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

a reply to: biffcartright

When you get back, can you please show me the links? And the science??

Cause I actually posted pages and sections that answer your questions and address your erroneous ideas and beliefs. Also, how exactly is posting THE LINK to the ACTUAL report "debunker site rhetoric"?

Also, maybe you can show me where exactly in the report does it mentions anything of what you said here:

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....

Where does the NIST say a new phenomenon removed structural mass. I wanna see this exact quote, with the section numbers, page numbers, and actual quote.

Of course, when you reincarnate again. And stop spamming garbage. I am calling your BS out, and am demanding to see where in the final report it says what you said.

a reply to: GenRadek

Also, maybe you can show me where exactly in the report does it mentions anything of what you said here:

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....

right here....

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"

acceleration equal to gravity occurred for 105 vertical feet within a steel frame found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.

when can mass accelerate EQUAL to gravity.....when there is NO resistance below.....that is it's ONLY prerequisite.

when did FFA occur....1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

what did it encompass....the ENTIRE building.....moving as a SINGLE UNIT, moving as ONE!


to which ALL agreed upon science says, there can be NOTHING in the way....ZERO resistance.

look in ANY reputable science./physics text......"rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the EXACT same rate of ACCELERATION we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

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

Where does the NIST say a new phenomenon removed structural mass. I wanna see this exact quote, with the section numbers, page numbers, and actual quote.

NIST doesn't have to...ALL known agreed upon science does....It's posted EVERYWHERE....it's called taught science.

oh but HOW does all this occur??????

ENTER the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew crooning their ONE time hit......a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon called...."Low Temp Thermal Expansion" REMOVED structure....NOT weakened, if it just weakened that means there is STILL structural mass in the way to resist so NO constant acceleration EQUAL to g. as we see occur.

"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

all these posts that say this you ignore.....YOU point to a report pushing this brand new physics.......so PROVE IT!

that claim on the video is made TWO MONTHS before the WTC7 NIST report.....the report is based on a hypothesized scenario they refuse to show outside the authors.....

wonder why........

a reply to: wmd_2008

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.

...really, just sunlight hitting hidden structural members can globally REMOVE them to allow UNIFIED global acceleration EQUAL to g. for 1/3 of a 6.5 second 47 story building collapse

I ask you to show me HOW this new phenomenon of LOW TEMP thermal expansion works to REMOVE 105 vertical feet of structural mass in a building as OFFICIALLY claim it DID in WTC7......and you reply back with "train-tracks"?

a reply to: fillerfish

How hard is it for you to understand that structural members were failing most of the afternoon before it finally tipped the balance and the building came down? I mean FDNY had set up a transit recording that the building was slowly shifting (which means things are breaking inside) until it hit the point of no return and the building came down.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How hard is it for you to understand that structural members were failing most of the afternoon before it finally tipped the balance and the building came down

by a NEW physics phenomenon .YOU refuse to acknowledge they state....yet I provide them LIVE on video at the OWN tech briefing........

a reply to: fillerfish

Welcome back bob/sound/biff could you also be NeverEver.

Want to show were I said sunlight was the cause for WTC 7

a reply to: fillerfish

No, massive damage and fire are not new physics. They have been around for a long time.

originally posted by: fillerfish
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How hard is it for you to understand that structural members were failing most of the afternoon before it finally tipped the balance and the building came down

by a NEW physics phenomenon .YOU refuse to acknowledge they state....yet I provide them LIVE on video at the OWN tech briefing........

Really?? They said NEW physics phenomenon? Or are you just saying its "NEW" to make it sound more special, or sinister, or whatever that will make it sound like its unheard of and therefore CONSPIRACY!! ZOMG!!

But wait! Unlike you, I actually do search out new information, new facts, and look up things I dont understand or recognize. And unlike you, I have the full transcript of that particular tech meeting. *cue dramatic score* "Dun dun duhhhh!!!!!!"

I feel like I am holding the silver bullet that will put this garbage to rest once and for all.

Now lets put that sucker in context eh?
First I shall put up the link to the transcript like so:
911speakout.org...
And now the quote with the rest of the text.

The other thing to keep in mind is that
when you have the full combustible burning, temperatures can actually go to much higher temperatures
in the steel. And, of course, the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building
down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures. So we had lower-you had
lower temperatures, gas that was still coming, that was heating up, so you had temperatures rising even
before the combustibles started burning a lot in a location.

Ok so I see nothing about it being mentioned that it is new. So no shock there. And he was responding to a question from a reporter. Now, seeing as I posted the link, you can now go to the transcript itself and click on the "find" button and type in "thermal expansion" in the search box and you can find every moment it is mentioned. My count, it is mentioned 18 times. Here is an important quote about thermal expansion earlier:

More than 75 percent of its strength and stiffness are lost. But remember that the
probable collapse sequence was based on thermal expansion effects, which happen at temperatures
below 400 degrees. So the 10 to 20 minutes is when you have to reach all the way to 650. The time to
reach less than 400 would be substantially smaller. The ASTM E119 test does not capture critical
behavior of structural systems-the effect of thermal expansion, the sagging of floor beams and the
effect of the floor beam sagging on girders, connections and columns. In short, what we see is that the
thermal expansion of WTC 7 initiated the probable collapse sequence at temperatures below
approximately 400 degrees Celsius, and thus, to the extent that thermal expansion, rather than loss of
structural strength, precipitates an unsafe condition, the current fire resistance ratings system is not
conservative.

I bolded the important part. FYI: 400 degree Celsius = 752F

In fact I would advise you to read the whole transcript yourself, and actually learn what they are talking about in regards to thermal expansion. Also, I would advise you to read this transcript taken from a few days earlier, also a Tech Briefing for the media which goes into better detail:

NIST Tech Briefing transcript Aug. 21, 2008

In general, tall buildings are very safe. We have decades upon decades of real-life experience to prove this. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11 was a rare event. Our study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of a structure. For the first time, we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse. In the building community, the term "progressive collapse" means the spread of local damage from a single initiating event from structural element to structural element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Currently, thermal expansion effects are not explicitly considered in current design practice for fire resistance ratings, and no design professional is assigned the responsibility for ensuring the adequate fire safety performance of the structural system in a fire. Architects typically use catalog test data to specify fireproofing thickness to meet the fire ratings in the building code. Structural engineers design buildings to withstand its weight and to resist earthquake and wind loads but are not required to considered fire as a load condition in structural design. Fire protection engineers design the active fire protection systems in a building, such as sprinklers, smoke alarms and -- I'm sorry, fire alarms and smoke management systems. They may or may not be called upon to assist the architect with the design of the passive fire protection systems such as fireproofing and compartmentation. World Trade Center 7, which included floor spans as large as 54 feet, had a structural system design that is in widespread use in other tall buildings. The length of floor spans is important. Longer beams can be [subjected] proportionately greater thermal expansion effects, but such effects may also be present in buildings with shorter span lengths, depending on the design of the structural system. We strongly recommend that building owners, operators and designers evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires. It collapsed because fires, similar to those experienced in other tall buildings, burned in the absence of water supply to operate the sprinklers and burned beyond the ability of firefighters to control it. It fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire-induced progressive collapse. We urge the building community to explicitly address all the effects of fire in the design of the structural system, including thermal expansion effects, in strengthening our building codes, standards and practices.

You heard it here folks. NIST's crack team admitted that thermal expansion of steel members is not considered in current building design!!!!!! Which means, that engineers building buildings from way back did not take into consideration what happens to steel when the fires burn for longer than expected times and how the thermal behavior of the steel can negatively affect the entire structure.

hfgbob/fillerfish/biff/new incarnation: read the transcripts in context. And please bury this dredged up made up nonsense. Just like Richard "Boxboy" Gage, you are out of your league here and are making serious rookie mistakes, especially for someone who claims to have been in the building trade for so long.

a reply to: GenRadek

Nice one and just to rub even more salt in the wounds a picture of the South side of WTC 7



Part of the 20 floor gap is visible and the smoke can be seen coming from WCT 7 and not the claimed chimney effect!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice pic!

Well, its a shame bob wont read this. But I do hope those interested in facts do, and learn something from this. Lots of stuff said by the "Truth" Movement are all erroneous, misinformed, of dubious quality, or just plain lies lies lies.

a reply to: wmd_2008

That is probably the best picture of that side of WTC-7 really quite amazing.

dp

a reply to: GenRadek

Really?? They said NEW physics phenomenon? Or are you just saying its "NEW" to make it sound more special, or sinister,

"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 2008 NIST technical briefing

phe·nom·e·non
fəˈnäməˌnän,-nən
noun
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question

has this type of "LOW TEMP" physics 'phenomenon' ever occurred BEFORE or SINCE in a steel framed building to cause collapse of ANY KIND???...ANY building!!!!!!

NO

A 2008 NIST HYPOTHESIS crew professes a FIRST TIME event in physics where 'warm steel' ["LOW TEMP"], is blamed to cause the REMOVAL of structural resistance BENEATH the mass that is CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING EQUAL TO G. 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....

which is what ALL taught AGREED upon science UP TILL THAT DAY, says must occur to allow the collapse we all see.

and the 2005 NIST scientific investigation found occurred in WTC7....

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."

lets pick apart what the 2005 NIST found.....

they found the ENTIRE buildings moving as a 'SINGLE UNIT'...moving as ONE.

if there is ANY sort of resistance below during the acceleration, we will SEE IT reflected on the exterior......but during the 2.3 seconds interval equal to g. there is NO structural member doing anything different than any other structural member. i.e. CONSTANTLY accelerating at the SAME rate as if YOU went up 8 stories and jumped off the building.....with NOTHING below you......now HOW does a steel framed buildings do that.....OH yea, an official claim of NEW science they refuse to prove through science.

they found the collapse is GLOBAL..they even did an entire section on this FIRST TIME "GLOBAL" collapse is seen in ANY building for ANY reason.
global means symmetrical.


they found 105 vertical feet of CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION EQUAL to gravity occurring @ 1.75 seconds of the collapse,[when we see the kink form], till 4.0s.

tell me, HOW does a steel framed building go through itself at the SAME rate as you free falling through air?

enter the PROBABLE collapse sequence...

NCSTAR 1A 4.2 "The probable collapse sequence that caused global collapse of WTC7 was..."

which consists of the ENTIRETY of your pathetic post.....an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS of collapse that contains a BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon , 'HYPOTHESIZED' to take place ONLY on 9-11....NEW science they REFUSE TO PROVE through science.

now what would support this claim.....SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!!!!

NO physical evidence to support
NO like situations to compare with
just 68,000+ files of data variables that TELL the models, [their ONLY EVIDENCE], what to do, HOW to behave......to which they REFUSE TO SHOW.

"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."

but alas, you have none.

I bolded the important part. FYI: 400 degree Celsius = 752F

point to the REPRESENTATION within the 10,000+ page report WHERE those temps are found by NIST in which to REPRESENT what you claim....

oh yea....

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

...NO WHERE!

In fact I would advise you to read the whole transcript yourself

I QUOTE IT!....and the transcript from the TECH briefing is DIRECTLY below the video I posted.....a PDF.....to which you can follow WORD-for-WORD....so no need to post one from ANOTHER site....unless your 'transcript' can do that???

The length of floor spans is important. Longer beams can be [subjected] proportionately greater thermal expansion effects,

why is that important???....this NEW phenomenon is officially claimed to REMOVE mass no matter WHAT it is or what size it is....for there is NO CONSTANT ACCELERATION unless there is a CLEAR path to do so...

It fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire-induced progressive collapse. We urge the building community to explicitly address all the effects of fire in the design of the structural system, including thermal expansion effects, in strengthening our building codes, standards and practices.

and yet, in THIS Country, NO code changed were made to application or structural practices.

also a Tech Briefing for the media which goes into better detail:

lol.....dumbed-down the media version...lol....that is why I posted the TECHNICAL briefing...

so you can push the TV version all you want to...it's made for TV.

you are out of your league here and are making serious rookie mistakes, especially for someone who claims to have been in the building trade for so long.

rookie mistakes.....lol...take a look at your agenda-filled post.....

you are the one pushing the BULL#.....I posted the actual scientific findings if the INITIAL NIST scientific investigation with ACTUAL agreed upon SCIENCE to base the situation.

you push a scientifically UNSUPPORTED story of collapse you/THEY refuse to prove through science.

a reply to: wmd_2008

lol.....photoshop!!!!!!!

HUGE give-away.....look at the different resolution of that EMT and the resolution of the buildings behind.....

look at the artifacts surrounding the EMT compared to the crispness of the buildings...pathetic amateurish attempt.

where is the FEMA watermark?

originally posted by: slipstreaming
a reply to: wmd_2008

lol.....photoshop!!!!!!!

HUGE give-away.....look at the different resolution of that EMT and the resolution of the buildings behind.....

look at the artifacts surrounding the EMT compared to the crispness of the buildings...pathetic amateurish attempt.

where is the FEMA watermark?

It's a still from a FILM so to you when you read this under your next reincarnation.

Seriously if your brains were dynamite you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose!!!

a reply to: slipstreaming

I'm sorry but this comedy hour has got to stop! I cannot hold my sides anymore and I cannot breathe.

Ahh where to continue with this hilarity?

If you had bothered to do any sort of research and even reading the transcripts, they admit it has happened before, but this is the first time such a large structure had been involved in such a conflagration for so long and they did not foresee this ever happening. THAT is the issue here bob! The NIST folks admitted that engineers, building professionals, fire safety persons did not foresee the effects of thermal expansion on such a grand scale. If you read the second transcript I posted that was a little earlier, they admitted this, since it was more formal.

The you repost the same garbage, again, going on and on about how thermal expansion magically removed resistance (whatever the hell that means) and yet, the damn transcript and the report explain EXACTLY how it happened. You just choose not to read it. I mean, this is comedy gold! You demand answers, ignore them when they are given, then ignore the same report from which you post selected quotes that are suppose to bolster your nonsense, and then when I educated you on what the report says, you ignore it again and proclaim victory! I mean really, this is quite a jolly good show, and Im a little sad the mods cant have a little run-on gag going here.

Also, I do not understand why you are so enamored with the preliminary report. It is as if you do not have the slightest clue as to what "preliminary" means. Do you? I am more interested in the final report. The FINAL report that is the most comprehensively put together report with finished conclusions. Preliminary are just that, preliminary. The preliminary report could say that Elvis and ET set the magical devices with pixy dust boosters in the explosive mix. I prefer the final report because it would leave the out the nonsense and give the facts.

And then you post this gem:

NCSTAR 1A 4.2 "The probable collapse sequence that caused global collapse of WTC7 was..."


which consists of the ENTIRETY of your pathetic post.....an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS of collapse that contains a BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon , 'HYPOTHESIZED' to take place ONLY on 9-11....NEW science they REFUSE TO PROVE through science.

now what would support this claim.....SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!!!!

NO physical evidence to support
NO like situations to compare with
just 68,000+ files of data variables that TELL the models, [their ONLY EVIDENCE], what to do, HOW to behave......to which they REFUSE TO SHOW.

Where by I would ask again, where do they say it is a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon? I was not aware thermal expansion is an ultra rare physical phenomenon. Can you please show me where this is?

Oh yeah and the best part!! The part I love the most, you post this nugget:

also a Tech Briefing for the media which goes into better detail:

lol.....dumbed-down the media version...lol....that is why I posted the TECHNICAL briefing...

so you can push the TV version all you want to...it's made for TV.

Ah yes so they just make up crap for one and then tell the truth in the other? You have no idea how dumb this sounds. Oh by the way, if you had bothered to actually read the tech breifing, we wouldnt be here and you wouldnt be reposting garbage, because it explains exactly how the thermal effects worked and what happened. But hey, its not my fault you have a reading comprehension problem.

Oh yeah, and also, I am the one who posted the facts here. not you. Reposting cherry-picked posts from a early draft report that does not have all the relevant info is not considered posting scientific facts.

a reply to: slipstreaming

Also, if you cannot figure out how thermal expansion could do what it did, consider this:

What would happen if the long horizontal beams started to expand, what does that do to the connections at each end? Or the surrounding structure? Things start to come under extra stresses that were not meant to be experienced. And then what happens when those failures start to cause internal floors to buckle, then fall, all around the critical beam. The beam is left with less and less support, until there is nothing left around it to hold it up. With nothing holding it up and helping it stay stable, once it goes, there is nothing below to stop it from falling. Hence the "free-fall" appearance of the exterior. The whole damn inside has already collapsed well before the exterior did. If the interior has fallen, this means there is nothing in the way of the rest of the structure. Then the final column snapped, and presto! It all came down. And the funny part is that they explain this to you, dumbed down of course in both Tech Briefings, and you STILL cannot figure it out! I mean, this is priceless!! You cant figure out or understand the dumbed down science part either. And you are going to lecture me about posting scientific facts?? Hows about you catch up to the dumb-down science first before tackling more complex issues.

But this is all neither here, nor there.

WTC7 wasnt mentioned cause no died. Period. Get over it. WTC 4, 5, 6 werent mentioned either cause NO ONE DIED there either. I do not know if WTC3 was, because 40 FDNY did die there.

I dont usually touch the 9/11 threads for the simple reason it makes no sense arguing the facts with the same old, same old who have had years spouting the same answers in defence of the OS.....but, they can argue their well prepared official lie all they want and not have the answer to this one glaringly simple question...... How was the BBC able to correctly predict the fall of WTC7 as it stood there in all its glory behind the newscaster... There is NO logical answer...was it psychic ability?, was it premonition?, or was it the fact that the press release to that newscaster was wrongly handed to her too early....I rest my case... "Deny Ignorance", or are you all into crystal balls and sooth saying..... Im saying no more on a subject that is undebateable.

a reply to: captiva

Maybe because the FDNY was saying all afternoon that WTC 7 was going to collapse too? And that the BBC made a mistake? (it was far from the only media screw up that day)