85

Steve Spak’s footage of WTC7

Steve Spak’s film of WTC7 prior to its collapse has been cited in the comments here as evidence the building was blazing “out of control” prior to collapse. Given this it seems appropriate to give this video a place here, to allow people to appreciate this crucial piece of evidence, and decide for themselves if this claim is true.

Prior to 9/11 no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsed completely as a result of fire. NIST’s fire-induced collapse theory for WTC 1, 2 and 7 therefore describes a unique event that needs to be carefully examined.

Please note neither the building seen dimly blazing in the distance at one point nor the shorter building seen in the foreground latin the video are WTC7. WTC7 is the taller reddish building with fires visible on two floors.

For comparison here is another high rise buildings on fire – it did not collapse as a result.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
85 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Admin
Admin
Sep 17, 2016 12:20 PM

A reminder that this discussion is about the evidence relating to WTC7. Any opinions on this subject are welcome, but please back your claims of fact with links to sources. HERE IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS NOT: It’s not about trolling or about the accusations of trolling. It’s not about empty ad hom It’s not about climate change. It’s not about discussions of alleged racism or of racism itself. It’s not a data dump for arguments from authority by either side. It’s not an opportunity to pretend the NIST report make claims it does not make.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 7:01 AM

There also seems to be a severe failure of logic in the “no steel core buildings ever collapsed from fire” argument. Even if true — assume it is — then this doesn’t explain why the ‘conspirators’ would want to bring them down completely. Surely what you would want to do is make it look as ‘normal’ an event as possible — barring the two aircraft hitting the towers. NOTE BY ADMIN: The fact that WTC 1,2 & 7 are the only steel frame (not core) high rise buildings ever to undergo complete collapse due to fire is acknowledged by NIST… Read more »

archie1954
archie1954
Sep 17, 2016 9:37 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Except when the building housed government offices that held thousands of accounting and other files potentially relating to a missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 18, 2016 10:39 AM
Reply to  archie1954

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use a paper shredder?
You know, what the government agencies typically do with documents that they want to become non-existent?

jack garbo (@Seua2557)
jack garbo (@Seua2557)
Sep 18, 2016 9:52 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Hasn’t this already been explained – by the man who collected $4.65 billion for the “attack”, Larry Silverstein? Interviewed later he said to “pull it” (demolish) on WTC7. What he didn’t explain was why the building had been rigged with explosives in the days/weeks before. You guess…clip below.
https://youtu.be/p34XrI2Fm6I

Bob Weber
Bob Weber
Sep 20, 2016 9:26 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

The original poster should realize that the Grozny skyscraper fire and various Dubai/UAE fires involved reinforced concrete structures with flammable cladding, and that the fires only involved the cladding. And of course, that the fires were fought. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/flammable-cladding-may-have-helped-new-years-eve-fire-spread-through-dubai-skyscraper-1535697)

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 20, 2016 10:27 PM
Reply to  Bob Weber

So the cladding (and the entire building) burnt like a Roman candle and we’re supposed to deduce it is NATURAL that those extreme fires had LESS influence on this structure of that building than the fires on a couple of floors and one side only of WTC7 ?
The two main items of news footage of the WTC7 collapse show no fire at all.
Trolls think they can form a ridiculous version of reality in minds simply by creating sentences loaded with indefensible cognitive dissonances. They can’t.
Geddowdavit!!

Bob Weber
Bob Weber
Sep 22, 2016 5:11 AM

No. The cladding burned. The contents of the buildings did not burn. The cladding was around reinforced concrete. You can run a test yourself. I’m sure it would be quite easy to obtain some cladding, wrap it around concrete, ignite it, and check your results. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/flammable-cladding-found-on-50-per-cent-of-new-melbourne-highrises-20160216-gmvrmo.html)

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:40 AM
Mike Leach
Mike Leach
Sep 16, 2016 4:46 PM

“In light of some of the disruptive and time-wasting commentary on these science-based 9/11 threads, we are asking everyone who makes claims of fact to post links or sources, be courteous, and stay on topic”
Best of luck with that.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 3:59 PM

WTC7 is the taller reddish building with fires visible on two floors.
Now here are the south and west sides of WTC 7:
http://youtu.be/RfhA_XsYUbk
http://youtu.be/BvJpNPTom0Q
(Search for ‘WTC 7 south side’ or similar, to get shots of the sides that ‘truthers’ aren’t concerned with.)

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 4:04 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

This about as good quality footage of the WTC towers getting hit as I could find: http://youtu.be/NIj_mkGgUTU Around 7:25 is the collapse of WTC 1. The ‘truther’ claim is that this building “collapsed into it’s footprint”. What do you think? Looks like quite a bit of material isn’t complying with that narrative. If you were wondering where that “footprint” extended to, the dark gap visible in the video (post above) that runs down the middle of the south face of WTC 7 was put there by debris from WTC 1 — enough debris was ejected from that tower to hit… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 6:51 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

See a rebuttal of what you imply, Jerome, below, appended to your previous post, which begins with:
To quote you:
“WTC7 is the taller reddish building with fires visible on two floors.”
Two floors, you say? In this video, sure. But is that an accurate assessment?

windjammer
windjammer
Sep 19, 2016 6:53 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

The important anomaly to remember is that WTC7 sustained significant asymmetrical impact and fire damage and yet it fell in total and perfect symmetry, at freefall speed for the first few seconds.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 6:42 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

I like the first video that you post as a refutation of “WTC7 . . . with fires visible on two floors.”
Smoke and the ‘fog’ of concrete pulverized dust upwelling in Venturi induced breezes is not “fires” engulfing a building, eh. Where are the “flames,” Jerome?

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 3:47 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Why is the “concrete pulverised dust” being ejected through the side of WTC 7? Also, is this ‘special’ concrete that produces dust that looks like dark, roiling clouds of smoke?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 4:31 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Dear Jerome, What is south of the south face of WTC7? A smoldering pile of rubble. Or would I be mistaken about this? And was there or was there not a lot of concrete dust kicked up into the air by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 ? And if fires burn beneath the rubble pile, what does the air heated from the fires do? Rise? And if this air rises rapidly, might it, along with the “roiling clouds of smoke’ draw the motes of the pulverized concrete up with it, giving the roiling clouds, not a soot black… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 5:00 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Around the 5:00 mark:
http://youtu.be/IssGRpcB_ms
Your explanation above, while inventive, isn’t required. WTC 7 was obviously seriously ablaze.
I can keep posting YouTube links.
Do you have anything that supports your claim of concrete dust etc.?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 5:04 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Have a look here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html
A link that you yourself have just provided. Is that smoke from fires or is that “dust” from concrete that has been pulverized?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 5:12 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Dear Jerome,
I just looked at your latest video. @ roughly the 5 minute mark, the dark smoke is swirling pretty much in place, suggesting that it has been trapped in a small whirlwind which is also probably concentrating both smoke and dust.
I also note that any hint that WTC 7 is ablaze is, well, simply underwhelming. Not much by way of “raging fires” can be discerned anywhere.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 5:53 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“roughly the 5 minute mark, the dark smoke is swirling pretty much in place, suggesting that it has been trapped in a small whirlwind which is also probably concentrating both smoke and dust”

Well, OK, we’ll let others watch that video and decide if that seems plausible.
(Inventive, certainly.)

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 3:23 PM

“WTC7 is the taller reddish building with fires visible on two floors.” Two floors, you say? In this video, sure. But is that an accurate assessment? First, however — this is about as good quality footage of the WTC towers getting hit as I could find: http://youtu.be/NIj_mkGgUTU Around 7:25 is the collapse of WTC 1. The ‘truther’ claim is that this building “collapsed into it’s footprint”. What do you think? Looks like quite a bit of material isn’t complying with that narrative. Now here are the south and west sides of WTC 7: http://youtu.be/RfhA_XsYUbk http://youtu.be/BvJpNPTom0Q (Search for ‘WTC 7 south… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 5:02 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Actually, there, Jerome, that a significant part of the mass of the WTC 1&2 was ejected laterally, creating a field of debris far exceeding the “footprints” of the buildings is, by the laws of physics, “proof” that GRAVITY alone was not acting to bring down the buildings and that they were “demolished by explosives” from the “top down.” GRAVITY only works in one direction – vertically. A 40 ton steel beam ejected at 70 miles per hour along a vector perpendicular to the vector of GRAVITATIONAL FORCE is either a violation of Newtonian physics or constitutes “proof” that GRAVITY is… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 4:25 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Refer to the photo roughly half-way down the page:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html
(WTC 7 in the foreground.)
Your argument about ever more explosives (the noise of which wasn’t recorded) doesn’t explain the nature of the collapse.
You are making your argument less credible — increasing the amount of explosives required, from that of a ‘controlled demolition’ to cause the towers to collapse ‘into their footprint’, to that required to ensure a debris field is scattered widely.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 4:52 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

BTW: I just noticed a typo in what I wrote: I didn’t intend to write a 40 ton steel beam, but 4 tons. 40 tons would certainly be more compelling, but 4 tons does as nicely. Now to answer your objection: To be honest, I don’t really understand what you are saying. But I’ll make a guess: you think I am contradicting myself when I say that both a wide field of debris exceeding a building’s footprint many times over and the fact that a building collapses into its footprint are both proof of ‘controlled demolition.’ If this is what… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 5:07 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“the wide debris fields of WTC 1 and 2 constitute evidence of explosives because of the incredible distances that that debris traveled laterally away from the center of those buildings’ footprints. The debris fields are too large for a gravity only collapse” You are suggesting an enormous amount of explosives, here. If I understand your claim, it is that the towers should have fallen symetrically, but they didn’t, therefore: extra explosives were used. But then why was WTC 7 not expected to fall symetrically? (Let’s put aside that it fell onto Fitter Hall across the street, and damaged it beyond… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 5:36 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Do I misspeak myself? Perhaps. It’s true: a nice straight down, neatly symmetrical collapse into a footprint is not what would be expected from a gravitational collapse because for that to happen, the structure of the building must dis-aggregate all at once, or rather, symmetrically, whether the dis-aggregation is fast or slow. So that, too, is an indication of explosives or deliberate tampering, because a collapsing building isn’t likely to undergo structurally symmetrical collapse. But the “footprint” thing that you seem to be obsessing about isn’t the crux of the matter, regardless. Gravity pulls straight down. So roughly where, in… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:01 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Here is video of WTC 1 collapsing:

Do you think explosives are required? Why?
You are postulating various explanations for something that, in my opinion, doesn’t require some additional explanation. WTC 1 didn’t collapse “nicely” because it wasn’t a controlled demolition of any sort.
Occam’s Razor: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” (Or: don’t add factors that are not required to explain the WTC 1 collapse.)

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 6:19 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Okay, Jerome, for you, nothing but gravity is necessary to explain the extensively scattered debris field of WTC 1 or all of that pulverized concrete. Physicists who have taken the time to do the calculations disagree with you: Quote begins: You claim that the towers collapsed due to gravity. Your condition – that some central elements should be damaged – is irrelevant to this energy balance (vide infra). The potential energy of one tower was roughly 4 x 10^11 Joule according to FEMA. Your equivalent of 100 tons TNT is less. Observation: The top of WTC1 came down – with… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:50 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

More photos to review:
http://www.rsvlts.com/2012/09/11/70-powerful-images-from-september-11-2001/
Note the large sections of debris (with intact — not ‘dustified’ — concrete flooring sections visible in one shot) and the pattern that they’re falling in.
You still think that “explosives” of some sort are required?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 7:21 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

What did my previous answer imply?

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 8:30 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Your reply looks like a dodge. Hiding behind “Physicists who have taken the time to do the calculations” and a wall-o-text attack. A sort of ‘appeal to poor authority’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#Reactions The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. Maybe they didn’t “take the time to do the calculations”? The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST’s recommendations,[84] and Britain’s Institution of Structural… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Sep 17, 2016 11:49 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

@ Jerome Fryer
@Norman Pilon
There are expert opinions on both sides, and appeals to authority are redundant. Discuss the science with sources, but don’t bother citing opinions.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 18, 2016 10:30 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Just a quick note on the absurdity of the the arguments around energy requirements. The calculations all depend on this: “During the collapse, about 90 000 tons of concrete were pulverized into an aerosol whose mean particle diameter was 100 µm.” Citation to J Hoffman can’t be checked, because the link does not work. I have no idea where the 90 000 tins of concrete dust came from, but the towers didn’t contain that much concrete to start with. Plus, as pointed out in criticisms of the “concrete dust” woo, the towers did has a lot of gypsum (“drywall”) and… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 3:01 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

@ Jerome Fryer @ Admin In what sense is it appealing to authority to cite Newton’s 3rd law, which is an engineering principle ubiquitously applied around us, to point out that if a building is falling at 2/3rds the rate of free fall, then only 1/3 of its potential energy is possibly available for dis-aggregating the building? Is it to argue from authority to cite a source in which the amount of energy required to pulverize the dust from one tower is shown to be “X,” and the available potential energy is shown to be “y,” and “X” is determined… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Sep 17, 2016 3:06 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

No indeed the examples you cite are not arguments from authority and shouldn’t be described as such.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 9:42 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

On the off chance that anyone would like to follow up on Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa’s calculations and estimates about the gravitational energy required and presumed available for the collapse of WTC 1, here is the link to his work, since the one supplied by N. Harrit no longer appears to work:
http://www.11syyskuu.net/energia3.htm
ENERGETIC EXAMINATION OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WTC
by Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
Physics teacher, retired
Version 3.1, June 18, 2005

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 7:03 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

“Does it look like a building that had no serious issue from being on fire? ”
Lets see: look at where the smoke is “originating from,” which is the rubble pile in foreground, relative to building 7, which is in the BACKGROUND. Unless the smoke from the fires in WTC7 is being drawn underground to emerge even more southward than the building, eh. Yes, its true, sometimes fires do migrate underground, like fires in peat or in Pine forests covered deep in pine needles.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 4:31 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“look at where the smoke is “originating from,” which is the rubble pile in foreground, relative to building 7, which is in the BACKGROUND” Are you not looking at the same video? It is clear that smoke is billowing out from the south face of WTC 7. If you have some evidence to support your claim that it is smoke (or ‘concrete dust’, or both) rising from the foreground then you should post it. I spent around a half hour looking for some video that showed the WTC 7 south face clearly, and put up those two examples. Your turn… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 4:34 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

I don’t need to post it. You have already. I can see with my own eyes where the dust and smoke are rising from. Look carefully. For anyone with eyes to see, it’s obvious.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:35 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

An extended shot of the WTC 7 collapse:
https://youtu.be/3PC3HWdUPHU
Note the voluminous quantities of “concrete dust” emitting from the building.
Also not that the eastern penthouse collapses, then there is a delay of roughly seven seconds until the rest of the building begins to drop. (Start of collapse around the 7:19 mark, main building starts to drop around 7:26.)

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 6:38 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Your point?

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:51 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Do you still think that the smoke coming from WTC 7 is actually from somewhere else, and / or not smoke at all?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 7:14 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Look, fires burned in WTC7. Most of the smoke in the video at hand seems to be coming from behind the building, that is, south of the building. Surely, some of it is being generated by the small fires in WTC7. Do we have a raging inferno caught on film? Meh . . . But even if WTC7 had been a raging inferno from top to bottom, which you’ve yet to demonstrate visually, but even if you managed that, that wouldn’t explain ‘free fall,’ even if the penthouse caved in ahead of the perimeter columns. For obviously, the four walls… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 7:11 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Also: when you calculate the collapse time for WTC 7 (which is a red herring, in my opinion, because it wouldn’t actually prove controlled demolition), when do you start the timer? For the eastern penthouse to drop like that, it had to have been a failure of a support underneath (the NIST model gives a particular column). So, if you assume that it took some finite amount of time for that initiating failure to propagate up the building, you have to ‘start the clock’ sometime before the eastern penthouse is seen to start dropping. This means that the overall collapse… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 7:11 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

“Here is a map, to get an idea of the scale:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg
Indeed,, a nice example of someone refuting himself with “evidence.” Do note the footprints of WTC 1 & 2, and the distance to WTC 7. It’s not exactly as if WTC 7 is standing “NEXT” to WTC 2 and certainly not “NEXT” to WTC 1. Thank you for this, Jerome. “EVIDENCE.” You begin to “get it,” Jerome. Please do bring more to the table.

Peter
Peter
Sep 16, 2016 10:27 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I really don’t understand. The map in the wikimedia link shows that WTC 6 stood between WTC 1 and WTC 7. What happened to WTC 6? Did it also catch fire? The map doesn’t show heights, but debris from WTC 1 could only have fallen on WTC 7 if WTC 6 was a much lower building than the two others. In addition, WTC 3 was very close to both WTC 1 & 2, and WTC 4 was right next to WTC 2. What happened to WTC 3 and 4?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 11:30 PM
Reply to  Peter

Hi Peter, What is interesting about the map provided by Jerome is that it does indeed provide you with a sense of scale, of just how far away building 7 was from the North and South Towers. Jerome obfuscates by telling you that the “truthers” claim that “all” the buildings essentially collapsed into their footprints (we are talking about WTC 1, 2 & 7). This is not true. What is claimed by the “truthers” who have engineering and physics expertise and accreditation is: a) WTC 1 & 2 were taken down by a sequence of explosions that began roughly where… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:11 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“of just how far away building 7 was from the North and South Towers.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-aerial_view%28March_2001%29.jpg
View for scale of the height of the towers. WTC 7 easily visible.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 17, 2016 6:12 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Broken link, Jerome.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 6:13 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Link not working (this site could do with a better comments section). Try the main page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)
First photo on the right.

Jen
Jen
Sep 16, 2016 11:52 PM
Reply to  Peter

I believe the other WTC buildings that did not come down on 11 September 2001 were later demolished (they suffered some damage but even if they hadn’t, the environment in and around them would have been too toxic) and all of them were eventually demolished over the next 6 months.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 17, 2016 3:34 AM
Reply to  Peter

Yes, WTC 6, which was a nine story structure, did catch fire and burn out. It did not collapse as WTC 7 did, however.

Jen
Jen
Sep 17, 2016 7:29 AM
Reply to  Peter

@ Peter: You are right, the original WTC 6 was a much shorter building (about 8 storeys) than the original WTC 7 (47 storeys high).
Apparently WTC6 suffered an explosion before WTC2 fell.
http://themillenniumreport.com/2014/07/no-explanation-for-building-6-implosion-on-911/

savorywill
savorywill
Sep 16, 2016 2:27 PM

Is there any explanation why the fires are happening in the first place? No plane hit that building.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 4:07 PM
Reply to  savorywill

Part of WTC 1 hit it, when it collapsed.

savorywill
savorywill
Sep 17, 2016 11:02 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

So? Why would that cause extensive fires on those two floors? The debree from WTC 1 would have only hit the side of the building.
There are a lot of holes in the argument explaining the collapse of WTC7, of that there is no doubt. The official rationalisation is poor, at best, which is why it wasn’t even particularly covered in the first official report about the events of 9/11. The officials just don’t want to go there.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 18, 2016 10:34 AM
Reply to  savorywill

It is possible that officials didn’t anticipate the level of gullibility and desire to believe in conspiracies about physical events.
They were likely more concerned about their abject failure to stop a handful of nutters from wiping out a chunk of New York City and thousands of their citizens. But, lucky them, it turns out that most people were more concerned with mechanisms to explain something that didn’t need them.
Perhaps the ‘truther’ movement was indeed started by the establishment, as has been mooted by more than a few sceptics.

Farm Clarity
Farm Clarity
Sep 18, 2016 4:08 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Its possible that officials didnt anticipate the level of gullibility. ..
hahahauauuauaua
total failure in reasoning bro , which meams you’ve struck out in the court of public opinion.
Not to offend , but for one to work this hard on one’s “understanding” of 9/11 , yet publish that naive perspective , well , credibility shot .

John
John
Sep 16, 2016 1:34 PM

You conspiracy morons bring anyone who opposes the current system into disrepute. Maybe that’s the point. Do you ever think someone might be pulling your strings. It’s a lot more plausible than anything you dreamed up about 9/11.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 1:51 PM
Reply to  John

It is difficult not to respond to a post so content-free, wilfully stupid and insulting with anything but abuse…. but let’s not go there.
Say something with at least a tiny basis in reality or we’ve got your number, pal.

John
John
Sep 16, 2016 2:03 PM

John (not to be confused with me!) is simply pursuing the usual hasbara propaganda technique of resorting to simplistic abuse in order to dodge and weave around inconvenient questions.
Is this further corroboration of Israeli involvement in this act of mass murder?

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 2:28 PM
Reply to  John

Where are all the anti-Semites coming from?
Are you a ‘truther’ paying a visit, or do you normally frequent this site?

John
John
Sep 16, 2016 3:09 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Like many others who post comments on this site, I have Jewish and Arab friends – both Semitic peoples.
There are no antisemites here – only people wanting to know the truth.
If you too are a pursuer of truth, you should read http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html.
Remember: not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews.

Admin
Admin
Sep 16, 2016 2:19 PM
Reply to  John

This video was made by its author to support the official version of 9/11. It does not present a “conspiracy theory,” OffGuardian is not “dreaming up” anything and we have avoided giving weight to any theories, either the official one or the alternatives. We are simply opening up a discussion about whether the official NIST report into the collapses of the towers was adequate. We are doing this in response to the thousands of scientists – not “conspiracy theorists” – who claim the report falls short and even contradicts known scientific laws, whose voices tend to be overlooked in the… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 4:13 PM
Reply to  John

Your suggestion is also considered plausible by sceptics hostile to the ‘truther’ argument.
However, I would think that with the resources available to them, an agent provacateur / false flag attempt would be a bit more coherent.
(On the other hand: is the latest ‘Russia scare’ any more convincing than during the Victorian era? The powers that be now have to contend with this annoying internet thingy that the plebs are using to circumvent their gatekeepers. Perhaps put more ‘celebrity’ fluff on teh intertoobs and shout ‘TERRORISTS’ ever louder? They really aren’t that competent, I suspect.)

John
John
Sep 16, 2016 10:57 AM

Having watched and listened to the video, it raises questions in my mind:- 1. Is it possible to have a transcript of all the radio exchanges between fire officers, together with a running commentary on the significance of what they were saying? 2. When the camera was pointed at street level, what struck me was the casual – almost relaxed – attitude of the firefighters. It was as though they had no concerns about a possible collapse of the building. Does this not indicate something – that professional firefighters with a huge amount of experience between them were so apparently… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Sep 16, 2016 12:02 PM
Reply to  John

There is one right here for WTC 2 in our featured post. None for WTC7 that we are aware of
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/12/voices-of-the-firefighters-in-the-south-tower-moments-before-collapse/

John
John
Sep 16, 2016 1:59 PM
Reply to  Admin

I have previously listened to this commentary and it is evident right up until the moment of the tower “collapsing” that the firefighters were not concerned about their safety. How could so many professional firefighters have been so wrong? The only proper answer is that it was not fire that brought down the tower. So what else might have done it? I have suggested a possibly unknown kind of slow-release slow-acting kind of neutron bomb. That would, of course, exclude the Saudis and Al Qaeda as the principal agents behind it. The aircraft hijackers in such a scenario would have… Read more »

Adrian
Adrian
Sep 16, 2016 10:16 AM
John
John
Sep 16, 2016 1:13 PM
Reply to  Adrian

I watched the whole video and share the questions as to where did the buildings go too. The fact that the buildings left little or no rubble after coming down is a very interesting question. However, the theory of directed free energy being used is not borne out by what I saw, though there was a mention of a hurricane off the coast of New York on the same day, which is presumably linked-in with the destruction of the towers? I suppose it is necessary to buy the book to get greater enlightenment, though I am not sure that would… Read more »

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 16, 2016 1:51 PM
Reply to  Adrian

The directed energy beam is an example of the quite genuine “woo” that has managed to pollute and confuse the 9/11 truth movement. When they say at the beginning of this vid that it’s not a theory they’re correct – it’s much MUCH less than a theory. Judy Wood’s ideas are just statements without source or substantiation, and frequently in direct contradiction of known facts, much like some of NIST’s most egregious claims. No such “beam” is known to exist and the physics behind such a thing even in theory present such monumental problems the idea must be ruled out… Read more »

Michael O'Neill
Michael O'Neill
Sep 16, 2016 10:03 AM

I think the whole issue of whether Building 7 was totally ablaze or not is a bogus one (to use an Americanism). Prior to 9/11 NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE. End of story. Any video of any World Trade Centre building on fire on 9/11 – WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 – is showing wholly inadequate ’causes’ for the building’s eventual collapse into its own footprint. This is ‘distraction’, pure and simple. It is a mogician’s trick writ large, on the world stage. It is not what it seems. In all the videos I have watched of the three… Read more »

Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Sep 16, 2016 9:48 AM

Ridiculous to focus on the collapse !
Try focusing on what was contained in the building & who gained from its collapse as that tells you all you need to know about WTC7.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 10:06 AM

Disagree. The fact that this “collapse” was actually a controlled demolition is the single most compelling piece of evidence proving that 9/11 was an “inside job”. THIS is what the public need to be encouraged to realise. Who (specifically) did it, who benefited from this particular collapse … these things come later. I know the full revealed details of the info to which you refer. Important yes … ….. but not nearly as important as understanding that the whole “War on Terror” is a huge lie and that modern history and the stories our media outlets spin to us to… Read more »

Ali Khan
Ali Khan
Sep 16, 2016 10:09 AM

For the benefit of myself and others not up to speed on all the known circumstances of 9/11 could you highlight the salient points re “what was contained in the building & who gained from its collapse” with links etc.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 10:14 AM
Reply to  Ali Khan
John
John
Sep 16, 2016 10:49 AM
Reply to  Ali Khan

There were a number of reports that the buildings were only recently acquired and were of questionable value due to asbestos problems. Arguably, the new owner of the buildings found it very convenient to be able to almost immediately lodge insurance claims for total loss of the buildings. It has also been claimed that US $ 4 billion in gold was stored in the basement of one of the buildings, which vanished. Not a bad heist as heists go? Clearly – as the saga of the high-fiving Mossad agents illustrates – there was a very strong Israeli component to 911.

Michael O'Neill
Michael O'Neill
Sep 16, 2016 9:22 PM
Reply to  Ali Khan

“The fact that this “collapse” was actually a controlled demolition is the single most compelling piece of evidence proving that 9/11 was an “inside job”.”
Correct
‘HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?”
https://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 10:00 PM

Listening to Silverstein, @ roughly 3:15 into this video, you have to be pretty obtuse in my opinion not to recognize that what he is saying, effectively, is that: A) the FDNY told him they didn’t think they could save his building: B) he was so dismayed by all the loss of life on that day that he didn’t care that the FDNY might not be able to save his building; C) he implied he conferred with the FDNY about to do about the building; D) the option of “pulling” the building was brought; E) the FDNY and Silverstein decided… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Sep 16, 2016 9:09 AM

The point is that even if WTC7 had been “blazing out of control” it would not have collapsed – because NO steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. As Larry Silverstein said, the building was “pulled” i.e. brought down by controlled demolition, which had to have been pre-arranged. It’s more than likely that the fires were started deliberately by one or more of the conspirators precisely in order to provide a spurious reason for the collapse – exactly what NIST subsequently did. It’s worth looking at the evidence of Barry Jennings to understand what happened to WTC7. This is… Read more »

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 16, 2016 8:50 AM

That skyscraper fire doesn’t look like the “small office fires” that apparently occurred in building 7 on 9/11.
And even IF that IS building 7, how many firefighters, anywhere in the WORLD have the authority, or the EXPERTISE, to decide to “PULL” the building, if one of them decides it cant be saved??
memo to Jerome Fryer. Please don’t waste your time responding to my comment. Your credibility is zero.

Michael O'Neill
Michael O'Neill
Sep 16, 2016 10:10 AM

Thanks to Brian Harry for pointing out something else that is a magician’s hand at work. The Glib comment by Larry Silverstein that some random, anonymous fire chief decided to cause massive amounts of property damage – apparently on the spur of the moment. This, if nothing else, points out one of the greatest holes in the official denial story. That it would have taken months to prepare the buildings for wholesale demolition, months that the demolition experts did not have. How could a spur-of-the-moment decision to ‘pull’ a building have been made If this preparation had NOT been done… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 4:04 AM

I would say that to the untrained eye, it is difficult to make a reasonable assessment of WTC7 from this video footage. Certainly, it does not appear to me — and I’m no expert and I’m certainly pre-disposed to discount it since I’m a biased “truther” — as though the building is engulfed by raging or ‘our of control’ fires. So far as I could tell, yes, two floors are hot, and not even across their entire breadth, and the rest are just billowing smoke, smoke that is likely originating from the two hot floors mentioned. The video does not… Read more »

MHB Administrator
MHB Administrator
Sep 16, 2016 2:37 AM

Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.