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

ergo said:
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?
Click to expand...

"When I use a word,"Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less"
 
sadly for ergo, this thread is irrelevant, because as he knows his delightful little cult is all but totally ignored by people who know what they are talking about.


Sorry, ergo. 9-11 STILL wasn't an inside job.
 
ergo said:
Tell me what you see in this video, and what about it refutes the CD theory.

Click to expand...

No large booms or flashes consistant with a CD.

tempesta29 said:
We're told that the building fell to the south, yet we see debris damage to the north. The rubble pile, however, is centered over its foundation, therefore while mass dispersed, the collapse was still down into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

BZZZTTTT!!! Incorrect.

maybe you can help ergo, he seems to be having his normal issues.


Is the ROOF (or any part really) of another building considered "in the footprint"?

Yes.

No.
 
bee dunkers, huh... LMAO...

Could you make it any more obvious that we are dealing with childish immature minds when that's the best they come up in their attempts to insult those that don't believe their lies.

Bee dunker, sounds like a 5 year old came up with that one. LOL
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
We're told that the building fell to the south, yet we see debris damage to the north. The rubble pile, however, is centered over its foundation, therefore while mass dispersed, the collapse was still down into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

The fact is, WTC7 twisted as it fell, with lots leaving the footprint to the south, and lots leaving the footprint to the north.
And to the west.
And to the east.

It fell waaaay outside the footprint on all four sides.

Very much unlike a CD.
 
ergo said:
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..."
Click to expand...

Is there any part of WTC7 that was NEITHER "debris falling down the rubble pile" or "flying debris"?

The rubble pile was a lot shorter than Fiterman Hall. So whateber part of WTC7 struck Fiterman Hall did not "fall down the rubble pile". Which should inform you that indeed WTC7 collapsed waaaaaaay outside of its footprint well before a rubble pile formed and spread to the sides.

Also, the Verizon face was struck so high you can't account for it by dynamics in the rubble pile. Instead, the correct interpretation of the damage to Verizon Bldg is "WTC7 collapsed outside of the footprint".
 
ergo said:
I've never said anything other than that it fell into its own footprint. Which your picture clearly shows. I'm glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Liar. No one agrees with you.

Liar. Picture clearly shows large parts of WTC7 fell outside the footprint, as they came to rest on land that is not part of the WTC7 premises.

Additionally, parts of WTC7 crashed into adjacing buildings waaaaaaaaaay outside the footprint.




What does "footprint" mean? Please provide a definition!
 
The Platypus said:
bee dunkers, huh... LMAO...

Could you make it any more obvious that we are dealing with childish immature minds when that's the best they come up in their attempts to insult those that don't believe their lies.

Bee dunker, sounds like a 5 year old came up with that one. LOL
Click to expand...

It's the most juvenile coinage that I've ever heard. Ergo thinks that it is witty,and that makes it even funnier.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Liar. I did not negate this.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it was a CD it would not extend over three streets and have hit three buildings. It doesn't matter how big the building is they would have sequenced the blasts so that 99.9% of the building would have fallen within the four curbs.

If it had been a CD you would have distinctly heard the concussion blasts. There would have been miles of detonator cables, fragments of blasting caps, and witnesses to the charges being set and sitting on their exposed columns. There is no two ways about it, if it had been a CD there would exist at least one person who saw the charges before. If it had been a CD and even if the explosive was super secret you would have heard a blast there is no such thing as a silent explosion... except in space or a vacuum.

7 WTC did not fall straight down and was not a CD and there is no evidence in existence that deniers have that proves to the contrary. None, nada, zilch, zero, etc. The deniers thought they they had a smoking gun with 7 WTC but they don't. They have tried to make a gun but they couldn't. Instead they bather on until they debunk themselves like they always do (and never realize it).
 
The Platypus said:
bee dunkers, huh... LMAO...

Could you make it any more obvious that we are dealing with childish immature minds when that's the best they come up in their attempts to insult those that don't believe their lies.

Bee dunker, sounds like a 5 year old came up with that one. LOL
Click to expand...

So does that make ergo a 'dunker'? :boggled:
 
Oystein said:
Is there any part of WTC7 that was NEITHER "debris falling down the rubble pile" or "flying debris"?
Click to expand...

Um, yes. The 47 storeys of building that became the rubble pile over the building site.

The rubble pile was a lot shorter than Fiterman Hall. So whateber part of WTC7 struck Fiterman Hall did not "fall down the rubble pile". Which should inform you that indeed WTC7 collapsed waaaaaaay outside of its footprint well before a rubble pile formed and spread to the sides.
Click to expand...

Because a piece struck Fiterman Hall.

This is getting so stupid as to be embarassing to participate in.

Also, the Verizon face was struck so high you can't account for it by dynamics in the rubble pile. Instead, the correct interpretation of the damage to Verizon Bldg is "WTC7 collapsed outside of the footprint".
Click to expand...
 
Dragon37 said:
If it was a CD it would not extend over three streets and have hit three buildings. It doesn't matter how big the building is they would have sequenced the blasts so that 99.9% of the building would have fallen within the four curbs.
...
Click to expand...

You have fallen a little for ergo's cunning and smoke screens.

The only correct thing ergo has said is that "they would NOT NECESSARILY have sequenced the blasts so that 99.9% of the building would have fallen within the four curbs", as "they" would not have been much concerned with collateral damage on a day that already saw close to 3000 dead and billions of property losses.
That whole "CD" mantra is stupid stupid stupid because there is no reason to "control" the demolition, at least not to make it look nice and neat. And so the truther argument that it did look kinda neat (which of course it wasn't) is even more stupid.
 
This is the official 9/11 Bee Dunker definition of waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy outside a footprint.

See how the rubble pile literally crawled off the WTC 7 site and planted itself on an entirely different building site???

WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg
 
ergo said:
Um, yes. The 47 storeys of building that became the rubble pile over the building site.

Because a piece struck Fiterman Hall.

This is getting so stupid as to be embarassing to participate in.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom