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

a reply to: hgfbob

I'm not being obstinate. If anything you are.

By your own definition your viewpoint does not enjoy wide credibility. You and I can have an argument about a load of details you insist are important and at the end you'll still think you're right and I'll think I'm right. Nothing will have changed, and your view will still not enjoy any widespread support. So why should we bother?

a reply to: JuniorDisco

I'm not being obstinate. If anything you are.

playground translation = "I know you are but what am I".....

why is it not ONE post from you refers to the topic of discussion....seems you are bending over quite far NOT to discuss the topic....but rather the attempt to attack my person.

the three collapses are unique, ONLY to 9-11 just as the three thousand dead are...

the AGENDAS official story is, jets and fire caused by terrorists fell three buildings on 9-11.....to which the 2005 NIST found did NOT occur...

the scientific 2008 NIST OFFICIAL STORY pushed by the Gov. hypothesis crew is brand new never before seen physics allowed these collapse to proceed......

why do they NOT want the world to know this FACT???
probably cause they can't support it huh.

like you here......

a reply to: hgfbob

It's you who is attempting to move the discussion from the subject - quite demonstrably, since you keep requesting people to contribute to other threads. You're just frustrated that I won't join you, despite me providing an explanation.

You're incorrect - yet again - about me not having addressed the topic. And your obstinacy is obvious - even though you can't change anything by discussing it ith me, and even though I refuse to do so, you keep stamping your foot and demanding things go your way.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

It's you who is attempting to move the discussion from the subject

by discussing reason WHY the causes for the 3000 instant deaths are NOT mentioned....isn't that the topic?

since you keep requesting people to contribute to other threads.

no, YOU!.....since you are showing the ignorance of being science-deficient....just trying to help ya not look so foolish.


.....why won't they show the true cause of the 3000 deaths in an instant????

not from planes.....2005 NIST already shown that did not occur....and neither from the FIRES PRESENT....

3000 dead from NEW physics.....gee....If I was still building, I would want to know if one of my buildings was capable of globally accelerating through itself @ g. from fire at ONE end of the building.......wouldn't you?

originally posted by: samkent

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?

Probably so, what little of the mass remained at that point. Engines and landing gear on the street, fuselage shredded, it cannot be calculated what the mass was at that point.

originally posted by: samkent
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!

Busy day yesterday had a look via mobile same today but will post later when I return from work.

This is an interesting slide for some on here to digest.



The trusses were tested WITH fireproofing!!! now we already know and have seen images of the POOR standard this was applied with to the tower trusses. We also know that impact by the aircraft would have removed some of the fire protection. Look at the MAX temp reached LOOK at the Notes!!!!

As for CLAIMS by some on here re fire temperatures, office fires can reach 1000 C not F and I have posted data before from fire tests that show that.

Now with regards to above test NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND COMPLETE FIRE PROTECTION yet look at NOTE 1 & 2

Now imagine a damaged structure & incomplete fire protection!!!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Happy Independence Day!!!!!!!!!

As for CLAIMS by some on here re fire temperatures, office fires can reach 1000 C not F and I have posted data before from fire tests that show that.

yes they can...and they can also survive without collapse.....and do.

The Broadgate phase8, 23rd June 1990 fire an unfinished fourteen story building. The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000C. fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational nor ANY fireproofing on the steel. Despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors

The February 1975 World Trade Center North Tower Fire.

This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 23, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2,000,000. The building is one of a pair of towers, 412 m in height. The fire started at approximately 11:45 P.M. in a furnished office on the 11th floor and spread through the corridors toward the main open office area. A porter saw flames under the door and sounded the alarm. It was later that the smoke detector in the air-conditioning plenum on the 11th floor was activated. The delay was probably because the air-conditioning system was turned off at night. The building engineers placed the ventilation system in the purge mode, to blow fresh air into the core area and to draw air from all the offices on the 11th floor so as to prevent further smoke spread. The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.

The WTC North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the steel members needed to be replaced.

So, here is a very serious fire (which spread over eleven floors) in World Trade Center North Tower. The very same building that "collapsed" on 9/11. Although the 1975 fire lasted about 4 hours, it caused no serious structural damage. However, according to the government/media fairy tale on 9/11, the 2001 fire, which lasted only 56 minutes, caused not only serious structural damage, but caused the entire building to collapse.

There should be a law against telling such fairy tales as these government/media fables.

Anyway, in both of the above mentioned pre-9/11 fires, the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the buildings for many, many years after the fires were put out.

So did truss failure cause the "collapses" of the World Trade Center buildings? Of course not.

trusses hold NO LOAD bearing from the building, it is the continuous vertical support that MUST fail, not the attached trusses.....WHO CARES if a few individual web trusses fail completely, they will NOT collapse the building...the others they are attached to will hold them there.....AAH' the wonders of redundancy!!!!!!...gotta love it!

and I noticed you did NOT put in the testing parameters of the truss assemblies you mention.....how they loaded the testing floors with twice the weight known to be on the floors.....for a longer duration than the towers stood for, [2 hours], at a temp 450F higher than was recorded in the steel and placed in a CONTAINED OVEN with a consistent unwavering heat source......and NONE of the testing floors collapsed during the testing.....so stopping the testing and then writing .."imminent collapse"....does nothing for ya...maybe in 6 more hours huh!

where is the enclosed environment in the towers to mimic the testing???????
where is the 2 hour fire raging in ONE spot???

and as far as digesting the entree you provided....I'm still hungry.

YOU provide information the 2005 NIST already considers IRRELEVANT with the visuals we all see......they found NO scientific reason for collapse..x3. [as posted on another thread, why not discuss it there?]....you think that info you provided is the Holy Grail.....then post where within the 10,000+ page NIST report they consider this also.


I did.....

NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"

fireproofing only compromised on the structural member involved with impact damage...the 14.5%.


ENTER the 2008 NIST whom IGNORE their own earlier science to create NEW science they refuse to prove through science.


why does the memorial NOT want the world to know the reason for 3000 dead in an instant is the first time event of, 'low temp thermal expansion' ?

lol......and BTW.....providing truss testing for the towers does WHAT for the FACTS concerning WTC7???

why not tell the WORLD the three collapses are ONLY unique to 9-11 just as the 3000 dead in an instant are ?

originally posted by: hgfbob


by discussing reason WHY the causes for the 3000 instant deaths are NOT mentioned....isn't that the topic?

No. Check the title at the top of the page.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

3 collapses we see occur on 9-11 are unique only to 9-11, just as the three thousand dead in an instant are.

who says no dead by WTC7????.....the ones whom refuse to prove their official claims that "NEW physics took place to do what we all see????......lol....wicked credible source there huh!

Barry Jennings reported 'stepping over bodies' before exiting WTC7 with the FDNY...

why is it you are resolved to posting one-liners?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RocksFromSpace

I don't think anyone died in the collapse of bldg 7.

Secondly its a memorial for the people who lost their lives and not a platform to argue a conspiracy theory (I mean time and place for everything).

Trying to make that argument at the memorial site is no better than the Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals.

a reply to: hgfbob


I posted a one-line reply because your assertion is that easy to disprove. This is not a thread about "reason WHY the causes for the 3000 instant deaths are NOT mentioned" [sic]. You can see that by simply scrolling to the top of the page.

There is literally no credible evidence for anyone dying at 7. Barry Jennings' remark was even withdrawn by him. And literally everybody else involved, even almost all truthers, acknowledge that there was a complete evacuation and collapse zone set up before the building fell.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

There is literally no credible evidence for anyone dying at 7.

says the ones whom PUSH the claim of never before seen physics they refuse to prove through physics.

there was a complete evacuation and collapse zone set up before the building fell.

...why???

there was very little fire and falling tower debris DID NOT assist in it's collapse....

WTC 3,4,5 and 6 suffered MUCH more structural damage than WTC7....no one cordoned off them.....
WTC5 burnt for two days after NO COLLAPSE.......yet for SOME reason, they make sure no one is inside the BLAST ZONE around WTC7 late afternoon huh......

a reply to: hgfbob

They evacuated because the fire department commanders thought it would fall down. They were right.

It's "the ones who" by the way. Not "whom". And I'm not "pushing" anything. You are claiming people died at WTC 7 but that's not supported by any evidence apart from the statement of a man who later admitted he was wrong.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

They evacuated because the fire department commanders thought it would fall down. They were right.

from what. NOT falling tower debris...NOT fire.......

a museum is about information......not agenda.

a reply to: hgfbob

Their testimonies are widely available. Search for what Chiefs Hayden and Nigro said at the time.

This is the point at which they become part of your conspiracy. They have to be because of course no one thought the building could fall, because it was impossible. And yet they did. So they must be conspirators.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Their testimonies are widely available.

yes, they are......

LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide.

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down

gee.....ever sit in the 'cheap' seats at a ball game.....ya SEE the batter HIT the ball and 2 seconds later ya HEAR IT.....


do ya think that same science is available on 9-11....or did that change also..

they are told the noise they hear was just the sound of a building collapse, yet that does NOT occur till AFTER the look up to SEE it START....

so how do they HEAR the collapse almost 3 seconds BEFORE they look up to SEE IT??????

another physics phenomenon huh!!!!!!

where sound travels FASTER than light ONLY on 9-11......

then ya have the Angel Rivera Transcript being in WTC3 BEFORE any tower fell claiming bombs blowing up the building......posted on the other thread you REFUSE to touch....


lol..so tell me all about these NEW science phenomenons that take place ONLY on 9-11......never seen before or since....

a reply to: hgfbob

Why are you changing the subject?

I'm genuinely trying to help you here. Perhaps you're right that a vast murder has been perpetrated by unseen forces and you and the other keyboard physicists and amateur sleuths have uncovered it. But if you're right why are you behaving like a child on the internet instead of putting together a serious strategy to bring this to a wider public? Why are you haranguing me, engaging in subject changes, lies, and misquotes,instead of doing your best to get this out there?

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Why are you changing the subject?

.....museums are temples of information........place's of enlightenment......

you gonna tell me the Holocaust museum has NO info on HOW the deaths occurred????

why are the building collapses which are ALSO singular to 9-11, NOT mentioned??????

no other buildings in HISTORY of mankind fell as these did......from any point in time, any building for any reason...

a reply to: hgfbob

I don't know if you're genuinely unable to follow the line of this debate, or if you're just a troll. But I meant why are you changing the subject regarding the Fire Chiefs and the predicted collapse. You asked me a question, which I answered.You then responded with a swift change of subject.

I'm not joking about this - I'm genuinely asking: do you ever think your viewpoint will gain any sort of currency if this is how you behave?

a reply to: JuniorDisco

But I meant why are you changing the subject regarding the Fire Chiefs and the predicted collapse.

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


seems you're engaging in trollish behavior....

I'm genuinely asking: do you ever think your viewpoint will gain any sort of currency if this is how you behave?

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