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

[triforcharity]

Here are a few others that I am sure have been seen before, but worth posting again.

 

[DGM]

Here are a few others that I am sure have been seen before, but worth posting again.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg[/qimg]

Sure but.........where are your pulsing GIF's and meaningless graphs?

 

[triforcharity]

Where I have or do not have my pulsing gifs is none of your business!!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Next up: ergo attempts to prove one side of the "debate" to be a clueless moron¹ by arguing that WTC1 didn't damage WTC7, because only pieces of WTC1 actually damaged WTC7.

¹ The results may surprise you! But probably not...

 

[ergo]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

 

[twinstead]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited quote of modded post.

Don't forget just how much in the minority you are. Every other post you make makes me believe you have no idea what you are up against if you actually believe that CD felled the WTC buildings. The world's scientific and engineering communities DISAGREE WITH YOU.

Your "bee dunkers" are practically EVERYBODY ELSE ON EARTH. Why don't you get that?

 

[fess]

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.

Not only do you have reading comprehension problems, but you can’t even remember what YOU said.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The OP asks "Did Building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell? "

Here's a direct answer (see 2:55 - 3:30).





P.S. I got this via Mr. Rational, specifically "9/11 Theories: 'Fell Into Its Own Footprint'"

 

[alienentity]

This picture happens to refute any of Ergo's claims that the things which hit adjacent buildings were just falling off the debris pile, or were small bits and pieces, perhaps, but not a substantial part of the building. (One has to extrapolate a little from his 'claims' because he is so loath to actually commit to anything except some attempts at semantic obfuscation)

Here we can see a fairly contiguous portion of the external columns of WTC 7 extending from a place well up the debris pile (inside the footprint), down the pile and up several stories of Fiterman Hall (well outside the footprint).
The columns are at least 7 to 8 stories long, and are still connected together, while they have been bent by the force of the collapse.

So this is clearly a substantial section of WTC 7 which has clearly collapsed partially onto Fiterman.

It once again demonstrates conclusively that Richard Gage is lying about the nature of the collapse, and Ergo is eagerly maintaining the lie.
Let's remember Gage's words ' Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint'
Or Dr. Steven Jones' analysis which claims 'WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint' as '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)'
Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

And yet, this picture is a simple refutation of their false claims, and their constant attempts to portray this collapse as a controlled demolition, or in AE911Truth's words a 'classic controlled demolition'.

(Please note that any professional CD company which caused this much collateral damage would soon be put out of business from lawsuits! ETA such as the $1.5 billion damage to the Verizon building)

 

[ergo]

(One has to extrapolate a little from his 'claims' because he is so loath to actually commit to anything except some attempts at semantic obfuscation)

Because all these statements I've made are "too hard" to interpret:

Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?

You forgot to answer the second part of the question: in what way does this prove the building didn't fall "straight down"?

In other words: Why would bee dunkers argue that a building falling straight down at near free fall speed could not possibly eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, but then argue that this is exactly what happened with the towers?

To further argue that because parts of the building hit nearby buildings also proves nothing as to whether it was a natural, fire-induced collapse or a CD.

You haven't answered my question. If you're accepting that WTC7 did eject chunks of itself into neighbouring buildings, how does this prove it didn't fall straight down?

Horatius, did building 7 itself crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

Dogtown, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

Twinstead, did building 7 crash into other buildings as it fell, or did pieces of it fly into them?

Sorry you went to that trouble, Horatius, because no one is contesting this.

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?

So I guess from AE's pictures without commentary, we can conclude that some flying debris and the rubble from WTC 7 damaged nearby buildings.

The argument in the referring thread is that this somehow refutes the idea that the building fell straight down (or largely straight down, since we know imploded buildings can and do fall at angles.) And that because it damaged other buildings, it didn't fall into its footprint, i.e., fall straight down. And therefore couldn't possibly be a controlled demolition.

I thought we just established that flying debris and debris falling down the rubble pile was what hit the other buildings. Are you saying this is not the case?

Yes, as we can clearly see. Some debris flew out, and also slid down the rubble pile.

Because a piece struck Fiterman Hall.

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

Was there anyone denying this?

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.

 

[alienentity]

Because all these statements I've made are "too hard" to interpret:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6748938&postcount=364


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6748686&postcount=351

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749014&postcount=369
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749059&postcount=373
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749071&postcount=375
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749092&postcount=377


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749388&postcount=18


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749537&postcount=32
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6750008&postcount=57
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6769287&postcount=306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6769419&postcount=308

A string of strawman arguments, nonsensical statements or assumptions, and meaningless prattle. Why would anybody wade thru your nonsense? I certainly won't.

The 'footprint' argument proffered by 9/11 Truthers is dead, scientifically or empirically speaking. It is nothing but a nonsense talking point echoing in the vacuous space of internet Trutherdom. ergo: dead. wrong. false.
The end.

 

[ergo]

A string of strawman arguments, nonsensical statements or assumptions, and meaningless prattle.

Interesting, because all they do is reiterate what bee dunkers have been saying.

The questions posed are also the entire basis for this thread, so if you don't intend to answer them, what are you doing here?

 

[beachnut]

Interesting, because all they do is reiterate what bee dunkers have been saying.
...?

You are the only bee dunker needed to expose your claims as moronic nonsense. Too bad you don't understand 911. Have you finished school? Did you get a degree in something other than paranoid conspiracy theories? Did your mommy help you make up the bee dunker term? Wow.

Yes, that's what I asked. Where does all that energy go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail? In your own theory fire causes steel to weaken so easily that it can cause a sudden, rapid, global collapse. So, in highrise building fires such as the First Interstate Bank fire, the New York Plaza fire, the Beijing Mandarin, the Caracas Tower which burned for more than 17 hours, where did this all this energy go?

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?

You should get some help on math and physics. Good luck, and I recommend you learn about fire fighting and why it saves building from collapse, you don't seem to understand reality.

 

[tsig]

Where I have or do not have my pulsing gifs is none of your business!!

Engineering pornography! See the pulsing gifs, check out the naked destruction and watch as uninhibited forces take charge!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Was there anyone denying this?

I seem to remember someone claiming that the only choices were that WTC7 fell on to Fiterman Hall, or that WTC7 didn't fall on Fiterman Hall. That would be an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, in which it is implicitly denied that there is a third possibility - for example, that a piece of WTC7 fell on Fiterman hall.

But I'm not sure whether the person saying it was capable of comprehending his own words, so maybe he was making that claim completely by accident.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Because all these statements I've made are "too hard" to interpret:
Snipped
[/QUOTE] They would be much easier...olitions terms. Do you have one? Yes or no?

 

[TruthersLie]

I seem to remember someone claiming that the only choices were that WTC7 fell on to Fiterman Hall, or that WTC7 didn't fall on Fiterman Hall. That would be an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, in which it is implicitly denied that there is a third possibility - for example, that a piece of WTC7 fell on Fiterman hall.

But I'm not sure whether the person saying it was capable of comprehending his own words, so maybe he was making that claim completely by accident.

Dave

Oh no Dave.

He has done the typical twooferism of shift, shift, shifting.
He started by stating it collapsed into its own footprint.
When shown damage to other buildings he asked if we could PROVE how they were damaged.
When shown that the damage HAD to be a result of WTC7 collapsing on to those buildings, he shifted to the "largely" in its own footprint, or "mostly" in its own footprint and the damage is from loose "debris."
So he is trying to handwave the issue of collapsing into its own footprint and distract.

And it isn't working.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Any discussion of controlled demolition, footprint, damage to other buildings, etc., is meaningless in the face of this one incontrovertible fact:

The idea that building 7 was intentionally demolished while it was on fire in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is both CRAZY and STUPID.

There was no reason to do it.
There was no way it could be done without someone knowing about it.
Finally...and for some reason, this point keeps sticking in my mind...there is NO EVIDENCE THAT IT HAPPENED.

 

[twinstead]

And this is all based on the observation that the collapse just "didn't look right".

 

[ergo]

I seem to remember someone claiming that the only choices were that WTC7 fell on to Fiterman Hall, or that WTC7 didn't fall on Fiterman Hall. That would be an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, in which it is implicitly denied that there is a third possibility - for example, that a piece of WTC7 fell on Fiterman hall.

But I'm not sure whether the person saying it was capable of comprehending his own words, so maybe he was making that claim completely by accident.

Maybe if you provided evidence of this claim, we could see if what you're saying is true and not just your own usual lack of understanding, and also what the context was.

A number of bee dunkers were stating that WTC 7 itself, i.e., the building, fell onto Fiterman Hall, without qualifying that claim in any manner. It also appears to be the basis of the "didn't fall straight down" argument, so it's sort of important to nail bee dunkers down on this.