Steel Frame Building Fires

Windsor Tower, Madrid on fire

Windsor Tower, Madrid on fire

Windsor Tower after fire

Windsor Tower after fire

Al Tayer during/after

Chechnya Highrise on fire

Chechnya Highrise on fire

Chechnya Highrise after fire

First Interstate Bank on fire

First Interstate Bank on fire

First Interstate Bank after fire

First Interstate Bank after fire

Mandarin Oriental Hotel on fire

Mandarin Oriental House (closer)

Mandarin Oriental House (closer)

Mandarin Oriental Hotel (closer different side)

Mandarin Oriental Hotel (closer different side)

Mandarin Oriental Hotel after fire

Mandarin Oriental Hotel after fire

WTC 7 north wall fire, 3 hours before collapse (tall, darker building in middle, with lighter buildings on either side)

WTC 7 north wall fire, 3 hours before collapse (tall, darker building in middle, with lighter buildings on either side)

WTC 7 east wall fire (closer)

WTC 7 east wall fire

WTC 7 east wall fire

WTC 7 immediately before collapse, north side

WTC 7 immediately before collapse, north side

WTC 7 after fire

WTC 7 after fire

Here is a video that shows the building collapse from several different angles

My 'Building 7 Anomalies List', always looking to add more so let me know if I missed something. They are all sourced here.

  • No plane hit World Trade Center 7

  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

  • NIST admits that Building 7 is the first time a building over 15 stories tall has EVER collapsed due to fires.

  • NIST admits to a free fall acceleration over 2.25 seconds.

  • The official 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss Building 7

  • Fell neatly into its own footprint

  • NIST refuses to release data inputs for their computational collapse model, saying it "...might jeopardize public safety."

  • The model was built without physical evidence. "In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S." -Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, Committee on Science, 2002.

  • $200 million was spent "...cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space," in 1990.

  • Collapse is symmetrical.

  • Cracking middle folds downwards precisely as in a controlled demolition.

  • NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition.

  • BBC reported the collapse hours before it happened, twice.

  • Experts agree it is a textbook case of controlled demolition, before being told the building collapsed on 9/11.

  • Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He did mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report. The cause of death has not been made public.

  • With rare exceptions, the media does not discuss building 7.

  • Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, famously made the command to 'pull it', in reference to building 7.

  • Multiple reports made by professionals of molten steel beneath the rubble that lasted for weeks.

Here is a quality submission by /u/Classh0le showing the disparity between building 7 and other skyscraper fires.

For those who are simply in disbelief that someone would deliberately do 9/11 for financial or political gain, please read my article regarding psychopathy


1000s of Words!

These pictures say eloquently what thousands of words might not be able to capture. Fires do not cause steel superstructure high rises to collapse, even in the most horrific of fires. Perhaps there should be an ending picture of the Genbaku dome in Hiroshima?

Great collection

This is a great collection both for reference, and for those who may be new to this issue. As the previous comment states, this illustrates what so many words could not. Straight into my bookmarks. Thanks.

An addition to your anomaly list.

I noticed one feature not in your list 'tan I think should be there. A feature I personally feel isn,t pointed out enough. The feature I am referring to are the trails of gray/white smoke that emerge from the windows as wtc 7 descends. I presume it is from the concrete floors being pulverized hollowing out the middle of the building allowing the outer facade to fold in on itself. Just a thought. Hope it helps. Ty


Awesome Thanks!

This guy is actually who I got that information from:
He's doing a lot of good work on this material at this stage in my opinion.

Updated Section =

... but not hit by an airplane!

Therefore I made a blog-entry regarding high-rises, which were shot at during war. They did not fall.

"Prudential Building ...
(...) is a Warsaw skyscraper built between 1931 and 1934. (...) At the time of construction it was the second tallest European skyscraper with eighteen stories. (...) The Prudential was heavily damaged during World War II, particularly during the Warsaw Uprising, when it was hit by approximately 1,000 missiles leaving only the steel framework."
High-Rise Buildings, which did not collapse!

But once again,

making that point--'and it wasn't even hit by a plane!'--implicitly accepts, and encourages others to continue accepting, that airplane impacts might satisfactorily account for such 'collapses,' and therefore that the official account re the twin towers (you know, the ones with most of the victims that day, that most people have heard of?) is sound. Which--as the examples above help illustrate so well--it absolutely is not.

Similarly, when people like to point out, 'but the fires in no. 7 were only small,' that only implies to the listener the official claptrap that larger fires could plausibly have resulted in those kinds of collapses. Which--as the examples above help to illustrate so well--they absolutely would not have.

I'll never understand why so many truth activists (so it seems to me) somehow got cold feet on the subject of the demolition of the twin towers, after having made much progress in advancing the arguments back when the movement (about 2005-07) was at its peak momentum; seemingly preferring instead to think that just constantly invoking the arguments re building 7 would take care of everything all by itself. I think that has been a mistake. When the truth movement was at its strongest, it would speak of the weakness of the official story on ALL fronts.

Sorry if I've rambled on too much.

NIST report proves demoliton

The NIST report admits that free-fall occurred for Building 7 --- something they'd previously stated was impossible with a collapse, since it meant no structural components below. Therefore Building 7 wasn't a collapse because their report would otherwise be impossible! Not just unprecedented.

Since NIST is right about freefall for over 100 feet of Building 7's descent, it proves that explosives were used to remove the structural components below. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans should all be able to wrap their heads around this point.

NIST admits molten steel

Just as NIST admits free-fall in their report after first denying it and saying it would be impossible (Sunder at the 2008 technical briefing), NIST also admits molten steel in the appendix of their report after first denying it. (Gross at Press Conference dismissed reports of molten steel on the grounds that it would require temperatures of 2750 degrees F. and the fires were nowhere near that hot).

True, free-fall would be impossible for a building collapse. True, office fires could not have melted steel.

Therefore, NIST's double admissions of free-fall and molten steel show that Building 7 was not a collapse!

Perhaps, Andy Steele could launch another podcast called, "9/11 Molten Steele"

Sorry if I've been a bit repetitive on this. I'm trying to nail down these two points. NIST denied free-fall, then admitted free-fall. NIST denied molten steel, then admitted molten steel.


I'm sorry RL, but where does NIST admit to molten steel? Are you referring to the WTC 7 report or the Twin Towers report?. I have both in pdf, would you have the page location for the pdf? thanks for sharing.


Molten NIST


Molten metal was observed (and therefore produced) for months. NIST isn't going to go into detail on how for obvious reasons.

Hm, I better add a link to Jon Cole's wall board experiment...

"Admit" is wrong word

#22 and #23 in the Q&A.

I was sure that NIST was pressed to account for the FEMA Appendix C "Swiss Cheese" samples in a letter response or a Q & A and explained that it was due to sulfur from gypsum. ("admitted to but explained away," as it were.). But I think I confused Frank Greening from Jon Cole's "Experts v. Experts" video as being NIST attributing a specific piece of melted steel to sulfur + high temp.

After denying molten steel outright, NIST allowed for its possibility at least with some strange rationalizations. Check out #22 and #23. They said things like, "it wouldn't be conclusive if there was molten steel" because we wouldn't know the condition of the steel beforehand. They seem to think that any molten steel seen in the pile would be due to "combustion in the pile." This was another point where I thought they conceded molten steel in the pile and claimed it was due to "combustion," whereas they merely were open to the idea of this molten steel and wanted people to think it has a rational place in Ground Zero.

Sorry about that. I will try to get Patrick Gallagher to address the FEMA appendix C samples and take the Greening position. That way they will have reversed themselves even if they think they can justify it!