I'm willing to admit some of the debris from wtc7 did fall a little bit out of the footprint, as can be seen in the picture (there is debris (a little of it) out of the top part of that picture). But that's not what i asked, is it? i asked: Can't you see its rubble is mostly within its footprint denoted by the yellow line with WTC7 (47 stories)?
Why not answer the questions instead of asking more. I already admitted some did fall out of the footprint, but the real question is why can't you admit its rubble is mostly within its footprint denoted by the yellow line with WTC7 (47 stories)? It's like you're encountering a cognitive dissonance moment. are you?
The buildings are still standing as you can see in the image. In fact you can see quite a few intact windows on the old post office building to the right of it. why are they there if the buildings beside it were taken out? how are you not seeing this?
I'm willing to admit some of the debris from wtc7 did fall a little bit out of the footprint, as can be seen in the picture (there is debris (a little of it) out of the top part of that picture). But that's not what i asked, is it? i asked: Can't you see its rubble is mostly within its footprint denoted by the yellow line with WTC7 (47 stories)?
Why not answer the questions instead of asking more. I already admitted some did fall out of the footprint, but the real question is why can't you admit its rubble is mostly within its footprint denoted by the yellow line with WTC7 (47 stories)? It's like you're encountering a cognitive dissonance moment. are you?
The buildings are still standing as you can see in the image. In fact you can see quite a few intact windows on the old post office building to the right of it. why are they there if the buildings beside it were taken out? how are you not seeing this?