An Op-Ed at National Review, from a fellow at the Heritage Foundation? No wonder you don't know what you're saying.

You'll get some clarification if you take a look at what requirements are legally adequate and non-burdensome in this country, for demonstrating right to vote. Unsurprisingly, neither of those sources backs up your claim. And as usual, there's a key bit of logic crucially ignored: states want to impose new laws to increase the burden on voters, in an attempt to reduce voter fraud. However, there have been no epidemics of voter fraud (in fact, hardly any instances at all) and only a few of voter registration fraud (wholly different). But the states claim that if the new rules, which place new requirements on voters, are not passed, there could be fraud because the security given by those rules would not exist. Even though it hasn't thus far and has not been significantly abused.

"Do this or bad things will happen because you didn't do this." "But those bad things haven't happened and we've never done that" "BUT THEY WILL"

After researching more I find that you are correct.

I am sorry.

Well thank you for looking into it. There's a lot that could be better about our national voting policies. A lot. But it's not as bad as the extremists on either side of the political spectrum want to make it appear; the right isn't trying to make it so only the Special Elite can vote. The left isn't trying to make it so anyone in the world - living, dead, or mineral - can show up and vote.

For those who responded to me re the WTC 7 collapse, and anyone who is interested in the subject, these are the sources I promised to provide. I'll post the link for part 1, you'll find the rest to the right of the vid screen. I was a bit off re my summarization, but the gist of what I stated is very much correct. The gentleman in the video shows the relevant pages in the NIST report, with highlighted quotations, while he explains NIST's blatant misconduct, interspersed with video footage of the NIST engineers clumsily pretending they had done nothing wrong. At the end, a third engineer intervenes, stating that the final report would be revised, and indeed it was, with NIST acknowledging what they had inexcusably failed to acknowledge at the outset.

Oooh, a source! Excellent.

OK, well, let's start with: one high school physics teacher isn't a very compelling sample size. But, whatever! If he's right, that won't matter. To the data!

For starters, his claim is entirely based on the motion of a single corner of the building, instead of the collapse of the entire building. That's dishonest, since the opposite side of the building is clearly in collapse before the measured corner begins to move. So his first claim, that of collapse time, is unacceptable. The video author is claiming a motion time that only considers part of a moving object.

Next, he's desperately (and pathetically) leaning on ignorance of the audience to care about his sidebars. He makes such ridiculous claims as: simulation accurately predicted reality, which should not happen because reality is hard. If simulations didn't match reality extremely closely, our entire aerospace and automotive industries would be hard pressed to innovate at any impressive rate. As a physicist, he should use tools every day which simulate reality to many decimal places.
free fall really happened, but NIST says it's not free fall, because it was slower, but it was still free fall. You should look into the physics of stack collapses. They happen both at free fall, and not at free fall, within the same collapse. This is not contrary to any physical concepts. It is in fact due to well-understood physical concepts. During parts of a building collapse, pieces that are falling will be resisted by pieces that are still holding strong. During other parts of the collapse, large portions of a structure will move without significant resistance.
collapse doesn't begin when NIST says. But the video author only accepts movement of the part he wants to consider as evidence of collapse. Since the building undergoes clear internal collapse, it is unfair (amusing since that's exactly what the author is claiming NIST is doing) to claim that collapse only starts when this author wants it to. Notice he also includes the classic "You can draw your own conclusions" line, which is almost proof that there's nothing to say, but that the author hopes you'll get carried away by implications.
if free fall happened (which it didn't, see above) then there must have been controlled demolitions. But there is not evidence for free fall, unless you accept this one high school physics teacher as an authority, even though he has clearly indicated that he has a preset expectation and is choosing data points to support his hypothesis (again, the irony! It's what he accuses NIST of doing, time and again.)

With no engineering background, he makes claims about how collapses must happen. He uses a point of view that obscures the internal collapse, so as to allow him to only consider part of the problem and claim that it represents the whole. His claims require colossal ignorance of the event to believe. They require colossal ignorance of the most basic concepts of structural engineering to believe. They are exceptional claims, and he provides inadequate, dishonest evidence. There's nothing there to suggest that this lone individual, with a clear bias and working to get the answer he wants instead of the answer that best fits the situation, has any sort of actual argument to make.

You believe this because you want to believe it. You do not understand it. I suspect that if you did, you might find it harder to believe. But, you gave a source, at least. A one-sided, laughably biased Truther source. And he seems to have even changed his mind after some years of investigation, too. Did you notice that part? Did you even check your sources? I did.

Your sources are bad. Your conclusion is invalid.

You really are One Fierce Puppy, you scare me.

I'm going to stop you right here. The only way that your claim can be valid is if the roofline had failed to remain intact during collapse. Barring that, there is zero possibility that one side of the building collapsed at free-fall and the other side did not. I watched the collapse at 1/4 speed and there's a minute degree of tilt, with the roofline remaining perfectly intact, which is completely dissimilar from the visual representations NIST provided to show the manner of collapse NIST's model utilized to arrive at it's 5.4 second predicted collapse time. There is no discernible crumpling at all. So the model clearly predicts what is necessary to arrive at a 5.4 second collapse time, rather than what actually occurred. And furthermore, there's no way in hell that NIST would do a turnaround and admit they were wrong about free-fall if they weren't wrong about free-fall, and at 9:34 the video shows that admission in black and white.

Not only do you have bad taste in news sources, but bad taste in games too. Your life.

The truthers are erroneously using the idea of "free fall" as evidence of demolition charges (using the aforementioned fictional micro-engineered type of explosive that, if it existed, wouldn't be explosive), so they seize on every additional quarter second of it they can get. Non sequitur of course, that needs to be said: It just doesn't follow. But they're not just wrong in their conclusion, they're also wrong in the presupposition: the WTCs didn't drop at free fall velocity, and revisions from the preliminary to the final NIST report don't point at a conspiracy, they point at thorough work. The WTC buildings had 110 storeys; the final report concludes just one part of just 8 storeys in just one of those buildings to have approached free fall velocity in a total of 2.25 seconds time out of the ca. 30 it took for the buildings to collapse. The North Tower TV mast hit the ground 11 seconds after the buildings started to collapse; that alone should have disproven any free fall idiocies.

No "David Chandler" has "forced" NIST to "revise" their report. That is truther mythology, fabricated nonsense, they need their heroes, and stupid ones indeed. One David Chandler did motivate NIST officials to explain certain aspects more thoroughly and layman friendly, like you would to a petulant child who wants to believe that Santa Clause is real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w7dk_HocY

Nice Hillary vs. Trump by Thunderf00t.

Great, more hatemob directing egomaniacs. Exactly what this debate needs.

I see you're filling in for rctvb as chief conspiracy theorist and dogma believer. Such a nice friend.

Here you go, m8.

"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."

Yes, that's the part I was referring to. Your point? Or is that counted as "the evidence" in circlejerkcircles already?

I think it speaks for itself, and I also think you're perfectly entitled to read it any way you want to.

OK, I'll relent and try again.

How does a building collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds in the absence of catastrophic structural failure?

If structural failure occurs in 3 distinct phases that do not occur simultaneously, how likely is it that a building will maintain it's outward integrity during most of it's collapse?

Thank you.