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

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...

Well you are in a bit of a bind with this since if the buildings were intentionally destroyed it would be the only time in history that a controlled demolition was made to not look like a real controlled demo. It would also be the first time that debris flew up from a falling building to damage a neighboring roof. They would also be the first controlled demos done which left no evidence whatsoever.
 
Dragon37 said:
Well you are in a bit of a bind with this since if the buildings were intentionally destroyed it would be the only time in history that a controlled demolition was made to not look like a real controlled demo. It would also be the first time that debris flew up from a falling building to damage a neighboring roof. They would also be the first controlled demos done which left no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You are also forgetting
the only time in history demolitons crews have run into a burning building and wired it for demolitions in under an hour.

the only time in history that these explosives capable of "hurling" debris hundreds of feet didn't cause other thermobaric damage to other nearby buildings or people

the only time in history that therm*te (any derivative) has been used in a controlled demolitions

the only time in history that a building this size has been brought down with controlled demolitions.

Man... we have such a stupid argument that it brings it up with other claims made by stundie ergo.
 
I believe I said it once before. Tell a truther it was the first time fire initiated a complete collapse of a skyscraper and they'll raise hell.

Tell a truther about it being the first time in history thermite was used as a mechanism for controlled demolition, while accounting for plane impacts, and occupied structures, and they'll eat it up like candy.

By definition they are hypocrites
 
ergo said:
Oops. Looks like the 'footprint argument' already got the boot. Quite some time ago.


Originally Posted by Bazant

So, it is no surprise at all that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint. Gravity alone must have caused just that.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of bee dunkers stepping right in it. :D
Click to expand...

Um, ergo, you put your footprint into your mouth this time.

If you read this part of Bazant in context (you know, as a whole, not as a handy truther soundbite), it clearly says this to contrast with the case where the towers topple over like trees ih the forest.

Try again:

Another previously refuted hypothesis of the lay critics is that,
without explosives, the towers would have had to topple like a tree, pivoting about the base (Bažant and Zhou 2002 Fig. 6b or
6c). This hypothesis was allegedly supported by the observed
tilt of the upper part of the tower at the beginning of collapse
Fig. 6a. However, rotation about a point at the base of the
upper part Fig. 6c would cause a horizontal reaction approximately
10.3 greater than the horizontal shear capacity of the
story, and the shear capacity must have been exceeded already at
the tilt of only 2.8° (Bažant and Zhou 2002). Thereafter, the top
part must have been rotating essentially about its centroid, which
must have been falling almost vertically. The rotation rate must
have decreased during the collapse as further stationary mass accreted
to the moving block. So, it is no surprise at all that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint. Gravity alone must have caused just that (Bažant and Zhou 2002).
Click to expand...

:D
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Um, ergo, you put your footprint into your mouth this time.

If you read this part of Bazant in context (you know, as a whole, not as a handy truther soundbite), it clearly says this to contrast with the case where the towers topple over like trees ih the forest.

Try again:
Click to expand...

Um, Dave, the "context" you point out here was already known, and doesn't change the fact that your own Dr. Bazant states that the Towers fell essentially into their own footprints. Your criticism of AETruth signatories is that they make this very same statement. Which shows they don't know what they're talking about?

The "epic fail" is, once again, yours.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, wasn't it stupid of us to know that the Twin Towers and WTC7 are different buildings?
Click to expand...

I wonder where you got that from.

So are you now attempting to say that you didn't spend two threads arguing that neither the towers nor WTC7 fell into their own footprints? We could go on a little quote hunt if you're going to be that dishonest.
 
So, bee dunkers: Did the Towers fall straight down, into their own footprints or not?? :D
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
So are you now attempting to say that you didn't spend two threads arguing that neither the towers nor WTC7 fell into their own footprints? We could go on a little quote hunt if you're going to be that dishonest.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to waste your time on a quote hunt. I'm sure that, even if you don't find the quotes you're looking for, you'll be able to misunderstand some irrelevant quotes enough to think they mean what you want them to. If you're lucky, it may distract everyone's attention away from the fact that you claimed a description of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses as the final, irrefutable, slam-dunk proof of how WTC7 fell.

....nah. Too late.

Dave
 
ergo said:
So, bee dunkers: Did the Towers fall straight down, into their own footprints or not?? :D
Click to expand...

The towers didn't have feet, so no footprints. So, no. Unless they did. In which case, I want to see the sneakers they were wearing, since I'm missing a pair, and they might have stolen them.
And did they really collapse? I bet they were just faking it for attention. My wife does this, pretends to pass out and collapse. She tends to fall into my footprints though, so it makes it hard to walk.
 
Dave Rogers, did the Towers fall straight down, into their own footprints, or not? :)
 
Bee dunkers seem unclear again. They can never quite figure out what it is they're saying...
 
You didn't understand what I said?
Must be typing in Swahili again, dang it.
 
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