That's the FEMA report, not much different from the NIST report. Hardly unbiased.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
That's the FEMA report, not much different from the NIST report. Hardly unbiased.

So in short, you believe that anything that disagrees with your conspiracy just has to be part of the conspiracy, too...? Is that really what you're telling us?

It would be one thing if you could explain why the FEMA report wasn't credible, but simply saying "it's a pack of lies" before running away giggling only reflects badly on your credibility, not FEMA. I'll wager you never even read the thing.

Am I incorrect?

I read it a long time ago, and it too is a collapse initiation hypothesis only.

Interesting that they indicated an opinion that fire alone would be insufficient to result in the destruction of WTC7.. what do you think of that?

(runs away giggling)

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I read it a long time ago, and it too is a collapse initiation hypothesis only.

Interesting that they indicated an opinion that fire alone would be insufficient to result in the destruction of WTC7.. what do you think of that?

(runs away giggling)

The only people who ever claimed it was the fires alone that destroyed WTC 7 are those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from. This is the definition of a "strawman" argument- the deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

It fell due to a combination of events, all happening at once.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by Nutter

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

That is the heading on the NIST page.

Did you even bother to read the full report or are just cherry picking your quotes. The report ALSO said-

"According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use. "

In short, it was the fires IN ADDITION TO the specific design of the building, since it's clear the design had an Achilles' heel noone fully understood was there. Even then, it was IN ADDITION TO the falling wreckage from WTC 1 smashing up WTC 7 becuase that's what started the fires to begin with. It would obviously have touched off a different fire disitribution pattern than someone just dropping a lit cigarette into a wastebasket.

So when I say "the collapse was caused by a combination of events that happened all at once" how am I wrong?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
That's the FEMA report, not much different from the NIST report. Hardly unbiased.

So in short, you believe that anything that disagrees with your conspiracy just has to be part of the conspiracy, too...? Is that really what you're telling us?

It would be one thing if you could explain why the FEMA report wasn't credible, but simply saying "it's a pack of lies" before running away giggling only reflects badly on your credibility, not FEMA. I'll wager you never even read the thing.

Am I incorrect?

You're absolutely incorrect. He said it was hardly unbiased, you quoted something completely different and then made an inference based off of your own misinformation.

The only people who ever claimed it was the fires alone that destroyed WTC 7 are those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from. This is the definition of a "strawman" argument- the deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The NIST report said that. Put that in your hay bailer and smoke it.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in short, you believe that anything that disagrees with your conspiracy just has to be part of the conspiracy, too...?

It's already been well-established that both FEMA and NIST just investigated fire/impact damages collapses, nothing else. They essentially started with their conclusion before they even did any investigative work. That's what is known as "a priori" and is the equivalent of a logical fallacy, of course. NIST even admits it didn't investigate demolition scenarios, or look for any sorts of evidence of such. It just wasn't a part of their "investigation."

I actually like the NIST (loosely termed) ‘investigation’ of the Twin Towers and WTC7. What the investigations reveal with thorough understanding, is that not one of the buildings should have collapsed on 9/11… much less three in one day! This is apparent in the fact that NIST had to postulate extreme cases, unexpected scenarios and/or extraordinary events to allow for the requirements of their collapse theories.

Both the FEMA and NIST reports are a collapse initation hypothesis ONLY and do not address the actual occurance of destruction, simply assuming that once initiated, what ensued thereafter was automatic and inevitable.