TC329: If WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, please explain this...

[Panoply_Prefect]

*sigh* This is like arguing with Holocaust deniers. Now we have to define "into its own footprint".

Linky (pnt 7).

 

[Confuseling]

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

that is atm debatet, if that old saying is correct.

but i dont replaced goalpoasts

its still a CD.

Wonderful!
this twoofer will now explain why WTC7 was a CD!
let's hear it!

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

i wonder if NIST will invent some new goalposts in order to explain away the CD of WTC7

Why? you just moved yours!

 

[MikeW]

I just wondered how many top Google entries for just the phrase "into its own footprint" would relate to 9/11... And it turns out to be just about all of them! (This thread is impressively high at #6, too.)

 

[scissorhands]

DC has made a claim?


How did you go and slip up like that DC?
You were doing so well with your non claiming and now youve blown it.

Best bring out your evidence that wtc7 was a controlled demolition I suppose.

 

[boloboffin]

 

[DC]

Why? you just moved yours!

what did i move?

 

[DC]

DC has made a claim?


How did you go and slip up like that DC?
You were doing so well with your non claiming and now youve blown it.

Best bring out your evidence that wtc7 was a controlled demolition I suppose.

as soon as i am done with reading NIST's final report about WTC7

 

[DC]

what is NIST's findings about the steel of Column Nr 81?

 

[MarkyX]

That's as close to it's own footprint as you will get with a 47 storey building.

Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

Someone is moving goalposts..

- It fell on its own footprint

- It feel CLOSe to its own footprint.

Pathetic.

 

[MikeW]

I'm not sure this really matters. Next they'll be just telling us that the debris embedded in other buildings couldn't have travelled that far without explosives, and so that's also evidence of CD.

 

[stateofgrace]

as soon as i am done with reading NIST's final report about WTC7

Wrong answer.

You claimed it was a CD.

its still a CD

Stop back peddling, stop your pathetic attempt to sleaze out of your claim. Now back it up or retract it. Admit you either made it up and have zero evidence to back your claim up and/or admit you simply made this statement up.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So is your claim that there was no fireproofing in WTC7 or that it got knocked off by a plane?

Could have been a plane. I wasn't there.

Oh, wait. Maybe it was that 110-story skyscraper that fell on it?

Also...maintenance crews from the WTC have said that the fireproofing was inadequate before the attacks. Much of the fireproofing had either sloughed off or never adhered properly in the first place. (This refers to WTC 1 & 2, but it was no doubt an issue elsewhere, since the same methods were used in many different buildings.)

 

[theauthor]

Someone is moving goalposts..

- It fell on its own footprint

- It feel CLOSe to its own footprint.

Pathetic.

I have never claimed it fell exactly into its own footprint. You couldn't make that happen with the most precise CD. The building was 47 storeys! To get it that close to its own footprint was some feat. Now where have I moved a goalpost?

 

[DGM]

I have never claimed it fell exactly into its own footprint. You couldn't make that happen with the most precise CD. The building was 47 storeys! To get it that close to its own footprint was some feat. Now where have I moved a goalpost?

Actually gravity is very good at bringing things straight down. It takes additional energy or forces to change this (IE tip over). What do you think the collapse should have looked like?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have never claimed it fell exactly into its own footprint. You couldn't make that happen with the most precise CD. The building was 47 storeys! To get it that close to its own footprint was some feat.

It fell DOWN, in accordance with gravity. Which direction did YOU expect it to fall?

ETA: I think the problem our truther friends have is that they don't understand how much additional time, effort, and money it would take to construct a building so that it would hold together while tipping at a 15/20-degree angle. It seems counter-intuitive, because we think of buildings as being really solid, but they are built to be vertical, not diagonal.

You know that scene in Cloverfield where one apartment building is leaning against another? It would never happen, at least not in cities like New York that doesn't have the earthquake-proof building codes that the West coast enforces. Any large building leaning at that angle would collapse -- and it would tend to collapse straight downward, since it can't hold it's shape at an angle.

Of course, all of this has been explained many, many times. I guess it's too much to expect that they do a little research before posting here.

Or perhaps they have, and either don't understand the principles or are simply ignoring inconvenient facts.

 

[theauthor]

Actually gravity is very good at bringing things straight down. It takes additional energy or forces to change this (IE tip over). What do you think the collapse should have looked like?

You can give me another example of a building, apart from 9/11, that collapsed straight down? Go ahead.

 

[theauthor]

It fell DOWN, in accordance with gravity. Which direction did YOU expect it to fall?

I didn't expect it to fall.

 

[DGM]

You can give me another example of a building, apart from 9/11, that collapsed straight down? Go ahead.

Why don't you want to answer my question. Changing the subject does not solve problems or lead to a better understanding.