• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Whoa. Lots of debris flying outside the buildings' footprints...
 
...and yet... a lot of these buildings are coming --- what??--- straight down!
 
AW's video is also instructive for those bee dunkers who don't know what a building falling sideways looks like.

So, AW, where does the debris end up?
 
A W Smith said:
Means within its own building foot print. Not most of.. All of

watch

Click to expand...

Notable is the fact that they are often designed to implode into themselves, folding as they fall.
This means they actually don't fall straight down.

If anything, WTC 7's collapse is more unlike typical CD's than like them, in that aspect.

Interesting that the AE911Truth mantra is 'straight down landing in its footprint', which is close to meaningless as a scientific metric to prove CD.

Oh well,that's why I Heart Dunkabees....
 
alienentity said:
Make sure it's not the profile picture you changed. The avatar is changed thru the 'edit your details' menu.

Then also the upload must be successful.... (pic must not exceed 100 pixels in any direction)

AE

Don't worry, bee happy..
Click to expand...

Thanks, honey :p
 
The problem is we are assuming that Ergo understand that the building is not a solid 47 story object. We are assuming that he understands all buildings are mostly open spaces, and that the actual material in those buildings will not total [HOWEVER TALL THE BUILDING IS] stories of mass. We are assuming he understands the "C" in "CD" is for CONTROLLED..in that they CONTROL the demoliton, and thus where the debris falls (the very reason for a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION). We are also assuming he understands that a professional CD IS DESIGNED TO fall within the building footprint and NOT TO DAMAGE OTHER BUILDINGS, and that it, in WTC7's case, the collapse would not leave a 47 story high pyramid shaped pile of rubble that would 'spill' into other buildings.


Wait...assuming logic and common knowledge...pretty dangerous when dealing with the twoof!!!!
 
Last edited:
Carll68 said:
The problem is we are assuming that Ergo understand that the building is not a solid 47 story object. We are assuming that he understands all buildings are mostly open spaces, and that the actual material in those buildings will not total [HOWEVER TALL THE BUILDING IS] stories of mass. We are assuming he understands the "C" in "CD" is for CONTROLLED..in that they CONTROL the demoliton, and thus where the debris falls (the very reason for a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION). We are also assuming he understands that a professional CD IS DESIGNED TO fall within the building footprint and NOT TO DAMAGE OTHER BUILDINGS, and that it, in WTC7's case, the collapse would not leave a 47 story high pyramid shaped pile of rubble that would 'spill' into other buildings.
Click to expand...

Whoa, wait a sec there! This was a CD designed to look like it wasn't a CD! Maybe it was a WUCD? (Wildly Uncontrolled Controlled Demolition)

Carll68 said:
Wait...assuming logic and common knowledge...pretty dangerous when dealing with the twoof!!!!
Click to expand...

Got that right. Logic is like kryptonite to the Twoofers. ;)
 
ergo said:
So what does the phrase "to bring a building down into its footprint" mean to you? Where does the debris go?
Click to expand...

Hey Ergo.

What was that definition you found again?

What does it say about a "footprint" again?

Run away stundie Ergo... run away.
 
Bump for Ergo... He must have missed his ass getting handed to him with HIS OWN *********** CITATION.

TruthersLie said:
Gee... I wonder... I wish I had some citation...

Oh... lets look at that one you provided.

Originally Posted by ergo

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

Gee... I wonder... I wish I had some citation...

Oh... lets look at that one you provided.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Now... what part of the collapse of wtc7 fits those parameters? Oh yea.. the building fell down.

got it.Anything else? Didn't think so.

Poor Ergo
I wish I could find some sort of citation which explained what a footprint means in the demolitions industry....
 
I'm still waiting for Ergo to tell me....


1. If WTC7 or WTC1+2 simply fell over like trees, would this mean they weren't demolitions?

2. Why they wouldn't make the building fall over in that way, if it would make it look less like a demolition?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
I'm still waiting for Ergo to tell me....


1. If it wouldn't indicate a demolition if WTC7 or WTC1+2 simply fell over like a tree.

2. Why they wouldn't make the building fall over in that way, if it would make it look less like a demolition?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for an explanation of who "they" are.

And how "they" did it.

But, it seems like a coherent theory from truthers is too difficult of a task. *shrug*
 
ergo said:
So what does the phrase "to bring a building down into its footprint" mean to you? Where does the debris go?
Click to expand...

The phrase means to bring a building (the vast majority of it... like 99.95% of it) down into the area bound by the base of the building.
And in fact, every video that you show of CD shows exactly that.

I showed you the HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE extra debris for the JL hudson demolitons... I mean it took out a metro station... ok... just the guard rail and some cables... but the "collapse" (snicker) footprint was sooooooo much bigger than the "footprint."

Still waiting for those citaitons Ergo.
 
Last edited:
Fess, I do believe it was you expressing your disbelief at a certain bee dunker's argument? Or are you pretending now that wasn't your post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom