Dave, your focus on footprints is simply picking on a minor semantic point. On top of your misrepresenting the argument. Do you not understand it?
The "collapse" modes of the towers are different from that of building 7. Collapse initiation for the south tower (the first few seconds) sees the top coming down through the rest of the intact building, i.e., coming down, impossibly, through its own footprint, but then ultimately disintegrating (and not toppling over, as it had begun doing.) For the rest of the "collapses" we simply see some kind of energetic destruction work its way down the towers from the top, steadily reducing their height, and producing a massive fountain of debris pouring out the top and sides, resembling neither any kind of natural collapse nor any known mode of controlled demolition. This cannot really be called "dropping" into its own footprint--that's just a semantic convenience. But they did descend vertically. On the whole, the towers did drop into the WTC footprint,when they shouldn't have dropped at all. That's the point.
Whereas Building 7 does indeed drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint.
It's like the way bee dunkers chronically misrepresent claims of "free fall" for the towers when, in fact, the claim is and has always been "near" or "within seconds of" free fall. It's as if you don't understand what's being said.
Moreover, your claims of mass shedding in the towers conveniently shift depending on the argument. When we're questioning the mass available to do "crush down", bee thunkers argue that "really, not much was shed" during the collapses, which is obviously false to anyone who merely watches the videos. But when they want to try to make some point about how the towers didn't fall into their own footprints, they start shrieking about the 16-acre debris field.
This is why arguing with the likes of you folks is sort of a joke.
