• 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?

twinstead said:
And this is all based on the observation that the collapse just "didn't look right".
Click to expand...

From a supposed cause of a small localized fire, yes, absolutely. Please provide evidence of total, straight-down highrise collapses from floor fires, or even infernos, before or after 9/11. If you can't then your point isn't really very valid, is it?
 
Please show me a simmilar structure (Hint: Caracas Tower is not simmilar) that suffered damage from another collapsing building, that had unfought fires for 7 hours.

I'll wait......
 
ergo said:
Please provide evidence of total, straight-down highrise collapses from floor fires, or even infernos, before or after 9/11. If you can't then your point isn't really very valid, is it?
Click to expand...

Why? Perhaps you could provide evidence of spur-of-the moment professional demolition of a burning high rise building before or after 9/11.

The "first time in history" mantra is tiresome. Oh, by the way; the world's scientific and engineering communities haven't expressed their concern that the collapse was suspicious.
I know, I know. It's because they just haven't read the NIST report and are just repeating the "official storyline". Idiots.
 
twinstead said:
Why? Perhaps you could provide evidence of spur-of-the moment professional demolition of a burning high rise building before or after 9/11.

The "first time in history" mantra is tiresome. Oh, by the way; the world's scientific and engineering communities haven't expressed their concern that the collapse was suspicious.
I know, I know. It's because they just haven't read the NIST report and are just repeating the "official storyline". Idiots.
Click to expand...

An alternate and equally valid response would be "Why?". No other structure that tall that have been impacted by airplanes (a very tiny group of buildings to begin with) have had the same design that the Twin Towers did. The only skyscraper impact I can think of is the famous B-25/Empire State Building one, and due to its design, that situation simply isn't even remotely comparable, nevermind that the plane wasn't either. Truthers keep forgetting that the design of those buildings was a large part of why they collapsed, and they continue to forget this in the face of Astaneh-Asl making that exact argument, that a "more traditionally designed" building might not have collapsed.

It is actually an ignorant argument for truthers to just blanket-demand other examples of collapsed skyscrapers. Even if we presented any, they'd have to have the same design to make comparison valid.

Anyway, just raising this as an alternate point that I think we ought to emphasize a bit more. Asking for other skyscrapers that have collapsed via fire is a red herring, since there are no others with the same design that have suffered the same impacts and fires. All asking that question really does is illuminate truther duplicity, since they've been told this over and over and should be more honest about the points they raise.
 
twinstead said:
The "first time in history" mantra is tiresome.
Click to expand...


Don't you mean "only time in history"?

I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
 
ergo said:
Don't you mean "only time in history"?

I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...

So you have more than one instance of fully loaded 767's crashing into Steel-framed highrises?

I'll wait for your citations.
 
No, Sabretooth. The claim is not that plane crashes brought the buildings down. The buildings withstood the plane crashes, as is amply documented. The claim is that fire brought the buildings down.
 
ergo said:
No, Sabretooth. The claim is not that plane crashes brought the buildings down. The buildings withstood the plane crashes, as is amply documented. The claim is that fire brought the buildings down.
Click to expand...

We can add causality and cumulative damage to the list of concepts ergo doesn't understand.

Dave
 
ergo said:
I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...

Good grief, really? So you mean that lots of Space Shuttles have exploded shortly after takeoff, and lots more have burned up on re-entry? How many suspension bridges have collapsed due to aeroelastic flutter? How many B-25's have hit how many Empire State Buildings? And why haven't we been told about all this? You say that 9/11 has been covered up, but by comparison this is huge!!!!

Dave
 
ergo said:
Don't you mean "only time in history"?

I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...

Only a tiny group of cult members are claiming any laws of physics are broken. Otherwise, in the world of the rational, life goes on as usual. Forgive me if I require a second opinion; wake me when a real scientific organization thinks the laws of physics were broken.
 
ergo said:
Don't you mean "only time in history"?

I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...

What a fantastic Stundie! Damn W.D. Clinger for claiming it first!
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken one of the videos posted that you ignore shows 7 WTC hitting Fitterman Hall.

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.
Click to expand...

1. see above
2. You have failed to show that 7 WTC was NOT struck by 7 WTC during it's collpase. All you have done is claimed that debris flew UP off the pile crashed into Fitterman Hall.
3. With respect to #2 ... you talk about the WTC collapses defying physics and yet you make the crazy-ass claim that debris flew up and made a huge gash in the side of Fitterman.
4. While I have actually seen the video of hitting Fitterman Hall I would like you to provide your evidence that all the damage to the surrounding buildings was caused from the flying debris of 7WTC. (Good luck with that as it clearly did not crumble on the on the outside like 1 and 2 WTC)
 
ergo said:
I'm sorry, but when you're talking laws of physics, you can't have an "only time in history." That's something bee dunkers just can't seem to get over.
Click to expand...


For all intents and purposes, the phrase "only time in history" is exactly the same as "first time in history". Unless, of course, you either 1) just happen to be sitting at the very end of time itself, or 2) can see with perfect clarity the entire span of future time.
 
Last edited:
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