• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Q's about AE911T

ergo said:
Do you think that the rubble of imploded buildings should not run over the building's design footprint?
Click to expand...

Do you think a building falling straight down should hit another building?
 
When ~80% of your posts end in a question mark, I think it's safe to say that you are just trolling. Apologies for responding. Maybe someone could draw a cartoon of the building collapse and it would help our incredulous friend ergo.
 
Maybe ergo should do it. Apparently he sees something nobody else does.
 
QFT

Dave Rogers said:
Speaking, just briefly, as if I were talking to a mature adult, the whole footprint argument is absurd anyway.

There is no reason to suppose that a building collapsing due to fire damage should not fall into its own footprint.

Nor is there any reason to suppose a demolished building should fall entirely into its own footprint.

There is nothing in the distribution of debris after collapse that allows any determination of whether a building's collapse was initiated by explosives or by fire.
Click to expand...

I know that ergo doesn't read the long ones, so I shortened this up a bit, highlighted and split the sentences.

ergo, take a peek at the above sentences, and try to digest them for more than 45 seconds before responding.
 

Why can't things fall straight down??
images
 
I think I just saw some goalposts shift. Audi, guys and galls...!
 
  • Topic of thread = ae911truth
  • ae911truth claim = "WTC7 fell into its own footprint"
  • ae911truth claim = "therefore, WTC7 was controlled demolition"
  • ergo just posted videos of controlled demolitions in which debris fell outside of building footprint
  • ergo just debunked ae911truth's false claim
Good job!
 
carlitos said:
  • Topic of thread = ae911truth
  • ae911truth claim = "WTC7 fell into its own footprint"
  • ae911truth claim = "therefore, WTC7 was controlled demolition"
  • ergo just posted videos of controlled demolitions in which debris fell outside of building footprint
  • ergo just debunked ae911truth's false claim
Good job!
Click to expand...

:D
 
ergo said:
This thread proves why arguing with bee dunkers is mostly a waste of time.

Once more -- more slowly this time:

If. a. building. falls. straight. down. it. falls. into. its. own. footprint.

Does.... anyone.... disagree.... with.... this?
Click to expand...

I highlighted the most important word.

Was the premise of your statement satisfied for any one building on 9/11?
Was ist satisfied for WTC7?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It fell southwards, across Vesey Street, which was covered by the debris pile. Vesey Street is not straight down from any point within WTC7.

Dave
Click to expand...

It ALSO fell northward where it destroyed Fiterman Hall.
 
ergo said:
So it fell sideways over Vesey street?
Click to expand...

Yes, part fell sideways over Vesey, another part fell sideways onto the roof and into the face of Fiterman Hall. And another part fell straight down - d'uh.

Fiterman Hall is another building.
You already accepted that roofs of other buildings are NOT part of the footprint.
By your ownj criteria, WTC did NOT fall into its footprint.
If your definition of "footprint" requires a collapse straight down, we now have total proof that WTC7 did not fall straight down, and not into its foorprint.

It doesn't matter what else you call the fall.
 
ergo said:
No, you haven't, actually. Good to know, though.

So bee dunkers claim that Building 7 fell sideways.

Do you have some video evidence of this?
Click to expand...

We have photos of Fiterman that sustained such extreme damage that it had to get torn down entirely years later.

Fiterman is on the other side of WTC7, as seen from WTC plaza.

What do you suppose damaged the roof and face of Fiterman Hall, if it wasn't WTC7?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom