It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob



2005 NIST found NO failed steel from THESE fires...YOU claim there is yet fail to provide.

And yet in the same year Underwriters Lab did tests of fire damage to WTC truss assemblies.
With pictures for those who have internet degrees in engineering.

Here

There is a much more comprehensive report on another site but I can't find it right now.
But this one has pretty pictures of the aftermath!




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent




And yet in the same year Underwriters Lab did tests of fire damage to WTC truss assemblies.



building two pair of truss assemblies........2@ 17' and 2 @ 35' one set with a half inch of fireproofing and the other with 3/4 of an inch applied.

they were put them in a ENCLOSED OVEN with a temp 450 degrees hotter than was found within the actual WTC steel, loaded them with twice the weight known to be on the floors, for a longer duration than the towers stood for.....NO floor collapse of the truss assemblies.

not really a 'true-life' situation though huh...there was NO enclosed oven on 9-11, there was not any fire that stayed in one spot more than 20 minutes let alone 2 WHOLE hours to affect a single piece of steel......so, what is your point?

..and how bout discussing it on another WTC7 thread.....



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

I was responding to your post. I just get a bit tired of this lazy thinking - exemplified by Gage etc - that says "the collapses looked like perfect demos so were demos, but look at all the debris being chucked everywhere, which means explosives!"



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Let me guess, you don't have to provide any evidence for any of that because you're "just asking questions"?

How can you think this will get you anywhere?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob



loaded them with twice the weight known to be on the floors,

Place a 767 on the floor and tell me what the load factor is.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




Place a 767 on the floor and tell me what the load factor is.


show me where within the 2005, 10,000+page NIST report is states that is a relevant factor in the collapse...

how much of the 767 is in the building..lol...the ENTIRE plane?......as the ENTIRE plane that went into the 16 foot diameter hole in the Pentagon leaving that intact window 3 feet above the hole.....the ENTIRE plane that got mysteriously swallowed by loose earth in Shanksville, the official explanation as to why there are NO pics of debris minutes after impact.....give me a %&#*en break.

why are we discussing this here boys???....there are threads discussing just this which I with participated on, but you choose an off topic thread to get into it with me......why, so this will get deleted?????

oh and BTW...NO plane or falling tower debris hit 7 to cause global unified collapse...that was also found by the 2005 NIST. and ignored.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




Let me guess, you don't have to provide any evidence for any of that because you're "just asking questions"?

How can you think this will get you anywhere?



what "evidence" do I need?

I like thousands of other waited patiently till the stalling was done, then in 2008 when NIST finally disclosed their claims, people started writing NIST asking for clarification and more supporting evidence to support this new phenomenon....they refuse...

I have no claims to support.....how bout you?

I quote the 2005 NIST science.

I quote taught known science.

I quote the brand new never before seen physics phenomenon occurring only on 9-11 by the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew ignoring their own earlier 2005 scientific investigation to claim new science they refuse to prove through science.

it's all right there, [maybe not here but on another thread], with direct links to the SOURCE.....not duhbunker sites telling what the 'science' really means, as some can only point to.

but hey, you too seem to wanna drag to off topic too, so how bout we continue on the 'peer review' thread ok!!!!!!!!

since that is where this is going.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

So the plane just vanished? Its mass evaporated?? Really? I'm sure some physicists would like to have a word with you on that.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




So the plane just vanished? Its mass evaporated?? Really? I'm sure some physicists would like to have a word with you on that.


well then, get them on here with SUPPORTING EVIDENCE...or at the VERY LEAST, YOU provide what they say.......

...yet all we hear in that department are 'crickets' in the warm summer night.....

pathetic hit-and-run tactics don't work for duhbunkers...never have, never will.

specially when we see NO debris from a crash in Shanksville from pics taken MINUTES after the so-called crash....WE SEE a 16 foot diameter hole into the second floor slab of the Pentagon with an intact window three feet ABOVE the hole where the rudder/elevator MUST hit within the 35 minutes BEFORE the Pentagon facade fell, and a 2005 NIST scientific investigation that found initial structural damage to both towers was MINIMAL....14.5% localized asymmetrical damage.


and then we have the topic of discussion, WTC7, NOT hit by falling tower debris or a plane.....just a regular office fire that is scientifically found by the 2005 NIST, to accelerate into itself GLOBALLY and UNIFIED for 105 vertical feet EQUAL to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse because of NEW physics phenomenon...

even though they can NOT see the fires that must be there to do the work...


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

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



..guess that is where the "LOW TEMP" part of the NEW PHYSICS claim comes into play, they refuse to prove through science.



"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 NIST technical briefing



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek

Its mass was applied to the structure horizontally, not vertically, at about 350knots. Several pieces of the landing gear and engines continued horizontally and came down on the street. LG and engines are a significant part of the mass of the aircraft.

The fuselage was shredded by the building.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: GenRadek

Its mass was applied to the structure horizontally, not vertically, at about 350knots. Several pieces of the landing gear and engines continued horizontally and came down on the street. LG and engines are a significant part of the mass of the aircraft.

The fuselage was shredded by the building.



And which direction was the mass applied 5 seconds after the impact?
Just a guess on my part but maybe on the floors? hmmmm?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent




And which direction was the mass applied 5 seconds after the impact?
Just a guess on my part but maybe on the floors? hmmmm?



floors that hold no load bearing from the building....

and ya really shouldn't apply words you don't know the meaning of.


hey, tell me, do you think the debris skidded all the way to the other side and came to rest there????

if that is the case, then there is a HUGE asymmetric discrepancy in weight distribution when collapse occurred....don't need a PHD to know there would be MORE weight favoring one side over the other.......and yet for SOME reason, NEITHER collapse reacts to that fact.....do they......a 'perfectly-balanced-top-block', [lol], crushing all in it's path below it.

besides....NO PLANE or falling tower debris came to rest on WTC7 to cause the collapse we all see.


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



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

You're trying to drag it in that direction, sure. But that's not where it's going.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




You're trying to drag it in that direction



...by stating reasons why WTC7 is not mentioned?

and all the collapses we saw on 9-11, are unique to ONLY 9-11, not because of the 3000 they killed.....but because of the way they did it....

never before seen actions of a steel framed building....there has never been a total global collapse of an entire building for any reason, let alone fire....any building throughout history. Neither Tower shows any of the expected actions of a collapse, and ALL of the actions of vast energy being expended to dismember ahead of the collapse wave. WTC7 globally accelerated in a unified descent for 105 vertical feet equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

...and no mention of these first time ever seen events in the history of building.

the Holocaust Museum shows the murdered victims and the way they were killed.....

why ya so afraid of telling the victims of 9-11 were killed in a never before seen, physically impossible event, yet unexplained to this day?


...opps....I see.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

I can see three flat-out factual errors in your post and several more of inference. Even if you weren't intellectually dishonest I doubt I'd bother discussing this with you. But since you clearly are I'll definitely leave it.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




I can see three flat-out factual errors in your post


...and the ONE thing you can NOT do, is show that to be true....only tell of it....[I say this all too often], par for the course of a '
'bunker '
'bunking.

why not point stuff out in HUGE, BOLD letters, don't cha think it would do MORE damage to my credibility???....actually showing instead of always telling of it???


I look for every chance to make '
'bunkers look as foolish as possible...why not return the favor?


Even if you weren't intellectually dishonest I doubt I'd bother discussing this with you. But since you clearly are I'll definitely leave it.



???????????????????????????????



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

You don't have any credibility. Why would I bother wasting time trying to damage something that doesn't exist?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco





You don't have any credibility.


cred·i·bil·i·ty ...the quality of being believed or accepted as true, real, or honest.

where have you shown to the contrary?.....by contradicting???...being obstinate???.....

and what I don't have is patience, so tell me....why don't they want the world to know the cause of the 3000 deaths in an instant on 9-11?
...what?...you say they do?...

....oh...the 'OFFICIAL STORY' since day one huh....planes......fire...collapse

2005 NIST shows the impact damage didn't do it....they also found NO scientific reason for collapse from fire as I posted in the other threads...that is till the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew comes up with new physics that only occurred on that day....

why do you think they don't mention this never before seen phenomenon that killed 3000 in an instant at the memorial??????

and yes, it is both the tower and WTC7 collapse models the 2008 NIST hypothesis 'official story' crew refuses to release.

2005 NIST scientifically found planes and fire did not do what we all saw on 9-11...yet 3000 lost their lives in an instant by collapses unseen in human history before or after 9-11

.....and there is NO &*^
%$*% mention of it.

edit on 30-6-2014 by hgfbob because: I typo



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob




.....and there is NO &*^
%$*% mention of it.


Because as a viewpoint it has hardly any credibility. By your own definition.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




Because as a viewpoint it has hardly any credibility. By your own definition.


seems yer resolved to being obstinate.

these 3 collapses that occur on 9-11, are unique to ONLY 9-11, just as the 3000 dead in an instant are.


why do they refuse to tell the world that "never before seen new physics phenomenon" is to blame for the 3000 deaths?

or is that memorial USED as a catalyst to anger the masses......to further the agenda....




top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join