What about all the other buildings?

[The Platypus]

If 911 was a controlled demolition in which the building fell in their own "footprint", as so many 911 deniers recite regularly, then how do they explain the 4 other WTC buildings (without counting building 7), and several surrounding buildings damaged?

Anyone ever heard an explanation for this?

 

[Thunder]

collateral damage.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Those other buildings are where the nomex clad Ninjas hid and kept their TOP SECRET nano-explosives before "They" ordered them planted at the last minute after those useful idiots over at SPACE DEW headquarters messed up and EMP'd flight 93 instead of dustifying WTC 7.

The rest were taken out because that's where they were going to have hosted the punch and pie party for them doing such a good job, but after the WTC 7 screwup they not only took away the tasty treats but also knocked down the buildings that held them... because they're just mean and evil and stuff like that.

 

[Oystein]

Guys, seriously. We should not sink to such silly lows and erect threads on strawmen.

Even if somne twoofers hang on to the false "fell in their footprint" mantra, we know they don't literally mean itm, they know they can't mean it, and they know that we know that they know.

AFAIK, no twoofer claims that no falling debris hit surrounding buildings. Evben in the case of WTC7 I don't think anybody seriosly doubts that it sustained some damage when WTC1 fell. They don't even deny that fires broke out.

There are some differences between WTC7 and numbers 3, 4, 5, 6:
- the others were much smaller and thus less interesting
- some were completely smashed or suffered partial collapse already when the twin towers fell on them-
- Whatever remained standing obviously burned out pretty much completely
- No videos exist that show any one of them collapsing on their own

WTC7, on the other hand...
- Suffered only little damage in terms of structural elements severed in relation to size of building
- Look pretty neat from the north up until collapse
- remained fully standing for many hours after initial damage
- Its total collapse looked awesome

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Even if somne twoofers hang on to the false "fell in their footprint" mantra, we know they don't literally mean itm, they know they can't mean it, and they know that we know that they know.

Well sure, now that you told them that we know that they know that we know that they know it. But I liked it better when it was just that they know that we know that they know it. Way to complicate things there Oystein...

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

WTC7, on the other hand...
- Suffered only little damage in terms of structural elements severed in relation to size of building

How do you come to this conclusion? NIST? Source?

 

[jaydeehess]

How do you come to this conclusion? NIST? Source?

Oystein probably should have said it suffered relatively little damage compared to the other WTC complex structures.

Here's the thing that bothers TM's the most, IMO.

All the WTC structures were destroyed but only WTC 7 came down as a result of unfought fires and aside from the towers which were hit by aircraft only WTC 7 suffered global collapse.

and then;;;

They claim, and are wrong, that ONLY WTC complex structures were destroyed when in fact Banker's Trust and 30 West Broadway also had to be torn down and that many other nearby structures took significant, but repairable, damage.

They claim symmettric collapses but are as wrong about that as they are when referring to 'in their own foot print', though less inclined to admit it.

They refuse to countenance the idea that the design of the structures that did globally collapse on Sept. 11/01 is relevent in why only those three structures globally collapsed on Sept 11/01.

They refuse to accept that the fact that fire can, and demonstrably has, in other structure fires, caused steel columns, beams, and trusses, to buckle and fail, could lead to a global collapse of a steel structure regardless of its design.