what happened on 9/11/2001?

[Skylar]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

The NIST rightly focused on WTC 1 and 2, where thousands of people actually died.

No one died in the collapse of WTC 7.....as the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours and evacuated the area. They saw the massive structural damage, saw the uncontrolled fires consuming the building, and measured its slow structural failure, its bulging, its leaning over hours with the use of a transit. About 3 hours before the WTC 7 came down, the FDNY evacuated the area to prevent any loss of life. And accurately predicted the building's collapse due to fire to within about 30 minutes.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7.....or the NIST, which conducted the most comprehensive investigation ever done on the building's collapse?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

The NIST rightly focused on WTC 1 and 2, where thousands of people actually died.

No one died in the collapse of WTC 7.....as the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours and evacuated the area. They saw the massive structural damage, saw the uncontrolled fires consuming the building, and measured its slow structural failure, its bulging, its leaning over hours with the use of a transit. About 3 hours before the WTC 7 came down, the FDNY evacuated the area to prevent any loss of life. And accurately predicted the building's collapse due to fire to within about 30 minutes.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7.....or the NIST, which conducted the most comprehensive investigation ever done on the building's collapse?

There job wasn't based on appeal to emotion fallacies, but nice try anyway.

 

[Hossfly]

60,000 gallons of burning aviation fuel will collapse any structure ever built.

 

[Skylar]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

The NIST rightly focused on WTC 1 and 2, where thousands of people actually died.

No one died in the collapse of WTC 7.....as the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours and evacuated the area. They saw the massive structural damage, saw the uncontrolled fires consuming the building, and measured its slow structural failure, its bulging, its leaning over hours with the use of a transit. About 3 hours before the WTC 7 came down, the FDNY evacuated the area to prevent any loss of life. And accurately predicted the building's collapse due to fire to within about 30 minutes.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7.....or the NIST, which conducted the most comprehensive investigation ever done on the building's collapse?

There job wasn't based on appeal to emotion fallacies, but nice try anyway.

No, the job of the FDNY was to assess fires and their dangers. They assessed WTC 7, its damage and its fires and concluded that the building would collapse due to fire and structural damage. And were able to narrow their prediction of its collapse to within about 30 minutes and successfully evacuate the area so that no lives were lose. That's how good their assessment was.

That's not an 'appeal to emotional fallacies'. That's expert eye witness testimony on site and for hours.....that you summarily ignore for no particular reason. And of course, the most extensive and comprehensive investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 ever conducted. Which you summarily ignore, again for no particular reason.

But why would a rational person ignore either the FDNY or the NIST on the reason that the WTC 7 fell?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

The NIST rightly focused on WTC 1 and 2, where thousands of people actually died.

No one died in the collapse of WTC 7.....as the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours and evacuated the area. They saw the massive structural damage, saw the uncontrolled fires consuming the building, and measured its slow structural failure, its bulging, its leaning over hours with the use of a transit. About 3 hours before the WTC 7 came down, the FDNY evacuated the area to prevent any loss of life. And accurately predicted the building's collapse due to fire to within about 30 minutes.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7.....or the NIST, which conducted the most comprehensive investigation ever done on the building's collapse?

There job wasn't based on appeal to emotion fallacies, but nice try anyway.

No, the job of the FDNY was to assess fires and their dangers. They assessed WTC 7, its damage and its fires and concluded that the building would collapse due to fire and structural damage. And were able to narrow their prediction of its collapse to within about 30 minutes and successfully evacuate the area so that no lives were lose. That's how good their assessment was.

That's not an 'appeal to emotional fallacies'. That's expert eye witness testimony on site and for hours.....that you summarily ignore for no particular reason. And of course, the most extensive and comprehensive investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 ever conducted. Which you summarily ignore, again for no particular reason.

But why would a rational person ignore either the FDNY or the NIST on the reason that the WTC 7 fell?

You flopped, fella. We're discussing NIST inability to even acknowledge in their report for several years the destruction of WTC7, not what you believe (minus any proof) what the FDNY determined.

Appeal to emotion, moving the posts...all classic hints of someone running on fumes.

Not that I care.

Hey, you want to take a swing at this photo for me since you're on a tear about 9//1?

Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?


.

 

[Skylar]

You flopped, fella. We're discussing NIST inability to even acknowledge in their report for several years the destruction of WTC7, not what you believe (minus any proof) what the FDNY determined.

The NIST reports were on WTC 1 and 2. Why then would they include details about the collapse of WTC 7? Your assumptions don't make the slightest sense.

Appeal to emotion, moving the posts...all classic hints of someone running on fumes.

What you call an 'appeal to emotion' is simply the application of simple logic: you focus on the deadly collapses first. WTC 1 and 2 cost thousands of lives, so they were the priority. WTC 7 cost none, so it wasn't. The issue you raised was answered.....three times. Do try and keep up.

And exactly as I predicted, you can give us no reason to ignore the NIST on the collapse of WTC 7. Or ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7. There is no reason. The NIST's investigation on the collapse of WTC 7 was the most comprehensive ever done on that building. And the FDNY were expert eye witnesses who monitored the slow structural failure and uncontrollable fires of WTC 7 for hours, correctly predicting its collapse to within about 30 minutes.

You ignore them both. A rational person wouldn't. And rational people don't. Which is why your conspiracy is uncompelling and unpersuasive.

Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?

If you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The NIST reports were on WTC 1 and 2. Why then would they include details about the collapse of WTC 7? Your assumptions don't make the slightest sense.

Because NIST original charter was to inspect the engineering and safety related concerns to the global collapse of buildings in the event. WTC7 fit that description. Yet they had to be questioned before being all like "oh, let's get that done too, and stuff."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

f you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.

No, no. I'm not that interested. You seem to be though. Can you explain its condition or is that just not fun to do?

 

[Skylar]

WTC Disaster Study

The NIST reports were on WTC 1 and 2. Why then would they include details about the collapse of WTC 7? Your assumptions don't make the slightest sense.

Because NIST original charter was to inspect the engineering and safety related concerns to the global collapse of buildings in the event.

Which they did. First by investigating WTC 1 and 2. Then by investigating WTC 7. Rightly prioritizing the deadly collapses first. And the collapse that cost no lives second.

But why would the NIST talk about the collapse of WTC 7...in its investigation of WTC 1 and 2? That makes no sense whatsoever.

WTC7 fit that description. Yet they had to be questioned before being all like "oh, let's get that done too, and stuff."

Which explains why the NIST investigated the collapse of WTC 7.

But doesn't explain why the NIST would ever talk about the collapse of WTC 7......in its reports on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Why would they ever do this? Your assumptions are not only illogical clap trap.....they're just bizarre.

Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....or the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7. Think on that when you're trying to figure out why so few people are buying your silly conspiracy.

 

[Skylar]

f you have an argument to make, make it. If all you have are insinuations, then clearly you need to shore up your claims.

No, no. I'm not that interested. You seem to be though. Can you explain its condition or is that just not fun to do?

So you asked me about flanges.....but don't have any argument about flanges?

Dude, if you had nothing to begin with, why bother posting the picture?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....

Because it doesn't need to be ignored. It needed to be scrutinized and that has been done thoroughly. They're study has been found seriously wanting.

2.25 sc. of free fall in the final?

But, dont mention how that might have occurred.

You can keep moving and shifting posts all night. I know this routine. I simply do not fucking care.



Good night.

 

[deep_space]

Bankers trust days after the event. Hit by falling debris. Can you explain to me the condition of the flange mid-photo?

Do you mean the piece of steel with a sort of yellow cast to it? I would question how it got deformed in the way it is.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I note you still can't give us a single reason to ignore the NIST report.....

Because it doesn't need to be ignored. It needed to be scrutinized and that has been done thoroughly. They're study has been found seriously wanting.

Laughing....you couldn't even finish the quote, could you? Summarily ignoring the FDNY on their assessment of the building's collapse being from fire and structural damage that you refuse to even discuss it. Alas, we're not as inclined to arbitrarily ignore anyone who disagrees with you. And even less so expert eye witness testimony that measured WTC 7's slow structural failure over hours with a transit, its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. And correctly predicted the collapse of the WTC 7 to with in about half an hour.

There is no reason to ignore them. And no rational person does.

But you do. And you can't even tell us why.

2.25 sc. of free fall in the final?

The NIST were the folks that gave you that number. And have directly addressed the issue. Which you either know, or should know:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available atWTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available atWTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

So why would I ignore the NIST...and instead believe you and your vague insinuations about 'flanges' that even you can't explain? You just arbitrarily ignore the NIST. Just like you ignore the FDNY. Just like you ignore anyone who doesn't ape your silly little conspiracy. But why would we? Why would any rational person?

There is no reason.

You can keep moving and shifting posts all night. I know this routine. I simply do not fucking care.

Laughing....I keep asking you questions you can't possibly answer. Or are you still arguing that the NIST prioritizing a deadly collapse over a collapse that didn't cost any lives is 'an appeal to emotional fallacies'? Its what anyone else would call simple logic. Of course you prioritize the deadly collapses first.

And you never did answer my question.....why would the NIST talk about the WTC 7 collapse in their investigation of WTC 1 and 2?

Your assumption still doesn't make the slightest sense.

 

[SAYIT]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

Horse shit ... but that seems to be your only play.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.

9 11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

• Editor's Notes: The 9/11 Lies Are Out There
• Frequently Asked Questions: Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths
• Podcast: Debunking 9/11 Myths
• 6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's WTC 7 Report

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04.html
How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism
by John Ray

...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.

Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

hmm...

So according to this Mr. Lataan, (the name given on the profile) the evidence that makes Debunking 9/11 a shill propaganda site is:

1. Looks professionally done
2. Debunks all of the "evidence" given by "truthers".

That seems to be it. Musings Silliness Debunking 9 11.com Is A PNAC Front.​

 

[SAYIT]

I can't believe I'm on the same side of any argument as Denthead but ... well ... there it is. The fact that even he can see the silliness of the "Truther" Movement exposes just how silly it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I can't believe I'm on the same side of any argument as Denthead but ... well ... there it is. The fact that even he can see the silliness of the "Truther" Movement exposes just how silly it is.

drop dead

there's a slogan I used to use: save the planet ;; kill yourself

it's only a slogan

 

[deep_space]

I can't believe that people still cite, Popular Mechanics, talk about yellow journalism.