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

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

yea...the 2005 NIST seen ALL those videos plus 150 hours of more video along with 50,000+ pics and they STILL state as a SCIENTIFIC FACT....

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

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

you point to shots of CLOSE-UPS of fire that other later video shows went out.

how bout that shot of the two rows of PERFECTLY blown out glass on the 6th and 7th floors....how does a falling tower only SELECTIVELY destroy windows on a single floor and NONE above or below??????

right where Jennings and Hess claim BOMBS blew up.

tell me how fire we can't really see completely removed the structural resistance before 1.74 seconds to allow the unified global acceleration equal to g. @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

a reply to: soundstyle

hgfbob, you get confused easily do you not? Saying that "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows" is not a "SCIENTIFIC FACT" it is an opinion.

Very few photographers were allowed to get close to WTC 7, and basically NONE after the FDNY created the collapse zone. In other words, there is NO close up video footage of WTC 7 in the afternoon. Instead, we have to rely on the words of the men and women who were close to the building, the members of the FDNY. They state that the building had raging fires on almost 20 stories by late afternoon.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Saying that "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows" is not a "SCIENTIFIC FACT" it is an opinion.

I said scientific finding through investigation by the ones scientifically charged by an act of Congress to investigation how and why three buildings fell on 9-11

.......the taught science is agreed fact.

you seem to be the one confused.

members of the FDNY. They state that the building had raging fires on almost 20 stories by late afternoon.

something that 50,000+ pics and 150 hours of video does NOT show, so prove it!

you can't even post anything from the official report that shows a 20 story inferno.....


so, what about those two rows of windows on the 6th and 7th floor destroyed from the inside out.......falling tower debris didn't selectively do that ....

"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

care to tell me how low temp thermal expansion removed 105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
Interior partitions...
office contents...
utilities....

all must disappear before the interval of global unified acceleration equal to g.

..unless there is a 'clear path' in which to accelerate, NO acceleration equal to g.

a reply to: soundstyle

You keep throwing that word around.

"I said scientific finding through investigation by the ones scientifically charged by an act of Congress to investigation how and why three buildings fell on 9-11

.......the taught science is agreed fact. "

Scientifically charged by an act of Congress........ An act of Congress....does not scientifically charge anything Bob.


Oh yes, the windows on the six and seventh floors again....where video and FDNY reported heavy fire..... warping of the steel framing of the windows....what do you think that will do to the windows?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

where video and FDNY reported heavy fire.

that a whole lot of later video shows went out.

and you keep saying that.....yet unable to PROVE IT!.....why is that?...I don't claims inferno, YOU DO, so throwing around the FDNY nomenclature does, what, for ya?

the taught science is agreed fact.

and that taught science states that mass accelerating equal to g. can DO NOT WORK below itself assisting in making the path it falls into!!!


so tell me how the NEW physics phenomenon did BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow the global unified accelerate we all see EQUAL to g. @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

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

Scientifically charged by an act of Congress........ An act of Congress....does not scientifically charge anything Bob.

NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)

the 2008 NIST claims...."low temp thermal expansion"...

prove it through science!

a reply to: soundstyle

Did Yoda teach you English?

Anyway, Bob, I think this is going to be my last post to you on this thread. You seem to be so stuck in conspiracy world that you are unable to accept reality. So, one last resource for you to not look at.

www.debunking911.com...

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: soundstyle

hgfbob, you get confused easily do you not? Saying that "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows" is not a "SCIENTIFIC FACT" it is an opinion.

Very few photographers were allowed to get close to WTC 7, and basically NONE after the FDNY created the collapse zone. In other words, there is NO close up video footage of WTC 7 in the afternoon. Instead, we have to rely on the words of the men and women who were close to the building, the members of the FDNY. They state that the building had raging fires on almost 20 stories by late afternoon.

I'm not trying to be smart, but I'm certain you understand what a telephoto lens is on a camera?

originally posted by: samkent
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.

Are you suggesting that the damage sustained and observed at WTC was caused by burning office furniture as NIST claims?

originally posted by: soundstyle

you point to shots of CLOSE-UPS of fire that other later video shows went out.

Want to link to the videos you are talking about I mean you gave the same excuse when you logged on as bob!

a reply to: Salander

And considering the side of WTC 7 that had the worst damage, was facing what was now the debris pile of WTC 1 and 2, and that NYPD had set up a perimeter several blocks away...a telephoto lens STILL will not help. Between the buildings in front of you and the smoke pouring from WTC 7, you are not going to get a good view of anything.

a reply to: Salander

Well, the damage had a LITTLE to do with it. However, it has been shown on numerous occasions that office fires can burn hot enough to cause steel to fail in other building fires...so, to answer your question, Yep.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

what do you think that will do to the windows?

who cares......the windows hold NO LOAD bearing from the building......that is the continuous vertical support.

and besides, the 2005 NIST sees little fire to FAIL them globally and unified.

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

so YOU need to post more than a 10 SECOND shot from DIFFERENT angles of the SAME fire.

and instead of pointing to duhbunking 911, how about quoting the 10,000+ page NIST report of the ACTUAL scientific investigation......you know, the actual scientific findings of the 2005 NIST scientific investigation....

why do ya need duhbunker sites to TELL what the report REALLY means....lmao!

And considering the side of WTC 7 that had the worst damage,

damage NOT caused by falling tower debris......maybe the BOMBS Jennings and Hess reported huh!

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

smoke pouring from WTC 7,

no, since the direction of the wind is going DIRECTLY into WTC7, ALL that is from the debris field directly in front of WTC7 creating a 'chimney' effect.....I have seen that same effect many time at dusty job sites...till the water trucks come out.

However, it has been shown on numerous occasions that office fires can burn hot enough to cause steel to fail in other building fires...so, to answer your question, Yep.

we are not talking about WEAKENING the steel to allow the weight to collapse structural members below....

we are talking about structural mass REMOVED to allow a specific rate of acceleration to occur......and ALL agreed upon science states mass can only CONTINUALLY accelerate EQUAL to g. with a CLEAR PATH BELOW!

a reply to: soundstyle

I know I am going to regret responding again........but, at least all the "scientifically" crap disappeared from his post....

Psst.....if the steel window frames are heating up enough to warp and shatter the windows....then the heat inside the building is going to be at temperatures that will cause structural steel to soften. But, again, I am sure you will not understand.

a reply to: Salander

Are you suggesting that the damage sustained and observed at WTC was caused by burning office furniture as NIST claims?

2005 NIST scientific investigation found no scientific reason for collapse x3.

the 200 volunteers leave and a few select are left

Three years later the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims new physics phenomenon occurred in both the towers and WTC7...to which they refuse to peer review either.

their own words from their own tech briefing...

"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

there is a PDF transcript of this briefing below the video, that quote is on page 34.

this briefing is from in between the rough draft of 7, where there is NO mention of the FFA occurring, and the final report where they put it back in.

the high school physics teacher calls in about page 16, asking why no mention of the easily measurable FFA that occurred in 7 where Shyam responds with, [as a matter-of-factly]....."free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"....quoting agreed upon science.


they refuse peer review of both collapse models, the 47 story WTC7 model and the 16 story tower model....their only supporting evidence of the claims they push as truth.....no physics evidence supports their claims.

Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

.if the steel window frames are heating up enough to warp and shatter the windows.

who says they heated up....YOU did.

Mr. Jennings and Hess said bombs blew them out....and in some videos, WE SEE the perfectly broken two rows exactly where he states it occurred, with NO broken windows above or below those floors.....now HOW does 220 stories of vertical free falling tower debris MISS all those other windows to ONLY break two horizontal rows?????...Hmmm

heat inside the building is going to be at temperatures that will cause structural steel to soften.

there is no structural steel used as window frames...and there is NO global fire seen which is needed to do that to the perimeter vertical support inside the walls supporting the facade.

you have NO supporting evidence that load bearing support failed from THESE fires present....the reason we are all here.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

The damage had little to do with it?

If that were true, then why do accepted forensic and investigatory procedures require that the crime scene be maintained? Why do they put tape around crime scenes to preserve the evidence so that the damage created by the crime can be examined?

Sherlock Holmes would disapprove of your analytical procedures.

originally posted by: soundstyle
WTC7 creating a 'chimney' effect.....I have seen that same effect many time at dusty job sites..

WOW exactly the same quote as hgfbob gave to me a few weeks back mmmmm

a reply to: wmd_2008

WOW exactly the same quote as hgfbob gave to me a few weeks back mmmmm

uhm.....facts and science DO NOT CHANGE from post to post!

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's a ridiculous argument. Trying to compare valid questions concerning WTC7 and the homophobic ramblings of Westboro just defies logic.

No lives were lost in building 7 because it was empty because it was being imploded. Yet the owner takes out an insurance policy covering terrorist attacks just months before, then receives a billion dollar insurance payout after being on TV saying he made the call to "Pull it" .

These things raise legitimate questions which remain unanswered. Having suspicions of nefarious goings on and insider knowledge is not unreasonable under the circumstances.

It doesn't necessitate Govt. collusion, but it casts lots of doubts on the official story and who knew what and when.

In the exclusive interviews with Bush and Cheney, they both (separately) told the camera that they knew there would be an attack using planes, but couldn't do anything to intervene because they didn't know the exact date and time it would occur. I still can't believe that Americans bought that. There's just no way to have a democracy when the people are so ignorant and passive.

originally posted by: soundstyle
a reply to: wmd_2008

WOW exactly the same quote as hgfbob gave to me a few weeks back mmmmm

uhm.....facts and science DO NOT CHANGE from post to post!

Wording order etc eh BOB!!!!