30 votes

Modern skyscraper fires; before and after pics


Modern steel-framed buildings do not collapse from fire. So what brought down World Trade Center 7, which was built stronger than the normal building code because it housed US Government offices?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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



People who can't grasp the whole context of such a thing happening, and being covered over so shamelessly by the interwoven Establishment, will never see the truth that's as plain as day. They'll see the pre-existing notions that have been planted firmly in their heads, and think of how to rationalize these photos away.

Not just the die-hard Trusters below...all Trusters far and wide.

Purdue University ...

... played a role in the cover-up.

A couple of guys at Purdue came up with a cockamamie story about how the buildings could collapse due to office and jet fuel fires.

They used bogus data, but their "theory" was pushed as the meme to all in the media as the official explanation.

Purdue's "research:"

Story carried by USA Today and other media:

Letter to Purdue from skeptics showing why the "study" was nonsense:

And whaddayaknow ????

A couple of years later, Purdue University gets a juicy $105 million grant from the federal government:

Couldn't be a payoff, could it? Nah.

Thanks for this.

Thanks for this.

Southern Agrarian

NIST answered that question and so did debunking911.org

Here is the question: "So what brought down World Trade Center 7, which was built stronger than the normal building code because it housed US Government offices?"

THE HARD 9/11 Conspiracy has it as a nanothermite inside job.
THE SOFT 9/11 Conspiracy has it as KEY players, looking away and letting it all unfold. Justin Raimondo is in this camp I believe.

I think the HARD 9/11 Conspiracy has been completely debunked by both NIST and Debunking 9/11.org

WT7 was build AROUND AND OVER an old building that was in the middle of WT7, it was "preserved". Thus, it was not like most buildings from the very start.

debunking wt7 conspiracy has it this way: "Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico's Neanderthal man...) Use just common sense."


And here is NIST answer posted via Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7,

Read more at: http://phys.org/news138546437.html#jCp

NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”
The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.
The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

The investigation team found that the design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at the time. The estimated 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 on the morning of Sept. 11 were evacuated without any fatalities or serious injuries.
To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11; conducted first-person interviews of WTC 7 occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; and performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building’s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence due to a combination of debris impact damage, fires and a progression of structural failures from local fire-induced damage to collapse initiation, and, ultimately, to global collapse.
Source: NIST

Read more at: http://phys.org/news138546437.html#jCp

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820


"performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building’s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence"

Then, to prevent independent analysis of their model data they classified it, because it "might jeopardize public safety"



Can I just point out...

That you're gonna need to prove that skysrapers can't fall. You have all repeated this lie so much that you believe it. However.. we all saw it happen, so why would we believe you that it can't happen? It did happen.


the manner in which it fell.

A building such as wtc7 can absolutely fall...and it can fall at free fall speed which it did. IF...and only if....all support columns are cut at the same time. How do you achieve this? Explosives or some sort.

It didn't free fall. That's

It didn't free fall. That's been debunked so many times.


it hasn't...and it was even admitted to by NIST. It was in free fall for over two seconds.....a high school physics student can measure this.

NIST final report showing freefall:


wow, the actual truth comes out

free fall for 2 seconds is a big 'so, who cares?'

Plus, I've never known a truther to EVER say that 'WTC7 was in free fall during the mid-stage of it's collapse'. Nope, it's always 'WTC7 free fell! Buildings don't do that!!!'.

Why don't truthers ever mention this important detail? Because it doesn't fit their theory.


calling me a truther first of all. Just because I believe we should actually investigate a crime that killed 3,000 of our citizens doesn't mean I believe that we never landed on the moon and that the government orchestrated 911. I have no idea who did it....all i know is that there is reasonable evidence that warrants further investigation by independent sources....and let the chips fall where they may with what we find out from these investigations.

If you would watch the rest of the video you would see that the analysis of it does call into question the start time of the "official report"....the "official report" which completely screwed up this kindergarten analysis dealing with acceleration. This is insanely basic. I have a degree in structural engineering...and i can tell you that to screw up something as simple as this is unheard of in the engineering world. This is seriously sophomore year HS physics. It's a joke. With a revised start time...you have free fall at the onset.

Regardless on whether you believe that the start time is correct in the official report....it doesn't matter where you have the 2 seconds of free fall in the collapse. It's equally problematic no matter where it occurs. It requires zero resistance from the supporting structure below.

Also, the modeling used by NIST.....they never released their inputs for the modeling. If I would have done this for any project at school I would have gotten a big fat "F"...i would have been laughed at by my professors....and for clients....I would have been fired. It is imperative for an analysis such as this that you provide all the inputs for the computations in the modeling software.

"free fall for 2 seconds is a big 'so, who cares?'"

I actually agree with you on this one...you ask a person without a degree in this stuff if they think free fall is problematic...i bet most would say "who cares"...like you did. You ask a structural engineer though....you better believe that is problematic....incredibly problematic. We know this to be impossible unless certain key things occur in a collapse...key things that don't occur unless all supports are simultaneously cut.

So i generally don't discuss that. What i do find incredibly problematic.....and someone without a degree in this should find incredibly problematic....are traces of thermitic material in the dust coupled with iron microspheres. Those are problematic....and warrant a serious independent investigation.

fireant's picture

There is a big difference between "zero resistance" and

"all columns were cut at the same time", as you stated in your original comment. When you say they were cut, you eliminate all other possibility. If you are a structural engineer, then you should know there are other possibilities besides the columns being cut. If you had done your homework, you would note the perimeter wall panels broke in very large sections irregularly at their connection points, which can explain there being zero resistance for a portion of the descent.
As for the timing of the starting point, none of the studies I'm familiar with have noted the lateral shift in the building at onset of descent, and continuing as it fell. Freefall and lateral movement at the same time is impossible. Nor have any of the studies noted the measuring point was actually falling away from the camera.

Undo what Wilson did


"Freefall and lateral movement at the same time is impossible."

No it's not...if i throw a ball at you it's moving laterally and has a vertical acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. Like the old physics question "if i fire a bullet horizontally and drop another one from my hand from the same height....which one hits the ground first neglecting frictional air forces etc."....they hit at the same time. Free fall.

"When you say they were cut, you eliminate all other possibility. If you are a structural engineer, then you should know there are other possibilities besides the columns being cut."

You're right....there is another possiblity...that the fire coordinated with itself and simultaneously caused all support columns on multiple floors to fail at the exact same time. So not only did the fires work in unison and cause instantaneous failures of all support columns...the fires did this by doing something that is impossible to do in normal office fires...they melted the steel structure at each of these points.

"If you had done your homework, you would note the perimeter wall panels broke in very large sections irregularly at their connection points, which can explain there being zero resistance for a portion of the descent."

No...this would not cause free fall acceleration for over 2 seconds....absolutely not.

I think his point was that it

I think his point was that it wouldn't fit the gravity curve if it had two vectors.

And I really don't get why some near free fall is such a big deal for two reasons:

first, I still doubt that it was in actual, zero friction, free fall for any amount of time.

second, the mass of the falling structure obviously dwarfed the resistance at a critical time.

Also, as a structural engineer, you don't find the construction of the buildings to have at all been a factor? They had highly dependent support systems.

And I'm cool with a better investigation. I just wish the people who asks for one didn't seemed to do so out of bat-shit craziness. You, however do seem to have your marbles.


"first, I still doubt that it was in actual, zero friction, free fall for any amount of time."

It's actually documented in the final NIST report. But again....I don't think it's very convincing for most people....although it is for me.

"second, the mass of the falling structure obviously dwarfed the resistance at a critical time. "

Design standards for buildings are able to resist loadings well above and beyond normal building use. We're talking major factors of safety for skyscrapers such as these. Steel framed buildings are ideal for the very fact that they're so safe should a major fire take place. We were taught in school that these structures are chosen for this reason....if there is going to be a failure...it's a slow gradual failure allowing the occupants ample time to get out.

"I just wish the people who asks for one didn't seemed to do so out of bat-shit craziness."

No i hear ya man....it's too bad because there are serious, qualified people looking into this and they're overshadowed by the more extreme subset of people in the movement. I wish people would stick to the knowns....and leave the unknowns alone until the facts come to the surface through a real independent investigation.


I could sit here and talk linear dependence, or Rsquared, or specific gravity, how about super positioning?

The point is, you're not the only one who can read a chart. You're also talking in generalities. "Design standard for buildings..." We're talking about just one building which was designed in a way that made this all possible.


are talking about one building....but all buildings have to comply with engineering specification codes. WTC7 isn't an exception.

Here is something that is really telling. If you watch the previous video i posted....one of the guys from NIST (an engineer) is asked about the measurement for freefall....as originially NIST had the building collapsing 40% slower than freefall (which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous to make such a simple mistake). Listen to what he has to say about it....this is very truthful and he's spot on with his analysis about the implications of freefall..again this is a NIST engineer saying this:(it should start at 3 min 15 seconds)


I know I'm not the only one that can read a chart...that's why I posted the link to the video so you could look at the chart showing freefall for over two seconds for yourself.

i'll check it out with an

i'll check it out with an open mind later on

Newton's Cradle, agree's.

It ain't what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so.

Emperor Nero Caesar, 64 AD.

Rome burned. Its possible that Nero set the fire intentionally, to clear space for a new palace, but the fire became immediately out of control and burned for six days. Caused substantial, catastrophic damage to the imperial City. Historians don’t agree on much else about the fire, but most concur that Nero placed the blame for the fire on the new Christian Sect.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Rome Burns, 64 AD. Emperor Nero: Roman Candles; Redevelopment.

documentary. Emperor Nero Caesar invents Roman Candles. Rome burns.

Rome in smoldering ashes. Nero Caesar takes measures to rebuild.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Setting aside the FACT that

Setting aside the FACT that building fires do not burn hot enough to MELT steel (five inch thick high strength steel columns), and conceding that steel subjected to prolonged, intense heat does lose strength relative to temperature which may lead to failure, the majority of all three buildings was NOT subjected to such intense and necessarily symmetrically applied heat that they would fail so dramatically and COMPLETELY, falling almost entirely into their own footprints.

WTC 7 images are a misleading "comparison"

I support the logical conclusions that WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7 were brought down with additional help ie. explosives, what I term 'assisted demolition' as it wasn't totally controlled and rigged like proper controlled demolitions.

The WTC 7 images included in the imgur gallery are incorrectly used for "comparisons." In effect, it is a lie. It was either purposeful or the person who tried to make the comparison really has no idea what they're talking about. To be fair, let's say the latter.

The fires pictured in the imgur gallery were from early in the day. The fires later were much more severe. WTC 7 was raging, perhaps not a certified "inferno," but it was raging nonetheless. Not the miniscule, isolated pockets the included WTC 7 images show.

There was also significant damage to the corner opposite WTC 1.

I have watched all the FOIA released original footage of 9/11 WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7. If you haven't, I suggest you find them. YouTube is your friend. You probably have no idea of many other massive explosions, many loud and muffled booms and explosions.

Also the core of WTC 2 was still fully intact up to the impact point of UA 175 AFTER the top "block" fell and had collapsed to Church Street. It was similar to the WTC 1 "spire," only that the WTC 2 core was A LOT MORE core than the "spire." Fully intact.

fireant's picture

This argument is tired and bogus.

"Modern Skyscraper" is a red herring.
None of the examples are of similar design to 1, 2, and 7WTC, which were the only "large span", tube type structures in existence at the time, which has everything to do with how and why they collapsed.
Fire corrupts steel. That's why they put fire retardants on them. All of the examples had concrete encased structural members, the most effective fire retardant. The 3 WTC towers did not. Logically, the portion of Windsor Tower which was not yet encased in concrete collapsed like a house of cards.
None of the examples were damaged by 100+ ton flying mass objects.

Undo what Wilson did

SteveMT's picture

No matter what the design, redundancy is the key hallmark.

Not made out of tubes were the 47 core columns that supported each of the WTC towers. None of that redundancy seemed to matter, since both WTC1 and WTC2 fell symmetrically although each was hit in a different place. With WTC7, that now infamous, not redundant 'column 79' located asymmetrically in the building supposedly failed and also resulted in a symmetric collapse.

A plane hit WTC7???? Please

A plane hit WTC7????

Please link for me that info. Please and thank you.

fireant's picture

Is that what I said?

In 7's case, it was falling mass. I suppose I shouldn't have assumed readers could make the distinction.

Undo what Wilson did

SteveMT's picture

Corbett Report 8-14-13 ReThink 911 w/Richard Gage

Interview 719 – Richard Gage on ReThink911

wolfe's picture

This is what you guys should be doing...

Things like this push your cause forward. The weird conspiracy guesses don't as they are usually quickly and easily debunked and shown to be garbage...

Stick with the facts, like this.

When I was around 12, I watched documentaries on building demolition. If the demolition expert misjudges either the timing or placement of key charges, the building falls to one side or another. It requires skill and engineering to cause a building implosion.

The idea that one building could by chance have enough explosive force, at the right points, in the right timed sequence to create an implosion is beyond implausible.

3 buildings at once, creates odds so large as to be one step removed from being struck by lightening repeatedly every 5 minutes for a week.

This sort of thing coupled with the metallurgic data, is quite interesting. Ask any welder, they'll tell you.

I am not a truther by any stretch of the imagination. I have respect for facts and information. Stick with that, and you will get a lot more people asking the same questions that you have.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

I agree.It still baffles me

I agree.It still baffles me that some people don't understand the simple physics that tell you that buildings are not going to behave that way without some help,and there are over 2000 Architects and Engineers to back that up.
I will have to say that I consider myself a "truther" because I want to know the truth,don't you?
If you look at all the things that just don't add up on that day,you have to know that at the very least,a few people knew what was going to happen.
When you consider that Larry Silverstein owned all the trade center buildings and took out extra insurance for terrorist attacks just weeks before,and had an asbestos problem in all those buildings that would cost him a lot of money to remove,it's not to hard to put the pieces of the puzzle together....Larry gets rid of his problem and makes lots of money,and Bush gets his war,the patriot act,NDAA,and a few other perks.