this is whether or not your brain can comprehend what you are looking at in the photos. So far you are only leading me to believe that it cannot.


Is more in the footprint, or is more in the street? We'll start with that. If you can't answer such a simple question you have no business debating anyone here.

Originally posted by baaronhaile
In my estimate, as a non-authoritative,

I put the ratio 20:80; 20% of the structure onto non-footprint.

From the pictures only, and some denial ignorance....

Thanks for your estimate.

I would personally put it closer to 10% on the streets, 90% in the footprint, but that's not a big deal.

"dave" here can't give us any straight answer at all for some reason.


The building by and large fell into its own footprint. End of discussion. It's in the photos. If anyone wants to debate THAT then they have serious psychological issues. Period.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by baaronhaile
In my estimate, as a non-authoritative,

I put the ratio 20:80; 20% of the structure onto non-footprint.

From the pictures only, and some denial ignorance....

Thanks for your estimate.

I would personally put it closer to 10% on the streets, 90% in the footprint, but that's not a big deal.

"dave" here can't give us any straight answer at all for some reason.


The building by and large fell into its own footprint. End of discussion. It's in the photos. If anyone wants to debate THAT then they have serious psychological issues. Period.

looks more like 60 in the foot print 40 outside. here's the kicker though Eeinstein, neither of us can prove that.

Estimates won't prove either us right. Why use such an awful amateur tactic in debate?

Please also answer the following
Seriously how delusional are you to believe that if there was a conspiracy to bring down WTC7, they would have really cared about bringing it down in its own foot print? Ah yeah we just took down the WTC1 and 2 and did billions of dollars in damage, but you know what let's really take our time with WTC7 and make it neat.

Does that really seem plausible to you?

Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

Originally posted by davec0021
looks more like 60 in the foot print 40 outside. here's the kicker though Eeinstein, neither of us can prove that.

I'm well aware, because if someone did, you KNOW your estimate would be way the hell off. Going off of area alone there was much greater area within the footprint than on the surrounding streets to begin with, and the debris was stacked higher in the footprint than on the streets as well. But you probably don't know what "area" even means.

I'm not even going to argue with you about this anymore. If you tell me the building did not fall into its own footprint, but somewhere else instead, you are freaking lying. To yourself, and to anyone else who has the misfortune of being exposed to what you say.


Now you have even admitted yourself, more of the building fell into its own footprint than anywhere else.

So if I say it fell into its footprint, and you say no it fell into the streets, guess who is more correct, even by your own admission? Though like I have said all along, even ARGUING about the obvious location of the building after it fell is by far the most asinine "debunker" position anyone has ever taken on these forums, bar none.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021
looks more like 60 in the foot print 40 outside. here's the kicker though Eeinstein, neither of us can prove that.

I'm well aware, because if someone did, you KNOW your estimate would be way the hell off. Going off of area alone there was much greater area within the footprint than on the surrounding streets to begin with, and the debris was stacked higher in the footprint than on the streets as well. But you probably don't know what "area" even means.

I'm not even going to argue with you about this anymore. If you tell me the building did not fall into its own footprint, but somewhere else instead, you are freaking lying. To yourself, and to anyone else who has the misfortune of being exposed to what you say.

You really haven't answered my question, of how much debris in a footprint makes it a controlled dem?

I for one have enjoyed our banter. Until next time. Too bad about your lies and disinfo though, hopefully more and more people will be waking up to your tactics soon.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davec0021]

Originally posted by davec0021
Too bad about your lies and disinfo though, hopefully more and more people will be waking up to your tactics soon.

You know there is a word for accusing someone else of the things YOU are guilty of. It is called "projection."








And you claim that debris is not in the building's footprint.

Enough said.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021
Too bad about your lies and disinfo though, hopefully more and more people will be waking up to your tactics soon.

You know there is a word for accusing someone else of the things YOU are guilty of. It is called "projection."

And you claim that debris is not in the building's footprint.

Enough said.

I've got a word for you too. Denial, or obsurdity. Wait better add in hypocrite as well.

and you claim there was minimal damage to surrounding buildings.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2d61add0fdb.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davec0021]

reply to post by davec0021

davec, do you have an opinion on how WTC 7 fell as to be able to hit and do damage to that building?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by davec0021

 

davec, do you have an opinion on how WTC 7 fell as to be able to hit and do damage to that building?

Well I can you tell this. I make no claim to being right, and as you can see by my recent exchange, I dislike people who deal in absolutes of position. I hope everybody realizes that.

To me it looks like WTC 7 came down neatly, but really parts fell off and did significant damage to West 30. Controlled dems don't do that kind of damage to surrounding buildings, plus why even do a controlled dem in the first place. If I planned it I would have simply toppled into another building. To me the controlled dem position dosen't hold water. It's as simple as that.

If you have a different opionion thats entirely cool. Let's just not get into a pissing match.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davec0021]

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davec0021]

[edit on 9-3-2010 by davec0021]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by beautifuldreamer
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I'm pretty sure all there trying to say is that its is pretty low/stupid to make up a completly ridiculous story to try and get people who are searching for the truth, baiting them with things that they are open minded to, to take them off of the bandwagon that is the truth on the subject Just saying Everyone has a freedom of speech, but why waste it making up things, i'll just never understand people

Fair enough. But with the "truthers", I find absolutely nobody "searching for the truth". I do find a lot of people trying to confirm a set of pre-conceived notions about conspiracies and going to whatever lengths necessary to do so. In fact, referring to such behavior and/or beliefs as "truth" in any way is insidious, deceptive and self-deceptive.

Ah, and you are so blessed because you don't exhibit any pre-conceived notions about anyone or anything. I guess you're doubly-blessed in the fact that ALL people who don't believe the OS fit so nicely into your handy-dandy pigeon-hole you've "discovered."

Your rant math left a little hole, though, which begs my question: if absolutely nobody is searching for the truth, but only "a lot of people" are trying to confirm a set of pre-conceived notions, then what are the other people doing, the ones who aren't searching for the truth but that also aren't trying to confirm their pre-conceived notions?

Also, love the open-mindedness displayed by that last sentence. But didn't you forget "dangerous" and "because they hate our freedoms?"

reply to post by davec0021

No pissing match with me. I actually like talking details. But I do not and will not talk about motives of people. I'm a fairly middle aged guy and I think I've learned in life that people's motives run the whole gamut from the absurd, the irrational, the completely stupid, illogical all the way to the perfectly rational.
So there really is no answer to any questions about "why would they do this?" or "why would they do that?"

But anyway, I've been working on my opinion on what caused the damage and hopefully I get it done tonight before I have to go to bed. (It's full of pictures and videos and such)

edit a the to a that



[edit on 9-3-2010 by NIcon]