Why do "debunkers' devote so much time to defending the Official 9/11 Story?

[eots]

You won't tell me the reason behind the secret conspiracy?
What are you afraid of?

What are you afraid of.. showing your complete ignorance of the NIST report on the collapse of building 7 ?

The speculated motives of the perpetrators is not relevant to the fact that the collapse of wtc 7 could only be the result of a controlled demolition..

What are you afraid of..

I'm afraid of the motive and so are you.

So why not tell me?

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes.. the motives can only truly be known by the perpetrators and I could only offer speculation on that topic..but I would like to determine if you have any understanding of what the explanation NIST is and how those conclusions were reached

 

[Montrovant]

nothing is misrepresented.. These are the facts according to nist the failure of column 79 from fire was the initiation of the collapse sequnce and the failure of that column under any circumstance would have resulted in a progressive collapse

which you wrongly interpret as a explosion..... and that is a misrepresentation.
I WIN...

I Interpret it as it is stated.the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would of resulted in a progressive of collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST

I have to agree with eots here, much as it pains me to do so. Here's a quote, "In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.".

That comes from this link : NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

 

[daws101]

you are not able to be in a discussion that critically examines the nist report and its conclusions for accuracy and reason...without calliing people mental

what discussion? you make false, cherry picked, intentionally misrepresent facts and make out of context declarations like (must be a cd ) constantly if that's not insanity .it's an amazing simulation of it.

such as ?

everything you've ever posted...can't get any more specific then that..
what part of everything do you not understand.?

 

[daws101]

nothing is misrepresented.. These are the facts according to nist the failure of column 79 from fire was the initiation of the collapse sequnce and the failure of that column under any circumstance would have resulted in a progressive collapse

which you wrongly interpret as a explosion..... and that is a misrepresentation.
I WIN...

I Interpret it as it is stated.the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would of resulted in a progressive of collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST

wrong you've read in an explosion that is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in that report.

 

[daws101]

which you wrongly interpret as a explosion..... and that is a misrepresentation.
I WIN...

I Interpret it as it is stated.the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would of resulted in a progressive of collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST

I have to agree with eots here, much as it pains me to do so. Here's a quote, "In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.".

That comes from this link : NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

I agree 100%
eots on the other hand want's that to mean there was a (CD)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What are you afraid of.. showing your complete ignorance of the NIST report on the collapse of building 7 ?

The speculated motives of the perpetrators is not relevant to the fact that the collapse of wtc 7 could only be the result of a controlled demolition..

What are you afraid of..

I'm afraid of the motive and so are you.

So why not tell me?

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes.. the motives can only truly be known by the perpetrators and I could only offer speculation on that topic..but I would like to determine if you have any understanding of what the explanation NIST is and how those conclusions were reached

I could only offer speculation on that topic..

Excellent! What is your speculation?

 

[Montrovant]

What are you afraid of.. showing your complete ignorance of the NIST report on the collapse of building 7 ?

The speculated motives of the perpetrators is not relevant to the fact that the collapse of wtc 7 could only be the result of a controlled demolition..

What are you afraid of..

I'm afraid of the motive and so are you.

So why not tell me?

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes.. the motives can only truly be known by the perpetrators and I could only offer speculation on that topic..but I would like to determine if you have any understanding of what the explanation NIST is and how those conclusions were reached

How do you know a building cannot collapse due to fires?

 

[Gamolon]

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes..

Based on what data?

Can you provide a white paper with calculations that show it couldn't have happened? Or how about a white paper that shows a step by step explanation as to how controlled demolition brought WTC7 down. matching what we see in videos and pictures? Maybe you can point me to a building or skyscraper with the same design as WTC7 that had unfought fires in it that remained standing?

Certainly you have data to back up your claim right?

By the way, WTC1 and WTC2 did not collapse due to fire alone. They were also severely damaged by jet impacts. Just an FYI in case you forgot...

 

[daws101]

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?

The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

These people are most likely PAID DISINFORMATION AGENTS to try and keep people CONFUSED AND AWAY FROM THE TRUTH!!!! (Really no other reason someone who disagrees would stay on a site where everyone didnt believe)

So I am being paid by the government? LOL. Stupid son of a bitch. You really are shit for brains huh?

 

[eots]

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast

we know this not to be true

capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

this estimate does not consider other explosives or incendiaries

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

noxious and odorous fumes where everywhere on 9/11

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

so they presumed and found it not impossible but...unlikely

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

might not necessarily of been conclusive..so we just didint do it...

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

more assumptions...are all rock concerts the same volume...all shot gun blast..all explosives ?

]In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?

The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

this is not science and there is nothing conclusive about it.. its based on assumptions not evidence

 

[eots]

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes..

Based on what data?

Can you provide a white paper with calculations that show it couldn't have happened? Or how about a white paper that shows a step by step explanation as to how controlled demolition brought WTC7 down. matching what we see in videos and pictures? Maybe you can point me to a building or skyscraper with the same design as WTC7 that had unfought fires in it that remained standing?

Certainly you have data to back up your claim right?

By the way, WTC1 and WTC2 did not collapse due to fire alone. They were also severely damaged by jet impacts. Just an FYI in case you forgot...

based on NISTs data..they had 8 years to explain how this could happen by fire and failed and had to resort to unverified computer models as the cornerstone of their investigation and conclusions

 

[LA RAM FAN]

What are you afraid of.. showing your complete ignorance of the NIST report on the collapse of building 7 ?

The speculated motives of the perpetrators is not relevant to the fact that the collapse of wtc 7 could only be the result of a controlled demolition..

another classic misrepresentation and specious speculation based on a false premise and no evidence.
and don't say they did not look...they did

You are so fucking stupid that you probaly believe fire caused a steel and concrete tower(WTC-7) to collapse, without any CD's.

4 farts in a row from dawgshit since my last post. notice thats always the pattern that agent dawgshit follows everytime he is cornered.He gets frustrated and always posts in big letters bullshit to feel good about himself. acting like we never said that there were other buildings in the area much closer to the towers than bld 7 with far more severe damage to them yet they did not collapse.

He along with all the OCTA's have constantly acted like we never said that in this entire thread as you have seen and that none of the other buildings that did not collapse that day,were not owned by silverstein,that the only 3 that did were all owned by him.all he ever comes back with is bullshit.that really disproves us with that word. he really puts us in our place with that word and rebuttal.

btw,I thought you told me you were going to be smart unlike a lot of these other truthers that feed these agent trolls and not feed the paid trolls like dawgshit and gomer anymore? seems like you were all talk on that wildcard.the ones listed in my sig like dawgshit-aka sayit,his sock puppet he also uses,him and those others listed in my sig are all paid agents sent here to troll.i can only say this so many times.

Ive given up on trying to reason with eots and mr jones on that.I thought YOU were going to be smart though and not feed them?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

These people are most likely PAID DISINFORMATION AGENTS to try and keep people CONFUSED AND AWAY FROM THE TRUTH!!!! (Really no other reason someone who disagrees would stay on a site where everyone didnt believe)

So I am being paid by the government? LOL. Stupid son of a bitch. You really are shit for brains huh?

well find out soon enough.if you start devoting your entire time here night and day telling lies constantly for the next several months all the time like dawgshit,gomer pyle ollie,gamolon and candyass do,then you will have exposed your one of them as well.

for the moment.you have the benefit of the doubt that your just like predfan,montrovent,whitehall,colin and most the others that have posted on this thread,just a loyal Bush dupe afraid of the truth who only sees what he WANTS to see. Like I said,a few months down the road we'll find out which one you are.one of them you are for sure beyond a doubt.

 

[Montrovant]

These people are most likely PAID DISINFORMATION AGENTS to try and keep people CONFUSED AND AWAY FROM THE TRUTH!!!! (Really no other reason someone who disagrees would stay on a site where everyone didnt believe)

So I am being paid by the government? LOL. Stupid son of a bitch. You really are shit for brains huh?

well find out soon enough.if you start devoting your entire time here night and day telling lies constantly for the next several months all the time like dawgshit,gomer pyle ollie,gamolon and candyass do,then you will have exposed your one of them as well.

for the moment.you have the benefit of the doubt that your just like predfan,montrovent,whitehall,colin and most the others that have posted on this thread,just a loyal Bush dupe afraid of the truth who only sees what he WANTS to see. Like I said,a few months down the road we'll find out which one you are.one of them you are for sure beyond a doubt.

Or put honestly, if you post here disagreeing with the truthers often enough to bother him, 9/11 IJ will say you are a paid troll because it makes him feel better. None of these conspiracy theorists can provide any actual evidence that the people they claim are paid government agents are what they say they are. They also lie about their posting habits or at least ignore the fact that the posters spend plenty of time in other forums.

It's the usual repetitive bs from the same posters.

 

[daws101]

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast

we know this not to be true



this estimate does not consider other explosives or incendiaries




noxious and odorous fumes where everywhere on 9/11

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?



so they presumed and found it not impossible but...unlikely

might not necessarily of been conclusive..so we just didint do it...




this is not science and there is nothing conclusive about it.. its based on assumptions not evidence

 

[eots]

having troubles with the incredibly easy Quote function again dawgshit ?

 

[eots]

What are you afraid of..

I'm afraid of the motive and so are you.

So why not tell me?

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes.. the motives can only truly be known by the perpetrators and I could only offer speculation on that topic..but I would like to determine if you have any understanding of what the explanation NIST is and how those conclusions were reached

I could only offer speculation on that topic..

Excellent! What is your speculation?

to create a useful terror event allowing for a budget of word conquest and nation building proportions

 

[daws101]

having troubles with the incredibly easy Quote function again dawgshit ?

No. not near as much trouble as you have with reality.

 

[daws101]

I know a building can not collapse due to fires as NIST describes.. the motives can only truly be known by the perpetrators and I could only offer speculation on that topic..but I would like to determine if you have any understanding of what the explanation NIST is and how those conclusions were reached

I could only offer speculation on that topic..

Excellent! What is your speculation?

to create a useful terror event allowing for a budget of word conquest and nation building proportions

[ame=http://youtu.be/sknYSbXMwlA]wtf - YouTube[/ame]