1. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Why do you say they fell in their own footprint??

    Clearly, that is a false meme.

  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And a slightly wider view:

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Because clearly it is well recognised as a fact. I note that despite my request not to misquote me, your very next post does exactly that. I said 'virtually'. They came straight down as everyone bar you apparently saw.

    Where do you expect 110 floors to go? Do you expect them to be stood up nice and neatly but compressed like a concertina? I see you are a subscriber to Metabunk Metaphysics as well.:confused: Anything to promulgate the OS, no matter how outlandish or absurd.

    It is extremely difficult to demolish a building in built up areas...

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Still, the idea is that somehow a "straight down" collapse is somehow implausible. Yet that's how gravity works.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Check out this method:

    What exactly are say is suspicious about "virtually in their own footprint"? Why would they not fall as they did?


    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  6. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    really? I think your "facts" need further review.

    foot·print (ftprnt)
    1. An outline or indentation left by a foot on a surface. Also called footmark, footstep.
    2. The surface space occupied by a structure or device: the footprint of a building;

    Definition of VIRTUALLY
    1 : almost entirely

    Its true the buildings didn't topple over but they most certainly DID NOT come "straight" down- most material followed the path of least resistance- down..but a lot of material was ejected, thrown outward and otherwise did not come straight down. Over 40 other buildings were damaged by this "own footprint" BS.

    Its a false meme. Cling to it if you must.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Well I am sure people will be very impressed by your re definition of the term as used in demolition parlance.

    Perhaps you can show some aerial pictures where they manage to bring down a 110 storey building exactly in its own footprint all nicely wrapped up in a bow.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nobody is disagreeing that's it's hard to bring down a building "in its own footprint". Impossible really.

    But you suggested that it was suspicious that it was "virtually in its own foot print". (about 20x the area of its actual footprint)

    Look at the images above, are you saying you would have expected a wider debris field? Or that you would have expected the building to topple like a tree?
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's another.


    Created by matching the viewpoint in Google Earth, then overlaying. Not exact, but gives a good sense of the debris field to the "footprint" of the buildings.

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  10. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Metabunk has a subscription Metaphysics section?
  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    At least you are being reasonable enough to accept the obvious fact that it is impossible to bring down a building literally into it's own footprint. Perhaps it will eventually make sense to SR that it is impossible. In fact if one small section were to fall, it could not possibly be in it's own footprint, (unless it hit the floor and magically bounced back through a window into the building) and would likely wind up some distance away.

    It is accepted demolition parlance to refer to a 'straight down' demolition, (as opposed to a 'fall over demolition), as falling in it's own footprint.

    I must say it does appear to be a question of 'attack the CT's at every level', but to be honest I think it backfires because people are not stupid enough to swallow such obvious misdirection to that degree.

    For disambiguation please refer to:

  12. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you provide an actual reference for that claim? (One that does not use a fake video).

    Anyway, of course SR realizes that the debris is not going to be neatly inside the borders of the footprint. What is being debunked is that the debris field is anything near the actual building footprint.

    And why on earth would be people be muddying the water saying "in it's own footprint", when they could just say the vastly clearer "straight down"? Or why not say "they did not topple over like trees"?
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  15. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    If any CT er was to claim any building fell literally in it's own footprint, they would need carting off and force feeding pharmaceutical drugs.

    Everyone knows what it means in reality... it is simply accepted parlance and that is it. It just says it fell straight down without toppling or going in any other direction. I.e. as it fell 'it remained virtually, (apart from some ejecta) in it's own footprint'... obviously when it hits the ground it will not remain within it's footprint.

    It's simple... I don't understand why anyone would make a big deal out of it.

  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Lol... A dome???? Apples Pears Comparisons... DESPERATION maybe?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  17. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Because its not true.

    You use the meme as some sort of flag of "evidence" to support your beliefs...but its false. You are basing your belief on an error of fact.

    But saying "virtually" is ok??

    "virtually" means almost in its entirety. This was not even remotely the case. "some ejecta"? nice attempt at backpedaling.

    Actual controlled demolitions have almost NO ejecta and are ingeniously free from almost all collateral damage if done properly.

    The ruins of WTC look NOTHING like any controlled demolition. They did not fall "virtually" in their own footprint. The debris field spread for blocks and damaged over 40 other buildings. Huge junks of the facade simply fell outwards not "straight down into its own footprint". In that respect it looked nothing like a controlled demolition.

    this first pic was taken 10 seconds after an implosion with very little (if any) debris outside the footprint, the second done in crowded city environment with no damage to the other buildings...

    SAimplosion. implosion.

  18. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Unbelievable... I would have at least thought you would assimilate the egg analogy but it appears you are in denial and desperate.

    The buildings 'FELL virtually in their own footprints', like the eggs... what happens when it hits the floor is different and obvious that it will dissipate over an area, even bouncing and traveling out as the energy dissipates.

    Show me where 7 went out of its footprint as it was falling.

    I note the video's stop and do not show the aftermath and where the debris finished up, they were not 110 storeys high, you have a ring stadia falling over, (toppling inwards).

    Carry on if you wish to discredit yourself further.
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    So this whole thing is just a figure of speech? They don't actually mean it?
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  20. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    easy with the insults Oxy.

    How can you watch this video and not see a large mass of material falling well outside the "footprint"??

    How can you deny the debris field looks NOTHING like a controlled demolition?

    Why don't controlled demolition have similarly scattered debris from hitting the ground?

  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This thread is about the claims that the towers fell in their own footprint, you can start another thread about WTC7 if you like.


    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nope, that's discussing ANY building fall in it's own footprint. You claim that it's just a demolition term meaning "not topple over like a tree". So find me some demolition folk using the term in that context.
  23. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Why are there huges chunks falling outside the footprint?



    Was this building in the "footprint"- by ANY stretch of the definition.?


    or this building?


    Can YOU show ANY controlled demolition with a top down initiation and huge chunks of material falling well outside the footprint with the overall debris field being 20X larger that than the actual or even "virtual" footprint?
  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes it is a figure of speech which most people understand. It differentiates from a building falling out of perpendicular... which many do even in well planned demolitions let alone by chance.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think the distinction perhaps misses the key point though. We all agree the way in which the towers appeared to collapse, we can see it in the videos.

    • They did not topple over like trees
    • They appeared to disintegrate downwards, starting from the impact floors
    • They appeared entirely unlike any controlled demolition using explosives
    • They looked a little like Verinage demolition without explosive.
    • Lots of debris was ejected and fell outside the footprint of the building

    Can we all agree with that? Oxy?
  26. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Its "figure of speech" you used to insinuate that the collapse behaved identically to a controlled demolition which is not true.

    I think that the shroud of dust is a major source of confusion and speculation.

    You can't actually SEE the majority of the collapse- so people make assumptions about what they think is happening 'neath the dust. But if you look closely as the outer/leading edge of the collapse dust fields you can see large pieces of the building falling down but well outside the footprint. The core collapses down and the facade is sheared off and falls outward and down.

    Completely the opposite of a typical controlled demolition. To get building to collapse into their own footprint they try to implode the building. WTC were much more like explosions.
  27. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes these are all pictures showing the collapse virtually in own footprint. Debris fields X20 is still consistent as with the eggs. Even carefully planned and well executed demolitions will have masses of debris outside the literal footprint but from a demolition perspective it will be a success because it would be an impossibility for that not to happen short of dismantling it the same as it was built.

    What is amazing is how little is outside the expected dispersal area for a 'normal' demolition, especially when you consider 7 was allegedly due to the failure of a single beam which was on one side of the building and yet both sides come down in unison.

    Does anyone think that normal? How do you get such symmetry from a failure predominantly on one side?

    Just look at a fountain... A jet of water goes up in a straight line and what happens when it comes back down? It doesn't come back down the same as it went up does it? What further happens when it hits the ground? Perchance does it splash and bounce and spray out.

    It really is a no brainer.
  28. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    This topic is surreal.

    Of course they are falling in their own footprint... the buildings are vertical!

    How would you expect the pulverised upper to react... it is essentially a fluid and it would be like a vast quantity of water being tipped onto a building, it would fan out over the sides.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    They did not go out of the perpendicular, which is strange especially the top that broke away and started to slide off.

    They appeared to disintegrate downwards from the impact floor.

    It looks nothing like a verinage

    Lots of debris was ejected and fell outside the physical footprint and it would be an absolute physical impossibility for that not to happen whatever the reason for the collapse.
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You still can't provide a single reference that would indicate anyone other than 9/11 truthers would consider the above "in its own footprint".

    If part of the building is falling at a distance away from the footprint that is twice the length of the foot print, then is it still in the footprint?
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Wait, what does that mean exactly? What did not go out of the perpendicular? Quite clearly the top did.



    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes I remarked on that. If that had not miraculously righted itself, and had fallen off then no one would say that tower fell in it's own footprint, (figuratively).
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why would it have fallen off?

    It did not right itself. It continued rotating as it fell. But it was a lot slower that the eventual fall speed.
  34. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Most people recognise instinctively what is meant by the phrase.

    Can you show me a demolition,let alone a damage collapse, (other than a dome or an arena or a tent) :confused: which collapses in it's own footprint literally?
  35. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Debris fields X20 is NOT consistent with a controlled demolition. Most controlled demolitions have very little debris outside the literal footprint.

    See any "ejecta" or debris hitting the ground and "bouncing".

    The straws are getting further from your reach Ox.

  36. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Unbelievable... A stripped down building frame with hardly anything of substance left.

    I give up have it how you want. if anyone is gullible enough to agree with you lol.

    It must just be a normal run of the mill collapse due to an aircraft strike 'what else would anyone expect... certainly not that it would withstand it... not that part of it would collapse and the rest remain... or that it would come down in stages ... or that it would lean over. There must be lots of examples you can demonstrate with. All sorts of tents, car parks, houses and arenas
  37. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Anything else?


    Sorry Oxy- the debris field of the WTC is not consistent in ANY way with that of a controlled demolition. Nothing you have said has brought any relevant evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Over 40 other buildings were damaged...some severely- Were they all in the "footprint" ??

    How logically and rationally can you suggest that the towers came down in their literal or virtual footprint when damaged was done blocks away?

  38. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    really? WTF did you expect? controlled demolitions typically do not involve fully loaded and occupied buildings.

    Disregard it if you must but it disavows your assertion that its "physically impossible" to demolish buildings without lots of debris outside the footprint.

    There are plenty more- I am sure you will not watch - simply disregard in favor of your "virtual" reality.


    Can You provide ANY evidence that a controlled demolition with a debris field X20 larger than the footprint is usual or common or happens at all?
  39. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It's so strange, just do not understand why they didn't look like this, in their own footprint, after they collapsed:

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  40. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    because they weren't controlled demolitions!!! too easy Oxy!