Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed?

Cube Radio

Member
The fact that sulfidised steel was found at WTC7 is not in dispute, although NIST ignored FEMA's recommendation in 2002 that it should be further analysed in its 2007 report. However the source of the sulfur has never been clear, although subject to much speculation.

The BBC's Third Tower documentary claims that this sulfur came from gypsum wallboard (calcium sulfate) cooked in rubble fires. The claim is made at 49m05s in voiceover in the video below, and is apparently supported by Prof Sisson of Worcester Polytechnic Institute immediately after.

However, close attention to this section of the documentary should make it clear to anyone that Prof Sisson does not make the specific claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur: he merely states what he would expect to happen to the steel if sulfur were present, with other elements, in the rubble fires.

49.05 VOICEOVER The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burned in the fires.
49.10 PROF SISSON I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel and this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I'd expect.

This is important to recognise this qualification, because liberating elemental sulfur from its bonds in calcium sulfate is a an extended process extraordinarily unlikely to be achieved in a smouldering rubble pile, even if it were doused with water. See for example http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6024932
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4886
http://www.ehow.com/how_5700758_extract-sulfur-gypsum.html

I therefore put it to the forum that the BBC's claim that gypsum was the source of the sulfur at WTC7 was misleading bunk, and, given that organisation's mandate and position, can accurately be described as disinformation.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you quote what the BBC says?

Relevant info:
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Sulfur__Greening_2006.pdf

And it seems like elemental sulphur is not what is required, just sulphur dioxide. The whole "elemental sulphur" thing seems to be a bit of a red herring. Much like how the chemtrail folk talk about "spraying barium" instead of "spraying compounds of barium".
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
Edited to include the changes you request, Mick; I note that Greening's paper does not appear to suggest an atmosphere rich in sulfur could result from decomposition of gypsum, at least in the case of the towers: "the maximum concentration of SO2 from the decomposition of gypsum was 12 grams / m3, equivalent to 0.42 vol % SO2".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Edited to include the changes you request, Mick; I note that Greening's paper does not appear to suggest an atmosphere rich in sulfur could result from decomposition of gypsum, at least in the case of the towers: "the maximum concentration of SO2 from the decomposition of gypsum was 12 grams / m3, equivalent to 0.42 vol % SO2".
How much is needed?
 

Cube Radio

Member
How much is what Sisson calls "rich"? Greening suggests in the conclusions to his paper that experimental research would be required: a significantly more qualified position than the BBC's flat assertion, which does not seem to be supported by his analysis.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How much is what Sisson calls "rich"? Greening suggests in the conclusions to his paper that experimental research would be required: a significantly more qualified position than the BBC's flat assertion, which does not seem to be supported by his analysis.
Er, yes it does. The only significant difference it that greening's paper includes some other sources, particularly diesel.

The BBC reportage seems fairly reasonable, perhaps a little simplistic - but not in any deceptive manner.

Your OP, however, seems rather misleading, with links to extracting elemental sulphur, which seem to be entirely irrelevant, as it's the SO2, not S, that is the corrosive agent.
 

Cube Radio

Member
How is a paper considering multiple sources of sulphur supposed to the make the BBC's emphatic statement "The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard" generally acceptable? That emphatic statement indicates that a single source has been positively identified, and yet you suggest the BBC's reporting should be received as so approximate it can't even manage to accurately describe the chemical it is looking for.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How is a paper considering multiple sources of sulphur supposed to the make the BBC's emphatic statement "The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard" generally acceptable? That emphatic statement indicates that a single source has been positively identified, and yet you suggest the BBC's reporting should be recognised as so approximate it can't even manage to accurately describe the chemical it is looking for.
It's not a science paper. What's the problem here? BBC show not accurate enough? The basic point is perfectly sound. The sulphur probably came from the wallboards.

It seems like your only issue here is that the BBS was overly definitive, and you think they should have stuck a "probably" in there? This hardly raises to the level of "misleading bunk". It's an incredibly minor point.
 

Cube Radio

Member
The question of where the sulphur came from is one of the subjects of the documentary; the emphatic statement that it was gypsum is the BBC's conclusion to its investigation of the question: this is misrepresentation.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I'm not clear on the "chemistry" here. About SO2 being incorporated into softened (heated by the fires) steel that were parts of the structure of the WTC buildings.

Am I grasping this correctly?

Thanks.

ETA...on "chemistry", perhaps "metallurgy" is more accurate. Two science disciplines that I know nothing...or, VERY little about, in a scientific sense!!
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
And when you say "the sulphur probably came from the wallboards", do you "probably" mean to refer to SO2 by a different name?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The BBC was simply reflecting the views of the expert they interviewed.

The BBC is journalistic organization, not a scientific or technical organization.

Others have pointed out that sulphur compounds were present in many constituents of the rubble. There is also the notion that this sample was corroded over a long time period if it had sat in a low area where rainwater would puddle and that this is a result of "acid rain". One thing that is obvious is that it was not a widespread phenomena and it would be a very long stretch to attribute it to the cause of global collapse of WTC7 and an even greater leap to attach it to the collapses of WTC 1&2.

The phenomena is a curiosity. Nothing more than that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And when you say "the sulphur probably came from the wallboards", do you "probably" mean to refer to SO2 by a different name?
Sulfur dioxide contains sulfur. I was using the quite common shorthand of referring to a general compound by its elemental name, as the BBC also seemed to do. I gave the barium example earlier. But you are also familiar with the use to "calcium" and "sodium" in food, when the actual metals are not present. This is calcium - but eating this will do your bones no good :)
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
How much steel was found to show signs of this form of corrosion? If it was not extensive... what would explain a limited local phenomena? My guess is that it was limited and local and there was a specific source of the material (sulfur?) which was present such as acid in back up batteries. Gyp board was too universal to be the source as it would have produce this corrosion over almost all the steel in the pile I would think.
 

Cube Radio

Member
The point is that gypsum is highly unlikely to be the source in the concentrations required as Greening confirms; but we now have two statements on this thread to the effect that the sulfidized steel was "not a widespread phenomena": those posters making this assertion need to present some credible evidence for their statement that goes beyond a banal observation that very little steel from the building now remains.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
The point is that gypsum is highly unlikely to be the source in the concentrations required as Greening confirms; but we now have two statements on this thread to the effect that the sulfidized steel was "not a widespread phenomena": those posters making this assertion need to present some credible evidence for their statement that goes beyond a banal observation that very little steel from the building now remains.
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation. This what they found in two samples. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

Two samples. The steel did not melt, no thermite.

The steel was corroded in fires from 800 to 1000C. The sulfur attack could come from acid, from UPS. I have over 7 UPS in my home. How many UPS were in the WTC complex?
 

Cube Radio

Member
[...] as for the suggestion that acid could have come from UPS, such suggestions are not entertained by the BBC, which emphatically and falsely claims the source has been positively established: this is bunk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It may certainly be wrong to say that it has been proven, but it's a plausible theory. Why is it a big deal?
Could you explain why it matters where the sulphur comes from? Why is this significant, what does establishing a prosaic source for the sulphur, or proving it's not, accomplish in terms of the narrative?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
From all the debris I've seen in the hundreds of photos there is no evidence of corrosion which looks like like a chemical attack of the steel. Of course there was corrosion and abrasion as most photos were taken some time after the collapses and were exposed to water and so forth... paint abraded off the steel. There was no inventory of all the steel and it seems to hardly matter. There were all sorts of things in the towers and as mention numerous UPS systems if broken would leak acid which WOULD corrode steel pretty quickly. Further is appears that the corroded steel were not columns but beams or bracing. How that would lead to global collapse is unclear and no one has advanced a theory with corroding beams leading to collapse.

I think the highly corroded steel was most likely the result of local acid leaks.... and this would be expected... wouldn't it?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The point is that gypsum is highly unlikely to be the source in the concentrations required as Greening confirms; but we now have two statements on this thread to the effect that the sulfidized steel was "not a widespread phenomena": those posters making this assertion need to present some credible evidence for their statement that goes beyond a banal observation that very little steel from the building now remains.
Well the same applies to anyone suggesting that it was widespread. That would require something more than the banal, " there's no evidence it wasnt". Facts in evidence are two and only two samples out of the rubble.
You can speculate all you wish, dream or wish it to be true , but that all there is and even that does not resemble thermite melting attack.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
[...] as for the suggestion that acid could have come from UPS, such suggestions are not entertained by the BBC, which emphatically and falsely claims the source has been positively established: this is bunk.
The BBC? A news source is used as some sort of science fact? Newspapers, news sources include hearsay, quote mining - it might be right, it might be wrong.

The two samples you are talking about, using the sulfur as the primary attack on the steel, ignores the oxygen attack, and it all boils down to corrosion and steel exposed to temperatures of 1000C. Which means, no thermite touched these two steel samples, and the steel did not melt away, it was corroded away. The temperature never reached the melting point of steel. The attack shows eutectics formed by oxygen and sulfur, etc.

NIST did not ignore this, they had zero reason to study it which related to their purpose. Read the purpose and goals of NIST, and they do not list why two samples were attacked by fire and corroded in the WTC pile before, during or after 911.

The BBC is not the Bible for science, their source is what?

Read Appendix C again, this is what happened to the two samples - no thermite, no signs of explosives, nothing but fire. Take the paper to a chemical engineer, and maybe he/she can help you understand. I don't see anything of value for 911 truth with two samples corroded by fire, acid, or other means.

What is the point? BBC is not a science source, they report on stuff. The BBC said some of the terrorists were still alive after 911 - it was false. Remember, the MSM is in on the 911 inside job - good luck.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
...and you will not be able to point to any speculation about CD on this thread anyway; as for the suggestion that acid could have come from UPS, such suggestions are not entertained by the BBC, which emphatically and falsely claims the source has been positively established: this is bunk.
So what if the BBC does not mention it? Are you suggesting that the BBC is the definitive technical resource?
 

Redwood

Active Member
Sulfate activity would increase greatly in an acidic environment such as could be created by the burning of common plastics such as PVC. Anyone with a deep desire to research this esoteric phenomenon might try a few experiments with this.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Anyone with a deep desire to research this esoteric phenomenon might try a few experiments with this.
But, "always" use a paint booth!!


(I joke, because I have been spraying paints and other volatile materials for DECADES, and still have no problems...can type on a comput3er.......) (OK, I am joking. I'm fine!!!).....Fine.....Fine......

Just that in today's society, many who make videos MUST include the requisite "safety warnings". Actually hilarious, IMHO!
 

Cube Radio

Member
Pete: what you struggle to find significant the New York Times called "the deepest mystery" of the building; jaydeehees: you asserted that this steel was not widespread at the building but you have no evidence; and jay/Keith Beachy: the point is not that the BBC is a scientific or technical resource but that it falsely represented the facts.
 

Cube Radio

Member
On a side note: if I find any more of my posts in this discussion have been edited by a moderator without explanation I will stop responding to this thread.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Pete: what you struggle to find significant the New York Times called "the deepest mystery" of the building; jaydeehees: you asserted that this steel was not widespread at the building but you have no evidence; and jay/Keith Beachy: the point is not that the BBC is a scientific or technical resource but that it falsely represented the facts.
Then tell the BBC they messed up. When did you show wallboard could not degrade in fire and in the pile to supply sulfur? I use gypsum to supply sulfur in my yard. What is the point. The two, only two pieces of steel at the WTC were studied, and there was nothing except fire that was special about them; fires at 800 and 1000C. That rules out thermite. There is no point for 911 truth to use this as proof for the inside job junk.

Now you use "the deepest mystery" bs from the new York time to fuel what? It is as if the new times reporter never saw corroded steel. You use another newspaper to fuel a BS quest for what? Appendix C pretty much explains what they found, the big mystery is what did it. Thermite did not do it, so it leaves fires and stuff in fires.
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

The New York Times says the steel melted away, but the steel clearly corroded away. You now have two non-scientific journalistic pieces which only fuel those who can not read and comprehend the real science from Appendix C. They say melted, when it was corroded, you now have two sources which fail on science. What is your point?
You proved news sources, MSM, is not reliable. We have to check the facts to find the real story, or verify the real story. Which is what I do since I first discovered this news story phenomena in first grade when we passed around the secret phrase the teacher passed to the first student, and it came out wrong at the end of the line. We learned this in first grade, what people repeat may not be the original story, might not be right. 911 truth is based on the wrong stuff, and a special ability to not check facts.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
jaydeehees: you asserted that this steel was not widespread at the building but you have no evidence;
No evidence of a negative ? Seems to me you have the burden of proof reversed. The available evidence is of two and only two samples/instances of this type of erosion. IF there is a claim to the contrary it would be incumbent upon the claimant to supply reasoning and evidence. You have not done so.

jay/Keith Beachy: the point is not that the BBC is a scientific or technical resource but that it falsely represented the facts.
So? Is there a point to that? The BBC got something wrong, maybe. Its not the BBC's contention anyway, its their expert's opinion.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Keith, I suggest you re-read the thread title and consider the operative word "how": if you agree gypsum has not been established as the source of the sulfur just say so; Jay, you made a claim regarding the frequency of this steel at the site but you have not yet shown that the majority of the steel from the building was examined for this effect; re-read the op for how the BBC subtly misrepresented the expert view.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
; Jay, you made a claim regarding the frequency of this steel at the site but you have not yet shown that the majority of the steel from the building was examined for this effect; re-read the op for how the BBC subtly misrepresented the expert view.
IF you have some reason to doubt the evident existance of only two samples of this type of erosion its up to you to illustrate your reasoning for that position. Its not up to me to prove a negative. My "claim" is based on the fact that a lot of steel went through Freash Kills for the purpose of examination. Only two samples of this erosion were found. Its a claim based on the available evidence. IF you have evidence to the contrary, something other than a feeling, a politically motivated unease, or downright paranoia that compells you to assume otherwise, by all means tell us about it.

Again, IF the BBC got it wrong, its vased on their discussion with their chosen expert. Did they misrepresent what he said? Maybe, gee, journalists, with their journalism, History, English, or Communications, diplomas mangle an interpretation of a technical/scientific report. Imagine that!
When Flight 587 went down in Queens NYC, I watched a press room full of reporters listening to an NTSB investigator describing the last few moments of that aircraft's flight. He was describing the acellerations the aircraft underwent as per the FDR. At least ten times he was asked to explain what a 'g' was, what 'acelleration' was and similar high school level science terms. The NTSB person was clearly getting frustrated that he was trying to deliver a technical briefing to people for whom these terms seemed as foreign as the Greek language.
Your bugaboo is that journalists dont always accurately report scientific/technical reports! OMFG!
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
I have made no claim as to whether or not the sulfidised steel was common at the site, and this was not a live broadcast or anything like it but an investigative documentary that claims to have definitively established the source of the sulphur, without an actual basis in evidence for saying so.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I have made no claim as to whether or not the sulfidised steel was common at the site,
My "claim" is based on the fact that a lot of steel went through Fresh Kills for the purpose of examination. Only two samples of this erosion were found. Its a claim based on the available evidence. IF you have evidence to the contrary, something other than a feeling, a politically motivated unease, or downright paranoia that compells you to assume otherwise, by all means tell us about it.
and this was not a live broadcast or anything like it but an investigative documentary that claims to have definitively established the source of the sulphur, without an actual basis in evidence for saying so.
And.... You disagree with this, yeah, got that. It matters, NOT, since there are many other sources of sulphur compounds which even the expert you quote, Greening, goes on to mention.
It comes down to you having a beef with the BBC and their expert about a minor point.

"Dog with a bone" comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
I didn't quote Greening, but his work proves my point: the BBC was peddling disinformation by claiming to have definitively established the source of the sulphur, and misrepresenting the army scientist it chose as its expert; by all means, if you consider disinformation on this point insignificant you are under no obligation to post in a thread with a subject like this one.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I didn't quote Greening, but his work proves my point: the BBC was peddling disinformation by claiming to have definitively established the source of the sulphur, and misrepresenting the army scientist it chose as its expert; by all means, if you consider disinformation on this point insignificant you are under no obligation to post in a thread with a subject like this one.
It's you characterization of it as deliberate disinformation that's the problem here. It seems like quite a reasonable simplification (omitting a "probably") for a general interest TV program.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I didn't quote Greening, but his work proves my point: the BBC was peddling disinformation by claiming to have definitively established the source of the sulphur, and misrepresenting the army scientist it chose as its expert; by all means, if you consider disinformation on this point insignificant you are under no obligation to post in a thread with a subject like this one.
Post #3
I note that Greening's paper does not appear to suggest an atmosphere rich in sulfur could result from decomposition of gypsum, at least in the case of the towers: "the maximum concentration of SO2 from the decomposition of gypsum was 12 grams / m3, equivalent to 0.42 vol % SO2".
Post #16
The point is that gypsum is highly unlikely to be the source in the concentrations required as Greening confirms
Indeed you did quote Greening and claim he supports your case. He does, to a point. He suggests that gypsum was at best a minor contributor of SO2, AND THEN comments on several other sources.

What is it you are trying to say here? It certainly seems that you are simply trying to set up a case that the BBC is performing an act of, as Mick puts it above, "deliberate disinformation". Is that accurate?







BBC,,,, minor point,,, dog with a bone,,,
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Now back to my "claim"
My "claim" is based on the fact that a lot of steel went through Fresh Kills for the purpose of examination. Only two samples of this erosion were found. Its a claim based on the available evidence. IF you have evidence to the contrary, something other than a feeling, a politically motivated unease, or downright paranoia that compells you to assume otherwise, by all means tell us about it
 

Cube Radio

Member
Again, I made no claim with respect to the frequency of the steel, but you did, and I quoted Greening when his work was posted to the thread by Mick; how much of a simplification is it to say something happened when it is in fact unproven and unlikely?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again, I made no claim with respect to the frequency of the steel, but you did, and I quoted Greening when his work was posted to the thread by Mick; how much of a simplification is it to say something happened when it is in fact unproven and unlikely?
Greening does not seem to think it's unlikely. Who said it was unlikely?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Again, I made no claim with respect to the frequency of the steel, but you did, and I quoted Greening when his work was posted to the thread by Mick; how much of a simplification is it to say something happened when it is in fact unproven and unlikely?
For dispute about the availability of SO2 from gypsum you need to phrase that as a disagreement with Sisson, not the BBC. THAT is the point many have made here concerning that issue, yet you continued to phrase it as if it was a declaration emanating from the BBC.

Greening was brought up by others and then you used his work to bolster your position, even quoting him. Are you now backing away from anything Greening said?

True, you did not bring up the number of examples of this erosion. I believe that Jeffrey Orling asked about that. Keith, I and others noted that only two examples were apparently found. That is all that is in evidence, there was no concern from either FEMA nor NIST, nor, AFAIK from the ASCE or any other engineering community organization that this erosion was significant in the collapses or a widespread problem. It requires more study purely because it is not fully explained. Its a technical issue but quite obviously there is no reason to suspect it is involved in any way with the collapses, and the FEMA and NIST reports were concerned with the collapses.
The Fresh Kills site went through a great deal of steel and only two samples. I have every reason therefore to expect that these are the only two instances of this erosion in the WTC complex, or at the very least, that it is quite rare.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Alchemist How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did? 9/11 319
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Oxymoron WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? 9/11 340
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top