Amazing chutzpah - New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!!!

[daws101]

It's you, as always.
What do you imagine you know about Physics that hundreds of professionals at A&E 911 Truth don't? Tell us how gravity alone produced free fall acceleration during Stage 2 (1.74 to 4.0 seconds) of WTC7's collapse through the path of greatest resistance?

most of them are not at all trained in physics
to answer you second non question..it didn't for 2.5 sec or there about the north façade met no obstructions so it was no longer the path of most resistance.

David Chandler is trained in Physics, are you?

"After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.

"I am not using the term 'freefall' loosely here.

"I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good.

"My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance.

"For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall."

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

When you say "...for 2.5 sec or there about the north facade met no obstructions..." what do you imagine caused that?

What obstructions was the south facade meeting over those same eight floors?

answer #1 the whole south side of wtc7 was peeling away no imagining needed

answer#2 since the whole south side was falling away the resistance was negligible.

 

[daws101]

[info wars another NON CREDIBLE SITE..
the principles are dead or locked up..

But the US govt is credible? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills crack everybody up.

who's EVERYBODY?
you and your invisible friend?

 

[Skylar]

"'As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories.'

Nope. The collapse initiated when the penthouse caved into the center of the building. Demonstrating that the structural steel inside the building was already failing.

You ignore that entirely. A rational person never would.

How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance in WTC7, Chuckles?
Reply With Quote

The 'path of greatest resistance'? What direction was the building *supposed* to collapse? Sideways? Diagonally? Up perhaps?

You know you've reached the end of your rope when you conclude that gravity pulling things down must mean its a conspiracy.

Shrugs....you're hopelessly stuck, buddy. You can't explain any of the theory killing holes in your claims.

1) No explosions, no explosives. And the initiation of the collapse of the WTC was virtually silent. That's physically impossible if bombs brought it down.

2) No system of explosives can operate while on fire.

3) There were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

4) There were no explosives or any apparatus of explosives found before, during or after the collapse. Despite your theory requiring thousands.

5) There was no residue of explosives in the dust samples.

6) The port authority bomb squad went through the entire WTC plaza and found no bombs only a week before 911. And that's with bomb sniffing dogs.

7) The FDNY accurately predicted WTC 7 would collapse due to fire and structural damage 3 HOURS before it came down. Why would I ignore them, and believe you?

Any one of which renders your account a ludicrous piece of obtuse fiction. With all of them rendering it more than than a little silly. Your theory is garbage...and even you can explain how it could possible work.

Try again. This time try it without the tin foil.

 

[georgephillip]

"'As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet – equal to at least eight stories.'

Nope. The collapse initiated when the penthouse caved into the center of the building. Demonstrating that the structural steel inside the building was already failing.

You ignore that entirely. A rational person never would.

How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance in WTC7, Chuckles?
Reply With Quote

The 'path of greatest resistance'? What direction was the building *supposed* to collapse? Sideways? Diagonally? Up perhaps?

You know you've reached the end of your rope when you conclude that gravity pulling things down must mean its a conspiracy.

Shrugs....you're hopelessly stuck, buddy. You can't explain any of the theory killing holes in your claims.

1) No explosions, no explosives. And the initiation of the collapse of the WTC was virtually silent. That's physically impossible if bombs brought it down.

2) No system of explosives can operate while on fire.

3) There were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

4) There were no explosives or any apparatus of explosives found before, during or after the collapse. Despite your theory requiring thousands.

5) There was no residue of explosives in the dust samples.

6) The port authority bomb squad went through the entire WTC plaza and found no bombs only a week before 911. And that's with bomb sniffing dogs.

7) The FDNY accurately predicted WTC 7 would collapse due to fire and structural damage 3 HOURS before it came down. Why would I ignore them, and believe you?

Any one of which renders your account a ludicrous piece of obtuse fiction. With all of them rendering it more than than a little silly. Your theory is garbage...and even you can explain how it could possible work.

Try again. This time try it without the tin foil.

Why do you (pretend) to be confused about the direction "down?"
For the third time:
How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you (pretend) to be confused about the direction "down?"

Can I take it from your response that you're *finally* getting that down is the direction gravity pulls things? There's no direction but down that the building could have collapsed. Making your conspiracy more than a little silly.

And I noticed you still refuse to think about, discuss or even acknowledge the existence of the litany of conspiracy killing holes in the 'bomb' theory. You do realize that these issues still kill your silly conspiracy, even if you close your eyes and pretend they don't exist, right?

Silent explosive demolition is still a physical impossibility despite the fact that you pretend otherwise.

No system of explosive can operate while on fire, even when you screw your eyes shut and refuse to acknowledge it.

No beams were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, even when pretend otherwise.

There was no residue of explosives in the dust samples, even when you ignore the dust samples.

There were no explosives or apparatus of explosives ever found...before, during or after the collapse. Not one. Not ever. Even when you desperately ignore this theory killing hole.

The Port Authority Bomb Squad *still* found no bombs, nor did their bomb sniffing dogs....even when you try and pretend that the bomb squad never existed.

The FDNY still accurately predicted the collapse of the WTC 7 hours before it came down, even when you're determined to ignore the FDNY.

You can ignore all these fatal flaws in your debunked conspiracy. But you can't make anyone else ignore them. Which is why the truther argument fails so consistently.

 

[Skylar]

How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.

For the third time, the collapse took far longer than 2.25 seconds. It initiated when the penthouse collapsed into the middle of WTC 7. Demonstrating elegantly that the building's internal structure was collapsing LONG before the facade fell.

How do you deal with this simple fact? Like all the other holes in your conspiracy, you ignore it and pretend none of it exists.

Its not like anyone reading this thread is simply obligated to ignore these facts just because they're inconvenient to your argument.

Keep running.

 

[georgephillip]

most of them are not at all trained in physics
to answer you second non question..it didn't for 2.5 sec or there about the north façade met no obstructions so it was no longer the path of most resistance.

David Chandler is trained in Physics, are you?

"After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.

"I am not using the term 'freefall' loosely here.

"I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good.

"My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance.

"For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall."

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

When you say "...for 2.5 sec or there about the north facade met no obstructions..." what do you imagine caused that?

What obstructions was the south facade meeting over those same eight floors?

answer #1 the whole south side of wtc7 was peeling away no imagining needed

answer#2 since the whole south side was falling away the resistance was negligible.

What is the rate of acceleration for "peeling"
Did the south face of WTC7 fall at the same rate of acceleration as the north face?
Do you really believe someone who uses the word "peeling" to explain the observed free fall collapse of WTC7 doesn't need the word imagination?

 

[georgephillip]

How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.

For the third time, the collapse took far longer than 2.25 seconds. It initiated when the penthouse collapsed into the middle of WTC 7. Demonstrating elegantly that the building's internal structure was collapsing LONG before the facade fell.

How do you deal with this simple fact? Like all the other holes in your conspiracy, you ignore it and pretend none of it exists.

Its not like anyone reading this thread is simply obligated to ignore these facts just because they're inconvenient to your argument.

Keep running.

2.25 seconds over eight floors.
Is English your first language?
How many tons of structural steel made up the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 collapsed in about eight seconds?

 

[Skylar]

2.25 seconds over eight floors.

Nope. The collapse began when the penthouse collapsed into the center of the building. Demonstrating undeniably that the structure was already falling apart. The collapse began long before the facade finally fell. Increasing your '2.25 seconds' to closer to 10 seconds.

You still pretend that never happened. And of course, are still running with your tail between your legs from the legion of theory killing holes that obliterate your brain dead conspiracy.

Face it, friend. The bomb theory is just an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts. There are no silent explosive demolitions, or bombs that work while on fire, or that don't cut girders, or that leave no residue. Your theory is just garbage.

Which is why you run. Shrugs....keep running. I'll be here when you muster up the courage to address the enormous holes in your claims.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Face it, friend. The bomb theory is just an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts. There are no silent explosive demolitions, or bombs that work while on fire, or that don't cut girders, or that leave no residue. Your theory is just garbage.

Everything you said is false. No surprise since lies are all you paid govt shills have. Everyone who has seen the video of 7 collapsing and knows it was not hit by a plane and was on a separate block from where the twin towers were, knows it was controlled demo. Nothing could be more obvious.

You're making a fool of yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Everything you said is false. No surprise since lies are all you paid govt shills have.

Everything I said is true. And a 'shill' is just a person who doesn't swallow your silly conspiracy without thought or question. If you had ever bothered to fact check your own claims, you'd realize rather quickly that they just don't work.

Luckily, you've got me to spoon feed you the research that you never bothered to do for yourself. First, you imaginary 'silent explosives'. Here's a video of *actual* controlled demolition.


They show it far away, they show it close up, they show it from the left, they show it from the right. And in *every* instance, the charges are ludicrously loud.

Yet here's the WTC 7 collapse:



Its so quiet that the facade is already falling before anyone even noticed. No explosions, no explosives.

As for the dust, it was checked. And there was no residue of explosives:

45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)

Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.

Microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco, BS, MS, DABC, FAAFS, FNYMS at The New York Microscopic Society lecture held at AMNH 28 May 2003

Sorry, buddy.....but your conspiracy is just an awful explanation.

Everyone who has seen the video of 7 collapsing and knows it was not hit by a plane and was on a separate block from where the twin towers were, knows it was controlled demo. Nothing could be more obvious.

What you keep failing to mention is that the WTC 7 was hit by massive debris from the World Trade Center collapse, had substained catostrophic structural damage and had massive fires blazing in it. You know this, but you really hope we don't.

The FDNY didn't miss any of those details.

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

Assistant Chief Frank Fellini
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt

Odd that your account wouldn't include those details. If your argument has merit, why omit *vital* details , like the fact that WTC 7 had taken massive hits from the falling towers, that chucks of WTC 7 had been ripped away and that there fires raging in the building?

Its almost like you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Or knew, and intentionally withheld that information. Ignorant or dishonest. Have fun picking which.

Now that you've been educated, riddle me this, batman. Why would any rational person ignore the FDNY and believe you?

Smiling...because you saw a youtube video? Try again.

 

[KissMy]

[youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]

From that video's description:

An interchange connecting highways to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday,April 29 2007, after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire. ...

Disregarding the absence of fuel or fuel-oil fires in the case of building 7, the design and construction of freeway overpasses aren't remotely analogous to those of steel-framed skyscrapers. Sections of that overpass collapsed onto the road below, mainly because of the lack of physical resistance from below in the spaces between the vertical supports, once the horizontal supports had given way. Building 7, on the other hand, fell straight through what the laws of physics tell us should have been the path of greatest resistance, as if it had been transformed by magic into the path of least resistance.

According to the "scientific analysis" that was conducted by the government's own science lackeys (NIST), all physical resistance to the downward motion had somehow been removed or circumvented for approximately 2.25 of the 5.4 seconds that were analyzed on video. That's something along the order of 100 sq. feet or about 8 floors worth of building materials that violated the third law of motion in their collective descent on 9/11. NIST's explanation for this, a "fire-induced progressive collapse", is entirely non-explanatory. That is, the forces required to remove or circumvent ALL physical resistance for any period of time, couldn't possibly have arisen in a "progressive" collapse of that kind, because resistance would have been a necessary consequence of the sort of physical interaction described (from "structural element to element", as stated by NIST). The official storyline then, would apparently have us believe that the laws of physics can be broken for a couple of seconds at a time, so long as doing so fits into some authorized narrative.

I, too, find it a little hard to believe that building 7 isn't represented or mentioned anywhere in the new museum; but I'm also confident that its mysterious "collapse" is one of those 'anomalies' certain people would much rather forget about than try to explain to the still significant portion of the population that hasn't heard about it.

You have the facts all wrong. There was more fuel in building 7 than in WTC 1 & 2. 4 tanker truck loads, 20,000 gallons of that fuel burnt inside WTC-7. Your collapse time & distance is wrong.

Also steel will sag in a regular building fire. My barn burnt & most of the steel inside was deformed. Glass melted meaning the temp exceeded 1550 degrees. Pictures from my barn fire below.

 

[Skylar]

Disregarding the absence of fuel or fuel-oil fires in the case of building 7, the design and construction of freeway overpasses aren't remotely analogous to those of steel-framed skyscrapers. Sections of that overpass collapsed onto the road below, mainly because of the lack of physical resistance from below in the spaces between the vertical supports, once the horizontal supports had given way. Building 7, on the other hand, fell straight through what the laws of physics tell us should have been the path of greatest resistance, as if it had been transformed by magic into the path of least resistance.

Um, you're aware that gravity pulls downward, yes? Then how is it 'magical' that the building fell in the direction that gravity pulled? What direction was it 'supposed' to fall?

Smiling...sideways? Up? Perhaps diagonally?

You know you've gone a tad too far down the conspiracy rabbit hole when you consider *gravity* to be in on the plot.

 

[georgephillip]

2.25 seconds over eight floors.

Nope. The collapse began when the penthouse collapsed into the center of the building. Demonstrating undeniably that the structure was already falling apart. The collapse began long before the facade finally fell. Increasing your '2.25 seconds' to closer to 10 seconds.

You still pretend that never happened. And of course, are still running with your tail between your legs from the legion of theory killing holes that obliterate your brain dead conspiracy.

Face it, friend. The bomb theory is just an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts. There are no silent explosive demolitions, or bombs that work while on fire, or that don't cut girders, or that leave no residue. Your theory is just garbage.

Which is why you run. Shrugs....keep running. I'll be here when you muster up the courage to address the enormous holes in your claims.

2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration across eight floors tells you what about the total collapse time of all 47 stories, Sherlock? WTC7 fell straight down through the path of greatest resistance which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Had this not happened, WTC7 would have toppled over, damaging adjacent buildings; this, of course, is what the science of controlled demolition is all about since random events like minor structural damage and low intensity fires are incapable of bringing down a 47 story edifice in under seven seconds or about one second slower than a brick dropped from its roof would take to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Like the one between your ears

Friend.

 

[Skylar]

2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration across eight floors tells you what about the total collapse time of all 47 stories, Sherlock?

Once again, for maybe the 10th time.......the collapse initiated with the penthouse caving into the center of the building. It demonstrated, undeniably, that the building's interior was already collapsing. And that occured *long* before the facade finally fell.

You ignore the collapse of the interior of the building, the caving in of the penthouse, all of it....because it throws off your time line. But why would a rational person ignore this amazingly relevant detail just brecause its inconvenient to your argument?

They wouldn't.

Just as they wouldn't ignore the legion of conspiracy shattering holes in your claims. Holes, like the collapsing penthouse, you refuse to acknowledge even exist. Refuse to discuss. And can't possibly explain away.....as they render your conspiracy a physical impossibility.

1) There were no explosions in your 'explosive demolition'. The building fell so silently that the facade was well on its way down when people even noticed. Where in actual controlled demolition, the charges are ludicriously loud. Yet the WTC 7 fell in virtual silence. But don't take my word for it...here's a video. How far down is the building before people even noticed?



Silent explosives don't exist. That's physically impossible if it were bombs. Your theory doesn't work.

2) There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. There were twisted girders, there deformed girders, there girders stacked on top of each other. But there were no CUT girders. And that's how explosive demolition works: by cutting the girders with a shaped explosive charge.

Demonstrating rather elegantly, that it wasn't explosive demolition. It couldn't have been. Want another reason why it was physically impossible?

3) The building was on fire.

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
on nearly all floors.

Lt. Robert Larocco
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Larocco_Robert.txt

That means that your theory requires that the *explosives* would have been on fire. And there's no system of explosives that handled buiding fires. Even the most chemically stable explosives would have melted. TNT would have exploded. Detonators would have detonated, any timers or receivers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic.

There's a reason why no building in the history of the world has ever been explosively demolished while ON FIRE. It can't be done. As the materials necessary to conduct an explosive demolition are themselves, ridiculously flammable and susceptible to heat.

Your conspiracy explanation fails yet again. And it gets even worse.

4) There were no explosives or apparatus of explosives ever found. Not before, not during, not after the collapse. The WTC 7 wasn't a museum. It was used daily by its tenants. It was maintained by its resident staff. It was inspected, remodelled, and cleaned. And no where was anything your theory mandates by the thousands up on thousands ever found.

Not one inch of blasting wire. Not one foot of det cord. Not a single transmitter. Not a single timer. Not a single girder cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Not one charge.

Ever. Despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands of each. That strains credulity to the point of ridiculousness. All the more so when we get to the fact that.....

5) The Port Authority Bomb Squad went through the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs....and found nothing. Not one bomb. Not a single apparatus of explosive. Nothing.

These are men and women *trained* to find these explosives. And its not like the dogs would miss them. And yet they found exactly nothing. Which is exactly what you've got to back your theory: nothing.

And astonishingly, it still gets worse:

6) There was no residue of explosives in dust samples. Despite these dust samples being so precise that they could detect medication from the WTC pharmacy, they found no residue of explosives.

And finally;

7) The FDNY already determined what the cause of the collapse would be: fire and structural damage from the impact with debris from the north tower:

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

Assistant Chief Frank Fellini
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt

They predicted its collapse due to fire and structural damage pretty accurately. How did they do this? The measured its slow structural failure over hours:

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

A transit is a vertical level, used to measure angles. Here's an example of how its used:



They measured the bulging, the buckling, the leaning of the WTC 7. They knew, hours before its collapse, that it was coming down. Now why would we ignore the FDNY, who was there, who saw the catastrophic damage, who witnessed the enormous fires, who put a transit on the building and measured it structural failure.....

....and instead believe you? There is no reason.

The contradiction of the 'controlled demolition' theory is layered, overlapping, and overwhelming. Its an overly complicated, fantastically elaborate, wildly complex, and physically impossible explanation that is contradicted by just mountains of evidence.

So overwhelming in fact......that you refuse to even acknowledge any exist. You can't ignore these holes in your claims away. Even if you close your eyes, we can still see them. And they devastate your absurd theory.

 

[georgephillip]

The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint in about seven seconds.

As many in the FDNY noted:

"Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn.

"We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service.

"This is what we are paid for and it is our honor.

"However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination.

"We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust.

"We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel.

"We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half.

"We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon 'evaporated'.

"There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the 'smoking gun'. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare.

"The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth

 

[Skylar]

The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint in about seven seconds.

As many in the FDNY noted:

Many, huh? Because so far, you've cited only Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret). And he wasn't at ground zero on 911. In 2008...he's been retired '15 years +' according to your own site.

While the FDNY that *were* there have a very, very different story. Anton says that there were only small fires. The fire fighters who were there say this:

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
on nearly all floors.

Lt. Robert Larocco
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...cco_Robert.txt

Now why would I ignore a guy who was *there* as a professional fire fighter, who looked on the building burning with fire on nearly all floors?

And instead believe retired Anton, who wasn't there, who hadn't fought a fire for *at least* a decade when 911 happened?

There's no reason. You're ignoring the FDNY fire fighters who were there because you don't like what they have to say. Where if your actual goal were truth, you'd be eager to listen to their accounts.

Yet you'll gladly accept a man who wasn't there who didn't fight any fire on 911 over a FDNY officer who was and did......if that man says what you want to believe. Your sole basis of credibility is whether or not a source agrees with you. If they do, theyn even if they weren't there, you accept their account. If they don't, then you'll ignore even direct, expert, eye witness testimony.

And why does Anton not mention the massage damage to WTC 7 from falling debris? Easy....he wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about. But Captain Chris Boyle was there. And does know what he's talking about:

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Captain Chris Boyle
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Huge, gaping holes in the building from an FDNY eye witness. Whom you will completely ignore. When you babble about WTC 7 again later, you'll use the same 'it was never hit by an airplane' schtick, ignoring the massive damage caused by the falling north tower. You don't want the truth. You want your conspriacy....even when the evidence contradicts it.

And again....

....Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

FDNYLieutenant Rudy Weindler of Ladder Company 40

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

But you'll ignore LT Weindler, because he was there. And if he was there, he knows your narrative is completely full of shit.....as he explicitly contradicts it.

also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

But Anton said there were only small fires. Its like he wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about.

But he says what you want to hear. So you ignore the FDNY who were there. And accept a guy who'd been retired a decade before 911 ever happened, and never saw anything he's talking about.

Again, you want your conspiracy more than you want the truth. And that's why you fail.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I really need to check in here more often...George, give it up...

As for the OP "New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!"

I have a question.......Do they mention WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? All of these were destroyed that day, they simply didn't totally collapse....And they had to be demolished or "Pulled" at a later date. Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...

 

[Skylar]

Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...

Depends on what you mean by 'pulled'. In demolition parlance, that means to attach cables to the structure and literally pull it over with a bulldozer. In fire fighting lingo, it means to end your fire fighting effort and evacuate.

 

[georgephillip]

I really need to check in here more often...George, give it up...

As for the OP "New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!"

I have a question.......Do they mention WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? All of these were destroyed that day, they simply didn't totally collapse....And they had to be demolished or "Pulled" at a later date. Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...

I thought you might be on vacation, Ollie.
I didn't write the OP.
Apparently, it isn't literally correct as WTC7 is mentioned in its timeline of events.
As far as "pulling" is concerned, Larry Silverstein used the term:


"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, 'I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.' Mr. McQuillan has stated that by 'it,' Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]

"There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]"

WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined