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: 18
47
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
the 9/11 'OS' vs 'truther' debate still rages i see.

as intended, i suspect.

9/11 was a perfectly executed attack.

no way of proving or disproving any of it (dependent on
which 'camp' you follow). an endless circular discussion, with
endless opposing 'experts' 'disproving' each other.
literally zero hope of any universally accepted concensus.

whichever group pulled it off was exquisitely informed
and exceptionally aware of the role of media
in the aftermath of a disaster. and control of it.

a fully modern, media-savvy professional action.

choose your 'experts'




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Blah blah blah blaaaah blaaaah. Again. You ignored everything I posted. So in all honesty, you are nothing more than trolling now. OtherSideoftheCoin has hit the nail on the head. You are not interested in the truth. You think you are the smartest one here with this "low temp thermal expansion" (what ever the hell that means) nonsense, and demand scientific evidence to refute you. I have posted engineering papers that answer all your questions. You ignore them.

Do you know what the FAQ from NIST is based from? THE ACTUAL REPORT!
Do you really think that what the FAQ says is completely different from the report? Cause if so, then..........
I dont even think you are capable of rational debate or thought here. The FAQ puts the report into easy to understand parts. Do you really think the report will say something different? You dont even know what a summary is then. The FAQ is a summary of the main points taken with the WTC7 investigation. It directly answers questions that (no doubt) were asked by people like you, and other questions as well. They based their answers on the actual report, which you did NOT read, I can tell. Your quotes are not from the science of the paper, but cherry picked clips taken from initial reports. I posted actual facts. Refute the papers about thermal expansion. Go ahead. Lots of sciency stuff in there! Good readin!!


Do yourself a favor: open the links I posted and educate yourself. Right now, you look like the court jester with your antics, and I am sure the Mods do not appreciate this.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




You think you are the smartest one here with this "low temp thermal expansion" (what ever the hell that means) nonsense, and demand scientific evidence



the "low temp thermal expansion" is the official claim you support....stated at the WTC7 tech briefing

this is posted here with a link to that webcast...but you seem to ignore it for reasons unknown.

it's Shyam Sunder from NIST at their own tech briefing...




Do you know what the FAQ from NIST is based from? THE ACTUAL REPORT! Do you really think that what the FAQ says is completely different from the report? Cause if so, then



do you know what the official report is based on, the hypothesized claims they refuse to peer review.

the official claim that new physics took place, claimed at the tech briefing 2 months before the NIST 2008 official report of WTC7 came out.





I dont even think you are capable of rational debate or thought here.


debate... you refuse to follow the rules of debate.

those whom assert must prove...

first come the official claims pushed....now I am asking/DEMANDING the evidence.

what part of that is confusing?





It directly answers questions that (no doubt) were asked by people like you,


I see no mention of this new phenomenon called low temp thermal expansion that removed structural resistance of the entire building to allow continuous unified acceleration equal to g. for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

a museum is all about information......why no mention of the official claim new science occurred?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4




the 9/11 'OS' vs 'truther' debate still rages i see.


there is no debate....there is YOU support/PROVE the official claims pushed as truth.....simple!




no way of proving or disproving any of it


uhm....YEA!!!...you PROVE the OFFICIAL CLAIMS PUSHED as truth.


and then put it in the museum for all to see.




with
endless opposing 'experts' 'disproving' each other



FIRST off, you need supporting EVIDENCD to do that.....

NO WTC steel from these fires PRESENT was found that shows failure from fire.
minimal, initial localized damage from each impact.
no other like situation to compare with.

and no physical evidence representing the official claims pushed....just 68,000 unreleased data files of variables that TELL their only evidence what to do, HOW to behave...they REFUSE to release for proper peer review..

a museum is about INFORMATION.....why no information on the new phenomenon they discovered that only occurred on 9-11?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




You THINK you are the smartest person in the room, you think that because you believe there to be some conspiracy behind 9/11 that there must be a conspiracy behind 9/11


then all you have to do is SIMPLY....prove the asserted claims PUSHED as truth.

I don't think there is a "conspiracy"...YOU are proving there is with every avoidance of that official claim by Shyam Sunder and the hypothesis crew THREE years after the initial scientific investigation finished.




any one who tries to tell you otherwise must be stupid because they disagree with you.


and that is the problem with ALL of you.....the TELLING, but NOT supporting the telling.

which within a scientific context, doesn't get ya too far.





All you seem to have for your argument is this thermal expansion thing, you bring it up on every thread you have nothing else, just some flawed understanding of thermal expansion.




?all?.....it's not what I have, it's what YOU do NOT have....support for the official claims PUSHED.

the official claims that fell 7 is "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 and the NIST hypothesis crew at their OWN tech briefing, 2 MONTHS BEFORE the WTC7 official report was released.....staring that claim ON VIDEO!!!!


a brand new never before seen phenomenon that accomplished what the 2005 NIST found occurring....105 feet of CONTINUOUS global unified acceleration EQUAL to g.

all taught science states mass can NOT continually ACCELERATE equal to g. unless there is a CLEAR PATH to do so....how does this NEW PHENOMENON remove the required resistance before 1.74 seconds to allow the FFA to occur @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

as the 2005 found it did...


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

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



now, don't cha think this is all good reading for a museum of information??????



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Ok lets do a little test bob/sound/biff YOU post a link to a video of the WTC 7 collapse after you have watched it please tell us all at what time on the video the collapse of the building starts do you have the NADS to do that lets see !!!



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: biffcartright

Ok lets do a little test bob/sound/biff YOU post a link to a video of the WTC 7 collapse after you have watched it please tell us all at what time on the video the collapse of the building starts do you have the NADS to do that lets see !!!



we shall go one step better, use the scientific investigation from the initial 2005 NIST...the only official scientific investigation charged by Congress.


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

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


so, at 1.75 seconds of ther collapse to 4.0 seconds is when the interval of acceleration begins, right after the link forms at 1.74 seconds, then WE SEE...."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

me thinks you need a little assistance on terminology.....

global = symmetrical = encompassing ALL

'single-unit' = moving as ONE= during the interval of CONSTANT acceleration, there is NO structural member doing anything different than any other structural member i.e accelerating to a rate that can ONLY be attained with a 'CLEAR PATH' below..that is what ALL taught science says must occur....

now why don't YOU tell me bout the 2008 official hypothesized claim pushed as truth that a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon allowed this to occur...[a claim they refuse to peer review outside the authors]


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


tell me all about the thermal expansion that works at LOW TEMPS to REMOVE the necessary resistance BEFORE 1.74 seconds..including.....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....

This amazing new physics occurred only on that one day....and NO mention of it in the museum?????

why not?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I find the whole 911 museum reprehensible. To charge $25 fee is just sticking a finger in the eye. The idea we are memorializing this event is disturbing. I understand people lost loved ones, but to put everything on display is akin to a satanic ritual and you have to pay homage to view it.

I'm also not a fan of the two giant holes in the ground with water rushing into them. To me they are alluding to how the buildings imploded. Again, just as a satanic ritual would do. I live a few short miles to them. I can ride my bike there or even take a few mile walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to see them. I have no interest. I saw it live, in real time and not through a TV screen. That was enough for me.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright


So what you mean is YOU cant tell the point how's that sound to YA!



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




So what you mean is...


you have absolutely NO response for me, so you distract with a one liner.....


don't you think a museum would attract all kinds of people if they knew a "never before seen physics phenomenon" occurred on that spot?

I mean.....come on, a whole 8 floors of structural resistance GONE within 1.74 seconds to allow the constant global unified acceleration equal to g...

you are the one that said 35 years in the business.......these are debate forums.....I expected more of a response from ya besides what I received.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Come on biff your the one making all the claims so at what point do YOU consider as the start of the collapse of WTC 7


What was it again 30 years in the building trade so come on lets see some of that claimed expertise in action, if YOU are so sure you are right with what you claim why dodge it surely it would only reinforce your claims



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


"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 and the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew at WTC7 NIST technical briefing


tell me bout this NEW phenomenon of science that is OFFICIALLY claimed to fall WTC7 they REFUSE to prove through science......this brand new physics phenomenon where thermal expansion works at LOW TEMPS to completely REMOVE structural resistance including...

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 BEFORE 1.74 seconds to allow the unified CONSTANT acceleration equal to g. found by the initial 2005 NIST, this 2008 NIST is TRYING to hide through a "new phenomenon" occurring they refuse to prove..

It is because they are complex structure that they do not collapse into the path of most resistance, not in spite of it.....'redundancy' is your friend!!!!!!

show me HOW there can be symmetry through a complete collapse when there is resistance in the system...the authors of the official claims pushed REFUSE.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Instead of reposting the same garbage, how about you take a stop back and actually read the damn report. I have posted the link to it many times. Start reading. Deny ignorance. I am sorry but you are behaving very ignorantly now and just trolling for the sake of trolling. You post about some people from NIST talking about the report, and they mention something they discovered in their investigation and that this something is all of a sudden PROOF of something suspicious. You want to know what thermal expansion is and how it affected the structure to act the way it did? THEN READ THE DAMN REPORT.

The mods should take note that this trolling is getting old and very tiring. If hgfbob was truly interested in facts, he would have read the report. Not repost the same nonsense thats been answered and debunked a millions times over.

Bob seriously, read the report. I even held your hand and pointed to the pages with all the scientific data and answers you are so demanding for. And YOU STILL ignore it. Do I need to copy and past it here, word for word in big bold red letters, with pictures and diagrams all ready for you to even look and understand? Or do I need to make a whole new thread that is nothing more than a page for page copy of the final NIST WTC7 report with all the important parts highlighted, bolded, underlined, and enlarged for you to get it?

Quit your nonsense and trolling and start being productive. Your desperation to cling to fantasy is showing and quite sad. I gave you the answers. Others have given you the answers. You stuck your head in the ground and said we didnt. It is your fault you do not understand, or refuse to consider a different view or actual facts.

Deny ignorance.
The ATS motto.
edit on 8/13/2014 by GenRadek because: fixed some words



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright

Here is a fine example of low temperature thermal expansion causing problems not to a building but the transport system at far LOWER temperatures than a fire.

Sun Kinks

Its not new many large structures have to have expansion joints due to temperature changes purely due to weather, bridges for example I thought a so called master builder
would be well aware of the problem.

Now bob/sound/biff want to tell us when the collapse starts



edit on 13-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: biffcartright

Here is a fine example of low temperature thermal expansion causing problems not to a building but the transport system at far LOWER temperatures than a fire.

Sun Kinks

Its not new many large structures have to have expansion joints due to temperature changes purely due to weather, bridges for example I thought a so called master builder
would be well aware of the problem.


now tell me HOW this applies to WTC7?????

building are NOT built to expand at the joints.......never...


..never ever ever!!!!!!

and besides.....this 'thermal expansion' did NOT expand steel. it is HYPOTHESIZED as a NEW PHENOMENON to REMOVE structural mass to ALLOW global unified CONSTANT acceleration to occur.....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....


why do YOU think the authors of that claim NEW SCIENCE occurred ONLY on 9-11 REFUSE to prove his NEW science???


"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."


these are the facts YOU refuse to deal with...YOU OWN facts you can do NOTHING about but pretend they don't exist.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




Instead of reposting the same garbage, how about you take a stop back and actually read the damn report.


what I post does NOT change post to post....they are FACTS.

I POST the damn report giving direct links to WITHIN the report.....you post debunker site rhetoric......

I POST the damn science ALL agree on...you post debunker site rhetoric.

and I post the HYPOTHESIZED claim YOU base ALL your debunking on.....the claim that NEW science did all that we see on 9-11....you post debunker site rhetoric.


and all you do is repeat the SAME copy/paste from the hand book of responses...never addressing the ACTUAL facts presented by the very ones you hold so dear.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: biffcartright

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: biffcartright

Here is a fine example of low temperature thermal expansion causing problems not to a building but the transport system at far LOWER temperatures than a fire.

Sun Kinks

Its not new many large structures have to have expansion joints due to temperature changes purely due to weather, bridges for example I thought a so called master builder
would be well aware of the problem.


now tell me HOW this applies to WTC7?????

building are NOT built to expand at the joints.......never...


..never ever ever!!!!!!

and besides.....this 'thermal expansion' did NOT expand steel.



What did it expand then?

As for expansion joints

Expansion Joint Considerations for Buildings

Tell the people who wrote that, looks like I may have spelt master builder wrong in my last post



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008



Expansion Joint Considerations for Buildings


perhaps you can point out WHERE it shows HOW LOW TEMP thermal expansion REMOVED structure....that was the question and what the OFFICIAL CLAIM states.....


arbitrarily posting ANYTHING labeled "thermal expansion" , and then laughing-lines around it does ya NO good in supporting this NEW phenomenon that is CLAIMED to REMOVE actual structural members to allow global unified CONSTANT acceleration equal to g.

mass accelerating equal to g. can do no work in removing it's own resistance and CONTINUE to accelerate...it's ONE of the other.

so you keep pointing to nonsense, and I will keep repeating taught science and facts.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: biffcartright


How do you think low temp expansion would remove structure the picture of the kinked rail tracks was a real BIG clue and that only required SUNLIGHT.

Just in case others missed it.

Sun Kinks

So why don't you put some of your supposed building knowledge to use, mind you I suppose it depends on what you have been building for your claimed 30 years that will determine how much you ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND.




top topics



 
47
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join