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

[twinstead]

Well, now the fun comes. Ergo can't deny there was any damage, even if he wanted to, so now here comes 8 pages of "well it wasn't as bad as people say it was".

I can't wait.

 

[ergo]

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/detailsofdamagetowtc7

You'll notice that the south face of the building is more or less cut in half.

(Well, actually, no you won't, because you don't want to see it.)

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

 

[ergo]

And you said it has its own special meaning. Looks like you were making that up.

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

 

[twinstead]

I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery.

 

[ergo]

I still think Gravy's list of damage witnesses pretty much sums it up:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

To some people that "mystery hole" was no mystery.

Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report.

 

[twinstead]

Evidently it was for NIST, the ones tasked with writing the report.

So? According to you the NIST report is full of crap. Why use it as your bible now? What were those people seeing?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it.

Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand.

And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

Eyewitness reports very rarely describe anything consistently. And, again, the upper gash was obscured from ground level witnesses by smoke. But a couple of people saw something at some point.

"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. "

Chris Boyle (Firehouse magazine).

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower."

Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 truth. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the truther's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed. I'd ask you what your made-up term "demolition footprint" means, but you've carefully avoided answering so far, and I see no reason why you should get a sudden attack of honesty right now.

Dave

 

[ergo]

Once the very small, highly localised fires in WTC7 got going, they covered the entire south wall with smoke for the next seven hours, despite being very small and confined entirely to the fifth and twelfth floors. Funny, that. And, since only poor-quality TV images were available, NIST may have chosen not to include this damage because they weren't sure of its extent. But that's just being careful not to exaggerate, something conspiracy theorists could never possibly understand.

So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that?

And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!"

But, hey, that's just me being rational and trying to understand what really happened and why, which apparently is nothing to do with 9/11 beedunking. Why should that stop you believing something you don't want to believe? Just stick those fingers back in your ears, close your eyes, and start singing the bee dunker's mantra, "La la la la la, I can't hear you!"

 

[ergo]

Bringing it down within the ground area occupied by the building as constructed.

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

 

[Oystein]

The shoddily built Thai sweatshop is your shining example? That's kind of sad, but I already told you guys you could have that one.

It doesn't technically meet the requirements though. "Building 1" is one portion of the overall structure. It also wasn't a highrise. It was a large, poorly constructed industrial building.
...

"Highrise" wasn't in your lie.

So you knew you were lying. Great.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So they thought they would just not mention it? In a report on the extent of the structural damage of WTC7 and how and why it came down? They didn't even think to mention this? What kind of science is that?

Did you notice the use of the words "may have"?

And no one thought to take pictures of this large gash? No one went, "Holy ****** Look at that thing! Get a picture! Quick!"

Did you notice the bits about the smoke?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that debris never falls outside of that area? Would demolitioners be shocked to see that a 47 storey building collapse fell outside of its design footprint?

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying.

See, I can use strawman fallacies too.

Dave

 

[ergo]

Did you notice the use of the words "may have"?

Yes, they were your words. As far as I understand, the gash is not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC7.

Did you notice the bits about the smoke?

There were lots of pictures of smoke from that day. Why would that stop anyone?

 

[Oystein]

I had seen this. What is curious is that there is no mention of this gouge in the NIST report. And this is the only image that seems to exist of it. And eyewitness reports do not consistently describe it. It's the mystery hole. I'm very interested in the mystery hole.

Liar.

The NIST report has lots of details on what kind of damage there was on what floors and columns.
NIST was very conservative in their estimate, listing structural damage to perimeter columns only where they had PROOF of it.
There was lots and lots.

 

[ergo]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for a 47 storey building to fall inside its design footprint, therefore when AE911T claim that WTC7 fell inside its footprint, they must be lying.

See, I can use strawman fallacies too.

Yes, you can. And you and other bee dunkers have for two separate threads now. All about the definition of the term "footprint".

 

[Oystein]

What do you think demolitioners mean by "bringing a building down into its footprint"?

You made the claim that it fell in its footprint.
So you tell us!

 

[ergo]

only where they had PROOF of it.
There was lots and lots.

Did they not have access to the news camera footage of the 20 storey-gash?

 

[ergo]

You made the claim that it fell in its footprint.
So you tell us!

It means that you can't contain 47 storeys of broken building in its literal design footprint.

It's sad that it's taken two threads to get to the point where you will actually acknowledge this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, they were your words. As far as I understand, the gash is not mentioned in the NIST report on WTC7.

So, how do you reconcile the existence of a short and poor-quality piece of video showing the gash with the absence of any mention of it in the report? Or aren't you interested in actually understanding things, because that would spoil the fun?

There were lots of pictures of smoke from that day. Why would that stop anyone?

It didn't. Lots of people took pictures, and got pictures of smoke. The smoke stopped the pictures from showing what was behind the smoke. Is the five-year-old-child level of explanation clear enough for you?

Dave