9/11 Museum’s Biggest Oversight: No Mention of WTC Building 7

originally posted by: hgfbob


the subject is WHY is it called a museum if it contains NO information on the actual hows and WHYS???

That's the subject of the thread. The subject at hand was that you had asked me why they had evacuated. I supplied you with an answer.

You ignored this and changed the subject. Which is

trollish behavior....

my views do not enter......I present FACTS from known science and the event of 9-11.... facts you can not argue away.....

so now you pretend to be ALL concerned and confused....

par for the course for a

-bunker

So you have drawn no conclusion whatsoever from your findings? You literally have no views based on what you've discovered?In which case, what on earth are you trying to do? If I tell you that I agree with you what will you have achieved? And what will I be agreeing with, since you apparently have no stance I can actually, er, agree with?

the three collapses on 9-11 are EXCLUSIVE to ONLY 9-11....if this a museum, why NO information as to the FIRST TIME EVENTS that took place on 9-11 to MASS MURDER 3000 innocents in an instant

3 collapses in an instant killed 3000 innocents in an instant....

3 total global unified building collapse in one day, all claimed natural events. yet ALL completely globally collapse within seconds....no stopping and starting through laws of mechanics, conservation of momentum, transference of energy, Newtons 2nd, 3rd. law, known structural failure behavior...

and NEW physics is to blame....if this is a MUSEUM, why NO MENTION of the BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon' claimed by the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew ????

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

it ONLY occurred on 9-11 never to be seen again......just like the 3000 dead....

a reply to: hgfbob

Because only 9/11 Truthers labor under the delusion that "new physics" were involved that day??

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Because only 9/11 Truthers labor under the delusion that "new physics" were involved that day??

.....ya know, usually when someone enters a room and passes gas......

they say "excuse me".....


so instead of these pathetic little drive-by-posts attacking the person, how bout you show what I post wrong.....an amazing concept completely void of duhbunkers....

a reply to: hgfbob

Fine. Building 7, suffered massive damage from the collapse from WTC 1. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Towers, and the realization that they had lost a few hundred firefighters, FDNY decided not to fight the fires in WTC 7. They assessed the damage that they could see and had a fear early on that it too, was going to collapse. They witnessed pieces of the building falling off and at one point, set up a surveyor's transit to measure movement of the building. The transit, showed that the building was gradually shifting to the south, indicating that the interior portion of the building was already failing, long before the building came completely down. And I would wager it will be a long time before anyone tries to cantilever a high-rise the way that they did with WTC 7. Yep, simplified and to the point, design+damage+fire=building collapse.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Fine. Building 7, suffered massive damage from the collapse from WTC 1.

the 2005 NIST found that did NOT occur to cause collapse...even the slightest.

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

design+damage+fire=building collapse.

WRONG!!!!

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST technical briefing

their own webcast.

that they removed off their website.....gee..wonder why.

these three collapses occurring are singular to ONLY 9-11...
3 never before seen occurrences in the history of building, just as the 3000 dead in an instant are...

so, instead of replying back with LIES, how bout we find out why NO mention of them in this museum....since museums are all about information and facts......right!!!!!

to everyone who says that no one died in wtc 7 so why would they include it in this 'memorial' museum ..

well .. people did die in wtc 7 so it should have been included .. this whole thing stinks to high heaven .. the people defending this farce of an 'official story' are either in denial or misinformation agents because this deception being paraded in front of us is TOO obvious

5:44

www.youtube.com...=344

a reply to: hgfbob

You can capitalize and add all the exclamation points you want. It will not change the reality of my statement. Design + damage + fire = collapse. Just like the Windsor Tower, just like the McCormack Center fire.. 9/11/01 was not the first time, nor the last, that buildings died from fire. NIST, made an educated guess. That is all they can do in regards to the collapses. Forensic investigation will only take you so far. And without some sort of data collection device telling you the exact temps internal, which structural member failed first etc....all that you can ever do, is make an educated guess.

magazine.sfpe.org...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You can capitalize and add all the exclamation points you want. It will not change the reality of my statement. Design + damage + fire = collapse. Just like the Windsor Tower

did NOT totally GLOBALLY!!!! collapse as the three on 9-11.

just like the McCormack Center fire..

DID NOT totally COLLAPSE!!!! as the three on 9-11 did.

you have NO reality in your statement....you have 'WISHFUL THINKING'!.

Design + damage + fire = collapse.

only in your mind, the mind of the ones w involved, and duhbunker sites that LIE about what is in the 10,000+ page report.

NIST, made an educated guess.

through SCIENCE!!!!!...the 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason why these three buildings did what they did.

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

"no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper" NIST 1-3 p.99

"recovered bolts were stronger than typical." NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

so they STALL for THREE YEARS till they hypothesize brand NEW science......why, because the taught science SAYS THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

all that you can ever do, is make an educated guess.

so they make it a DOOZIE huh!!!

then REFUSE to support it when ASKED by the structural community.

tell me HOW do they make "a guess"?

by OBSERVING

what did they 'observe' to claim NEW science occurred ONLY on 9-11?

maybe a physically IMPOSSIBLE event from fire NO ONE SEE'S!

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

I really do hate repeating my self because of all the 'WHY'gning....

a reply to: dude77

Except Jennings recanted this. All you have, against reams of evidence to the contrary, is one guy saying something that he later admitted was an error.

Countdown to BUT THEN THEY DONE KILLLED HIM@@@@!!!!

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
a reply to: dude77

Except Jennings recanted this. All you have, against reams of evidence to the contrary, is one guy saying something that he later admitted was an error.

Countdown to BUT THEN THEY DONE KILLLED HIM@@@@!!!!

no .. how the heck do you make an 'error' about stepping over dead bodies and about the firefighter comment .. it's one thing if he had only mentioned himself but he mentioned firefighters telling him not to look down .. implying that they were seeing bodies as well .. that's no error .. unless you want to accuse him of making that up ..

either way, he clearly said what he said and he very nonchalantly gave authorization to air what he said .. obviously someone got to him and didn't want him revealing this little tidbit about 'stepping over people' in the wtc7 .. you know .. the building that was omitted from the memorial museum

a reply to: hgfbob

Yes, the official investigation into the Madrid Windsor Tower fire stated that in the opinion (that ole educated guess) of the investigators, the ONLY reason why the Tower did not suffer a global collapse was that massive concrete transfer slab on the 17th floor. In other words, they feel that without that slab, the entire building probably would have come down.....from FIRE alone. What you fail to remember or realize, is that each of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01, not only had raging fires, but also ALL of them had suffered massive damage from either airliner impacts OR another building falling into them. Back to the Madrid Windsor, with NO structural damage, investigators said FIRE ALONE would have caused the entire building to fail if it had not been for the concrete transfer slab.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yeah I've pointed this out numerous times before to them, but those "Truthers" just refuse to hear it or believe it. It is also interesting to see how they react when you point out how long it took for the steel structure to start collapsing by itself from time of ignition to first failures. This was the timeframe for the fire and resulting collapses:
23:00 Fire started at the 21st Floor
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

Right there, within two hours of fire ignition, collapses of the steel structure have started. But they dont wanna hear it. At all. And yet we have professionals that say it would have, if it wasnt for the concrete tech floor and the concrete core.

I wonder why they are not complaining about the other WTC Buildings that were missed? Like WTCs 3, 4, 5, 6?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

the ONLY reason why the Tower did not suffer a global collapse

and how long did this fire last???


23....24 hours...and NO total global collapse...

56 MINUTES....110 stories gone in 12 seconds.....then 25 minutes later, the other 110 stories.....DIFFERENT damages same exact scenario.

WTC5 burnt till the next day.....NO COLLAPSE.

but also ALL of them had suffered massive damage from either airliner impacts

that the 2005 NIST found caused MINIMAL damage...14.5%

33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. That's 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allowed any failure of the remaining 240 columns NOT involved with the impacts.

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

you spew BULL# that has NO validity.

you think those things occurred, then POST that supporting EVIDENCE from the initial 2005 scientific investigation that SHOWS this.....in other words, POINT to the 10,0000+ page report and SHOW where those claims are....I do, why can't you.

a reply to: GenRadek

Yeah I've pointed this out numerous times before to them, but those "Truthers" just refuse to hear it or believe it.

you can recite all the crap ya want, but presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING at all to validate the claim,is called BULL#!

This was the timeframe for the fire and resulting collapses:

and yet the MASSIVE weight in WTC7 of the roof, other penthouse, HVAC and all the other utilities up there just all MAGICALLY FLOATS till that pathetic little scenario of columns failing below concludes huh...lmao


and then this occurs

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

......

Right there, within two hours of fire ignition, collapses of the steel structure have started. But they dont wanna hear it.

lol...."they don't want to hear it".......lmao.....YOU/they REFUSE TO PROVE IT!!!!!!!!


and here it is AGAIN for all the 'brain dead' repeaters of BULLSH*T...


Presenting a claim WITHIN a scientific context by using NOTHING at all to validate the claim, is called BULL!

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."

a reply to: GenRadek

I wonder why they are not complaining about the other WTC Buildings that were missed? Like WTCs 3, 4, 5, 6?

because they DID NOT experience the SAME as the other three did.......despite being in the DIRECT path of tons of free falling tower debris, NOT ONE mimicked the other three.

And yet we have professionals that say it would have

lol....yea....the SAME pathetic handful since day one.....all REFUSING to prove the official claims pushed.
....tell me what that does for ya.....

a reply to: hgfbob

GenRadek gave the Windsor Timeline.


Then, I find it...funny....to find this sentence in your post

"NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47."

Its funny because when I point out the report is an educated guess, you say I am full of it. THEN you turn right around and say the same thing.

Common sense demands that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the damage observed at WTC, most of it recorded in photographs and video, was caused by burning office furnishings, yet that is the absurd story told by the government by way of NIST, and still embraced by many today.

The damage observed at WTC was not consistent with burning office furnishings.

The Museum will never mention those simple facts.

originally posted by: Salander
Common sense demands that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the damage observed at WTC, most of it recorded in photographs and video, was caused by burning office furnishings, yet that is the absurd story told by the government by way of NIST, and still embraced by many today.

The damage observed at WTC was not consistent with burning office furnishings.

The Museum will never mention those simple facts.

Well there is experimental data that shows office fires can reach 1000C .

a reply to: Salander

Common sense demands that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the damage observed at WTC, most of it recorded in photographs and video, was caused by burning office furnishings, yet that is the absurd story told by the government by way of NIST, and still embraced by many today.

May 13, 2008 Delft college collapses from a vending machine fire.
No airplanes.
No jet fuel.

Or was this another conspiracy?

Conspiracy believers can't get it through their heads that contents can burn hot eonugh to warp steel.
If that were the case ship fires wouldn't be that big of a deal.
But in the real world ships sink because of fires.