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

:)

Your logic just astounds.

So new, and yet, already ripe for Ignore.
 
ergo: So you're sticking with the whole "Bee dunker" thing, after all this time, huh? It's the sort of thing an overtired four year old would find hilarious after eating too many fudgesicles. What about "Debonkers"? It's funny, mocking, childish, even, but streets ahead of "Bee Dunkers". Even your fellow Truthers are quietly facepalming over that one.

"Debonkers"...you know, for kids!
 
Here is a colour shot of 7 WTC. Note that cleanup is well underway but you can plainly see that there is rubble right up against Fitterman Hall and even some by the SW corner. As well, there is lots of rubble on the roof of Fitterman.

gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg
 
ergo said:
Where do you see the bulk of the rubble centered over?
Click to expand...

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



Here's a question for you: if it had collapsed due to the fires, where would you have expected the debris to be centered?

Surely, if you think the debris pile is somehow suspicious, it's because you've actually thought about what it should have looked like, right? So tell us what you think it should have looked like, and why you think that.
 
Devil's Advocate question:

"does it really matter if WTC 7 fell completely into its footprint...or mostly into its footprint?

cause it sure does look like the great majority of debris from WTC 7 fell into its footprint."
 
Dragon37 said:
Here is a colour shot of 7 WTC. Note that cleanup is well underway but you can plainly see that there is rubble right up against Fitterman Hall and even some by the SW corner. As well, there is lots of rubble on the roof of Fitterman.

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Take a look to your right, 30 W Broadway (Fiterman Hall). Lots of damage and debris quite a few stories up.

Ergo earlier made this claim, that the damage was caused by either a few bits of flying debris or 'debris falling down the rubble pile'.

Now then. Look at the 'rubble pile' and explain how all that material embedded in Fiterman 'fell down' the rubble pile, crossed the street, and went deposited several tons several stories up.

That's some mighty strange 'fall'. I think we need a new investigation into truther claims. They seem to be based on lies. We want the truth now!!!

ETA Why won't truthers release the full camera angles which would show exactly how WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman? What are they trying to hide?
There must've been hundreds of security cameras there, but truthers won't let us see them. Bastards!!
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
ergo: So you're sticking with the whole "Bee dunker" thing, after all this time, huh?
Click to expand...

I don't know, it's really getting to me. It hurts me to be called "bee dunker." It sounds like debunker, but he's saying "bee" and "dunker" instead for some reason. It's so clever, yet so mean. How can he be this cruel to us?

:rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
That's because you drew the outline too small.
Click to expand...

I used a map overlay to get the proportions of the building. If it's too small it's by the odd millimeter. It's not significant as I also drew the rubble area very conservatively.

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

In the building's footprint according to twoofers.
 
Horatius said:
Here's a question for you: if it had collapsed due to the fires, where would you have expected the debris to be centered?
Click to expand...

Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.

The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint.

Surely, if you think the debris pile is somehow suspicious, it's because you've actually thought about what it should have looked like, right? So tell us what you think it should have looked like, and why you think that.
Click to expand...

I don't think the debris pile is suspicious. It is right over the building site. You know....where the building was?
 
ergo said:
Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing. Any collapse of the building would be over its footprint, unless something pushed it over.
Click to expand...

(My bold)

I'm sure you can prove this, right?

ergo said:
The "fall into its footprint" claim describes the building's smooth, symmetrical descent as a whole to the ground. It has nothing to do with the debris footprint.
Click to expand...

You should probably get your fellow twoofers to change their claim to "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole to the ground" instead of "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole into its own footprint" then, because saying that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint is dead wrong as we have established.

The other parts are of course wrong as well, but it's kind of hard to change the lie that a whole cult is built upon without consequences.

ETA: Also STUNDIED!
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing.
Click to expand...

Really?

Cite your source for this gem?

ETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9hUynD4S8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lYgKqL7Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUodIOAmBk&feature=related

http://www.fireengineering.com/inde...the-signs-of-impending-building-collapse.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvSl3iEMp_o

I think you might need to go to bed.



ETA2: You have 3 stundie noms today Ergo. And you call ME stundie prone!! LOL!!!
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
(My bold)

I'm sure you can prove this, right?
Click to expand...

Really? You want to go through this again? You guys didn't exactly come out looking so sharp there. :rolleyes:

You should probably get your fellow twoofers to change their claim to "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole to the ground" instead of "collapsed smoothly and symmetrically as a whole into its own footprint" then, because saying that WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint is dead wrong as we have established.
Click to expand...

"Collapsed into its footprint" is easier to say, obviously. And it's true. Unless you can tell us where the rest of the building vanished to?? :eye-poppi
 
ergo said:
"Collapsed into its footprint" is easier to say, obviously. And it's true. Unless you can tell us where the rest of the building vanished to?? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

how about "collapsed mostly inside its footprint".

:boxedin:
 
Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.
 
ergo said:
Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.
Click to expand...

was this cult started yesterday or the day before yesterday?
 
ergo said:
Unnecessary verbiage. "Footprint" is fine. Everyone outside of the footprint theory cult understands that it means the spot upon which the building stood.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you're just trying to save words? Well then,


ergo said:
Buildings don't collapse from fire, so the building would still largely be standing.
Click to expand...


...why don't you just say, "It collapsed"? That'll save you the four extra words "into its own footprint".


Oh, wait, I know, it's because that claim....


triforcharity said:
Really?

Cite your source for this gem?

ETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee9hUynD4S8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq5lYgKqL7Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUodIOAmBk&feature=related

http://www.fireengineering.com/inde...the-signs-of-impending-building-collapse.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvSl3iEMp_o

I think you might need to go to bed.



ETA2: You have 3 stundie noms today Ergo. And you call ME stundie prone!! LOL!!!
Click to expand...



...is so clearly insane that even you don't want to have to explain it to the people your cult is proselyting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom