-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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Find us some explosions like this...

in sequence with the alleged squibs; then I'll give some credence to your posts.

Undo what Wilson did

'9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up'


This sound analysis reveals sequential explosions.

"Credence"... fireant, I don't need your approval. Contrary to what you seem to think when you try to take over these kind of discussions, as on other threads, or when you post nonsense attention-seeking threads like this, these discussions are not about you. It's not for YOU that I've even indulged this nonsense bait thread this far.

fireant's picture

Notice Chandler gives no indication of how the sounds...

are necessarily explosions. He just makes the leap that they are. Breaking steel makes very loud noises too, similar to explosive sounds. Chandler then goes on to state the most likely method of demo was nanothermite, which, of course, is not explosive. Do you not see the dichotomy?
I will maintain my view that every one of the hundreds of first responders in the area would have likewise reported hearing any explosives associated with the fall of Building 7. But even more convincing in my mind, is the fact there is not one report of the distinctive smell of explosives or incendiaries.
Sorry JM, I didn't mean to come off with an attitude. I just simply believe you are wrong. No need for the insults.
This is not a bait thread. It is to illustrate the likewise irrelevancy of the many skyscraper fire comparisons which have been made regarding Building 7. None are valid.

Undo what Wilson did

Jefferson's picture


worry about saving me any "embarrassment" although you're kind to be thoughtful of my feelings.

You're the one suffering embarrassment as evidenced by the number of downvotes your attempt to explain away WTC7 has received.

"Window blinds?" Really? Were they jumping out the window to avoid being trapped in the building? Or, were they pushed? What FORCE pushed them? (DON'T IGNORE THIS QUESTION)

Here is what you ignore. They were "SEQUENTIALLY" going up the sides of the building in a TIMED sequence. They did that immediately after the central columns had been blown which is ALSO evident in WTC7 videos. So, of course they were doing it "on the way down" as it all happened in SECONDS and fractions of seconds.
It's a classic controlled demo, not gravitational symmetrical collapse due to random fires, which is impossible.

You're the one that's confused buddy.

Danny Jowenko, a Dutch controlled demolition expert gives his unbiased opinion on World Trade Center building 7's collapse.


He's dead now, but here's the website for his controlled demo business.

I think I'll take his explanation over your laughable "window blinds" explanation. If you can't answer the basic question I asked you not to ignore, then don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

fireant's picture

Um...Air Pressure, Teacher?

Are you playing a game? Not even a sophomoric question; were back in grade school, are we?
It's the same principle for which firemen use extreme caution when gaining entrance to a burning building. Fire and heat create gases which expand and pressurize the air. Once the containment is breached, poof, or in some cases, a mighty whoosh of air as it seeks equilibrium with outside pressure.
Now here is question for you. Failure to answer will reveal you have no clue.
Given they were explosive squibs, how did they mask the noise and the flashes as demonstrated in this video? Buddy

Undo what Wilson did

I wish all the people who

I wish all the people who watch conspiracy documentaries called 'x' would also watch 'x debunked' :-/

Then if they came and discussed things would be a lot easier.

Of course there is also sometimes the 'x debunked debunked' but that's usually a load of bull.

I wish all the people who

I wish all the people who watch conspiracy documentaries called 'x' would also watch 'x debunked' :-/

Then if they came and discussed things would be a lot easier.

Of course there is also sometimes the 'x debunked debunked' but that's usually a load of bull.

All you showed me

is that you're not very good at looking at evidence.
Did you figure out that it wasn't aliens, and leave it at that?



Conspiracy Crowd???

And what exactly separates you from the "conspiracy crowd"?

For example, do you think the political and military leadership secretly devising their phony case against Iraq, to bring their country into an unnecessary war constitutes a conspiracy?

The fact of the matter is that a government as secret as ours, and as lawless as ours, is always in the process of conspiring.

But you cannot believe in any conspiracies, is that right? Because people will look down on you for questioning?

The problem

With your assertion that the damage from falling debris contributed to the collapse of building 7 is that the "official" story says it didn't. Read the actual NIST report instead of just looking for mistakes made by the so called "cult."

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Since this has already turned

Since this has already turned into one of those threads...ordo you mind posting a few pics that show some of the damage to building 7?

The first argument of conspiracy theorists is that there were only small fires and no real damage. Lets start with putting that notion to rest.

The damage from debris hitting wtc7...

...would not have caused the near symmetrical collapse at freefall speed.

I don't see people asserting that there was no damage. The problem is the notion that the fire and debris damage would've been responsible for what happened.

Regardless, the building and collapse in the topic of this thread does not compare to wtc7.

Ok, I'll try to explain the

Ok, I'll try to explain the 'freefall' bit.

Suppose for the the purpose of the argument that one floor collapses, the floor underneath would take the force of the falling debris, if it is going to collapse too, it will collapse as soon as the debris hits it as that is the point of maximum force.

Same goes for the floor below, and below that and below that and so on.

It is an inelastic collision and the mass above sticks together so each floor below is impacted with greater and greater force.

This means that the time for the floor below to collapse will keep reducing.

So near freefall speed is not only not a surprise but completely EXPECTED if a building collapses.

That means you can stop widening your eyes and screaming 'freefall' as if it is some kind of smoking gun.

If this is resolved to your satisfaction (specificall the near free fall speed) we can move on to the next aspect of the collapse which makes you believe it was a controlled demolition.

Total absurdity...

and completely unworthy of comment. Besides there are physical laws that stand in your way.

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

Molten steel

Where did it come from???

I don't think there was any

I don't think there was any molten steel as the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel. The moat logical assumption is that it was molten aluminium from the planes.

The horseshoe shaped beam and the beams melted in a cross...

...were not aluminum.

(see 1:58 & 5:17 for those in particular)

This video is less than a minute and also shows molten steel.

fireant's picture

It shows corroded, not molten steel.

I know the guy said "molten", but it doesn't show in the video. The video shows extreme corrosion and buckling.
Extensive corrosion is the one factoid everyone overlooks, and it is important to note the boiling point for rust is much less than for iron, and the process will reverse at the boiling point.

Undo what Wilson did

2nd vid specifically and repeatedly makes reference to heat.

Announcer: ...Beams that heated up and buckled

The person in the hard hat showing the damage to the beam:

This is one of the beams that obviously took a lot of heat damage and actually started to melt...it burned right through.. the burn hole and it actually kind of collapsed on itself...clearly due to the heat. And it's significantly corroded and melted. The back side of it is gone. The intense heat that they've been talking about, 1500 degrees to 2000 degrees...

He was not just talking about corrosion.

But even if you don't think what is shown in that video is indicative of heat damage, there are plenty of other accounts that corroborate that there was extreme heat and molten metal, including steel.

The first video also addressed heat and I noted the horseshoe shaped beam. (Regarding the beams melted into a cross, the statement in the video does appear to be baloney, as I stated further below in my response to godsfavson.) The quotes of both parties standing by the beam now shaped like a horseshoe with regard to the heat can be seen below in my response to godsfavson, as well as in this link that has PLENTY of other statements regarding heat and molten steel, some of which I posted in my reply to godsfavson below.

What would burn through steel and/or caused heat so intense as to melt and bend it in ways that pressure alone would not?

You don't have to respond to that because I wouldn't expect a serious answer from someone who thinks things like auto tires and batteries could've even possibly been responsible for the huge explosions that were heard with regard to wtc7, or from someone who thinks debris falling down the elevator of the twin towers could create pyroclastic flow, or from someone who posted this ridiculous thread at all.

fireant's picture

What comes through loud and clear is your complete mis-character

-ization of what I have said.
Truth need no embellishment and is in fact, repugnant to any quest for truth. Why do you try so hard to make me look bad by twisting what I say? Do you honestly think it adds weight to your argument?
Point 1. Where have I ever argued the fact extreme heat was not present?
Point 2. Where have I ever indicated large explosions associated with Building 7 were from batteries and tires? Barry Jennings referred to only one "large explosion", which he claims was inside the building. The other explosions he refers to he seems to be indicating were outside. That and numerous other reports of explosions never claimed to be large, or associated with 7...those are the ones I referred to as likely being from vehicles, including pressurized equipment in burning fire trucks. One EMT, escaping the area after the South Tower collapse, described it as a minefield with all the gas tanks and tires exploding. I've been very clear on this. Why do you try to slant it into something ridiculous?
Point 3. Where have I ever suggested "pyroclastic flows" were created by debris falling down elevator shafts? Firstly, there were no "pyroclastic flows". If there were, everyone caught in them would be burnt to a crisp. There were immense dust clouds driven by the intense wind of collapse, created by tons of drywall and concrete ground up by the churning steel.
Point 4. If you'd bother to actually read the thread, then you would know it is no more ridiculous than all the so called skyscraper fire comparisons which have been presented by the CD faithful.
Now, go back and review my last response to you. My answer to most of your questions is there; rust. If excessive corrosion was already present, it would easily burn through those areas in the organic patterns which are shown, at the reported temperatures.

Undo what Wilson did

Can't look at videos as I'm

Can't look at videos as I'm out but lets set good boundaries for debate.

You know that bending and deformation do not mean melting right? Steel can get easily get deformed by lesser stress once it has been weakened by heat.

PS: If you post pictures that'll be a lot easier.

I'm interested in truth, not debate. Debate implies opposition.

I'd prefer people put their heads together and discuss things productively(which would be better done in a serious thread, as opposed to this bait thread fireant posted), whether they agree or not, rather then seeking adversarial amusement where an "us/them" dividing line of debate is laid down or implied.

Regardless, you said the temperatures did not get high enough to melt steel and therefore thought Brimichl might have been referring to molten aluminum instead.

The videos I posted refer to steel and discuss the high temperatures that would had to have been involved.

The second video shows and discusses heat damage to steel pulled from the rubble.

The first one showed several things, but I noted in my previous comment the steel beams melted together into a cross and the steel beam bent into a horseshoe.

Regarding the statement by the person in the video about the beams having melted together into a cross and not being from the same structure, that statement may very well be baloney, as looking into it further, the main cross part does look to be something that was already together.

Regarding the beam bent into a horseshoe shape, this link shows that and talks about it, as well as accounts of other molten metal, including steel, and the high temperatures.

Not going to post all the quotes here, but there are some things that stick out to me.

Regarding the steel beam bent into a horseshoe shape...

I found it hard to believe that it bent because the size of it and how there’s no cracks in the iron. It’s bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands [?] degrees to bend steel like this.

- Ironworker talking about the “horseshoe” piece saved for possible memorial use, in “Relics from the Rubble,” A&E TV, 2002. Watch clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg#t=1m48s — Commenting on the piece of steel, Mark Wagner of Voorsanger Architects and Associates said, “Typically you’d have buckling and tearing on the tension side, but there’s no buckling at all.” (Update: In a recent interview with the 9/11 Memorial Museum, Wagner changed his story – or lied – saying heat was not a contributing factor...)

Note- in the link to the video where Wagner says it bent due to pressure, not heat, it shows a quote at 3:28 indicating otherwise: "We saw a lot of pieces like this," said Wagner. "Typically, when steel bends, it buckles and tears. The smooth bend on this piece shows the steel became malleable - a pretty good indication of how hot it was."

More regarding steel looking melted...

• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that.” He added, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."]

Also, a quote on that link from a structural engineer...

“I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.” – Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_0...

Beams dripping at the ends...

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., maker of the GlobalPoint Global Positioning System receiver used to track debris and/or human remains recovery locations in the pile. (Trudy Walsh, “Handheld App Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News, Vol. 21 No. 27 a, 9/11/2002. Archived at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/gcn_handhelda... )

Regarding temperatures...

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.” – http://nymag.com/news/features/28517

And if his credibility is in question, there is corroboration from fire officials...

“The temperature at the core of ‘the pile,’ is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials.” http://web.archive.org/web/20010918182531/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_recovery010918.html

Regarding a beam from wtc7...

• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7–a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.” [Ibid.]

(all bold emphasis mine)

There's just too much there regarding the high temperatures and the steel, including quotes from eyewitness and experts, for me to dismiss it.

Mr. Wagner statements are not

Mr. Wagner statements are not wrong. Pressure and heat need not be mutually exclusive to each other. For example, that column may have been left supporting more weight than it was intended to and so bent, but having been made more malleable by the heat did not break or crack.

The melting point of steel is generally upwards of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature quoted is 'almost 2000' which may as well be 1750 degrees Fahrenheit or 1800 degrees Fahrenheit which is certainly not hot enough to melt steel.

'Bending and warping' are a sure sign of pressure acting on the heat weakened steel girders. Steel loses more than half its strength at the temperatures reported in the building. Not to mention the load on them had increased due to structural damage caused by the planes. If you don't believe steel can be weakened by office fires you need only ask yourself why the engineers found it necessary to fire proof them during the construction (unfortunately the fire proofing was knocked off by the impact of the plane)

There would have been a LOT of molten aluminium so it wouldn't be a surprise find it almost ubiquitous at the site. For example I'm sure you've seen images of it dripping from the side of the building.

Let me tell you a little secret about engineers too. I know literally hundreds. About two of them, if they gave up everything else and focused only on this for about a couple of years be able to get anywhere near the exact truth. As for architects? That's a laugh. Only the most sophisticated architects in the world could even develop a valid opinion on the issue. This was a COMPLICATED event. Even my opinion is a tapestry of others' analyses taking into account the most likely scenarios and evidence.

The truth movement will try to sell the idea that it is high school physics and that's all there is to it, but things couldn't be further from the truth. There are so many variables that in the time NIST took I doubt even they got it absolutely right to their satisfaction.

So let me get back to the topic, the last one which is eyewitness testimonies. One word-unreliable. Another word-unverified. They do not represent truth as people are telling you what they think they saw rather than what they actually saw. For all the photographic evidence I've provided explanations above.

Good Deal...

cheap garments and population control. Doesn't get any better than that.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

Ole Fireant...the dishonest

Ole Fireant...the dishonest disinformation agent. It's a miracle the wind didn't blow this structure down.

“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

Jefferson's picture



A refund is definitely in order....;)

This weaksauce in the OP definitely shows he doesn't have a clue about building construction. I feel dumber for having responded to it. Time for me to go get some sun and fresh air..

Lol, I thought the same thing myself for responding to it.

But at least it was good for a quick howdy with ya. ;)

It's a little gloomy and rainy here, not that I mind, though. Enjoy the fresh air and sunshine.

(On a side note- It's interesting that fireant who posted this ridiculous thread has yet to make one post here...not one response to anyone's questions or comments.)


Unless he responds to all of the points made in this post w/ good arguments then I will consider him to be a disinfo agent.