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

a reply to: SubTruth

People can question it.

Those people don't need their own soapbox at the site itself.

a reply to: RocksFromSpace

Not trying to quibble here, but weren't there other buildings in the "zone" destroyed as well? it's been a while since I read the details. If no one was in a building that was damaged and destroyed, do we need to list all of those? I could see some mention, of course, of the extent of the damage, and that would include bldg. 7. It does seem odd that it wouldn't be mentioned at all.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

None of the other damaged buildings were listed either.

The memorial is for the 2 towers only and includes the 1st wtc attack in the 90's.

Hence the reason for my argument about not including bldg. 7.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The other buildings were dealt FAR mightier blows, had far worse raging fires, and almost all of them were closer to the towers nuclear like implosions, and yet there they were, a year later still being taken down, WITH EXPLOSIVES, cause they just would not fall.

Buildings five and six look like they were hit with 500 ton blocks of concrete right through the center and STILL they would not go down, fires raged in them for a WEEK, but of course you rather believe in fairy tale world and the destruction of a building designed to withstand a nuclear attack, that took no direct hit like ALL the other buildings.

Nah, nothing to see hear, just the total annihilation of the most important record keeping center in the entire WORLD, (Public that is).

Oh and of course calling it GROUND ZERO, a reference the U.S. military has used ONLY in referencing the center of a NUCLEAR BLAST, that is just a good ol fashioned joke.

Well, I call it the REVELATION, those who see it, and those who do not or WILL NOT.

a reply to: ParasuvO

The purpose of the memorial is not to debate conspiracies.

As for ground zero if you did some more research you will find that term is used in a lot of areas. The café at the Pentagon used to be called the ground zero café - why?

its targeted by the Soviets / Russians.

An atheist walking into a church on Sunday in the middle of services in order to protest / challenge the mindset is not going to achieve his goals. The action itself, interrupting a prayer service, will drowned out the protest of no God.

You want to include a section about the conspiracy at the site that's fine. The intent of that section is going to be drowned out by the debate on its appropriateness, the additional psychological impact placed onto some of the family members who must now relive the same argument 13 years later, etc.

Sometimes demanding something you think is significant to be included in something does not always have the effect people are hoping for. Any person on the edge of that argument may very well choose the opposite side of the argument simply because they are tired of hearing about it.

just food for thought.

originally posted by: Biigs
a building across a street bursts into flames and crumbles..... yeah ok, all the other ones were fine.

No they were not, what about:

5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse

a reply to: RocksFromSpace


"building 7, what about building 7.....doesn't building 7 prove, didn't he say Pull it, blah blah blah blah!"

such a load of BS.....SHOOSH, no one cares anymore and no one listens to the rambling of those Loose Change losers!! Oh except the people who are blinded by false science!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan
The JFK museum in Dallas Texas and the fact the conspiracy around it is still being investigated. I don't see people throwing fits because circumstantial evidence is not included at the museum site itself.

If you're referring to THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM many people who don't believe the official do complain about it. They call it THE SIXTH FLOOR AD NAUSEAM. One of the big complaints is the books offered in the gift shop, none suggesting a conspiracy are available, but almost all of the ones backing the official story are.

a reply to: projectbane

Oh except the people who are blinded by false science!!

oh yes....."false science".....now, where have I seen that before???????

oh yea, EVERYTHING related to the Gov. version of 9-11...

what do you call 'science', when it does not agree with the pushed agenda???
what do you call 'science' that is tailored to the pushed agenda??

they both have the same name.....

you wanna discuss the "false science" that YOU believe in, lets move to another thread that discusses it so's not to derail this topic.....and prepare to eat crow.

WTC7 did NOT collapse from fire...that has already been proven by the initial 2005 NIST.
The initial 2005 NIST found falling tower debris did NOT cause structural damage to collapse WTC7.

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: RocksFromSpace


"building 7, what about building 7.....doesn't building 7 prove, didn't he say Pull it, blah blah blah blah!"

such a load of BS.....SHOOSH, no one cares anymore and no one listens to the rambling of those Loose Change losers!! Oh except the people who are blinded by false science!!

Wondering if you are a believer in any conspiracy, and if not, how you ended up at ATS

a reply to: hellobruce

No they were not, what about:

and not one of them globally collapse in ONE complete collapse wave as the other three.......DESPITE being in the direct path of tons of free falling structural debris.

hence the term.."global"

should be a law against trolling the 9-11 forum, throwing in your 1/2 cent worth of misinformation.

yet WTC7,NOT hit by a plane OR falling tower debris, and with little visible fire, globally collapses in a unified descent, with 105 vertical feet accelerating equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

which was covered in a large black "shroud"

as ALL the surrounding building were done like that....do YOU know why?????

the SAFETY of the people working below.....that is it.

can't have broken glass falling all over the area...can we.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Your post demonstrates the problem of trying to have a discussion about this topic with individuals like yourself. You assume that if a person does not buy into a theory they are somehow part of the coverup.

If you took the time to read the posts I stated the investigations should continue but should NOT be a part of the memorial.

If you guys spent more time researching and less time bitching at people who you feel don't hold your view you might actually get somewhere.

Trying to force your conspiracy down someone else throat with he evidence at hand does not help your position. Treating people like you do also does not help your position.

a reply to: Moresby

Which goes back to my earlier comment about letting the families of the victims decide what should be included and what should not be included.

When you say people did want it forces me to ask the question -

What people?
Families of victims?
Conspiracy theorists?
Structural Engineers?
Federal Government?
Law Enforcement?

a reply to: hgfbob

Really?
It was in fact hit by falling debris from WTC1.
It was structurally compromised by that falling debris.
It was further structurally compromised by uncontrolled fires and the loss of key support columns.

Since the report you referenced does not support your version of history or the collapse, are you still going to use it and believe the final information from it or will you now dismiss it because it supports the very scenario you claim it does not?

NIST REport - Final Bldg. 7

Contact: Michael E. Newman
301-975-3025

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) last week released its final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. The final report is strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide in response to the draft WTC 7 report, released for public comment on Aug. 21, but the revisions did not alter the investigation team’s major findings and recommendations, which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building’s failure.

graphic showing the buckling of WTC 7 Column 79


Graphic showing the buckling of WTC 7 Column 79 (circled area), the local failure identified as the initiating event in the building's progressive collapse.

Credit: NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory
View hi-resolution image


The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

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.

It seems the NIST report on bldg. 7 does not agree with your conclusions.

Falling debris from WTC1 impacting WTC7 did in fact play a huge part in the collapse of WT7.


Now let me ask - If you guys want the info on building 7 to be included would you allow the final NIST report on the causes and collapse of bldg. 7? Or would you want the collapse included but have the information about the collapse ambiguous as to support another theory that only a few subscribe to?


People need to understand that when buildings are constructed, they are done so in manner that will equalize / distribute the weight of the building evenly. All it takes is the failure of one support column to cause a shift in weight balance. That will overburden other support columns, eventually leading to a failure.

Damage / Fire / uncontrolled fires etc all will effect it as well, by continuing to reduce structural support.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Moresby

Which goes back to my earlier comment about letting the families of the victims decide what should be included and what should not be included.

No you said people aren't bitching about the JFK museum and they are.

Anyway, you still seem to be missing the key point.

Imagine a Pearl Harbor Museum that completely excluded information on one of the ships that sank. Wouldn't you find that odd?

Excluding info on WTC7, even just to parrot the official story, seems equally odd. Especially given the fact the official story is incomplete and bizarre. And the fact that just listening to this story about WTC7 is what has brought many to question the events of the entire day.

a reply to: hgfbob

WTC7 did NOT collapse from fire...that has already been proven by the initial 2005 NIST.
The initial 2005 NIST found falling tower debris did NOT cause structural damage to collapse WTC7.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

DEBUNKING 9/11




Building 7 has been debunked so many times it's almost embarrassing to see conspiracist still using it as a "smoking gun".

There is no "smoking gun" in any of the buildings collapsing.

Official Explanation-

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[7] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments.[8] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[51] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[7]

source

Go to page 1 and look at stirling's avatar. Do you see a progressing collapse from east to west, or any sequence of events at all?

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: hgfbob

WTC7 did NOT collapse from fire...that has already been proven by the initial 2005 NIST.
The initial 2005 NIST found falling tower debris did NOT cause structural damage to collapse WTC7.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

DEBUNKING 9/11

The paragraphs that site devotes to debunking the word "it" clearly indicates they still find WTC7 damaging to their position. They also have to fill the text with childish taunting. Another indication of a weak argument.

Clearly this statement isn't true:

Building 7 has been debunked so many times it's almost embarrassing to see conspiracist still using it as a "smoking gun".

It's just more hyperbole from someone who is uncomfortable with some uncomfortable information.

a reply to: Xcathdra

People need to understand that when buildings are constructed, they are done so in manner that will equalize / distribute the weight of the building evenly. All it takes is the failure of one support column to cause a shift in weight balance. That will overburden other support columns, eventually leading to a failure.

Right..because it's happened so many times before..ever heard of redundancy? "OSers" are always asking "truthers" for proof, so show me proof of this alleged girder walkoff at column 79. And I don't mean some crappy, totally unrealistic computer sim.

a reply to: Moresby

Clearly this statement isn't true:

Then prove to me it isn't true, i just provided my proof, i would like you to show me those debunkings are false.

It's just more hyperbole from someone who is uncomfortable with some uncomfortable information.

lol In reality i couldn't care less about 9/11... Im over it, so that statement isn't true
Btw, it seems to go both ways...doesn't it

I'm just saying, cause i have to when reading false saying.