WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened because its mass/surface area ratio would prevent rapid heat loss, and it would anneal itself. It wouldn't retain its softness "for a few hours", but permanently*.

If on the other hand it is dropped instantly into quenching water it would end up pretty hard on the outside, pretty tough within.

It is very interesting that when you google "A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened" or some derivative thereof... you get:
WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? - Page 6 - Metabunk

Seems like yet another invention.

This appears to be a far better/believable explanation of the processes and results in terms of steel in fire situations .

http://www.zianet.com/ebear/metal/heattreat3.html

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Neither that (which is talking about tool steel, which is hard, not strong) nor Jazzy's annealing description seems particularly helpful. Here's a book that simply addresses the issue:

Fire Safety in Buildings, V. K. Jain, 1996

http://books.google.com/books?id=fv...wKoyoDwAw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


And a more complex 1998 analysis for structural Steel, which basically says if it did not get soft enough to bend, then it's probably fine.
http://files.engineering.com/downlo...f_Structural_Steel_After_Exposure_to_Fire.pdf

But as Jazzy asked in his post: "What does it matter, in this instance, whether the steel regained its hardness or not?" (although I'd go for "strength" rather than "hardness"). Is there any part of the official story that relies upon this? You seem to be discussing things that happen after the steel has already failed.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Neither that (which is talking about tool steel, which is hard, not strong) nor Jazzy's annealing description seems particularly helpful. Here's a book that simply addresses the issue:

Yes he is talking about tool steel but are not the principles the same?

And a more complex 1998 analysis for structural Steel, which basically says if it did not get soft enough to bend, then it's probably fine.
http://files.engineering.com/downlo...f_Structural_Steel_After_Exposure_to_Fire.pdf

But as Jazzy asked in his post: "What does it matter, in this instance, whether the steel regained its hardness or not?" (although I'd go for "strength" rather than "hardness"). Is there any part of the official story that relies upon this? You seem to be discussing things that happen after the steel has already failed.

The point is 'should it have failed'?
As pointed out, these are unprecedented collapses. Far hotter fires have burned for far longer and there has never been a complete building collapse, let alone straight down into virtually it's own footprint. WTC 7 is described as an implosion even.

That they/it collapsed is a fact which no one disputes. Why they collapsed is the issue. Many are adamant that (especially 7, which is the topic here), should not have collapsed due to piddling little office fires because the beams were massive and well fireproofed and the fires were transitory and burnt out in 20 minutes in a particular sections which would then allow the steel to cool, regain strength and return to at least a good proportion of their structural integrity.

Obviously, if the conclusion is it should not have failed the next question is, why did it fail and not only that, why did it fail in such spectacular and unusual fashion?

The CT is that it should not have failed.

Therefore an alternate explanation needs to be found as to why it evidentially did fail.

The CT currently being investigated, is that it was brought down by thermite which would also account for the anomaly of fires burning at high temperatures for months, (but which is under a different thread.

Do you have any reasons which would debunk the use of thermite as a means of bringing it down.

I beleive I have already demonstrated the viability/efficacy of thermite for the demolition, also the feasibility of access/placement and quantity required.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Tool steel is not the same as structural steel as it favors hardness over strength. If you used tool steel girders they would just crack.

My bottom line is that the observed evidence of fires points to fire causing the collapse.

The "regains strength on cooling" is irrelevant, because if something has failed, then it' already deformed, so it can no longer carry the full load. Even if the fire is flitting from spot to spot, it still does damage at each spot. And as we covered earlier it burned a lot longer than 20 minutes in the key areas.

It's all in the report.

Arguments against thermite in WTC7:
- Can thermite cut a girder of that thickness?
- No evidence of cut girders noticed by the steel workers (or anyone) on site.
- difficulty of preventing the thermite from igniting from the fire
- difficulty of planning it in advance and keeping it covered up

There's simply no reason to reach for this incredibly complex thermite explanation, when the fire explanation fits perfectly.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
- Can thermite cut a girder of that thickness?
The experiments of a hobbyist in his backyard seem to suggest thermate/thermite can be an effective tool for cutting steel girders. Presumably professionals in the use of this material would be far more capable in applying it.
- No evidence of cut girders noticed by the steel workers (or anyone) on site.
interesting, considering there are pictures.

- difficulty of preventing the thermite from igniting from the fire
Do we know enough about mechanisms for deploying thermite to say it really would be that difficult to insulate devices from fires? Or is this just an assumption?
- difficulty of planning it in advance and keeping it covered up
It would surely be a challenging task, but hardly an impossible one, for reasons described in other threads. The logistical challenge by no means precludes the possibility, especially where a crime of this magnitude is involved.

There's simply no reason to reach for this incredibly complex thermite explanation, when the fire explanation fits perfectly.
There are many firefighters, some of them terribly sick, who would disagree adamantly about this 'perfect fit' where fire explaining the WTC7 collapse is concerned. Hundreds of thousands who watched the wtc7 collapse would agree. Taking six years to come to the tentative conclusion of fire as the sole factor in that collapse isn't indicative of a perfect fit. If fire fit the profile of the collapse with perfection, we would not be having this conversation, obviously.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Hey Mick, can't reply on our other thread for some reason. And I couldn't go advanced to reply so I wrote it here. Same issues as this thread with your rather imaginative fire scenario, etc. Something about expired tokens on the other thread... (Also, when you go mobile on this site on an Android it directs you to download an app.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Do you have any reasons which would debunk the use of thermite as a means of bringing it down.

I do. Israelis were busted with explosives (public knowledge due to FOI requests) on the day of the attacks and they were also apparently busted working in the towers on the elevators and sprinkler systems where they didn't have contracts to work and so forth.

People shouldn't be ignoring the overall pattern of evidence with respect to the way that America and Israel have worked around the world when they want to shift geopolitical realities, etc. It's all well documented and basically public knowledge, yet all we get from the conspiracy/bunk community is "thermite" or directed energy weapons and illuminati (Why not throw in a few aliens too?) while on the other side all we get from the debunking community is official B$ and the best official reports and simulations that money can buy.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What evidence do you have of Israelis with explosives? Are there any trained 'implosion' experts in Israel?

Implosion is a precise skill, not something that anyone that knows how to use explosives can do.

You still need to explain how they could have been placed, survived the fires and such.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thermite why it's a dead end and doesn't matter.[/URL] [/SIZE]
It may have been used. But come on guys, look at all the evidence while going with the most likely explanation based on history... and don't get tunnel vision.

Thermite is definitely a viable method of cutting the key support structures. It is quiet which accounts for the lack of explosions in 7 prior to collapse and the high temp fires burning so long underground.

Having said that there is evidence of loud explosions, it is just difficult to ascertain whether these are genuine or whether they have been added by some idiot later.

Tom Sullivan (Yet another demolition expert), gives his assessment. "I knew from day 1 this was a classic demolition".



http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/nist_ncstar1-8.html
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It is very interesting that when you google "A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened" or some derivative thereof... you get: Metabunk
Google is wonderful.

Seems like yet another invention.
To you.

This appears to be a far better/believable explanation of the processes and results in terms of steel in fire situations.

Well, it isn't.

It isn't considering VOLUME to SURFACE AREA considerations at all, but crystalline phase energy changes to do with carbon solubility in iron.

You must be confused.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Many are adamant that (especially 7, which is the topic here), should not have collapsed due to piddling little office fires because the beams were massive and well fireproofed and the fires were transitory and burnt out in 20 minutes in a particular sections which would then allow the steel to cool, regain strength and return to at least a good proportion of their structural integrity.
They wouldn't have cooled. They were insulated.

if the conclusion is it should not have failed the next question is why did it fail and not only that, why did it fail in such spectacular and unusual fashion?
That's not the conclusion. Maybe it was spectacular because it was tall? I see nothing unusual in a downward direction.

The CT is that it should not have failed.

it was brought down by thermite which would also account for the anomaly of fires burning at high temperatures for months, (but which is under a different thread).
It has already been shown that fires weren't burning because too little air could penetrate the pile.

Thermite is a high-reaction energy material. You would need SOME SORT OF MACHINE to cause it to burn little-by-little over months.

I have already demonstrated the viability/efficacy of thermite for the demolition, also the feasibility of access/placement and quantity required.
It is your beliefs that let you down.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
[h=1]
Thermite why it's a dead end and doesn't matter.[/h]
This bloke believes that four of these couldn't reach the foyer from 800 feet up. And 24,000 pounds of kerosine IS four of these.

[video=youtube_share;zf7m7hN5Szc]http://youtu.be/zf7m7hN5Szc[/video]

So at the end of his list he should add - himself.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Neither that (which is talking about tool steel, which is hard, not strong) nor Jazzy's annealing description seems particularly helpful. Here's a book that simply addresses the issue:

Fire Safety in Buildings, V. K. Jain, 1996

http://books.google.com/books?id=fv...wKoyoDwAw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


And a more complex 1998 analysis for structural Steel, which basically says if it did not get soft enough to bend, then it's probably fine.
http://files.engineering.com/downlo...f_Structural_Steel_After_Exposure_to_Fire.pdf

But as Jazzy asked in his post: "What does it matter, in this instance, whether the steel regained its hardness or not?" (although I'd go for "strength" rather than "hardness"). Is there any part of the official story that relies upon this? You seem to be discussing things that happen after the steel has already failed.

Speaking of 'strength' - it would be nice if the book you quote could spell the word correctly at the head of its table.

This doesn't take into account any fireproofing and it's not structural steel, so about as useful as Jazzy's annealing theory - useless. We have these things that are 'fire-rated'. One of them is plasterboard/drywall. Presumably, in 7, this was in place. Standard practice is walls have one half inch board (maybe two or more, if specified); ceilings two x half inch boards. Around steels? Two half inch boards. Each half inch board is rated at 30. That's thirty minutes of fire protection. At around 275 celcius you can put your hand touching the other face of the board. Given that fires in offices typically burn for twenty minutes in one area and then move on to more (unspent) fuel, how could the fireproofed structural steel get so damaged as to collapse as uniformly as 7 did? The contortions you make to try and make it so are quite breathtaking. It's beyond absurd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Not as absurd as teams of demo experts rigging occupied office towers with explosives and then fireproofing them and then triggering them without blasting cord or remote triggers.

Two huge buildings fell right next door, did the ceiling boards hold up to the shock and such? Wall board is weak cracks easily.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Not as absurd as teams of demo experts rigging occupied office towers with explosives and then fireproofing them and then triggering them without blasting cord or remote triggers.

Two huge buildings fell right next door, did the ceiling boards hold up to the shock and such? Wall board is weak cracks easily.

Yeah, you could see the cracked plasterboard through the windows.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Speaking of WTC7, I just found this never-before-published photo that I took in 1998, from WTC2's viewing area.


(Note: I own the copyright on this image, and it may not be used without my permission.)

Part of a larger image I scanned from a negative:

 
Last edited:

Ron J

Active Member
Thermite is definitely a viable method of cutting the key support structures. It is quiet which accounts for the lack of explosions in 7 prior to collapse and the high temp fires burning so long underground.


From what i have seen from a video of a thermite test, in which a "cup" was designed around a vertical column, to hold thermite, then ignited. The thermite was very reactive and burned up rather quickly. The chemical reaction to cut through metal would have been applied to a small area being cut. I don't think it would have been the source of the heat in the debris pile.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Yes he is talking about tool steel but are not the principles the same?



The point is 'should it have failed'?
As pointed out, these are unprecedented collapses. Far hotter fires have burned for far longer and there has never been a complete building collapse, let alone straight down into virtually it's own footprint. WTC 7 is described as an implosion even.

That they/it collapsed is a fact which no one disputes. Why they collapsed is the issue. Many are adamant that (especially 7, which is the topic here), should not have collapsed due to piddling little office fires because the beams were massive and well fireproofed and the fires were transitory and burnt out in 20 minutes in a particular sections which would then allow the steel to cool, regain strength and return to at least a good proportion of their structural integrity.

Obviously, if the conclusion is it should not have failed the next question is, why did it fail and not only that, why did it fail in such spectacular and unusual fashion?

The CT is that it should not have failed.

Therefore an alternate explanation needs to be found as to why it evidentially did fail.

The CT currently being investigated, is that it was brought down by thermite which would also account for the anomaly of fires burning at high temperatures for months, (but which is under a different thread.

Do you have any reasons which would debunk the use of thermite as a means of bringing it down.

I beleive I have already demonstrated the viability/efficacy of thermite for the demolition, also the feasibility of access/placement and quantity required.


"Piddling little office fires." The photography/video of the east wall on what was it, the 8th? floor, shows fire pouring floor to ceiling out the windows along a substantial length of that floor. It doesn't look piddling. The eastern most end of the east penthouse was practically vertically above where that fire was furiously burning out through the windows. So how furiously was the fire burning somewhat deeper into the building, out of sight of observation from the outside?

"It should not have failed" is not proof of anything. Things that should not have failed, have.

Fires were "transitory and burned out in 20 minutes", yet thermite, which burns out much quicker and is designed to concentrate on a small area to cut metal, was supposed to be the source of the heat in the debris pile, according to CT. I don't see the logic in that.

One video i have seen of the collapse showed a flash of flame out windows along a section of windows on two upper floors of the north wall, as WTC7 fell. Another video showed the debris cloud moving out from the building to the north. For a moment there was an orange coloration to part of the cloud, indicating that fire was just out of sight behind the debris cloud. Fire was burning within the building at the time it collapsed. That would account for the heat in the debris pile.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Oxy, folks have to be TRAINED to do it. It is not as easy a blowing up a stump. I had read up on implosion before 9/11 and found the techniques and such to be very involved.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm






 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy, folks have to be TRAINED to do it. It is not as easy a blowing up a stump. I had read up on implosion before 9/11 and found the techniques and such to be very involved.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm







If I were to accept your evidence, it certainly seems, that such an implosion could only be accomplished by a select few, 'highly trained' experts and that lesser explosives experts would be unable to carry out such an project and attain such a uniform implosion.

And yet you believe it is perfectly reasonable to accept that random debris, causing random damage and random fires caused random damage to random beams and caused what is officially designated as an 'implosion' which you claim can only be achieved by highly trained experts?:confused:
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This is a official NIST simulation of how 7 would have collapsed if there had been no impact damage.

It implodes in on itself.



This is the official NIST implosion simulation with the impact damage.

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You stated this "officially designated as an 'implosion' ". Then you use your own comments as that evidence. HUH?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I posted the official nist simulations. Do you not think they depict implosions? If so please elaborate.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Please explain WHY the fact YOU think it looks like an implosion means that it was "officially designated as an 'implosion' "

It wasn't. What you think is NOT official.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Please explain WHY the fact YOU think it looks like an implosion means that it was "officially designated as an 'implosion' "

It wasn't. What you think is NOT official.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Please explain WHY the fact YOU think it looks like an implosion means that it was "officially designated as an 'implosion' "

It wasn't. What you think is NOT official.

Are you stating that in your opinion wtc 7 was not an implosion. Do you dispute that?

But not only you Cairenn, any other debunkers on here, the same question goes out to you.

Especially Mick as you set so much store in the simulations provided by NIST.

Please, anyone explain how these simulations differ from an implosion.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are you stating that in your opinion wtc 7 was not an implosion. Do you dispute that?

But not only you Cairenn, any other debunkers on here, the same question goes out to you.

Especially Mick as you set so much store in the simulations provided by NIST.

Please, anyone explain how these simulations differ from an implosion.

Well, that depends on your definition of "implosion", doesn't it. What I think is that the building interior collapsed starting with some floors falling leading to column 79 losing lateral support and then buckling leading to full vertical collapse around cols 79, 80 and 81 all the way to the roof, this proceeded rapidly sideways, and a few seconds later the exterior collapsed due to lack of lateral support.

Now if you want to call that an "implosion", then that's a very loose application of the word, as normally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

So while I would agree that yes, WTC7 " collapses on itself in a matter of seconds", I strongly disagree that this was the result of " the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation"

For clarity it's best to stay away from arguing over the definition of words, and instead just say what happened.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well, that depends on your definition of "implosion", doesn't it. What I think is that the building interior collapsed starting with some floors falling leading to column 79 losing lateral support and then buckling leading to full vertical collapse around cols 79, 80 and 81 all the way to the roof, this proceeded rapidly sideways, and a few seconds later the exterior collapsed due to lack of lateral support.

Now if you want to call that an "implosion", then that's a very loose application of the word, as normally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

So while I would agree that yes, WTC7 " collapses on itself in a matter of seconds", I strongly disagree that this was the result of " the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation"

For clarity it's best to stay away from arguing over the definition of words, and instead just say what happened.

So if someone admitted placing explosives; that would then constitute an implosion because it was deliberate, is that what you are saying?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So if someone admitted placing explosives; that would then constitute an implosion because it was deliberate, is that what you are saying?

Pretty much, but my point was really that you should avoid words with contested definitions. Because otherwise you are not arguing about what actually happened, you are just arguing about the meaning of words.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Pretty much, but my point was really that you should avoid words with contested definitions. Because otherwise you are not arguing about what actually happened, you are just arguing about the meaning of words.

But that only happens when people choose to be unreasonably pedantic. To normal people it is obvious that the sims are of implosions and the reality of the 'collapse' of 7 was also an implosion... so where is the disagreement unless one is simply being deliberately obstructive or argumentative?
 

Pete

Member
But that only happens when people choose to be unreasonably pedantic. To normal people it is obvious that the sims are of implosions and the reality of the 'collapse' of 7 was also an implosion... so where is the disagreement unless one is simply being deliberately obstructive or argumentative?

I think issue of 'implosion' has popped up to demonstrate how WT7 seemingly fell as if part of a controlled demolition. If its design was such that it bore its weight around its outer edges, then with the fire damage it would have probably have fallen to one side and been messy... And we wouldn't be arguing about whether it was a controlled demolition or not as we'd have said, "its structure failed".

However, the NIST demo shows an implosion, and this is an important differentiation from just using the word 'collapse'. As yes, the building did indeed 'collapse' but it did so by imploding due to the fire damage. Many camera angles did not show this implosion, hence the conspiracy. However I believe one or two do indeed show the roof collapsing first, and then the outer shell following... As described by NIST.

Hence, there probably isn't a conspiracy regarding WT7, and that using the word 'implode' is perfectly valid and innocuous.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Please explain WHY the fact YOU think it looks like an implosion means that it was "officially designated as an 'implosion' "

It wasn't. What you think is NOT official.

So you think this official NIST bunk is not depicting an implosion?

Please explain... if you can? From your previous post, in which you claim some relevant knowledge due to your research from such good sources, it should be easy for you to elucidate.

Posted by Cairenn:
Oxy, folks have to be TRAINED to do it. It is not as easy a blowing up a stump. I had read up on implosion before 9/11 and found the techniques and such to be very involved.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...-implosion.htm




Please point out the differences, preferably with some real life examples.

And following on from that... if 'implosions' can only be achieved by the best of the best demolition experts after months of work.... please explain how such a precise implosion happened from a series of entirely random events when you claim no one other than a few experts could have done it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
if 'implosions' can only be achieved by the best of the best demolition experts after months of work
If.

Or if a sufficient of floors get sufficiently heat-soaked to expand past their tolerances to lose their column fixings, and then it's anyone's guess which floor or column will fail first, and the progress of the fire, then the collapse of a floor or more, then the buckling of unsupported columns, determine the consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
S NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 26
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
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. 9/11 129
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
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top