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

a reply to: samkent

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

...and NO collapse that mimicked what we see occur on 9-11, x3....

so, your point is kind a moot.

Looks about the same to me.
Including the debris cloud.



All that damage from paper and furniture burning.
Hmmm.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

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.

focus boys......PROVE the towers fell from the fires present.


seems ya need to bring in all these distractions, INSTEAD of the simple task of supporting the claims pushed as truth....why can't cha do that?

a reply to: samkent

All that damage from paper and furniture burning.
Hmmm.

and STILL no total global unified collapse x 3 as WE SEE occur on 9-11.

so wtf is your point?

a reply to: hgfbob

focus boys......PROVE the towers fell from the fires present.

No that's up to you.
Remember it's you (no degree) against 99.99% of the worlds experts.

a reply to: hgfbob

and STILL no total global unified collapse x 3 as WE SEE occur on 9-11.

so wtf is your point?

Your point is that burning contents could never have caused the collapse.
Here is an example that proves you are wrong.

Maybe if a plane going 500mph had hit the building it might have had a global collapse.

a reply to: hgfbob

What scientific context are you blathering about?? It came from a fire research website:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

It seems to me you wouldnt know scientific context if it bit you in the rear!

I dont have to prove Windsor Tower's steel started failing within two hours of ignition! It HAS BEEN PROVEN! BECAUSE IT HAPPENED! And it was recorded by firefighters and researchers. Please stop embarrassing yourself like this.

And then you go and ignore the facts again. So no you are not interested in facts or what actually happened. You demand something that DIDNT happen, and refuse to hear anything else.

Face it, WTC7 collapsed from fires alone. It has been proven time and again that fires can and DO burn at temps high enough to warp, bend, expand steel beams and columns, within a relatively short amount of time. Its been proven. YOU refuse to accept it. You always demand some magical scientific proof, and its been handed to you time and again, and you still slap it away cause its not what you want to hear.

WTC7 had no one die, suffered damage and fire and collapsed. It was destroyed along with the entire complex, including 3, 4, 5, and 6. No one died in those too. Those buildings were destroyed. Just like WTC7 and 1 and 2. WTC3 had nothing left of it. Massive holes and internal collapses were seen inside the other buildings. Why they didnt fall down is obvious, due to the different design of the structures. Plus a 47 story building has different weight ratios than a squat 10 story building. But hey, you keep on ignoring the facts. Eventually you'll find your answer at the bottom of the hole your head is stuck in.

And you repeated the same garbage again with those claims, and I thoroughly explained them to you in the previous thread, which you ignored again. here you can reread it again:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Facts are facts. No matter how much you try to trim, remove, fake, etc, the truth will come out.

a reply to: hgfbob

originally posted by: hgfbob


focus boys......PROVE the towers fell from the fires present.


seems ya need to bring in all these distractions, INSTEAD of the simple task of supporting the claims pushed as truth....why can't cha do that?

Already been done. Have you read NIST's reports? Or are you just reading the same four cherry-picked quotes from it? Because NISt does a pretty good job of explaining it. I find it hilarious that you use a few cherry-picked quotes from NIST's reports, demand proof of how the WTC collapsed, then ignore the actual report.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: hgfbob


WTC7 had no one die

barry jennings clearly stated there were dead bodies in candid interviews .. what reason would he have to make up such a thing ? .. he 'took it back' later on for reasons unknown(obviously someone didn't like his little declaration) .. and then subsequently the wtc7 gets left out of the memorial museum .. give me a break .. the people who believe this cacamayme story of 19 hijackers with boxcutters taking down the multibillion dollar, elite U.S. defense systems and shutting down the entire U.S. aviation system are the ones who have their heads in a hole

a reply to: dude77

And maybe he realized that the bodies he was thinking of...came from the jumpers or other occupants of WTC 1. And, yes, WTC 7, got left out of the memorial, because no one died as a result of its collapse.

As for the rest of your post, you would have wet your pants as soon as one of the hijackers used their boxcutter to slit a throat. And trust me, a boxcutter can do that job, just fine.

They did not have to "take down the multibillion dollar elite defense system"....sad fact was, our system was not set up to stop what we saw that day.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: dude77

And maybe he realized that the bodies he was thinking of...came from the jumpers or other occupants of WTC 1. And, yes, WTC 7, got left out of the memorial, because no one died as a result of its collapse.

As for the rest of your post, you would have wet your pants as soon as one of the hijackers used their boxcutter to slit a throat. And trust me, a boxcutter can do that job, just fine.

They did not have to "take down the multibillion dollar elite defense system"....sad fact was, our system was not set up to stop what we saw that day.

I'm not sure who you're trying to fool with this nonsense .. you keep saying 'no one died in the wtc7' as if that will make it truth ..

jumpers ? what ? .. he was INSIDE of the building .. he even mentioned a firefighter telling him 'not to look down' .. so it wasn't just him 'seeing bodies' ..

'the fact is our military was not setup what we saw that day' ..

I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of hogwash .. do you think the U.S. had no clue that such an attack was possible before that day ?? .. they had plenty of intelligence up to that day which means that they(should have) had preparations in place to defend such an attack .. it seems like some of you are just in denial .. you can't fathom that the U.S. government could possibly deceive you .. wake the hell up


you want to talk about 'conspiracy theories' .. the 'conspiracy theory' here is this bogus official story

a reply to: samkent

Your point is that burning contents could never have caused the collapse.

no, 'little-one-whom-can't-grasp-the-obvious', my point is PROVE what you spew.

Maybe if a plane going 500mph had hit the building it might have had a global collapse.

a plane that causes minimal damage to said building as the 2005 NIST found occurred at the towers,14.5%, leaving 240 intact, fireproofed columns on EACH tower impact floor that still must simultaneously fail.....

and NO plane hit 7, nor did falling tower debris to cause its global unified acceleration equal to g....just fire at ONE end of the building created a new physics phenomenon, [well, according to the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew. it did] .

a reply to: dude77

Okay, two questions for you

How many armed and on alert fighter aircraft did the United States military have on 9/11/01?

How many anti-aircraft defense sites did the United States have on 9/11/01?

a reply to: hgfbob

What you do not seem to grasp.

Fire alone has caused steel framed structures to collapse.

The fireproofing used in the towers, was a brittle material that replaced asbestos during their construction and on the morning of 9/11/01 it was a known fact that the fireproofing in the Towers was in poor shape and was completely gone from trusses in quite a few areas. THEN it had 500+ MPH airliners slamming into it...which have only caused MORE of it to fall away from the structure. (and your idea of minimal damage....is laughable, what happened to the Towers and WTC 7 would fall into the category of catastrophic damage)

WTC 7.....by the time it collapsed, FDNY was was reporting heavy fire over a dozen stories.

Finally, a quote from Herbert Levine...Herbert invented the spray on asbestos fireproofing that was used up until the early 70s hysteria over asbestos...the North Tower, had it up until the 30th something floor...then the rest of it and all of the South Tower was coated with the brittle crap. Anyway, Mr. Levine said on numerous occasions, " if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down"

a reply to: GenRadek

What scientific context are you blathering about?? It came from a fire research website:

and this comes from the initial 2005 NIST scientific investigation....

"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"

Face it, WTC7 collapsed from fires alone.

yea. fire the 2005 NIST can't even see...

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

to which, according to the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew, CREATES a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon.

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

...so tell me why they REFUSE to prove this new phenomenon of science THROUGH science?......

Already been done. Have you read NIST's reports?

I am the only one whom can quote the ACTUAL science from that 10,000+report........why can't you?

No that's up to you.
Remember it's you (no degree) against 99.99% of the worlds experts.

oh rally round the flag boys!!!..lol.....post just ONE of these so-called ENGINEERS whom support this NEW physics process of LOW TEMP thermal expansion creating conditions for global unified acceleration equal to g.....by REMOVING 105 vertical feet of structural resistance completely before 1.74 seconds of the collapse to allow the unified global FFA @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

Go hop on over to the Science and Technology section at ATS....look for the thread that starts..."Ask me any physics question".....and go read how the resident rocket scientist CAN'T/WON'T/REFUSES to discuss this NEW phenomenon of science that fell a building...yes, I ask him to esplain it.....and he can't....wonder why.

suffered damage and fire and collapsed.

yea...ALL your duhbunker sites say that huh....too bad the NIST 10,000+ page report DOESN'T!

NCSTAR1A p.39/130 "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
NCSTAR1A-3.2] "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

And you repeated the same garbage again with those claims,

for one, I repeat cause you intellectual giants seem to forget the actual facts post to post....

oh, and my FACTS from the 2005 SCIENTIFIC investigation?????
is that what you are talking about?

WHERE are your facts from that scientific report to QUOTE???

...NO WHERE IN SITE!!!!

in fact, YOU go off site to duhbunker sites that tell all what the reports....'REALLY' mean....huh!....lmao


and then you call my quoting from that report to SUPPORT, 'cherry-picking'....I noticed your cherry basket is empty duhbunker....why is that?

Because NISt does a pretty good job of explaining it.

lol....on that cover-sheet and preface page????!!!

too bad ya can't point out the ACTUAL science within the report huh.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

a reply to: hgfbob

There wasn't an instant global collapse. FDNY reported falling debris from 7 all day long. It was collapsing long before anyone could see definitive signs from the outside. Whether or not the NIST educated guess is 100% correct remains to be seen. So, once again fire + damage (yes, IMO damage was a factor) =collapse, its not that far a stretch since we know fire alone can kill a steel framed building. And to date, no one has found any evidence of any kind of ANY explosive devices.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: hgfbob

There wasn't an instant global collapse. FDNY reported falling debris from 7 all day long. It was collapsing long before anyone could see definitive signs from the outside.

if the load bearing support failed inside, the massive structural load they are supporting will no longer remain where it is......and you will see that reflected on the exterior.

Whether or not the NIST educated guess is 100% correct remains to be seen. So, once again fire + damage (yes, IMO damage was a factor) =collapse

"fire"....the initial 2005 NIST scientific investigation can't see from the windows.

"damage" that was not caused by falling tower debris as is posted here also from the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.

so what are you left with, a 2008 hypothesized claim of new science occurring only on 9-11 they refuse to prove through the process of peer reviewed science......

its not that far a stretch since we know fire alone can kill a steel framed building.

could you please tell me how fire we can't see does it....

mass needs to be removed before 1.74 seconds to allow the global unified acceleration to occur from 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.
can ya tell me how fire we can't see does that before 1.74 seconds,
remove 105 vertical feet of structure, symmetrically

a reply to: soundstyle

Hi soundstyle or is it hgfbob

Find out a little re DYNAMIC LOADING the construction of the tower floor system, the fire reports re WTC 7 by NYFD or are you another person calling them liars, the pictures of damage to WTC 7 , have a real close look at the WTC 7 video explain how the debris of the elevation on the collapse video ends up on top of the rubble if it fell straight down.

When do you time the WTC 7 collapse as starting

For hgfbob

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...