Building 7 - Do you see it Fall?


Watch this video closely - and you`ll see what really happened … re=related

watch the videos in sequence … re=related


I find it rather funny that people are bringing thermite into the discussion when we know for a fact that rather a few tonnes of aluminium were definitely at the scene - having made a rather obvious entry.

Aluminium ignites, depending on its form, at anything up to 700C (which is below most estimates of the fuel burning temperature), but burns close to 3900C, and that’s plenty enough to bring steel up to / beyond the required 1500C.


Seeing as the white house couldn’t even manage to frame Iraq for WMD, then how the hell were they supposed to pull off deception on a vast scale at home and not get caught except for the sharp eye of internet cranks?

Hanlon’s razor is a more plausible explanation.


Who wants what now??? This is a forum!!! :unamused:


I think its your round :wink:


Here is one :wink: , what did the Central Banks do after 9/11?

(I recommend ye follow the story of “building 7” Google will show you the way or perhaps the start of this thread)


3 words - Downing Street Dossier
3 Letters - WMD (still looking)

There where no credible sources in Ireland on Property.
The internet highlighted that and began the change.

US ADMIN disinformation/propaganda abounded.
The Internet changed that too.


An interesting point on the properties of Au, which I doubt many know so I wouldn’t find it funny/curious myself. I don’t think its a show stopper methinks.

Considering each building received a single impact and both collapsed in 10 seconds or less, where the fires where localised to a few floors and in one instance burned for only 55 mins how going on historical precedent of long burning infernos (and this was not an inferno by any stretch of the imagination)

Excuse me now but I must warn those reading I am about to link to a site on the greater interweb, a spurious link perhpas :unamused:

I’d like to draw your attention to molten metal found at the base of the site. Seemingly molten for days, maybe weeks. What do you think about that?

How much aluminum was there in the WTC and how would it have caused the core structures to collapse if it where ignited. Where the impact conditions & variables enough to ignite structural aluminum? I am no engineer but I somehow fear this is unlikely. I suppose we have to look at precedent or simulations here and not laboratory conditions.

IN the long rung I always go back to building 7.

In the light of the days events and the debate its still not clear why a building that was not hit by a plane, also collapsed at free fall speed that day. [

A building that was in fact housing a lot of interesting things ](

Then there is also the issue of the hundreds of millions of missing gold. Ya see its not all about magic tricks :wink:

While some my find this thread adolescent, it would seem to me they have hardly even sniffed at the surface of the days events, one of the most intriguing events in the last few years that has had global implications. One being a US global War and permanent US bases in Iraq.

I would also state that the internet is the only appropriate place for the information unknown to be come forth. That the tradition of respected researcher of academic standing spending 10 or 20 years researching to eventually publish could never capture on or tackle one of the most eventful days of modern times, since Pearl Harbor.

Is it a coincidence that a

was in fact underway

note that

Is it coincidence that a training exercise was being carried out simulating the exact events that transpired on 7/7 in London, accidentally uncovered in a Live UTV interview? (The interviewers incredulity & shock at this revelation is is undeniable)

The pattern is there and its a web of internet links, you have to use your head to make the correct connections or else I am a cherry picker of the vox pop.


Well worth a read. Mini Nukes anyone?


I think you missed my point. A 767 weighs in the region of 80 tonnes - a fair whack of that is the airframe, which is largely aluminium.

Aluminium is quite a bitch to get burning, but when it does, it will melt almost anything - thermite is nothing other than aluminium (powdered to make it light easier) and iron oxide (to provide a handy source of oxygen) plus some additional stuff to encourage ignition. Aluminium if ignited in air burns more effectively than thermite - since it doesn’t have to give up energy to splitting the oxygen off the iron as part of the reaction.

Anyone who suspects thermite was used to bring down the buildings may be almost right - but the aluminium arrived on the planes, laden with enough fuel and kinetic energy to get the aluminium in the airframe to burn. And even if just a small amount of it burned, guess where that would be - where the airframe collided with the structural steel in the building (which would both smash the aluminium into small fragments to ignite, and where the impact provided additional localised heating).

Perfectly explicable if you assume aluminium burning (and very few things burn hotter, so what other explanation is there?)

You’d be surprised how long it takes heat to disipate after a collision or other serious heating. I remember seeing a documentary about a train derailing on a hill going into california. In short, the surfaces of the wheels started melting due to the heat buildup from the brakes and friction from the track - the wheels were still too hot to touch 24 hours later even though they were exposed to open air. I’ve no doubt that a significant aluminium fire could potentially result in very hot metal several days at least afterwards, if theres a lot of insulating materials around.

The airframe of an 85 tonne airliner (if the impact with the structural steel was sufficient to cause ignition of the airframe) would have melted and collapsed said structural steel.


oh dear.

I remember why I said i’d never try to argue with truthers again. :unamused:


You are now trolling.


This nonsense reminds me of all the internet ‘experts’ claiming that the Moon Landings were hoaxed. Its like that game whack-a-mole, you knock on down and another more elaborate one takes its place. The internet is a dark and scary place :open_mouth:


Again, you dismiss out of hand possibilities that conflict with your world view and comfort zone, yet there are many credible people who question the official conspiracy theory. Enlightened readers might find them of interest: … HE_PRESIDE … sionreport Senior Officials Question 9/11 Commission - Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Pilots for 9-11 Truth The Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11 US military false-flag plan

Strange that Pin readers are so sheeple-like on this topic, given that the site is so sceptical about the ‘official’ property-boom narrative scepticism. I guess it’s too shocking, in the same way that few people would believe stories of priests buggering children.


… controlled by conspiracy theorists in a smoke-filled, darkened room.


Its a strange one alright. The idea has long been round before we had access to the net. Its not without base though a lot was at stake, Cold War supremacy for one! So it wasn’t really a heroic notion about going to the moon but in the same light it did produce great technological benefits which we all now enjoy. No quibble there.

There are however innumerable oddities some explained but many not. We won’t know till the Chinese take a ramble over to the sea of tranquility way but you can’t help feel the re using of the same backgrounds in many of the Apollo Missions as a classic give away that Studio manufactured propaganda was at play that anything else!

My feeling on this is, yes they probably managed to land, but had to do a lot of earth based post production to get such quality footage and photographs.

Don’t forget 2001 was made before the Moon landings so the ability to recreate believable lunar landscapes and space sequences was proven.

I also do not think it is a coincidence that NASA gave Stanley kubrick the use of a special lens (which was used in Barry Lyndon). I have a feeling as a great photographer he had at least a consulting roll if not more.

I don’t think this lens was ever brought to the moon. You know what I mean :wink: (most people don’t realise the only camera the had had no view finders and were mounted to the chest of the astronauts suit. As some one who has experimented with analogue photography since I was young I don’t believe this to be conducive to taking amazing photos when on the moon)

Well this link below is one of my favorite sites, as I only found it less than a year ago and it contains some great photos I’ve never seen before in all my years of perusing the esoteric

My favorite image is probably the world first giant CFL build :wink:

Next you lot will be telling me the 90 or so Pyramids in China are not real!
Bet ya never seen these before :smiley:
The cultural revolution has a lot to answer for!**

(ya know talkign about property really gets away from teh real issues, don’t ya think 8) )


Ok I get where you are coming from.

Its not something I have seen considered much and it’s a valid point. I have seen photos of those monster I Beams cut at 45 degrees a mind the wreckage and has this created much speculation. Not unwarranted either when you see the imagery.

So to take onboard the 85 tons of Au, I’d say first off that not all of that weight is Au, the engines are heavy mothers a few tones each with a lot of Titanium I think. Then you have the furniture and fixtures in fittings which I would estimate could be anything from 20-45% of the weight if the fuel doesn’t make up the rest but that could be additional weight. SO I would say the true AU content is much lower.

However for arguments sake lets pretend it was 85 tonnes of Au so was ignited in the perfect case scenario, but to to cause such explosive forces?

All theories are fine until we are forced to take into account the massive explosive energies that sent so much material outwards and also why was so much material including humans, steal etc. turned to dust in 10 seconds.

So even if Au did burn as you say and did melt its way through I do not think it would have had the same impact nor looked to explode in the same way.

Just think about the global consequences for engineering when faced with such a mechanical failure of an international building method.

Assuming its plausible, ok.
I don’t doubt the above examples.

There are arguments to say that the amount of steel and structure would have drawn heat out much like a CPU heat sink so the concentration would have been limited.

Once more I must point out that inferno like conditions did not seem to prevail on the day and indicate low burring fires. So when a MIT physics professor says as much what am I to think? With this in mind and the explosive forces demonstrated that day I don’t think Au burning as you describe being the sole agent of destruction and to happen perfectly in both cases and also have no realiton to how WTC 7 fell?

Like I said above I don’t think it fully explains all of the events. Its also not the official explanation which has no explanation for Building 7 collapse.

We must not forget the words of Larry Silverstein who had reinsured the WTC buildings only months previously, who stated on PBS TV that he gave the order to “pull” the building on information form the fire dept. Meaning, demolition.

While the BBC reported its collapse 20 minutes or more before the recorded event.

Only time and the documentary power of the internet has brought all this info to anyone fingertips, on the day no one viewer had an oversight and only with info technology comes great hindsight, not what you thought you remember happened.

Its all very odd, until you look at every detail of that day. Its not one killer detail or smoking gun it’s the whole spectrum of events, incidents and behavior of the US admin, NY authorities and Media you are forced to question the reality which for most is what they thought they say. Like when you see a magician, one hand distracts as the other performs the trick.

On a personal note I avoided this issue, anytime I saw 9/11 claims I ignored it.

I didn’t want to know and I was completely ignorant of the idea of another story to explain the events for about 5 years, which is an achievement for me (of course I blame lack of Broadband  ) it wasn’t until much later I stumbled across the story of building 7 and thought “huh another building fell… wha de fuck?”, and never looked back, down the rabbit hole I went. So I am not surprised by peoples reactions.


There are two schools of thought from what i understand - whether the fuel fire alone weakened the structure (even at a few 100 degrees, steel is much weaker), or whether there was a contribution from the aluminium. There was certainly enough aluminium and even a few kilos burning in the wrong place could have been critical.

The initial impact took out a relatively small portion of the outer supports, but took out a much greater portion of the central supports (since they were closer together).

At this point, the building stayed up, but much of the structural redundancy had been lost.

There is also no doubt that had a single floor lost support from the central supports that it would trigger a cascade failure at almost freefall speed.

You don’t need explosive forces from the aluminium. You have the initial impact forces, which would bend, disconnect and likely shear some of the supports.

Then you have structural weakening from heat (whether fuel or aluminium ).

Then you have the energy from each floor as it hits the lower ones during the collapse. Each floor weight in the order of 5000 tonnes, that’s a lot of shear right there, one it gets going.

You’re talking a half million tonne building coming down from an average of 50 stories - about 1.2 Trillion joules of energy. Equivalent to about 300 tonnes of TNT.

The building wasn’t designed to deal with what happened - simple as that. You can build them stronger if you want - and most critically, you can ensure much better fireproofing on the structural steel.

This critically depends on the heat of the fire, and the amount of connected steel structure left in any one place. If the aluminium burned, forget it, it will melt the steel long before enough heat will be drawn away. Even if it didn’t, remember all the building needed was a single floor to disconnect from the supports at one end for it to collapse - it’s quite possible that there was one sufficiently weak and sufficiently hot area.

There are lots of opinions on how hot it got, and for how long.

Video evidence shows that at least one of the buildings had slight tilting at the top before collapse - suggesting one side buckled first, probably overstressing the joints on the opposite side or the opposite side supports themselves. And once one floor got moving, that’s it - the impact of that one floor would have been over 10 times the design strength of the floor below.

Aluminium burning, even in small amounts, would have almost ensured the buildings fell. It may not even be necessary though, depending on the structural redundancy left after the impact, and the subsequent weakening by heating.

I have no opinion on building 7, since i didn’t really look into it.


WTC 7 was 186 m high, way taller than anything in Ireland, and in Britain it would have been the fifth tallest building.
So it’s not a structure to be easily ignored.
Unless you’re the US government which didn’t give it a single mention in the official 9/11 report.
Conspiracy or what???


I like this, it reminds me of being at college. Carry on please, while I try and keep up.