Why do 9/11 "truthers" insist that the WTC collapsed within it's own footprint?

Question

Both video and photographic evidence is bountiful that shows much of the World Trade Center complex was heavily damaged on 9/11, largely due to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Yet 9/11 "truthers" insist that the buildings collapsed within their own footprint, which they did not. Are they willfully ignorant?

Answer 1

Quess it would depend on what knot hole you were looking through

Answer 2

Hmm.  Sounds like a trolling question. I'm not a "truther".  I'm a patriot, and I believe the government is lying about 9-11.

The phrase "in their own footprint" is open to interpretation.  Obviously you interpret it differently than others.   I saw the footage as well.  It seems to describe the collapses reasonably well when necessary to use a few words only.

Do you have a better way to describe the collapses in five words or less?   Let’s hear it.

It is not necessary to subscribe to theories about the collapses to support the call for a new investigation.  The evidence for foreknowledge and complicity is compelling and it stands alone and is enough to warrant a new and impartial investigation.

Answer 3

I think the other posters said it right.  You are clearly wrong.  

Building 7 didn't damage the two buildings it was wedged between.  It sure seemed to have fallen into it's own footprint.  It look exactly like a demolition job.  

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch...

WTC 7 was wedged between the Verizon and US Post Office Buildings.  But those 2 buildings are still standing.  Demolition... period.

http://www.wtc7.net/location.html

Answer 4

because you said it yourself in your question.  The complex was damaged if the buildings would have fell outwards there would have been much more damage to surrounding area, think about it.

Answer 5

"Why do 9/11 "truthers" insist that the WTC collapsed within it's own footprint?"

Um, because all three buildings DID collapse into their own footprints, at near freefall speed, in front of many, many cameras. What footage were you looking at in which this didn't happen?

Are you going to tell me all that footage was doctored by some shadowy group of "truthers"? Now that's a tinfoil hat theory if I've ever heard one.

You sort of answered your own question. You are willfully ignorant. And at some level of your consciousness, you must know that. Isn't it amazing how psychological projection works?

Do you realise that you just denied what we all saw with our own eyes?

To be in denial, one must know enough already to know that they don't want to learn any more :)

Answer 6

Wilful ignorance is what you get when you put a fraction into investigating 911 compared to investigating Bill Clintons 'cigar' I believe.

It's what you get when you have 4 aircraft crashes on the same day with significantly different outcomes as proved by the photographic evidence... most notably two which show a distinct lack of 'wreckage' that you would normally associate with a plane crash.

Its what you get when the evidence you are shown doesn't fit normal expectations and patterns, yet you 'choose' to disregard what your own eyes show you.

It's what you get when a building (WTC 7) collapses when it has another between it and WTC 1... which doesn't collapse (WTC 6).

It's what you get when the laws of physics and history are turned on their heads without any rational explanation from your government and when their 'investigation' outcomes don't fit the evidence and avoid the key questions.

It's what you get when buildings fall at freefall speeds, when immensely strong cores simply collapse like they were paper...

Its what you get when you say following the money to fund a terrorist attack that kills 3,000 innocent people, is 'irrelevant'.

It's what you get when you ignore your own eyes and say that all 3 WTC buildings fell to one side, as you are proposing.

The definition of philosophy is the search for truth, I think you ought to consider it... Philosophy says people judge as they are - I think you've proven that admirably.

Answer 7

I'm not a "911 truther", but like to play Devil's advocate, so let me ask you these questions....

1) Do you believe everything that comes out of the mainstream media?

2) Did you know that there were a total of THREE buildings that came down, instead of two.  Yes, 3...why doesn't anyone talk about the third one..o is it b/c it wasn't "hit" by the terrorist planes.

3) There is actual documentation, audio, and various reports of people in the basements of the two buildings hearing bombs going off (in fact there are pictures of people bodies being damaged by bomb blasts).

4) Name me a steel building before or after 911 that would implode the way that those two buildings came down - don't bother looking this one up, save your time cause you won't find any results

5) Do you really think that those two buildings that came down the way it came down in demolition fashion was due to the smoldering fire???

6) How can people who live in caves plan the biggest attack on the most secure, most armed country in the world - esp if Bin Laden and Bush family have dined together and have history together?

7) Isn't it odd that they found a few of the passports of the pilots who hijacked the planes on top of the rubble?

8) Half of the pilots (including Mohammed Atta) were spotted days after the attack in countries such as Syria, Egypt, etc.  o OH, but they did hijack the planes, didn't they?

9) Do you believe everything that comes out of the mainstream media?

10) Do you believe everything that comes out of the mainstream media?

I don't know what the truth is, but I like to do a thorough investigation before I jump to conclusions....

Answer 8

They're just bored and want to get a rise out of people.  They're better then Three Stooges movies.