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?
what do the pictures show? Do you not see the windows there? I'm not talking about what was demolished later. I'm asking about the damgage WTC7 did when it fell. You can see the windows still are fine and intact, and in fact most of both buildings to either side are, correct? Sure they may have been damaged and were later demollished, but you can see they are mostly intact in the image, including the windows in the old post building, correct?
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?
what do the pictures show? Do you not see the windows there? I'm not talking about what was demolished later. I'm asking about the damgage WTC7 did when it fell. You can see the windows still are fine and intact, and in fact most of both buildings to either side are, correct? Sure they may have been damaged and were later demollished, but you can see they are mostly intact in the image, including the windows in the old post building, correct?