• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Q's about AE911T

You can't fall straight down and hit other buildings, can you ergo?
 
Apparently you can.

But the question was: How did Building 7 fall?
 
Do you have some other definition of 'straight down?' Last I checked, it was straight, and down.
 
If it didn't fall straight down, how did it fall? Sideways?
 
It hit other buildings - Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
 
ergo said:
This thread proves why arguing with bee dunkers is mostly a waste of time.

Once more -- more slowly this time:

If. a. building. falls. straight. down. it. falls. into. its. own. footprint.

Does.... anyone.... disagree.... with.... this?
Click to expand...

WTC7.... didn't.... fall.... straight.... down.

The.... debris.... pile.... covered.... a.... four.... lane.... road.

The.... road.... wasn't.... part.... of.... the.... building.... footprint.

Speaking, just briefly, as if I were talking to a mature adult, the whole footprint argument is absurd anyway. There is no reason to suppose that a building collapsing due to fire damage should not fall into its own footprint. Nor is there any reason to suppose a demolished building should fall entirely into its own footprint. There is nothing in the distribution of debris after collapse that allows any determination of whether a building's collapse was initiated by explosives or by fire.

Quite often, we tend to challenge the stupid lies told by truthers simply because they are stupid, and lies. We don't challenge them because they support the truthers' fantasies; in fact, they don't. Whether WTC1, 2 or 7 fell entirely into its own footprint, for any definition of the word 'footprint', is a useless test to determine the cause of collapse initiation. The simple fact is that none of them did fall into its own footprint, for any rational definition of the word 'footprint'. If that were not the case, it would still prove nothing either way.

Dave
 
ergo said:
This thread proves why arguing with bee dunkers is mostly a waste of time.

Once more -- more slowly this time:

If. a. building. falls. straight. down. it. falls. into. its. own. footprint.

Does.... anyone.... disagree.... with.... this?
Click to expand...

S-T-R-A-W-M-A-N.

None of the buildings fell straight down.
 
excaza said:
How does a building fall straight down, yet manage to go across a road it wasn't originally over?
Click to expand...

Do you think that the rubble of imploded buildings should not run over the building's design footprint?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom