TC329: If WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, please explain this...

[gumboot]

And to counter the sort of excuses I have heard before, Barclay Street between WTC7 and 30 West Broadway (the building in the lower right of the photo) is not a narrow alley but a four-lane road.

 

[theauthor]

That's as close to it's own footprint as you will get with a 47 storey building.

Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

 

[Totovader]

That's as close to it's own footprint as you will get with a 47 storey building.

Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

When I want to know what caused a building collapse the only thing I do is look at a single photo...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's as close to it's own footprint as you will get with a 47 storey building.

Not if it was a controlled demolition, like so many conspiracy theorists foam at the mouth about...

Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

No. One would have to look at far more than just this one photo, wouldn't you agree? Like, for starters, the handful of images and videos showing severe structural damage in addition to the fire. Oh, I'm sorry... were you trying to forget about that part?

Also, I'm not qualified to make any assessment. I'd prefer to wait for highly-trained professionals with years of relevant experience to release their findings, even if it does take a while. Impatience won't make you smarter than the people you're waiting on...

Regardless, this thread is for TC329 to explain how 30 West Broadway became damaged if his claim of WTC7 falling into its own footprint is to be true.

 

[theauthor]

When I want to know what caused a building collapse the only thing I do is look at a single photo...

I didn't say you could only look at the picture. Can you explain how fire did that?

 

[gumboot]

Um... that photo was taken some days after 9/11 and after much of the debris from WTC7 was removed....

 

[theauthor]

Um... that photo was taken some days after 9/11 and after much of the debris from WTC7 was removed....

This one wasn't. It's pretty much its own footprint.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This one wasn't. It's pretty much its own footprint.

Then how did 30 West Broadway come to be damaged, along with other surrounding buildings? That's the point of this thread. Why keep ignoring it?

The damage to 30 West Broadway would required WTC7 to fall well outside of it's own footprint. Please explain.

 

[theauthor]

One building suffered slight damage when a 47 storey building collapsed in downtown manhattan. I'd say thats a result. The picture says it all, it's a very neat pile considering.

 

[gumboot]

This one wasn't. It's pretty much its own footprint.

You asserting something does not make it so. I get the impression that many people think that WTC7 occupied the entire site bordered by Vesey Street, Barclay Street, the Verizon Building and the US Post Office Building. This simply isn't the case. To begin with it ignores Washington and West Broadway Streets. It also ignores that the actually high rise part of WTC7 did not occupy the entire footprint of the site.

 

[gumboot]

One building suffered slight damage when a 47 storey building collapsed in downtown manhattan. I'd say thats a result. The picture says it all, it's a very neat pile considering.

So slight that it had to be torn down...

 

[Totovader]

I didn't say you could only look at the picture. Can you explain how fire did that?

My mistake. When you said:

Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

... I thought you meant Looking at that photo, can you explain how fire did that?

 

[DC]

almost in its own footprint, not bad for a onesided damaged building that burned for hours.

 

[gumboot]

almost in its own footprint.

Make sure when you lift those goalposts that you bend from the knees, wouldn't want you to hurt your back.

 

[DC]

Make sure when you lift those goalposts that you bend from the knees, wouldn't want you to hurt your back.

that is atm debatet, if that old saying is correct.

but i dont replaced goalpoasts

its still a CD.

 

[DC]

i wonder if NIST will invent some new goalposts in order to explain away the CD of WTC7

 

[stateofgrace]

that is atm debatet, if that old saying is correct.

but i dont replaced goalpoasts

its still a CD.

Really?

And how did you come to this conclusion?

 

[LashL]

that is atm debatet, if that old saying is correct.

I have no idea what that incoherent grouping of letters means. Please advise.

but i dont replaced goalpoasts

I can at least guess at what this particular incoherent grouping of letters means. If I am correct in my interpretation of this incoherent grouping of letters, that only means that I comprehend your incomprehension and not that what you wrote has any basis in fact or reality. If you care to elaborate on that particular grouping of letters of the alphabet, please do so.

its still a CD.

Really?

I have not seen any evidence of controlled demolition. Have you? If you have any such evidence, now would be a good time to present it.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

... its still a CD.

Wow! An actual claim from Dictator Cheney.

Care to back up your assertion with some evidence DC?

 

[Arus808]

seeing the loons come out, yet no TC in sight.

theauthor, no one has claimed that fire alone caused wtc 7 to collapse. You truthers always take "one" condition when there were SEVERAL conditiosn that lead to the collapse.

the building's design, damage, and unfought fires for 8 hours caused the building to collapse. YOu have to have it all, not just one condition.
cherry picking the evidence is the only thing your ilk can do