-97 votes

UPDATE: Steel reinforced building collapses straight down at free-fall through path of most resistance!

No planes or missiles hit the building!
No fire!
PROOF Building 7 fell naturally!!!!

Update: Sometimes it takes absurdity to illustrate absurdity.
I'm sorry to have led you guys on, but I had to in order to make this point. Though not a joke, it does contain a bit of humor.
There is only one valid conclusion to be made by comparing this building with WTC7; gravity makes things fall to the ground. Period. That is the only valid conclusion. The same is true for each and every comparison which has been made for Building 7 and the Towers. There is NO comparison. They are all invalid.
As evidence, review some of the counter arguments made in the comments. Most, if not all of those same counter arguments have been presented over and over regarding the usual WTC7 comparisons, and are flat out rejected by the same people who are making those arguments now!
Aside from the humor, I hope this is cause for a bit of introspection. I don't expect to change the minds of those who adamantly adhere to the CD camp. They will down vote me and call me names. I do hope that those who may be on the fence will approach this topic with an open and critical mind. I am just one person. I have done extensive research apart from CD sites; raw data. I am convinced there was no controlled demolition. I used to believe in it. I was persuaded by the usual sources and videos. Once looking with an unbiased eye however, I gradually began to realize the 911Truth proponents omit volumes of data, and skew the facts in order to buttress their beliefs. The most significant omission is the damage to Building 7. The most significant skewing of fact is claiming it came straight down.
At this point in my journey, I find it absurd to think even a run-away cadre of treasonists within could possibly pull off demolition and think they could get away with it. Evidence could not be concealed from the thousands of first responders.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am on a job in a high rise right now.

I am looking out at downtown Albuquerque NM right now, you are like the maintenance man and several other contactors who got ran off of this job.
I am from out of state and not looking to pick fights with anyone. I am here to fix the A/C.

why do you desire to know about things mechanical?

don't get in my way is my advice. dweeb.

Jefferson's picture


(trying to learn better manners)

Apparently you don't know...

Apparently you don't know the difference between a steel reinforced building and a structural steel building. Or you are trying blur the line between them like the lefties do with semi auto and full auto fire arms.
A steel reinforced building is made up mostly with concrete with reinforcement bars. I have known of 2 buildings that pancaked and it always turns out that the concrete is too wet ( too much water in the mixture which greatly reduces the strength. Or the other reason that they fall down is the forms are stripped out while the concrete is still green and has not hardened enough.
I have personally witnessed a structural steel building that collapsed. It was due to crane operator error because he over extended the boom and the crane fell into building causing a cascade effect.
There was a high rise structural steel building in Japan that burned for 21 hours and did not fall down. Jet fuel can not generate the heat necessary to leave molten pools of steel like was found in in the World Trade buildings. Take your trolling and disinformation somewhere else where you can fool them.


1) Can jet fuel ignite

1) Can jet fuel ignite substances that burn at a higher temperature?

2) If not, then why was there any need to fireproof the steel columns?

purpose of fireproofing

steel can be weakened by fire, however it cannot be melted to a molten state (even with the addition of jet fuel). Fireproofing adds time / protection to the steel, from the fire. There is nothing that I can think of in a regular carbon fire that would burn hotter than jet fuel. Im not sure if your comment was for or against the "sold story" the feds gave us, so Im just answering to the best of my ability!

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
- Ron Paul

Any molten metal you see is

Any molten metal you see is MUCH more likely to be aluminium from the planes.

But that is incidental. If steel can be weakened to such a degree by office fires that engineers felt it necessary to fireproof it at great expense, then perhaps the insistence that fires could not result in failure in steel columns is not entirely truthful.

As for your other assumption there is a very nice graph exactly halfway down the page I'm linking to that will help clarify why I made that point.


Avoid the other stuff, its boring, go straight to the graphs.

your brain gets an "F"

The molten metal was not only seen dripping from the building before it fell, but also in the rubble. Not just WTC 1 and 2, but also at WTC 7 which as we all know was not hit by a plane. This building had structural damage due to falling debris (negligible) and a fire on a couple floors which the recordings of the firefighters say "could easily be put out with a couple lines..." There should not have been any molten metal ANYWHERE, especially building 7. Your Graphs mean nothing, a fifth grader could make them on the paint program. The proof is in the smoke, which was very dark black meaning the fire was being starved of oxygen and going out. Also, engineers do not "choose to fireproof buildings at great cost..." This must be done (in most / certain buildings) to be up to code. It is not there to prevent a steel framed building from coming down, because fire cannot do that, it is there only as a protection from further damage. Again, fire, and jet fuel, cannot make steel molten as it was reported by many witnesses including firefighters as well as confirmed by the thermal images taken of the site by Nasa. Your comments are pointless and without basis and wholly devoid of any factual findings. Your case sir, is respectfully dismissed. Go back to flipping those burgers.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
- Ron Paul

Here truly is an engineer in whom there is no deceit.

Fellow Hoosier: I was onsite during the (1991?) Merom Generating Station fire in one scrubber module. The fuel was a plastic packing such as polypropylene ignited by oxyacetylene cutting slag. The fire burned for many more hours than any WTC buildings. I was among the first to inspect the structure the following morning as a mechanical engineer with steel structure experience. I observed no molten metal, several warped 12 inch horizontal I-beams and columns along with smaller girters. I inspected all the structural steel including bolted connections and determined that it was safe for human occupancy for the purpose of rebuilding the scrubber module.

He's a member of the Freshman class

that arrived here around the same time 1.5 - 2 years ago...when Fireant was a sophomore. Don't waste your time. They all came on the same bus for a reason.

All non-shill thinking people who have spent an iota of time looking at the evidence know that the official story all stinks to high heaven. If anyone has ever had the experience of working with, and especially melting steel, and has seen it's properties first hand...he then has something to refute the borg mind-control apparatus. A person who knows steel can apply this knowledge to the story in earnest and easily understand that the story can't be true. The biggest problem is, most have not had this experience so they fall prey to the "molten aluminum" meme as well as the "fire weakened" steel fairytale.

This guy isn't just dumb...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Let me guess, you are trying

Let me guess, you are trying for -100?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

This is what happens when one

This is what happens when one of the planes is downed by military planes, and doesn't even up colliding with tower 7 like the other two.

It falls anyway. Predestination.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

As a Graduate student in Architecture

This is seriously... offensively stupid.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Well I hope they are teaching you a lesson...

..and hammering home the folly of ever relying on structural steel to support anything you do in the future. The stuff is too damn fragile and it's heat conductive properties will cause a whole interconnected block to fail from an over-stoaked ashtray falling on a tile floor some day.

Get out of the city while you still can!!!

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

No, you cant compare this to

No, you cant compare this to 9/11. The problem is that this building has a completely different method of construction. They used primarily concrete with rebar to construct it. The reason it collapsed, that I can make an educated guess on without even seeing up close pictures or detailed reports, is because they very likely didnt tie the rebar together like they should have(and possibly didnt use enough rebar), and used substandard concrete or just plain cement. Since its very likely the rebar was not tied, or not tied properly, once the concrete started to crack/crumble, it pulled the rebar right out without any trouble at all.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

That's a good educated guess..

When I was in Egypt, there were many complexes being built with rebar and concrete slabs. All of the structural support was vertical that 'became' tied horizontally through floor plates. Very poor architecture in cheap living conditions.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I suggest you re-take high school physics...

Chapters on conservation of energy and falling objects, and inelastic collisions.
You can't have free-fall AND collisions at the same time.
It's just that simple.

This reeks

of desperation.


This is the post I wanted you to respond to (which is in this thread. I'm just reposting here):

PROOF Building 7 fell naturally or....
Submitted by kevink on Sun, 04/28/2013 - 08:12. Permalink

...PROOF that fireant has an agenda?

Was this article your only source in making your determination? Show me where in this article that it mentions free-fall collapse. Better yet, show me where it mentions the word "steel" (or even steel re-inforced). Below are a few lines from the article. Are you using the fact that the article mentions "mangled rods" as proof that the building was made of steel?

“I saw the materials used in the columns and the material used for the rest of the building and it was completely substandard.”
Rahima was trapped. The pillars around her had collapsed. The building itself had collapsed. She was caged in by mangled rods, concrete.

Keep in mind too that there were no fires and the building wasn't built to code.

Fireant - you have a lot of 'splaining to do. If you legitimately believe your position I want to hear point-by-point how you've arrived at this conclusion. First off, I want you to address the "free fall collapse" argument and the "steel reinforced building" argument.

fireant's picture

If you still ask those questions...

you obviously have not read the update, so you don't even know the purpose of the thread.
Again, it is no wonder you are confused. Your "critical thinking" seems to be just one leap after another.
And since you have attempted to smear and slander me on this and other threads without having a clue what you are talking about, do not expect me to engage in conversation with you until you either prove your allegations, or retract them.

Undo what Wilson did



This is exactly what

you would expect for a cheaply constructed concrete building that had been weakened by a huge blast or even earthquake.

doesn't look the same to this non-engineer

I am 911 -questioner. I don't buy the official story but am not sure which of the competing alternate explanations is the correct one. Still the remains of the Benglidish building looks nothing like the remains of wtc, Large chunks are remaining. The towers were pulverized. And unless there is a recording, we don't know if it actually fell at free fall.


you are an idiot.

This is not a structural steel building. This is a concrete building "reinforced with steel"... meaning rebar ( ridged metal bars - of various thickness) To compare this with a structural steel building shows complete stupidity. You should be ashamed of your brain for this one. Nice try though.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
- Ron Paul

A demolition puts the building in the basement

This building is not in the basement. Building 7 ended up in the basement.

All I can do is LOL at this

All I can do is LOL at this comparison.

I Find It Ironic

that ANYONE on DP could call ANYONE a "conspiracy theorist" considering we are ALL considered as such by the sleeping masses simply for following Ron Paul. It is to laugh! Anyway, I can't help but notice that people that are pushing to NWO agenda NEVER have any valid or reasonable arguments no matter what the subject is because they KNOW the stuff they are touting is BS and they simply hope people are stupid enough to buy it. Piers Morgan is a perfect example of that. Fireant is another.


Are you serious or just being a wiseguy wasting everyone's time?

Not long ago you were listing things like tires and batteries as possible explanations for those huge explosions in bldg 7. Before that you tried to tell us that debris falling down the elevator of the twin towers could've caused pyroclastic flow.

Now you post this building collapse as if it compares to wtc7.

Fireant, if you are serious, I'd like to know what exactly you think the comparisons are between this building and collapse with wtc7.

If you're just being a wiseguy, you're not funny.

I love the fact

the building 7 conspirators ignore the fact the debris from tower collapse gouged out a huge portion of the bottom floors before the fire. I have looked at all the evidence presented by the conspiracy crowd and much of it is laughable. You all want to believe it so this makes it all true and I have learned there is no arguing with that cult.

LOL! So not only did that pesky debris fall vertically, but it

also swept horizontally under Building 7, gouging "out a huge portion of the bottom floors"? (Because this is what it would have taken to cause the nearly perfectly symmetrical collapse, the videos of which and testimonies to which we have all seen and heard.)

ROFL! In what sort of world do you live, dawg? Super Mario Bros. or somewhere? Now that is some FUNNY shit.

Howz about King Fucking KONG showed up and gave Building 7 a brutal pile driver, while wearing an invisible Harry Potter cloak?!

(You are just precious!)

What would the Founders do?

fireant's picture

Amazing how far some will go to believe a myth.

Yes, debris "swept horizontally", and undercut Building 7. It is laughable to think, as you assert, that falling material would not tumble horizontally upon striking the ground. Drop a can of match sticks, coins, screws, or whatever on the ground and see where they end up.

Undo what Wilson did