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

[JohnG]

I feel compelled to point out that "ergo" spelled backwards is "ogre"...




...an ogre is similar to a troll...



..."troll" spelled backwards is "llort"...



...Fernando Llort is a famous Salvadoran Artist...





ergo, "ergo" is a Performance Artist and Troll!







and possibly Salvadoran, but that last bit is admittedly pure conjecture.

 

[beachnut]

... The answer I'm trying to get at is how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings prove that the building did not fall straight down?

Classic self-debunking. One skill 911 truth excels at.

how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings prove that the building did not fall straight down?

The best Bee dunker is you; debunking yourself without effort.

... The Caracas tower was 56 storeys. About half the potential energy of the Twin Towers. Let's say 100 tons of TNT. Two floors failed early on in the collapse. Where did the potential 100 tons of TNT go?

In other threads you did it with ease, and in this thread even better. How do you do it? Is lacking skills in math and physics the key? Or is it something else, something more fundamental?

... Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell? You are a Bee dunker, and you are unclear, but you mess up and fail in your own thread; Bee dunking at levels worthy of your weak insults -

how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings

. Bee dunked your OP effortlessly.

911 truth has a 9 year trail of failure and self-debunking excellence; ... usually have a tantrum when they fail to comprehend rules.

... What a bunch of losers. Can take what you dish out, eh, JREF? ...

't? lol, this is the best 911 truth can do. Make weak insults and Bee dunk themselves effortlessly. Does this take training or come naturally? You are JREF too; great job.

Was it your goal to Bee-dunk your OP and followup posts as you have done? You are all that 911 truth can be, and more.

 

[tfk]

I'd forgotten about this one. Stumbled on it in my image album.

So, here ya go, ergo.

Proof that WTC7 crashed down on nearby buildings from above. And did not merely expand outward as a debris pile into the side of them.

Ya Jackwagon.
(best new word of the year)

 

[triforcharity]

Nice!

It's ironic how often the truthers are self-beedunking.

 

[ergo]

I feel compelled to point out that "ergo" spelled backwards is "ogre"...

 

[ergo]

I'd forgotten about this one. Stumbled on it in my image album.

So, here ya go, ergo.

Proof that WTC7 crashed down on nearby buildings from above. And did not merely expand outward as a debris pile into the side of them.

How wonderful for you. A piece of WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.

Was there anyone denying this?

 

[TruthersLie]

How wonderful for you. A piece of WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.

Was there anyone denying this?

Nice attempted shift ergo.

How does a building collapse into it's footprint manage to strike the roof of an adjacent building?

Can you point out any Cd where any debris thrown from the implosion managed to cause the nearby buildings to collapse from the roof?

i'm sure you can provide examples right.

after all if it couldn't have happened unless it happened before, right?

 

[ergo]

Nice attempted shift ergo.

How does a building collapse into it's footprint manage to strike the roof of an adjacent building?

This is a very good question, Truthorlies. The question, in fact, which inspired this thread. Many of your compatriots claim that it was only pieces flung out, that the building itself didn't weave like a drunk and crash into its neighbours willy-nilly.

In fact, I was pretty sure we had all established this, now, and even some of your fellow bee dunkers were explaining how pieces of a building would be ejected laterally in a natural collapse. But you seem to have new information for all of us. Do share.

Can you point out any Cd where any debris thrown from the implosion managed to cause the nearby buildings to collapse from the roof?

Debris thrown from any building into a steel-framed building won't cause a global, rapid collapse of that steel-framed building. So your question is misguided.

 

[uke2se]

This is a very good question, Truthorlies. The question, in fact, which inspired this thread. Many of your compatriots claim that it was only pieces flung out, that the building itself didn't weave like a drunk and crash into its neighbours willy-nilly.

In fact, I was pretty sure we had all established this, now, and even some of your fellow bee dunkers were explaining how pieces of a building would be ejected laterally in a natural collapse. But you seem to have new information for all of us. Do share.



Debris thrown from any building into a steel-framed building won't cause a global, rapid collapse of that steel-framed building. So your question is misguided.

Cool troll bro.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You don't know the answer to this?

Just answer the question instead of dodging it like a good little Twoofer:

Did WTC1 crash into WTC7 as it fell?

Yes or No?!

Also answer this question:

Ever heard of the "Domino Effect"?

Yes or No?!

 

[beachnut]

How wonderful for you. A piece of WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.

Was there anyone denying this?

A self-Bee-dunker making weak insults, and spewing moronic physics.

9/11 Bee dunkers are unclear: Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell?
Enquiring minds want to know...

... The answer I'm trying to get at is how does WTC7 debris hitting other buildings prove that the building did not fall straight down?

You are the Bee dunker now. Straight must be a math term, 911 truth is a math and physics free zone.

 

[fess]

How wonderful for you. A piece of WTC 7 fell onto Fiterman Hall.

Was there anyone denying this?

Make up your mind. Did WTC7 fall onto Fiterman Hall, or just a piece of it?

 

[ergo]

Fess quotes me and then asks a question which has just been answered in the statement he quoted. The word "moron" comes to mind, but we're not allowed to say that here.

I guess he, too, can't decide whether a piece of a building is the building itself. I guess if you're a bee dunker, it's the same as saying that pieces of a bowling ball will do the same damage as a whole balling ball falling on a car roof. Yes, that is an argument that is actually made here on JREF.

 

[Dragon37]

Many of your compatriots claim that it was only pieces flung out, that the building itself didn't weave like a drunk and crash into its neighbours willy-nilly.

Actually, no. You are the one claiming pieces struck the other buildings.

In fact, I was pretty sure we had all established this, now, and even some of your fellow bee dunkers were explaining how pieces of a building would be ejected laterally in a natural collapse. But you seem to have new information for all of us. Do share.

What I will share is that you can't even keep your claims straight and it is obvious tha tit is because your are playing games. You have no intention of rationally discussing anything regarding 9/11. Your made up your mind long ago to blindly support the denier version of things. You have no intention at all of actually ever supporting or listening to any discussion regarding the official story. So you play a game where you make up all sorts of lies about what people here have typed or believe to try and make it sound like we are idiots.

The thing is you hab=ve forgotten that what you type here is saved and anyone can collect together your posts and figure out that you are nothing but a troll ... and not a very good one at that.

Debris thrown from any building into a steel-framed building won't cause a global, rapid collapse of that steel-framed building. So your question is misguided.

No but it can cause fire that then can burn basically or completely unfought because the water system has been damaged from the previous collapse of 1 and 2 WTC.

Anyway ... troll on. It only works to weaken anything you deniers try to argue.

 

[TruthersLie]

This is a very good question, Truthorlies. The question, in fact, which inspired this thread. Many of your compatriots claim that it was only pieces flung out, that the building itself didn't weave like a drunk and crash into its neighbours willy-nilly.

In fact, I was pretty sure we had all established this, now, and even some of your fellow bee dunkers were explaining how pieces of a building would be ejected laterally in a natural collapse. But you seem to have new information for all of us. Do share.

Just as soon as you provide any citation which uses "footprint" in the manner you suggest. One from any technical journal, engineering textbook, or implosion manual.

Still waiting.

how does a building fall into its footprint manage to strike the buildings next to them causing massive amounts of damage?

It is a very straight forward question. One that you keep dodging.

Debris thrown from any building into a steel-framed building won't cause a global, rapid collapse of that steel-framed building. So your question is misguided.

your dodge is noted.

how does debris from a building which collapses, which is OUTSIDE the standard definition (provided by your own source) of a footprint, managing to then have the building collapse "within" its footprint?

I am still waiting for you to provide the citation. Otherwise you need to retract that bs statement.

 

[alienentity]

Yeah, seconded. Thanks a bunch Ergo for destroying any pretense of serious inquiry in truther allegations. You make our job so much easier!

Here's a picture of Fiterman Hall CUNY; 15 stories, so about 1/3 the height of WTC 7.
Yet it was clobbered by WTC 7 quite severely. Right up to the top floors.

You kill your own arguments....

 

[beachnut]

Jones uses his university stink to spread woo. http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones
Of course Jones thinks the US caused the earth quake in Haiti, too. The footprint failure seem nothing compared to the earthquake insanity.

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

Jones Bee-dunks himself posting proof, it is not its own footprint. Who made up, "its own footprint"? How many feet to buildings have? Can I fall in my own footprint, or ...?

Does ergo share the same delusions as Jones the PhD expert in 911 woo and footprint delusions? Did Jones minor in delusional conspiracy theories, or minor in physics?

 

[alienentity]

That's a really good photo showing the extent of damage to Fiterman.
Here's another looking S down West Broadway. Fiterman on the right, WTC 7 collapse pile, US Post office on left, WTC 5 in background

 

[alienentity]

'When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College’s Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable. In August 2007, Fiterman Hall was scheduled for deconstruction. A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million. The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.'
Kelsey Upson, Architecture Blog

 

[332nd]

Fess quotes me and then asks a question which has just been answered in the statement he quoted. The word "moron" comes to mind, but we're not allowed to say that here.

I guess he, too, can't decide whether a piece of a building is the building itself. I guess if you're a bee dunker, it's the same as saying that pieces of a bowling ball will do the same damage as a whole balling ball falling on a car roof. Yes, that is an argument that is actually made here on JREF.

What? That makes no sense. It's like you're saying "A couldn't have slapped B! A's fingernail was embedded in B's cheek, not A himself!"

Eta: can you quote where someone said the peices will cause the same damage as the whole?