9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest
Comments 85

Steve Spak’s footage of WTC7

from OffG on Youtube


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 in our series, 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, nor has one done so since. 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 are two other high rise buildings on fire – neither of which collapsed as a result.

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. Thanks….


  1. Admin says

    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.


    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.

  2. Jerome Fryer says

    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 in its first report. If you want to contest this universally accepted fact you need to provide evidence.

  3. “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 says

      This about as good quality footage of the WTC towers getting hit as I could find:
      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 WTC 7 and do that amount of damage.

      Now, does that look like a building that had no serious issue from being on fire? That’s a forty-seven story building, which the FDNY say was “fully involved” in fire (I haven’t counted, but the ISL forum figure seems to be forty stories on fire) burning fiercely enough to be pushing smoke out at a pretty fast rate.

      Here is a map, to get an idea of the scale:

      Go have a look on YouTube for yourself, and see what else you can find.

      • 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?

      • 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.

    • 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 says

        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?

        • 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 appearance, but grey, eh. For black soot colored smoke that is mostly black and just smoke, pay attention to the left of the frame @ 41 seconds. That’s “dark and roiling smoke,’ and it ain’t coming from building 7. Finally, pay attention to the direction of the wind, which you can gauge early in the video, by watching the mostly transparent grey cloud of concrete dust mixed with smoke this side of WTC7. The breeze is from the north and west, with building 7 acting as a wind break, thereby causing the cloud of concrete dust and smoke to mass, so to speak, in the shadow of the wind or if you will, the lee side of WTC7.

          • Jerome Fryer says

            Around the 5:00 mark:

            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.?

            • 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 says

                “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.)

  4. Jerome Fryer says

    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:
    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:
    (Search for ‘WTC 7 south side’ or similar, to get shots of the sides that ‘truthers’ aren’t concerned with.)

    Does it look like a building that had no serious issue from being on fire? That’s a forty-seven story building, which the FDNY say was “fully involved” in fire (I haven’t counted, but the ISL forum figure seems to be forty stories on fire) burning fiercely enough to be pushing smoke out at a pretty fast rate.

    If you were wondering where that “footprint” extended to, the dark gap visible in the video that runs down the middle of the south face of this building was put there by debris from WTC 1 — enough debris was ejected from that tower to hit WTC 7 and do that amount of damage.

    Here is a map, to get an idea of the scale:

    Go have a look on YouTube for yourself, and see what else you can find.

    • 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 not the only source of energy of FORCE acting to scatter the enormous components of the Towers football -field-lengths away from the center of their footprints.

      See, for example, “The Physics of 9/11,” by David Chandler:

      • Jerome Fryer says

        Refer to the photo roughly half-way down the page:
        (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.

        • 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 you think I said, read what I wrote to Peter bellow. But I’ll precis that remark, here, regardless:

          a) 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.

          b) building 7 is the only building that collapsed into its footprint, and a footprint collapse would be consistent with gravitational collapse, okay. The problem is that the building comes down into its footprint in a condition of free fall for 2.5 seconds. Do you understand.

          So there is o contradiction in anything the “truthers” are arguing, at least not the rational and scientifically educated ones. It would have been more difficult to prove that WTC 1 & 2 had been demolitions if they had indeed stayed pretty much in their footprints. As it is, not so much. Likewise, were it not for the fact of free fall, building 7, too, would have appeared like possibly a gravitational collapse. Capiche?

          • Jerome Fryer says

            “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 economic repair — pretend WTC 7 was a symetrical collapse.)

            Your argument seems to be internally contradictory.

            • 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 your opinion, should the material from a collapsing building accumulate?

              But the point I’m making is, well, what I already wrote, eh. If the building pretty much piles up in its footprint, that’s not necessarily proof that it was blown up. But if it’s material is scattered football-field-lengths away, that’s a problem and a give away, eh. And if it drops in free fall for 2.5 seconds, that, too, is a give away. If it’s a nice straight down collapse and it’s fast, that, too, looks suspicious,eh, but it’s only suspicious. Far flung debris or free fall, however, are damning.

              Any more internal contradictions?

              • Jerome Fryer says

                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.)

                • 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 sudden(!) onset – and with constant (!) acceleration equal 2/3 (two thirds) of free fall. You agreed to this number (courtesy David Chandler) in our radio debate (triumphant: ”It is much less that free fall”).

                  In that moment, you lost two thirds of your argument.

                  A downward acceleration of 2/3 G means, that the interaction (Newton 3rd) with the support in only 1/3 of its static weight. OK?

                  So, for all the damage which you assign to the potential energy is only left: 1/3 x 4 x 10^11 Joule = 36300 kWh (kWh is a unit easier to embrace for most).

                  You cannot use the same potential energy to accelerate the top section and to crush the rest of the building. Energy can only be spent once.

                  The japanese physicist Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa has estimated, that the energy needed for crushing the concrete in one tower and expanding the dust cloud is 245.000 kWh.


                  In my opinion, his estimate of the concrete content is too high. So let us say 200.000 kWh to crush the concrete and expand the cloud.

                  Now your energy balance is IN THE RED (deficit) by 164.000 kWh.

                  And you haven’t yet broken one single steal beam joint, you haven’t twisted a single beam, you haven’t cut one single beam.

                  There were 80.000 – 90.000 tons of stuctural steel in one tower and in your proposed collapse mechanism there simply isn’t headroom for doing the job.

                  End of story – your story.
                  Quote ends.


                • Jerome Fryer says

                  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’.


                  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 Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

                  And so on.

                  I think this hits the nail on the head:

                  Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, “These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the ‘reverse scientific method.’ They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.”

                  (Emphasis mine.)

                  • @ 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 says

                  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 similar materials that would be far more likely to be “dustified” than the concrete flooring.

                  Here is a rebuttal to the claims put forward by J Hoffman, found while searching for the original cited document:

                  This document has lots of math, but also some amusing debunking of some basic flaws in reasoning, e.g.:

                  “For this expansion ratio, Mr. Hoffman concludes (via the Gas Law V2/V1 = T2/T1) that the temperature of the dust cloud was over 700 degrees C! Mr. Hoffman now proceeds to calculate the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of the gas (air) and the dust by 700 degrees C and arrives at a value of 1.44 x 10^12 Joules for the air and 4.06 x 10^13 Joules for the concrete dust. The reporter mentioned by Mr. Hoffman, who found himself inside the dust cloud produced by the collapse of the South Tower, would surely have roasted to death after a few seconds in a 700 degrees C dust cloud!”

                  An example of the calculations:
                  “Let us now consider the energy imparted to the ejected concrete dust. Each tower contained an estimated 48,000,000 kg of concrete. We will assume that 10 % of
                  the concrete, or 4,800,000 kg, was ejected as dust. For an ejection velocity of 20 m/s the kinetic energy imparted to the dust is ½ x 4,800,000 x (20)^2 J = 9.6 x 10^8 J per
                  tower, or 8.7 x 10^ J per floor. This is much less than the energy needed to collapse the support structure of one floor = 0.6 x 10^9 J, (See Table 1 of my report).”

              • @ 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 to be many times larger than “Y,” to conclude that if that is the case, then and as Harrit puts it, where is one to find the gravitational energy to even to break a single joint between two beams, let alone between 90 tons of such interlaced beams AND to scatter the lot over an area much larger than the building’s footprint, not to mention all the other tons of ancillary building materials and the building’s other contents?

                Or am I myself expected to do the calculation, here, in the comment section, and then be accused that I’m arguing from authority because I’m taking Newton’s 3rd law of motion for granted as well as the law of conservation of energy?

                I’ve already cited in the comment section of the article titled “Screw Loose Change respond to Jones et al” a paper by Jim Hoffman’s work on the matter, that essentially comes to the same numbers that the the japanese physicist Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa came to, ( I imagine that you can do your own research to track down Yli-Karjanmaa’s work) and that concludes a “tenfold” shortfall in gravitational potential to accomplish everything that happened to each Tower on 9/11. Furthermore, I’ve put up a video by David Chandler (The physics of 9/11) explaining in layman’s terms what the likes of Yli-Karjanmaa and Hoffman calculate in excruciating detail, and that Harrit beautifully and concisely marshals forth in his email exchange with Rancourt.

                But I am arguing from authority, apparently, and I guess that I am. I guess, then, that in world where knowledge is the product of collective endeavors, it is impossible not to argue from authority, for each time one “cites” someone else’s work, one relies on the authority – or would that be the authoritative honesty – of that person.

                It seems, then, that we cannot get to the bottom of 9/11 since we must all rely on the authority of someone else to some degree, as well as having to take certain assumptions for granted, such as Newton’s third law of motion and the law of conservation of energy, which have been proven adequate as principles of general understanding.

                It seems, then, that on the issue of 9/11, nothing else needs to be said.

                But I’ll say one last thing: the distraction is not “free fall,” but the fire and smoke of 9/11.

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

                • 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:


                  by Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
                  Physics teacher, retired

                  Version 3.1, June 18, 2005

    • “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 says

        “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 to support your argument.

        • 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 says

            An extended shot of the WTC 7 collapse:

            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.)

              • Jerome Fryer says

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

                • 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 of WTC dropped together at free fall and symetrically, so that all exterior columns had to give out simultaneously, not a thing that any amount of uncontrolled fire could have accomplished. Your video doesn’t tease that out, eh, no matter how much smoke and flame seems to be emanating from WTC7. Good night.

              • Jerome Fryer says

                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 time must be — at least — twenty seconds or so. That makes it significantly longer than NIST’s calculated 140% of free fall. (NIST were restricting their calculation to the outer facade, of course. But this has been assumed to be applicable to the entirety of WTC 7.)

                I was aware that the penthouse fell first, but I was not aware that the delay was that long. That gives plenty of time for a whole lot of internal failures to occur — that seven seconds or thereabout is important to the argument about whether a “controlled demolition” would, in fact, have been necessary to explain the collapse.

    • “Here is a map, to get an idea of the scale:

      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 says

        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?

        • 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 the planes impacted the buildings and that progressed down the towers, destroying the Towers in a “top-down” fashion, and NOT as is usually done when taking buildings down, by a sequence of detonations that propagates “bottom-up.” This “explains” why WTC 1 & 2 DID NOT collapse in their footprints, and why a significant portion of their mass was scattered over an area many times their footprint, otherwise physically impossible if GRAVITY ALONE had brought them down due to structural failure. No claim in connection with WTC 1 & 2 is made, Jerome would have believe, that everything came down “essentially” in the footprint of the buildings. Indeed, that most of the building material is scattered over an area many times that of each Tower’s footprint constitutes “proof,” as per Newtonian mechanics, that the buildings were deliberately taken down with explosives.


          b) WTC 7, in contrast to WTC 1 & 2, was taken down in a manner redolent of a typical “control demolition,” that is to say, in a sequence of detonations that propagates from the bottom of the building upward, and the result was a debris field not much larger than its original footprint. What gives the game away that WTC 7 is not a GRAVITATIONALLY induced collapse is the “fact,” proven by David Chandler (see the video above and comments elsewhere, here, at OffG) and openly admitted by NIST, that for 2.5 seconds building 7 dropped in a condition of “free fall.” This is simply impossible without all 85 columns holding the building up “SIMULTANEOUSLY” failing together, at the same moment, a physical impossibility unless explosives contributed made the “simultaneity” possible.

          But Jerome will confuse as is his apparent remit, and conflate statements made about one thing with another, as is his style of argumentation.

          As for what caused the fires in building 7, well, if it was controlled demolition, why could the fires not have been deliberately set, although maybe flying debris from WTC 1 & 2 could conceivably have been at the root of those limited fires.

        • Jen says

          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 says

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

      • 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 says

          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 says

            Its possible that officials didnt anticipate the level of gullibility. ..
            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 .

  5. John says

    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.

    • 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 says

        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 says

          Where are all the anti-Semites coming from?

          Are you a ‘truther’ paying a visit, or do you normally frequent this site?

    • 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 mainstream media.

      It’s not any more inherently crazy to question the official version of 9/11 than it is to question any official version of anything. If the same people who dispute the truth of the Hutton Inquiry feel unable to dispute the NIST inquiry, even when it displays just as much, if not more, evidence of tampering, then they should consider if they may be self-censoring due to fear of the label “conspiracy theorist”. Which of course does seem to be exactly what the creators of the term were hoping to achieve.

      Do feel free to read the articles here and join in the discussion, however please note – repeated content-free ad hom or obvious trolling may be edited or deleted

      Thank you.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      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.)

  6. John says

    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 sanguine about their situation – just like the ones inside WTC1 and WTC2 when they “collapsed”?
    3. What caused WTC7 to catch fire – it was not struck by any planes?
    4. What continued to fuel the fire?

      • John says

        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 been the traditional “patsies”.
        Their role is to obscure the reality of what was really going on.
        Just like Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan before them, among others.
        Was it not also pointed out that police officers were pulled out of the buildings?
        If so, what did their senior officers know that the senior firefighters did not?

    • John says

      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 take place afterwards either in my case.
      The presence of Israeli intelligence operatives at the scene suggests that Israel may have played a major part in this operation, possibly having fooled a small number of Saudi and other Arabs into taking control of civilian aircraft to disguise the fact that the Israelis had planted something like a slow release small neutron bomb inside each of the the WTC buildings.
      Might such weapons gradually convert mass into energy?
      It might explain the apparent dustification of the WTC buildings.

    • moriarty's Left Sock says

      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 as even less likely than a spontaneous symmetrical free-fall collapse due to fire.

  7. 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 buildings, the core goes first. This is the biggest tell-tale that the building is being ‘pulled’ because the core is the strongest part of any modern building. It cannot go at all, never mind first.

    Unless its a controlled demolition.

    This simple fact applies to all any World Trade Centre buildings on fire on 9/11 – WTC1, WTC2, WTC7.

    Anyone disagreeing with this better post a shedload of proof better than the NIST nonsense.


  8. 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.

    • 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 justify ongoing policy of western governments are … a degenerate, Satanic confection that will, if we fail to confront the issue, kill, not only the innocent brown-skinned people already murdered but most likely also all the rest of us in the end.

    • Ali Khan says

      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.

      • John says

        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.

        • 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 to go with “that;” F) and everyone sat back to watch the building “be brought down.”

          I don’t give a fuck what any spinmeister might want to do with this “on the record” statement by “Lucky Larray,” I know what I’m hearing, given the context, and I don’t give a fuck what Silverstein’s religious affiliation may be, because that’s completely irrelevant to the fact here being plainly exposed. Does that mean that I believe the FDNY was “in on it?” Utter twaddle and misdirection if you accuse me of that. What it proves to me is that a) in an unguarded and unscripted moment Silverstein is openly giving the game away though he thinks he is not and b) if he knew ahead of time that the building was gonna come down, he got that information from somewhere, and the source of that information points to a long standing conspiracy of “many,” given the enormous logistics and lead time that would have been required to bring down the building. You can’t prep a building for demolition, no matter how sloppy it’s going to be, in a day or even a month. To my mind, a pretty damning piece of “evidence.”

  9. 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 a summary from one site (http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.co.uk):

    On August 19, 2008, 53-year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess. Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut.. However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC. The cause of Jennings’ death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with the investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings’ position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements.

  10. Brian Harry, Australia says

    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.

    • 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
      If demotion experts did NOT have access to the building beforehand

      and finally, and most damning

      If the demolition of WTC 7 (and by extension WTC 1 and WTC 2 was NOT premeditated?

      Thank you Larry (and Brian Harry) for so perfectly exposing the hidden hand of the Shadow Government in 9/11.

  11. 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 prove to me that WTC7 was a raging inferno, and not even as many have here claimed, ‘blazing.’ Two floors out of 47 is not the whole building, and I could not tell whether the floors were altogether and throughout ablaze. For all I know, the fire was localized only to one side of the building, limited to a small area near the windows.

    But neither does the film strike me as proof that WTC7 was not seriously ablaze. I cannot make a determination one way or another. To put it simply, it’s a bad video.

    Now the two contrasting videos are to my mind showcasing examples of buildings that are by far and away really ablaze. I look at them and think, “yup, out of control fires that will most certainly bring those buildings down, because on 9/11, eh.”

    Make of it what you will. Myself, I’m “à la Chomskying” on this: “who cares? Steve Spak’s video is really just a yawn.” Maybe someone else will be impressed, however.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole