911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by space cadet
his question was if it didn't fall into itself where else did it fall. It could not fall anywhere else, ecept into another building.

The extent to which it collapsed into neighboring buildings (or more importantly, the LACK of this extent) is shown here:






Considering how much it COULD have fallen into any of these other buildings:




Really, what motivates you to say it fell anywhere other than in its own footprint when it's blatantly obvious in the photos that the vast majority of its debris is all within its footprint? Are you just trying to be argumentative? Because the images speak for themselves, and there is no debunking them with rhetoric.


Before:



After:




Where did it fall?

Straight down.


Saying it fell anywhere else besides straight down is idiotic because there is no single place it fell moreso than into its own footprint. The photos prove this. End of discussion really. I really wonder why you even feel like disputing this point to begin with.

Originally posted by davec0021
The building did implode and had much smaller collapse foot print than WTC1 and 2, but it did not fall in its own foot print like a controlled demolition like bsbray11 reports or implies.

Again I ask, if it did not fall into its own footprint, where exactly did WTC7 fall?


Can you physically see this image? (I know some people actually have braille keyboards, so why not ask just to make sure?)




If so, where do you think this image is showing the vast majority of the debris? On top of one of the buildings? Is it all crammed onto one street in particular? I have no problem admitting, and have already admitted, debris spilled over into all four adjacent streets. You know man I wasn't joking when I said this is by far the most idiotic argument "debunkers" make on this forum. Period. You should be proud of yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm glad you're having a good time here too.

Yes, it really appears to be enjoying itself here on this thread. Unfortunately, its recent behavior lowered its cumulative score on my Troll-o-Meter to 3.2...

reply to post by bsbray11



That could be the woman in me. Hatred doesn't bounce off us as easy.

reply to post by bsbray11


Sorry, but that picture shows what it would look like if a building fell in between a bunch of other buildings.

Originally posted by esdad71
No, actually I got tired of trying to explain in the post that outer columns are NOT the freaking exterior walls.

I didn't say that they were. But they modeled both. And the distortions from observed reality were too great for anyone but yourself to ignore.

Are you honestly telling me you don't think it matters that their model came up with something that doesn't look anything at all like the actual collapse? You think somehow they were able to determine what was going on inside the building, where they couldn't actually see, based on a model that produced gross deviations from reality where we actually CAN see in the videos?

I provoke you because despite you guys all accusing me of being too sure of myself, it's really you lot that are far too sure of yourselves. I admit I don't know exactly what happened to those buildings, what specifically brought them down, because you are right that there is no hard evidence. Including for the theory that it was planes and fires alone. I can admit that but the only "debunker" comfortable admitting that, that I have seen thus far, is "TrueTruth," though I suspect s/he is simply refraining from making the claim explicitly because s/he is unprepared to defend that assertion.

I want you to pick a topic and debate me. Please. Anything or do you not have the balls?

No, I have the balls, lol. Give me a day or so to pick a good topic, I'll u2u you to run the topic by you first, we'll u2u some moderators, and give it a go. Deal?

Or you can suggest some topics. Feel free.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by space cadet
Sorry, but that picture shows what it would look like if a building fell in between a bunch of other buildings.

It shows what WTC7 looked like when it fell between those buildings.

Look at the photos again.

The Twin Towers were far more distanced from adjacent buildings yet managed to inflict much more massive damage upon them in all directions, including launching debris across a much wider street to strike WTC7 itself. The WTC Towers were about twice as tall as WTC7, but WTC7 still did not cause even half the damage to adjacent structures that either of the towers did to their adjacent structures. Those collapses completely demolished the buildings beside them, ie WTC3, WTC4, arguably WTC6. WTC7 barely took out a wall of its neighboring buildings on the ground floor, despite towering over them before it collapsed.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

his question was if it didn't fall into itself where else did it fall. It could not fall anywhere else, ecept into another building.

Huh?

It did not fall into another building. You said that it was because it was surrounded by buildings. I am asking how. Did you not mean what you wrote perhaps?

Again, just to be clear. What you said was that it fell straight down because it was surrounded by other buildings.

Can you explain that or are you retracting that?

Explain this: if an explosion took out w7, why didn't it take out the buildings around it ? Ever been on a demolition job? It would not have gone unoticed, it would have taken days to set up, several trucks and lots of equipment. No hiding it.

Are you attacking me? You made a claim and I am asking you to clarify it. How does that become you asking me to back up a claim I have not made? Is this a strawman tactic?

I am sorry but I have not made any claims about explosions so I do not feel the need to justify the claim to you. Now I am really confused.

I would just like you to explain why being surrounded by buildings would cause 7 to fall straight down or take that statement back. This does not open the door for you to insist I back up claims I never made.

I am not being argumentative to with you so please do not take this tone with me.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Now, since they have been taking a beating here the next step is for these individuals or groups to start posting Bizarre, Stupid theories like , Directed energy weapons, pods, space beams, lasers, fuel tankers and other overly debunked material in attempts to pretend that it comes from 'truthers' which of course it they do not.

They will try to discredit 911 truth conversations with these disinformation theories that no real truth seeker ever supported them. Lead the opposition, or muddy the waters.

The 911 coverup is here and it is ugly.

p.s Keep an eye out for these ridiculous theories.

Just a review from the OP. Looks like the "lizards" and the "UFO" bizarro claptrap already made the rounds above. Typical, yet not surprising somehow.

Originally posted by davec0021

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by space cadet

the argument that WTC7 didn't fall straight into its footprint is idiotic. Because it defies what the videos and photos actually show. If not into its own footprint, then where did it fall? Please tell me. Did it fall into one of the adjacent streets?

reply to post by bsbray11

 

I am no engineer but, it makes perfect sense to me that the building is surrounded by other buildings, where else is it going to fall?

This is a curious thing to say and star. Why would be surrounded by other buildings cause it to fall straight down? I am not attacking you but honestly asking what the logic is to this claim.

Please read this
www.fema.gov...

The building did implode and had much smaller collapse foot print than WTC1 and 2, but it did not fall in its own foot print like a controlled demolition like bsbray11 reports or implies.

There was also a power station under WTC7.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by davec0021]

This has nothing to do with what I asked. This is another trend I have noticed among debunkers. You reply to someone with something completely unrelated and make it sound as if you are correcting them somehow.

Your response not only does not answer the question that I asked, it does not even address it. Please do not use me to troll, there are plenty of other people to reply to with off topic nonsense.

[edit on 3/8/10 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by TrueTruth


Well for the record I am just glad that you are comfortable admitting that there is no evidence to demonstrate the towers or WTC7 were brought down from plane impacts and fires alone.

Most "debunkers" here seem to have no conception of the idea that if you are making a claim, it's your burden to provide evidence to back that claim. At least you understand that if you do make that claim as if it were a fact, it would be no one else's responsibility but your own to justify it as such.

reply to post by bsbray11


I shall read your theory thanks for posting it. May take me a day or two to let it sink in, but I shall consider it.

Here's the debris field from the FEMA report that you consider every attempt to counter as idiotic. Thanks for reading, really.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e1172f95f35.jpg[/atsimg]

As I stated earlier it clearly did not fall in it's foot print, but please more insults.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Sorry, but that picture shows what it would look like if a building fell in between a bunch of other buildings.

Again, can you please explain this. Are you saying that it was bouncing off the other buildings back into the center? Are you saying that the other buildings worked as blockers?

Well I took the time to read the FEMA report that was linked to and this is what it said:

"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC7 SPREAD mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south." Page 5-24.

I bolded the keyword. Unless we are going to change our terminology and be referring to the tower collapses as them SPREADING to the ground I think it's safe to assume FEMA thought WTC7 fell straight down and spread out. I'm sure if they thought it fell westward and to the south they would have said FELL rather than SPREAD.

reply to post by evil incarnate


both. As I asked before, where else could it go? It hit up aainst the other buildings as it went down, and landed in the only place it could.

Originally posted by davec0021
I shall read your theory thanks for posting it. May take me a day or two to let it sink in, but I shall consider it.

I'm kind of glad to hear that, though more than anything I am left wondering where you think all the debris really went in the first place.

Here's the debris field from the FEMA report that you consider every attempt to counter as idiotic. Thanks for reading, really.

I showed the damage you're trying to show here better in images above. Those images again:



WTC7 actually knocked portions of the wall out of this building behind what you see here, but this image shows most clearly how much of WTC7 actually leaned up against this building. Notice I say "leaned up against" and not "fell on top of." It is a section of vertical wall that was pushed over horizontally that hit that building.



And the damage to this building also was isolated to the bottom-most floors as demonstrated by this photo.

As I stated earlier it clearly did not fall in it's foot print, but please more insults.

I am not trying to attack you personally. I said even intelligent people will say stupid things from time to time. It happens. But you keep saying that WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, without being able to tell me then where exactly DID it fall? Because you probably realize any other location you tell me it fell, is going to be much less the case than simply saying it fell into its footprint. It didn't all go to the North, the South, East, West, etc. It didn't tilt over predominantly into any of those directions. And you can even watch it sink straight down in videos. When it tilts, it's very slight and to the South. So slight that when you look at the actual debris pile left over, you would think it could have just as easily been tilting to the North as it fell. Because as is apparent, it spilled into all 4 adjacent streets, but obviously if you are going to say it fell anywhere, the #1 candidate for the home of WTC7's rubble pile is far and away its own footprint.

Originally posted by NIcon
Well I took the time to read the FEMA report that was linked to and this is what it said:

"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC7 SPREAD mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south." Page 5-24.

I bolded the keyword. Unless we are going to change our terminology and be referring to the tower collapses as them SPREADING to the ground I think it's safe to assume FEMA thought WTC7 fell straight down and spread out.

This is exactly what this image shows:



It was not free-fall debris that slammed into the building, it's a section of vertical wall that is still standing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by TrueTruth

 

Well for the record I am just glad that you are comfortable admitting that there is no evidence to demonstrate the towers or WTC7 were brought down from plane impacts and fires alone.

Most "debunkers" here seem to have no conception of the idea that if you are making a claim, it's your burden to provide evidence to back that claim. At least you understand that if you do make that claim as if it were a fact, it would be no one else's responsibility but your own to justify it as such.

Like I said: I'm a true skeptic. YOU, are not. And you don't play by the above mentioned rules, either, mr. 'seismographic proof'.

In all likelihood, we'll simply never know the precise details of the attack and the collapse.

And if we're smart, we'll let the burden of proof continue to lie with the government, not with a bevy of of conspiracy theorists, all competing to be more insightful than the next. This is a perfect recipe for failure.

And we also should consider the likelihood of this issue going nowhere at all. Even after 9/11, the issues we need to address are the same as they were before it, really - good 'ol US imperialism and the dangers of the military industrial complex.

I'm very, very tired of arguing about 9/11. Believe it or not, a few years ago, I argued many of your positions, very strenuously (though with the wisdom to not turn off those who disagreed with insults, ensuring they tuned me out). But over time, I just found too many gaps, and realized the futility of it all. I'm just doing this now out of frustration over all that wasted time (and avoidance of a task at hand).


Ask yourself this: if you're right about 9/11, and if we never get another investigation....if you never manage to sway more people than are already swayed.... what's your next move?

That's the tough question. And I won't pretend to have it figured out.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by davec0021

I am not trying to attack you personally. I said even intelligent people will say stupid things from time to time. It happens. But you keep saying that WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, without being able to tell me then where exactly DID it fall? Because you probably realize any other location you tell me it fell, is going to be much less the case than simply saying it fell into its footprint. It didn't all go to the North, the South, East, West, etc. It didn't tilt over predominantly into any of those directions. And you can even watch it sink straight down in videos. When it tilts, it's very slight and to the South. So slight that when you look at the actual debris pile left over, you would think it could have just as easily been tilting to the North as it fell. Because as is apparent, it spilled into all 4 adjacent streets, but obviously if you are going to say it fell anywhere, the #1 candidate for the home of WTC7's rubble pile is far and away its own footprint.

Ok I'm pretty sure you said earlier or implied earlier and I paraphrase, that this implosion was indicative of a controlled demolition. I ask you does that look like a controlled demolition? Because I'm certain it's own footprint means controlled demolition to you.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

both. As I asked before, where else could it go? It hit up aainst the other buildings as it went down, and landed in the only place it could.

That is simply not true though. Where is this damage to the other buildings from all that debris bouncing off and back inward all the way down?

You can clearly see in the video that the building goes straight down. Where do you see anything bouncing off of any other buildings?

Where is the damage report about these buildings?

What you are saying sounds all nice and good but it is completely contradicted by all the evidence considered evidence by both the truthers and the supporters of the OS.

Unless you can prove otherwise, it seems you are just saying things.