9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?

[ergo]

No. Truthers claim that it fell into its own footprint, proving that it was a controlled demolition.

We're just pointing out that it didn't fall into its own footprint, so the claim of proof is invalid, on its own stated grounds. Truthers keep making false claims, which are easily refuted with photographic evidence such as the above.

And how does your photo above show that it didn't fall into its footprint? If the rubble pile is not situated on the site that building 7 was built on, what site are you claiming it is sitting on?

 

[alienentity]

And how does your photo above show that it didn't fall into its footprint? If the rubble pile is not situated on the site that building 7 was built on, what site are you claiming it is sitting on?

Hahaha.

The 'footprint' meme lives on, regardless of the facts. After all, it's just a word, so it can mean anything you want it to. Ergo seems to be heading for a radical new re-definition of the term, so that, unless 100% of the mass of the building lands outside its own footprint, it still falls in its own footprint, and thus satisfies the Truther claims.

Way to move the goalposts. Bravo.

 

[ergo]

AE, what site is the rubble from building 7 sitting on?

 

[alienentity]

AE, what site is the rubble from building 7 sitting on?

Sites, to be technically correct. The debris is well outside the building footprint and reaches across several roads, in fact.

Actually had it not been for the adjacent buildings, the rubble would have extended even further. Without question, since it's piled up against them.

 

[adkinsjr]

Tell me what you see in this video, and what about it refutes the CD theory

I didn't say it comprehensively refutes your laughably preposterous CD theory delusion; it refutes the claim that the building collapsed neatly into its footprint.

 

[drewid]

Ergo - Are you saying that WT7 didn't damage the Verizon building?

 

[ergo]

Sites, to be technically correct. The debris is well outside the building footprint and reaches across several roads, in fact.

And how does the horizontal debris spread show that the building did not fall straight down?

 

[GlennB]

AE, what site is the rubble from building 7 sitting on?

The o/p asks "Did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?"

The answer is clearly YES.

Why are we discussing how much of the building fell into the original footprint?

 

[alienentity]

Ergo, you should write AE911Truth and ask them what they mean by the phrase 'Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint'

After all, it is they who are making such a fanfare about it.

btw, to 'land' is to 'come to rest' or to 'strike'

So did anything 'land' outside the building footprint? Come to rest outside it?

No, of course not.

 

[ergo]

The o/p asks "Did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?"

The answer is clearly YES.

I thought we just established that flying debris and debris falling down the rubble pile was what hit the other buildings. Are you saying this is not the case?

This is what is meant by "Bee dunkers are unclear..."

 

[alienentity]

And how does the horizontal debris spread show that the building did not fall straight down?

Ah, so you've now conceded the simple point about the footprint. Good. That was really tedious.

I make no claims about how straight it was when it fell. It was as straight as it was, according to the video and photographic record. It makes no material difference in terms of whether it was a CD or not.

Apparently some truthers claim it wasn't leaning at all, which is apparently not true either. Maybe you should talk to them about it.

 

[ergo]

So did anything 'land' outside the building footprint? Come to rest outside it?

Yes, as we can clearly see. Some debris flew out, and also slid down the rubble pile. The question was, how does this show that building 7 did not fall straight down? We're talking about 47 storeys, here. Surely bee dunkers aren't expecting the debris pile not to spread?

 

[alienentity]

I thought we just established that flying debris and debris falling down the rubble pile was what hit the other buildings. Are you saying this is not the case?

This is what is meant by "Bee dunkers are unclear..."

Nice try. Your words above are yours only. We are not confused - debris from the collapse impacted adjacent buildings, and the debris pile itself covered an area well outside the building footprint.

The pictures speak for themselves. Really.

 

[ergo]

Ah, so you've now conceded the simple point about the footprint. Good. That was really tedious.

I've never said anything other than that it fell into its own footprint. Which your picture clearly shows. I'm glad you agree.

 

[alienentity]

Yes, as we can clearly see. Some debris flew out, and also slid down the rubble pile. The question was, how does this show that building 7 did not fall straight down? We're talking about 47 storeys, here. Surely bee dunkers aren't expecting the debris pile not to spread?

It would help greatly if you would refer your questions to those who are making the claims, namely truthers.

There are no Bees flying around here anymore. Apart from those you appear to be imagining.

 

[ergo]

and the debris pile itself covered an area well outside the building footprint.

Alienentity, do you expect 47 storeys of building debris not to spread horizontally? How would you fit 47 storeys of broken building into the building's design footprint? A: Don't let it collapse.

 

[alienentity]

I've never said anything other than that it fell into its own footprint. Which your picture clearly shows. I'm glad you agree.

Please don't lie about what I say. That is very rude. In fact, thanks to that last comment, I'm going to put you on ignore.

Goodbye.

 

[alienentity]

Alienentity, do you expect 47 storeys of building debris not to spread horizontally? How would you fit 47 storeys of broken building into the building's design footprint? A: Don't let it collapse.

Please direct this question to Richard Gage. This is a waste of everyone's time.
He makes the claim, not we.

 

[ergo]

I'm sorry, AE, that's simply not the truth. You'll find in this thread many bee dunkers claiming that the building did not fall into its footprint, and that the debris pile over the site somehow proves this.

Oystein is the only one who has negated this claim. To his credit.

 

[GlennB]

I'm sorry, AE, that's simply not the truth. You'll find in this thread many bee dunkers claiming that the building did not fall into its footprint, and that the debris pile over the site somehow proves this.

Oystein is the only one who has negated this claim. To his credit.

If you define "footprint" to mean "wherever the debris ended up" then, by definition, it ended up in its footprint. Obviously.

If you define it to mean "The original ground area covered by the intact building" then some of it fell outside that footprint.

Whichever definition we use adjoining buildings were impacted by falling WTC7 debris.

Hope that helps.