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

a reply to: wmd_2008

since you seem to be pestering me, why don't we discuss the point of the thread...

since the collapse of WTC7 is singular to only 9-11, why no mention?

why do they not tell anyone bout the claimed .....

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

stated at the 2008 NIST technical briefing by Shyam Sunder.

a never before seen phenomenon that only occurs on 9-11...never before or since.

a museum is about information....why do you think they omitted this?

and don't reply "cause no one dies".....says who?

not a witness...



he states bombs blew the building up before any tower fell...

a reply to: Salander

Because it was an act of war. Not a "crime". And, you miss something, I said the damage had " a little" to do with the collapse. Not that it had "little" to do with it. Yes it is splitting hairs, but one little letter "a" changes the whole meaning, and I do not want anyone getting even more confused than they already are.

originally posted by: soundstyle
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

You really should watch the videos. They show windows shattering with absolutely NO explosions going on.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You really should watch the videos. They show windows shattering with absolutely NO explosions going on.

I do....I have some on my utube page.

now HOW does falling tower debris ONLY break a two complete rows of windows, HORIZONTALLY, leaving NONE broken above or below?

we see this in the video's.....why do ya not want to discuss it??.

probably the SAME reason ya refuse to discuss the "brand new never before seen science phenomenon" that is claimed to fall 7 equal to g. for 105 vertical feet.


which is one MORE reason to mention WTC7 in a museum about 9-11...NEW science that has only occurred THAT DAY!

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

a historical FIRST in the history of history....and NO mention what-so-ever?

where fire we can't see globally removes, BEFORE 1.74 seconds...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...

..and a refusal to SHOW how this can occur....refusing to prove this new science through science.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Because it was an act of war. Not a "crime". And, you miss something, I said the damage had " a little" to do with the collapse. Not that it had "little" to do with it. Yes it is splitting hairs, but one little letter "a" changes the whole meaning, and I do not want anyone getting even more confused than they already are.

seems YOU are the one 'cOnFuSeD'.....

the damage had NOTHING to do with the collapse......per the 2005 NIST.

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

seems YOU stuck the letter...'a' in where it did not belong....aye!

but oh yea, YOU just did not want people getting CoNfUsEd.

a reply to: soundstyle

I told you when you first appeared with YOUR attitude bob that you would be BANNED, was I not right, you can create new accounts but it will happen again!!!

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Because it was an act of war. Not a "crime". And, you miss something, I said the damage had " a little" to do with the collapse. Not that it had "little" to do with it. Yes it is splitting hairs, but one little letter "a" changes the whole meaning, and I do not want anyone getting even more confused than they already are.

Well I would certainly agree that it was an act of war, but the question remains "just who caused the attacks to happen?"

THAT is the $64,000 question, and analysis of the proverbial Big Picture shows that the perpetrators were NOT 19 arabs with box cutters and their supervisors living in caves in Afghanistan, no.

a reply to: soundstyle

Ah bob welcome back. Just cannot wait to see how long you will last this time.

Barry Jennings was inside WTC7 after the impact of the WTC collapsed. What he describes as bombs was actually the debris slamming into the building and causing all the damage. Huh, how about that? Another person that was inside a building that was impacted by debris from the WTC towers, and described it as bombs going off. I guess the sound of hundreds of tons of steel falling 1,000ft and hitting a building sounds like a bomb going off eh?

But naww, you dont believe that. In your world, anything that sounds like an explosion MUST be a bomb.

a reply to: soundstyle

Before you keep embarrassing yourself, you may want to read about thermal expansion. Since to you, this is some new voodoo the likes of which you have never seen before, it would be a good idea to do some actual research. Thermal Expansion is not new. In fact, EVERYONE knows about it, including civil engineers, fire fighters, construction firms, etc.

You can start here:
civil.iisc.ernet.in...


I woudl also recommend in going to your local library and taking a book out about fire safety:
Fire Safety Science

Thermal Expansion Myths debunked

www.iafss.org...

www.iafss.org...

nptel.ac.in...

Now bob, you wanted science to explain thermal expansion to you? Here you go. Just hope all those math equations and big words dont throw you off from the SCIENTIFIC FACTS you are so desperately looking for.

WTF

But now, lets get back on topic.

WTC7 was not included because NO ONE DIED in it. Period. End of story. I didnt hear anything about the other buildings either. WTC3, 4, 5, 6. Only in the Marriott did some fire fighters die when the WTC collapsed on it. Im curious if they mentioned that there too since 40 were killed.

WTC7 was a byproduct of the events. So, no mention.

a reply to: GenRadek

Barry Jennings was inside WTC7 after the impact of the WTC collapsed.

and his own words put that AFTER his reports of BOMBS blowing up on the 6th floor.

you dont believe that. In your world, anything that sounds like an explosion MUST be a bomb.

the prove otherwise....

You can start here:
civil.iisc.ernet.in...

uhm....not relevant to the collapse x3

Thermal Expansion Myths debunked

another uhm....NO mention of the OFFICIAL reason why 7 fell, no mention at all of the LOW TEMP thermal expansion that is CLAIMED to remove the structural resistance in 7

To ensure that fire protection is properly specified, the project’s fireproofing schedule should include as the first note that: “All steel framed floors and roofs shall be considered thermally restrained.”

www.iafss.org...

www.iafss.org...

nptel.ac.in...

please tell me.....do you just use these alphabets for the intimidation factor hopping no one will look?????

because there is nothing there that supports anything pushed as truth.

Now bob, you wanted science to explain thermal expansion to you? Here you go.

NOTHING you posted references the 2008 NIST officially claimed..."LOW TEMP thermal expansion" that REMOVES structural resistance.

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

tell ya what, YOU link DIRECTLY to a certain page from one of these reports that YOU think shows what you claim...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You really should watch the videos. They show windows shattering with absolutely NO explosions going on.

but I am NOT referring to the collapse of WTC7 as you are.....

there is NO collapse seen for hours when they show those two row of perfectly blown out windows with NOTHING broken above or below......as AGAIN....how does vertical falling debris ONLY break windows on the SAME two FLOORS.......which just happens to be the same two floors of witnessed bomb blasts.....

vertical descending debris causing horizontal window damage....."roll"

a reply to: GenRadek

WTC7 was a byproduct of the events. So, no mention.

says who????

NOT the initial 2005 NIST....

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

they can't even see the fire...

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

so how bout you point to the NIST report and show me where is states what YOU claim.

NOT duhbunker sites.....the actual NIST 10,000+ page report and the address where we all can find it.

a reply to: soundstyle

Why do you keep pulling up the initial report??? Do you know what the word "INITIAL" means? If not, google it, then get back to us.

Now As to your question, the answer:

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

www.nist.gov...
The FAQ is for those, like you, too lazy to read the actual report.

Here is the actual report, the FINAL report. (have you figured out the difference between "INITIAL" and "FINAL" yet?)
www.nist.gov...

So there you go.

a reply to: soundstyle

I posted engineering reports that specifically investigate THERMAL EXPANSION of materials exposed to fires.

Just because you are too lazy to read them does not mean I didnt answer your question. Quit being lazy and start reading. I know you didnt.

a reply to: soundstyle

I really do have to admire the fact that you don't even seem to be trying to hide the fact that you are actually hgfbob

I think the problem that you have is this.

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

That is why you seem to think that steel being weakened due to thermal expansion in WTC-7 is a smoking gun, you think you have found the key to the whole 9/11 false flag because you are just to arrogant to see what everyone else, even other truthers, can see.

That even a 12 year old can tell you that heat does some pretty funky stuff to steal before it will melt.

Seriously just stop with the whole thermal expansion thing because quite frankly its making you look bad, its only made even worse with people like GenRedek actually take the time to go away and try to direct you to sources that demonstrate the flaw that forms the centre piece of your 9/11 argument.

its quite strange really,

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.

Yet you just keep rambling on about it, this is a thread about no mention of WTC-7 in the memorial museum....... so you turn it into a thread about thermal expansion. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

Again, you do it on every 9/11 thread.

quite frankly it is annoying, its annoying that with every 9/11 thread i come to now you dominate the discussion with your abrasive, arrogant and aggressive posting style by turning every 9/11 thread into yet another demonstration of your lack of understanding as to what happens to steel when it gets hot.

And that is why I am making a point of also alerting the mods to your reappearance because you make what should be productive and enjoyable debate on a issue into a boring tit-for-tat annoying debate that i could not care less about.

a reply to: GenRadek

I posted engineering reports that specifically investigate THERMAL EXPANSION of materials exposed to fires.

Just because you are too lazy to read them does not mean I didnt answer your question. Quit being lazy and start reading. I know you didnt.

and WHERE is the LOW TEMP thermal expansion example to support the TOPIC OF DISCUSSION?

you posted them.......don't cha know what's in them????....if you think they contain info...then show where.

a reply to: GenRadek

The FAQ is for those, like you, too lazy to read the actual report.

that is why I quote the actual science from the report......and why YOU post from the FAQ!!!!

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams

again......yea..a NEVER BEFORE SEEN phenomenon called LOW TEMP thermal expansion......

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

by Shyam Sunder and his 2008 HYPOTHESIS crew at NIST technical briefing

is claimed to cause the found FFA that occurred found by the initial 2005 NIST scientific investigation.

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."

new science 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 before 1.74 seconds to allow the symmetrical unified continuous acceleration equal to g. to occur found by the earlier investigation

new science the 2008 authors refuse to peer review outside the authors.

new science they REFUSE to prove through 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."

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

quite frankly it is annoying, its annoying that with every 9/11 thread i come to now you dominate the discussion with your abrasive, arrogant and aggressive posting style by turning every 9/11 thread into yet another demonstration of your lack of understanding as to what happens to steel when it gets hot.

and you are resolved to leave these long-winded postings of nonsense stating absolutely nothing.

why is WTC7 not mentioned in the museum?

the new physics phenomenon should easily make a good contribution......museums are about INFORMATION......why NO INFORMATION on the is new physics that fell the building the way it did ONLY on that day