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

ergo said:
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???
Click to expand...

I've taken the liberty of drawing in the original outline of WTC 7 in that photo of yours, and outlined the rubble pile outside the original footprint. Hope this helps in your obvious confusion.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • WTC7.jpg
    WTC7.jpg
    151 KB · Views: 136
CD and steel framed buildings do not mix. Steel frame buildings that require 'demolition' are dismantled, section by section. Many reasons for that!

A 'CD' of WTC would have resulted in a completely different senario than the truthers think.

Nothing could be farther from the truth than comparing the collapse of the WTC to a 'CD'. The steel in the WTC actually helps with the way we see it collapse. The rigidity of each level prior to contact from the approaching mass actually helps with the collapse. The very structure of the building actually guides the collapse. Blasted steel in a conventional 'CD' would alter that dynamic. Precision demolition wouldnt be possible and certanly couldnt be relied upon. Truthers are so focused on the super secret that they bypass the simple.

No military or civil contractor would be capable of placing any charges, in any order, in any amount, of any type to create the way the towers fell. None!!!!Talk all you wish. Speculate all you wish. Wish all you wish. No CD using any explosive substance can create the characteristics we see. Draw all the graphs you wish. Pontificate as much as you like. No CD company or business on the planet could have done it or re - create it. There is actually some truth in what the truthers say sarcastically...........'so all it takes to demolish a steel frame building is an aircraft, fuel and gravity--------YES!
 
I am gonna be honest here, considering the incredible height of WTC 1 and 2, can we REALLY say for sure that damage to the Verizon and CUNY buidings were caused by debris from WTC 7...and not WTC 1 or 2?
 
uke2se said:
I've taken the liberty of drawing in the original outline of WTC 7 in that photo of yours, and outlined the rubble pile outside the original footprint. Hope this helps in your obvious confusion.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20635&stc=1&d=1294703326[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Thanks, uke. Your outline is a tad too small, but that's ok.

Where do you see the bulk of the rubble centered over?
 
ergo said:
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???
Click to expand...

yes it is way outside it's footprint. It is across the street and onto other properties. Since you have already admitted long ago that other buildings/properties is NOT part of the footprint, you have confirmed that our claims are true. Thus, you have debunked yourself.
 
Thunder said:
I am gonna be honest here, considering the incredible height of WTC 1 and 2, can we REALLY say for sure that damage to the Verizon and CUNY buidings were caused by debris from WTC 7...and not WTC 1 or 2?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Verizon, because you can see the very WTC7 wall sections that punctured the face of it
Fiterman (which you call CUNY, right?) because it was on the far side of WTC7 as seen from WTC plaza. If any chunks large enough to reach and destroy Fiterman flew over WTC7, the damage to 7 would have been even more severe than it already was. There is no evidence, AFAIK, that north tower debris travelled any farther than the south edge of the WTC7 roof.
 
ergo said:
So which is it? Did the building itself crash into Fiterman Hall and Verizon building, or did it eject chunks of itself as it descended?
Click to expand...

LOL!

This gets more hilarious. So this demolition was not only silent to all videos we have of it, you're now suggesting explosives so powerful they EJECTED chunks of itself into other buildings?

You just make it worse for yourselves. So where are these loud explosions ergo, where are they on any collapse video?
 
ergo said:
Where do you see the bulk of the rubble centered over?
Click to expand...

You must be getting strong moving those goalposts all the time. It doesn't matter where the bulk of the rubble is. What matters is that there is far too much outside the footprint and that while the building was coming down it struck 3 other buildings. What matters is that their were no explosions, no residues found, no flashes of charges going off, no witnesses that saw explosives, detonator wires, interior columns exposed with charges on them, or saw anyone setting up the building for demolition. Not one person. 7 WTC is the smoking gun that deniers are complete idiots.
 
Thunder said:
I am gonna be honest here, considering the incredible height of WTC 1 and 2, can we REALLY say for sure that damage to the Verizon and CUNY buidings were caused by debris from WTC 7...and not WTC 1 or 2?
Click to expand...

Yes, as it would have had to go around/over 7WTC to get to Fitterman Hall. Unless someone read the explosive loading chart wrong, and doubled-up on the hexplosive incendiary throwing charge we....Er.....I mean, NWO invented....:boxedin:
 
Don't forget that truthers also say WTC1 and 2 fell into their own footprints, but also ejected debris out of its footprint.

So if the building fell in or out of the footprint it proves CD, but they were in the footprint, even when it wasn't, but if it wasn't it still was but it still proves CD.

Apparently they don't see any contradictions.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Yes, as it would have had to go around/over 7WTC to get to Fitterman Hall.
Click to expand...

ahhh..good point. we can see no damage at the top of WTC 7 long after towers 1 and 2 collapsed. if parts of the towers did collapse on to Fitterman Hall, they logically would have also hit WTC 7 as well.

thanks.
 
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...


Well truthers have long redefined what truth means and now they are redfining what footprint means. Orwell would have recognised the newspeak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak:boggled:
 
ergo said:
Thanks, uke. Your outline is a tad too small, but that's ok.
Click to expand...

Might be. Not much, though.

ergo said:
Where do you see the bulk of the rubble centered over?
Click to expand...

Most of the rubble area is outside the building's footprint, as indicated by the blue portion of the photo. It is impossible to say where most of the mass of the rubble is from this photo.
 
Edx said:
Don't forget that truthers also say WTC1 and 2 fell into their own footprints, but also ejected debris out of its footprint.

So if the building fell in or out of the footprint it proves CD, but they were in the footprint, even when it wasn't, but if it wasn't it still was but it still proves CD.

Apparently they don't see any contradictions.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO! Yeah that's the great thing about conspiracy theories. You don' t need science or logic as long as you can create that perfect circular argument. Conspiracy nuts LOVE circle jerks.
 
uke2se said:
Most of the rubble area is outside the building's footprint, as indicated by the blue portion of the photo. It is impossible to say where most of the mass of the rubble is from this photo.
Click to expand...


That's because you drew the outline too small.

It's also because: where else are you going to put 47 storeys of broken building?? :eye-poppi
 
ergo said:
:D

These two threads are just stundalicious.
Click to expand...

Clearly you love the stundie because you are going to be racking up even more with you moronic logic. It really doesn't matter where the bulk of the rubble is because it doesn't change the fact that there is a large amount of rubble OUTSIDE the footprint if the building came down in its footprint 99.9% would have been contained within the curbs surrounding the 7 WTC property. It doesn't matter how much you lie, how much you change your story, and how much you ignore the evidence 7 WTC did not fall in it's footprint and was not CDed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom