Modify claims about WTC7 fires: Some were "raging"

In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin says, regarding WTC7, "there is no evidence of any raging fire" (p.21). This claim, often repeated, must be modified. Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored. Here I would like to suggest a refined argument for WTC7, and I recommend downgrading its importance in the 911 Truth movement.

Hopefully, the screen captures I uploaded appear below. These images are from Spak's film and show the west side and the south side. Typically, Truthers show video of the north side collapsing. The west face shows at least one floor where the windows are broken and a "raging" fire is belching from the building. The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).

Two points should be made about these pictures:

1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.

2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire. There is definitely structural damage to the south side of WTC7, and all of the smoke is being vented out that side. The north side, for example, shows little evidence of smoke or fire.

I recommend the following:

1. No more references to "small" or "local" fires in WTC7.

2. The best evidence for controlled demolition, if Truthers wish to continue talking about it for WTC7, is: the presence of molten metal below WTC7 wreckage; and the speed of the building's collapse (6.6 seconds).

3. The best contextual evidence for demolition is the fact that FEMA could not explain why WTC7 collapsed. They said the fire theory had a "low probability of occurence."

4. Some, such as Brent Blanchard's report at, talk about the structural damage to WTC7 that resulted from the north tower collapsing. I recommend we turn this around and question how debris from the north tower was launched 350 feet, and with sufficient force, to impact and damage WTC7.

5. Finally, I recommend downgrading the importance of WTC7 in 911 Truth argumentation. distributes placards on which WTC7 is the primary focus. Prof. Jones claims WTC7 was a principal reason he began investigating 9/11. I believe there is actually more evidence (both physical and logistical) to support the controlled demolition of the towers. WTC7 may have been burned down by its occupants, but this will be exceedingly difficult to prove. In the meantime, images of serious structural damage are on record.

I know there are still many reasons why a raging fire should NOT bring down a steel-reinforced skyscraper. My recommendation is simply that other facts about WTC7 be foregrounded first.

Dr. Jones says the new NIST report will focus only on floors 8-46 of WTC7, which, of course, is a scientific fraud (why not investigate floors 1-7, and 47?). But this suggests the cover-up for WTC7 is under way.

wtc7 west side spak 2.JPG29.32 KB
wtc7 south side spak 6.JPG36.91 KB

What's with the constant excuses for WTC-7 ?

Simuvac--you're looking very much like a fraud to me with your constant requests for us to undermine our own best evidence!!! You're been bullsh*tting too much lately, and you're really getting on my nerves.

FYI, flames coming out of 5 windows in a 2,000-window massive steel-framed office building is not a raging fire!!!

"The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).

Sure the south side shows a wall of smoke. Those photos were taken when shortly before the building imploded, just before the planted incediaries & explosives brought it down in a controlled demolition!!! The "gash" about 15-20 floors wide, if even a real picture, is on the west side of the building! Who knows how/why it got there? Anyway, it's far more superficial than structural!!!

No excuses. Just modifications.


All I'm saying is, if you watch Spak's footage from 9/11 you are left with a definite impression that the fires in WTC7 were quite strong and the wall of smoke is undeniable. Watch the movie before you decide.

I'm not saying WTC7 wasn't demolished. I'm saying a more effective argument re: WTC7, given the available photos and video evidence, might prioritize the facts differently. Freefall collapse time and molten metal in the collapse pile are, I think, more assured evidence than the claim that there were only small, insignificant fires.

OCTs are going to use these images from Spak's video whenever WTC7 is raised. A more tactical argument can undermine their priorities.

Raging fires my ass

There were no raging fires in WTC-7. Five or six windows with flames in them, in a 2,000-window steel framed office building is not a raging fire. You are a fool/shill for even suggesting this disinfo.

nah, simuvac is no

nah, simuvac is no fool/shill, i understand what hes trying to say. hes trying to make our arguments airtight. personally, i disagree with him on this,i dont see how any rational human being,after seeing the clip of WTC7 falling can honestly believe it was fire that caused it, no matter how "raging" some people percieved it to be. but that doesnt make him some kind of shill.

Ok, a fool then.

Fine. Then only a fool would post a blog suggesting that we should undermine our own best evidence.

Symmetrical near free fall speed collapse is our best argument

I would say, we should not underplay the fire and damage of WTC7, claming there were only small, insignificant fires. Pictures of the worst damages and fires one can get of building 7 will never account for the near free fall speed (on its own footprint) collapse. Nobody can explain building 7 collapse. So symmetrical near free fall speed collapse will always be our best argument.

I have done nothing of the

I have done nothing of the sort. I'm talking about not ignoring evidence for the sake of making strong claims. Taking into account all the evidence makes our claims stronger.

Subtle disinfo or very poor strategy

It's a very poor strategy to promote that there were raging fires in WTC-7 when there certainly were not. The next step after the truth movement agrees that there were raging fires is the OV people would jump on this & say: "see, there were indeed raging fires in WTC-7, that's why it imploded", blah, blah, blah....

Wake-up, Chris.

the point of his blog entry

the point of his blog entry is to show us what counter-arguements are being made, and how to reply to them. we can't go on pretending that there aren't counter-arguements out there and spouting the same message we have year after year.. im not saying (and i dont think the poster is either) that these counter-arguements are corrent, but we must stay on top of these counter-arguements and know how best to confront them when we need to..

i personally checkout and a couple other conspiracy smasher websites from time to time just to be aware of what their talking points are, doing this is a good idea if you ever want to be prepared for the rebuttles that will come our way - especially when we do finally break through to the mainstream.

In Regards To "Myth" Sites...

I like to look for what they don't talk about, and focus on those.

That's an excellent point,

That's an excellent point, Jon. In future posts, I'd like to discuss some of the strategies they use. One prominent strategy involves "isolated evidence". They isolate a piece of evidence, and then produce a plausible explanation for that evidence. However, the explanation is only plausible if the evidence remains in isolation. Once exposed to several other pieces of evidence, it makes no sense.

simuvac said:WTC7 may have

simuvac said:WTC7 may have been burned down by its occupants, but this will be exceedingly difficult to prove.

you dont really believe that do you? that it may have been burned down? and raging fires? i guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "raging" fires. compared to say, WTC5(which did not fall), i would say the fires were next to nothing in comparison. i guess its all relative, but i gotta disagree in saying that we should not focus on WTC7 as much as we do.

Please see my comment to

Please see my comment to Anonymous. I'm not trying to deny controlled demolition was the cause here. I'm proposing priorities that may make for a more effective argument to counter OCTs.

Even NIST say... their interim report on the collapse of WTC7, that thick walls of smoke enveloped the building - but they are unsure of the source. The rest of WTC Plaza sure was smokey too...

"After WTC 1 collapsed, the south face of WTC 7 was obscured by smoke, making direct observation of damage from photographs or videos difficult or impossible. The source of the smoke is uncertain, as large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7. The light but prevalent winds from the northwest caused the smoke to rise on the leeward, or south, side of the building"

Reading the rest of the document, the fires still sound relatively small. The videos of the smoke at WTC7 on the debunking sites is a perfect example of misrepresented evidence.

Yes, you could be right. But

Yes, you could be right. But you can see how the principal claim of the OCTs is that the fires were "raging". That's their strongest claim to support an otherwise unlikely scenario (that the building burned down). I'm saying, don't give them that much leash. Bring other arguments first, and deny them the "fire theory" by (a) admitting there MAY have been "raging" fires but they were localized to a few floors, and (b) reminding them that FEMA couldn't explain the collapse, and that the fire theory can't explain the molten metal.

Sim, you've gone wacky with

Sim, you've gone wacky with this one. Seriously.

Check out the new WTC7 pics at prisonplanet.

It was quite obviously a cd.

I agree that the damage was more significant than some admit, but there's no excuse for a robust building collapsing into its footprint at free-fall speed.

I think you're on the right track with trying to refine talking points and eliminate disinfo, but this blog is a major error. You should delete it.

I appreciate the criticism,

I appreciate the criticism, but I must reiterate:

"I know there are still many reasons why a raging fire should NOT bring down a steel-reinforced skyscraper. My recommendation is simply that other facts about WTC7 be foregrounded first."

Check out Spak's video, which has several minutes of WTC7 footage (which, of course, I can't properly relate to you with screen caps here). I'm simply saying our overall argument (that WTC7 was demolished) should not be overshadowed by exaggerated claims about how small and insignificant the fires in WTC7 were.

Perhaps another way to say what I'm saying is: We know that fire would not bring down a 47-story, steel-framed skyscraper, so why allow the OCTs to drag out this "the fires were raging" argument? It takes us places we don't need to go. Just say, "Look, what really matters here is that WTC7 fell in 6.6 seconds, and there was a pool of molten metal below that could not have been produced by hydrocarbon fires."

I'm trying to refine certain arguments so that we keep the debate where we want it to be.

Again, I'm not saying WTC7 fell naturally. Perhaps I should have omitted that part about the building's occupants setting fire to it? My intention with that sentence was to suggest the possibility that the fires were set deliberately, not to suggest WTC7 fell naturally. Sorry about the confusion.

Also, I must reiterate the

Also, I must reiterate the following:

"1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.

2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire."

Please note I said (twice) that we cannot confirm how widespread the fire was. I'll emphasize it here again, because some of you seem to think I am agreeing entirely with the OCTs.

I was attempting to refine our argument to the point where we would not have to debate OCTs over the PERCEIVED pervasiveness of the fires in WTC7. That's all. 9/11 Truth is at the point where managing perception is tantamount. We have a bazillion facts. We just need to be tactical when presenting them.

Thanks again for your comments.


I think that what most people would define as a "Raging fire" in a skyscraper is: "A fire that is seen simultaneously burning on multiple floors, with vast amounts of smoke. Examples would be the Caracas Tower fire,the Meridian Plaza fire, or First Interstate Bank."

We might not know how widespread the fires were precisely, but we do know that the fires were nothing like other major steel skyscraper fires. In the first picture it shows fire/smoke only coming out of 7 windows, which is essentially a very small area. It's wrong to assume the fire had engulfed the whole floor, as there's not enough smoke to back up that claim. If there really were raging fires, then they must have been localised, rather than wide spread. This is perhaps even more suspicious as the building was burning for around 8 hours yet no floors appeared to be engulfed, like we have seen with other sky scraper fires. Perhaps the building had fairly good passive fire safety, and this prevented any large scale fires developing.

In the second picure: the wall of smoke is unlikely to be from WTC 7 as that amount of smoke would certainly be released through windows on all sides, rather than on one particular side that we can see. Also, the smoke appears to be a light grey rather than dark smoke like is seen from the first picture. The light grey "smoke" is almost certainly the dust cloud from the twin tower collapses.

Yeah, but the shills will say...

What happened that day was so unique you can't compare it to other buildings/fires because (a) the building's structure had a section scooped out so it was compromised and (b) all of those gallons of diesel fuel burning all day finished the job. Don't get me wrong, 6.5 second collapses don't lie, but the argument is that there are too many distinguishing characteristics about that day to compare it to anything else.

Aw, let's just "pull-it."

Let's just "pull-it" & watch the building come down, as Larry Silverstein said.

I think you're right about

I think you're right about the definition of "raging fire," but the video from 9/11 (I encourage you to see Spak's video, if only for the WTC7 material) is what you might call "compellingly ambiguous". That is, the video of WTC7 definitely shows a wall of smoke billowing from several holes in the south side of WTC7. Some of the holes were quite large. And it's definitely not a "small" fire. And in the video you can hear firefighters saying, early in the afternoon, that WTC7 is going to come down, and that everyone should be pulled from the building. That's in the video; make of it what you will. I don't know how they knew WTC7 was going to come down, given how precedent-setting the event was.

If I knew how, I'd submit pieces of video from Spak's documentary. Unfortunately, I can only share screen shots.

But again, I'm simply recommending that we deny OCTs the "how big is the fire" argument by leading with better, less ambiguous evidence: satellite thermal imagery of molten metal, 6.6-second collapse, kink in the roof, squibs up the side, etc.

You have a good point

I will be making edits and additions to my WTC 7 section.

However, I think the fires mostly burnt themselves out. For example, the WTC 1 fire was thought to be close to burning itself out according to NIST. So with WTC 7 it's a little bit more complicated as it took as while for the fires to get started. And it's also suspicious how fires could occur on the lower floors. Every other building fire goes upwards, and has almost no downward movement.

It's still hard to say how extensive the fires were. The video clips and photos show smoke and dust coming from other WTC fires and mixing with the WTC 7 smoke.

Anyway, thanks again, there's definitely some arguments both for and against the extent of fires.

Could WTC 7 fires cause all floors to collapse at once?

I challenge anyone to build a 47-story erector set building, start a fire in an upper floor and watch all floors to simultaneously fall.

Maybe some of you as kids didn't play with fire, erector sets, Lincoln Logs or games of pull-the-rug out.

Could WTC 7 fires cause all floors to collapse at once?

Of course not. The WTC 7 fires discussion is absurd. Replay and watch the collapse videos. All the floors move downward at once.

Then again, maybe those that are posting such nonsense are posting propaganda beause they are paid with our tax dollars by the Lincoln Group:

WTC7's CD doesn't have to be proved, just seen... :)

In March 2006, NIST awarded a contract to a company named Applied Research Associates to continue looking for some other explanation that would exonerate Mr. Silverstein.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers


What the hell makes you think that's WTC-7 burning like that! That's WTC-5 or WTC-6 in that clip you fool!

Kindly retract that WTC-7 had raging fires bullshit.

first off, chill with the

first off, chill with the attitude, and second off it is WTC7, on the side closest to the towers - there are about 3 photos and 1 video of that side of the building.

Where are the 3 photos and 1 video of that side of the building?

Where are the 3 photos and 1 video of that side of the building? May I see them somewhere?

I have an extremely bad bad attitude when I see disinfo

Sorry, I have an extremely bad attitude when I see disinfo. It's may be in everyone's best interest not to play games like this.

oh, i see the confusion

oh, i see the confusion now.. you were refering to the clip on this site not being wtc7:

yeah, thats not wtc7, thats wtc4 i think.. but the videos i link lower on the page are of wtc7 and show a bunch of white smoke, not a raging fire like that clip of wtc4..

sorry for the confusion.

you can find the images at

you can find the images at the bottom of this page:

also, it looks like they just got a new movie showing that side of WTC7 as well.. you can find it at the bottom of that link..

and here is another photo of that side before all the white smoke started:

and please, dont barf on me for linking to, im just showing where the images can be found.

another image of that

to consolidate, here are the

to consolidate, here are the movie links showing the smoke on that side of the building:

"Debunking sites use images

"Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored"

That first image spak6 is MOST LIKELY when the second tower collapsed and its dust cloud. The dust is not blackish Raging fires are usually blackish as they are burning the contents of the structure in a growing rate, this process is not effiecent and thus the smoke is black as the hydrocarbons are not entirely ignited and escape with the heat of the smoke plume.

This "smoke" is brownish, which coincides with the color of both dust clouds from the tower collapses, and even the color of the WTC7 collapse.

Timing is everything.

oh and that small QT clip on the movies homepage. That is not building 7 (I think its 5 or 6, and it did not collapse completely and symmetrically into its own foot print.)

With that said, the "smoke" in the above videos that dz consolidated appear to be the dust cloud which is pulverized debris from the tower collapsed. To this day I have not seen any images showing the extensive damage claimed in the NIST report. They have still pictures of every side of WTC7 taken from a NYPD helicopter EXCEPT the side with the claimed ~20floor gorge.

Besides, if the damage was so extensive, I am 100% sure someone would have snapped at least one shot of the damage in the hours after the two tower collapses. I am sure the NYPD copter took a picture of that side simply for completeness but it was not included in the report.

Simuvac is Absolutely Correct

I find it amusing that ANONYMOUS posters attack a member for being a shill for simply wanting to tighten up our talking points.

The "two small fires" claims have bothered me for some time.
YES, the collapse of wtc 7 almost certainly was a cd. But why shoot ourselves in the foot by parroting disproven claims? We need to face the facts and update our statements accordingly, in order to carry the banner of truth more effectively.

The once mysterious "box with the blue tarp" being carried by military people at the Pentagon is an example of a 911 truth misnomer that has finally, for the most part, been put to rest:
The known facts about WTC 7 need to be updated in kind.