WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cairenn

Senior Member.
When you only cherry pick something to get the answer you want, your conclusions will often be wrong

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

debunked, let's move on

Not only that but there were OTHER seismographs in the area and I notice that they are totally ignored. I wonder why?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
debunked, let's move on

I agree. I had read different accounts of it but I think Tarpley was probably connecting dots that don't exist on that one. And that falsification undermines his theory. I don't believe that falsifications/verifications like this harm someone's credibility and so forth much. It seems to me that it's to a theorist's credit if whatever they're saying is open to some form of falsification.

It seems to me that Mick's idea that there were valid reasons to imagine the collapse of WTC 7 before it did so that people wound up reporting that it did collapse before it had in reality and so forth isn't an equivalent debunking or falsification.

It's also worth mentioning that it would seem that a lot of Mick's imaginary ideas about WTC 7 can't be falsified*, given that the information seems to have been classified in the name of public safety and so on and so forth.

*And therefore can't be verified either...
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
it would seem that a lot of Mick's imaginary ideas about WTC 7 can't be falsified
It may seem that way to you, but you've already admitted you can't find debunk material.

Even with truther video material, an engineer's eye can see how WTC7 fell. It helps, of course to turn off the sound and ignore any text, but there is plenty of material showing that all the buildings sagged out of shape and verticality, initiated their collapses silently, and that buckling was apparent in each collapse.

That is not imaginary. Anyone can see that all buildings were subject to these events.

I'll repeat that. Sagging prior to collapse, silent collapse, buckling after collapse.

You have to insist on imaginary heatproof radio-controlled thermite charges* for the silence, but the sagging before collapse and buckling after collapse you cannot explain away. Explosive charges do not produce these events.

* Which no truther feels the need to produce or even show how this is possible. Too much Star Trek and Star Wars, I think, has led some to believe that almost anything is possible.

Well beam me up, Scotty..
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Have seen Jazzy's calculations on that? If you had, you wouldn't be calling it a joke. You also need to remember that the buildings and their contents were on fire. That doesn't mean that all the fires were snuffed out, or that some didn't restart when they got more oxygen.

I would suggest that you read all the 9/11 threads. The explanation is there.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?
They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).
Is this answer some kind of a joke?
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. :)
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?

Well lets try this again:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

http://enenews.com/gundersen-image-...ushima-reactor-3-exactly-containment-be-video

What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Let me point out that the 23rd of Sep was not 'months after the attacks' it wasn't even 2 weeks.

The info about Fukishima is a 'red herring'. It has NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. This thread, as far as I understand it, concerns whether or not WTC7 got hot enough during the seven-hour fire to collapse by itself.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. This thread, as far as I understand it, concerns whether or not WTC7 got hot enough during the seven-hour fire to collapse by itself.

Can you site your reference on this? I think this an original evaluation of some sort.

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Can you site your reference on this?
You aren't responding to my reply. The calculations (of the potential energy in a WTC tower) are in another thread on this site. When you find them, you may dispute them there. The word is "cite".

There is nothing "original" (in the sense of "new") about the evaluation, which I'm sure the NIST Report would have added if it had been within its brief. Potential Energy is a mainstay of physics. It almost originates it. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's a bit of an original theory though isn't it? Nobody disputes that the energy is there, just where it goes. Perhaps though we should create a thread dedicated to just that. Newton's cradle and all :)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's a bit of an original theory though isn't it? Nobody disputes that the energy is there, just where it goes. Perhaps though we should create a thread dedicated to just that. Newton's cradle and all :)
That's the one. It's not an original theory. ANY experienced engineer should be able to come up with the same scenario and calculations. It may well be "original" to you because it's not your field. It's not so to me, and many thousands of engineers more experienced than I am.

It IS the story of the movement of energy. The residue of the PE has to find the footings, the start amount can be calculated, the amount lost on the way down can be calculated, and the difference is evenly or unevenly split between general and diffuse impact warming and the proportion of the KE elastically transmitted downwards to the footing. That energy can only end up as heat or deformation.

Being a mathematical expression of physical laws, it shows, rather like a sim*, the trends, and sharpens points of debate, and being of the generally understandable serviette, biro, and calculator sort of thing beats any "reference". This "reference" is plain grade five science. Make that grade ten. Decades have elapsed...

* But it's a lot cheaper...
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
By "original", I mean I never heard anyone use it but you.
I have never researched for proper physical explanations of the residual heat (beyond truther assertions), have you? A set of intelligent positive and negative search terms would be required, no doubt.

I'm sure you'll find some work, once past the truther hurdle.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have never researched for proper physical explanations of the residual heat (beyond truther assertions), have you? A set of intelligent positive and negative search terms would be required, no doubt.

I'm sure you'll find some work, once past the truther hurdle.

Half the links come back to your posts :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned

To post a pic you just 'right click and copy the pic' and paste it onto your post... that's all I do.

I don't understand why you are so keen on the nuclear demolition theory though. There seems to be no evidence for it and a lot against it.

Can we bring the thread back Mick and have a look again at it?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
I am cu
I am asking how accurate is the analysis in Oxy's post (the one I picked to start this thread with).

It seems that claiming 30 minutes by chopping off the part of the sentence that indicates 3 hours is a VERY deliberate attempt to mislead.

I'm trying to focus here. You can't just hand wave and say "never mind that, look over here".

I'm asking if the fires burned hot enough and long enough. We have some quote from NIST that seemed to say no, then they are shown to be taken out of context, and now you move to "it seems to me..."

Why not see what NIST actually said in context? What about the first part?

The 911Research piece suggests " it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C." but this is basically a lie. If you read the report (NCSTAR 1-A) it's very clear that they are talking about 3.5 hours into the simulation, not 3.5 hours of sustained 400C. They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:

I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am cu
I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?


It's just floor 8.

Read the report. They go into extensive detail as to how they figured it out.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
 
Last edited:

muttkat

Banned
Banned
You aren't responding to my reply. The calculations (of the potential energy in a WTC tower) are in another thread on this site. When you find them, you may dispute them there. The word is "cite".

There is nothing "original" (in the sense of "new") about the evaluation, which I'm sure the NIST Report would have added if it had been within its brief. Potential Energy is a mainstay of physics. It almost originates it. :)

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me that your calculations are on another cite but letting me know I spelled site wrong.
Whatever your calculations are, does it calculate 70% of the WTC turning into dust?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
To post a pic you just 'right click and copy the pic' and paste it onto your post... that's all I do.

I don't understand why you are so keen on the nuclear demolition theory though. There seems to be no evidence for it and a lot against it.

Can we bring the thread back Mick and have a look again at it?

How are you making the judgement that there isn't any evidence for the nuclear theory? Because NIST didn't bring it up?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
O
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.

One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html
 

muttkat

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

Wasn't most of the kerosene or all of it recovered?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
G
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


Guliani spent all this taxpayers money to fortify some floors at WTC 7 and.......He didn't even use the bunker made floors as his headquarters as it was intended to be used.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?
Floor 8 might not have had any fire at that level early on. It would take time for a well-insulated floor above a burning floor to actually catch fire by being heated from below. It looks quite possible to me. It is just the way fire spreads in an insulated building. Following Mick's reference should help you.

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me that your calculations are on another cite but letting me know I spelled site wrong. Whatever your calculations are, does it calculate 70% of the WTC turning into dust?
There are different words here. "Cite" is a verb meaning to quote. "Site" is a noun meaning place.

Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong.

One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel.
It seems to be somewhat later than 911.

Wasn't most of the kerosene or all of it recovered?
[...] No.

can be rephrased as



They are essentially in agreement with each other. The high volume to surface area would allow only very slow cooling, allowing the material to remain soft.

This point has no relevance to the collapses.

and 70% turned into dust, mostly micron size
This statement is FALSE. It has a partner with the suggestion that liquid fuel was recovered from a fire.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
O
One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html

If you study the history of Zionism, terrorism and corruption are basically standard operating procedure... from the Irgun to the USS Liberty to the joint operation of Iran Contra, to the joint operation of 911.

If you want to understand it (Not that it matters what you understand or don't understand.) then this fellow has laid much of it out fairly well into a theory with explanatory power:
Remember the Anthrax and the meeting of Iraqis with ? Those were the days.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?

It would probably "jeopardize public safety" to do much more than create a simulation of "collapse by fire" that matched the visual evidence of the day:
From NIST's apparent perspective, even if you have to imagine or simulate seeing huge steel beams collapsing or "buckling" relatively symmetrically behind the facade due to burning office furniture and so forth, ultimately you would have to imagine or simulate things to the point of coming to the correct conclusion that matched the official worldview for now.

That's why as far as NIST goes you'll probably be left with the simulation of "temperatures" sufficient to explain any of the videos* of the day in terms of the unprecedented event of a collapse by fire and so forth. Personally, I'd like to see them set up a fire made out of office furniture and so forth and "buckle" a real thick steel beam with it or cause it to expand while leaving concrete floors the same, etc. But that's probably just me, as many people seem to be happy with computer simulations.

I'm sure they did their best to make their imaginations and simulations work no matter what... because they already knew the type of conclusion that they had to come to for the sake of public safety, if not their own safety too. Like most "investigative journalists" in the corporate media, it's actually hard to imagine them coming to any other conclusion than the one that they simulated and so forth even if 911 really was an outside/inside job of a faction of collaborators and a foreign intelligence service. (Although, would it really be foreign if people were dual citizens?) Even if it really was, how would they be able to overcome their personal epistemic inertia and numerous other psychological "compartments" bound to create more inertia to the point of beginning to investigate and look for evidence or ultimately, knowing that it was a joint operation like Iran Contra? After all, who would be the imaginary spokesman and investigator for the evidence that didn't fit the theory of office fires and so forth that they were apparently trying to make work for the sake of public safety? And if they hadn't already naturally formed a herd mentality against "truthers" that was pretty much totally "locked in"... how would they as truth seekers supposedly go about publicizing any anomalous evidence "found" within their simulations? Although I suspect that if they had "found" anything inconsistent with the official worldview that way, then more people would become aware of the distinction between a simulation based on the evidence and actual physical or empirical evidence. And with respect to the fires, wouldn't it have been helpful to set more beams aside so that their "buckling" could be entered into the simulation and checked against it? If the simulation was saying that a beam had only buckled so far, yet the actual beam looked more like a pretzel... then what? Would alternative theories like that of Dr. Judy Wood even be allowed to enter the equation based on the evidence? How would that or anything other than the official worldview be possible? Government scientists "found" evidence that verified the only theory they were allowed to look for and only tried to falsify other theories to the extent that the public brought them up. Surprise.

Imagine... would any of the strongest investigators in the official tribe itself more interested in the truth than their jobs/tribes supposedly go out and make friends with truther/kook/crackpot tribes or even "jeopardize public safety" by leaking evidence to them? Note that it's usually pretty easy to get people to "herd" and go into a sort of psychological lock down* mode through provocation too, a well known tactic of controlling the flow of information among the intelligence services that serve our oligarchs.

In any event... perhaps all they really needed in the intricate equations that produced their simulations and so forth was this: "And then, a miracle occurred." Because then whatever they had to enter into the equations that produced their simulations, their nation would have been safe and they could stick with their herd/friends instead of apparently "jeopardizing public safety." (The only problem with that being, if the terrorist faction responsible for the event was actually still at large... then that might "jeopardize public safety" more than the imaginary panic that would be created by widespread knowledge of the fact that even the simulation of an investigation actually didn't work out all that well.)

*Kind of ironic, I was going to self-censor something in this thread due to tribalism or feelings probably based on tribal considerations. But then I changed my mind. Yet I reserve the right to change it back again too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Would alternative theories like that of Dr. Judy Wood even be allowed to enter the equation based on the evidence? How would that or anything other than the official worldview be possible?


It would be possible based on the evidence. Like if there actually was any evidence for Wood's theory.

Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence? We could start a thread about that.

But check here first:
https://www.google.com/search?q=judy+wood+site:randi.org
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence?

Comparing different theories about the technical details of what seems to me to have been a joint operation of global intelligence services is a work in progress for me... it almost seemed convincing when she showed what looked like some remaining columns folding down or doing something weird. But that's just me liking some visual evidence, like most people. Her main falsification/verification would seem to be an analysis of the debris and some sort of a specification with respect to how much "should" be there or was there. I.e. if there was "enough" or not enough as it had turned to dust and so forth, something I may read about. Right now I wouldn't say, "This single piece of evidence is convincing." (Although it's always nice to have a visual like WTC 7 and not an elaborate theory, huh?) But I'm willing to consider it, otherwise I wouldn't even be interested in looking for evidence with respect to a possible verification/falsification on that. At least she doesn't seem to run up against the fact that the seismic evidence doesn't seem to line up with explosives and in fact, may not line up with the total weight of the towers hitting the ground either. Because that would be a possible verification of her theory and the falsification of two other competing theories.

The "toasted car" thread was also interesting, given that no one really verified/falsified her claims about the evidence once way or another so far as I know. That would seem to be an easy verification/falsification for her, as either they were moved there or they weren't. But this entails someone putting in the time to verify/falsify her theory... including her. Hopefully she's not too busy with running around the world being a "truther" or fundraising to bother with the technical details, huh? Looks like an interesting little falsification here, though. And my sense of Judy Wood is that she might not even move the goal posts, i.e. she might count it as a falsification. Hopefully my theory about her isn't incorrect, maybe I should put in the time to verify or falsify it, huh? That's the thing about it, though. A lot of it comes down to taking the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Floor 8 might not have had any fire at that level early on. It would take time for a well-insulated floor above a burning floor to actually catch fire by being heated from below. It looks quite possible to me. It is just the way fire spreads in an insulated building. Following Mick's reference should help you.


There are different words here. "Cite" is a verb meaning to quote. "Site" is a noun meaning place.

Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong.


It seems to be somewhat later than 911.


[...] No.

can be rephrased as



They are essentially in agreement with each other. The high volume to surface area would allow only very slow cooling, allowing the material to remain soft.

This point has no relevance to the collapses.


This statement is FALSE. It has a partner with the suggestion that liquid fuel was recovered from a fire.
It would be possible based on the evidence. Like if there actually was any evidence for Wood's theory.

Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence? We could start a thread about that.

But check here first:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=judy wood site:randi.org
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Ah, Muttkat, Mynym, Wood and "dustiness".

It's possible to work out the height of a WTC tower when the air has been expressed from it.

Given the weight of a tower to be 450,000 tons and the SG of steel to be 7.81, the density of water 62.2 pounds per cubic foot. the length and width to be 210 feet and the height 1360 feet,.

The volume of the tower is 210 x 210 x 1360 = 6 x 10^7 cubic feet.

If it were solid steel it would therefore weigh 13 million tons. As it only weighed 450,000 tons, then the height of the steel alone would be 47 feet.

So 1360 feet becomes 47 feet.

How deep was the basement?
 
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