It's a collection of talking points on WTC-7:As we have demonstrated on this blog these are all valid points, but the issue of those "roaring" fires is a bit more scattered than the other subjects so I'm going to focus in on it. As "debunker" Mark Roberts demonstrates on his page "Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires" there are indeed eyewitness accounts that state the building was fully engulfed in flames, but the evidence and official reports show this not to be the case.
1. Three buildings, two planes
2. Freefall speed into its own footprint
3. Accounts of explosions (note that Corr fails to mention the firefighters who talk about the "roaring" fires in WTC-7)
4. 9-11 Commission didn't mention its collapse
Typical horsecrap from a horse's ass.
The BBC documentary "The Third Tower" shows that the large amount of smoke on the south side of the building is the main reason observers believed the building was fully ablaze.
After the airing of this program JREF forum "debunkers" followed Steve Spak's lead when he called Gage's statements about negative air pressure "insane" stating such things as, "Tricky dicky believes WTC 7 sucks, 'negative pressure' sucked smoke from WTC 6 and made it appear that WTC 7 was on fire. this theory is the only one that he made up by himself as far as i know."
In a debate with "the debunking director" of the forum Gage was asked to finish the adage, "Where there is smoke there is fire," to which Gage replied that this is what one would expect, but where there is fire there should also be evidence of... well... fire!
Photographs and footage later discovered vindicated Gage, as they showed the same phenomenon of negative low air pressure had occurred with WTC 1 after the collapse of WTC 2 making it appear as if the entire building was on fire.
Skip to 10:25 in the following clip to see video of the above effect and proof that the majority of smoke around WTC 7 came from WTC 5 & 6. Click here to see just pictures showing that most of the smoke came from WTC 5 & 6.
Now to the official reports. As stated by the BBC, "According to the official investigators, the main fires were concentrated on floors 6 through to 13, except floor 10. And there were fires initially on some of the upper floors."
The "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation" webpage states that the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working.
The FEMA report, section 5.3.3, states that, "Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors."
So, the highest out of control fire was on the 13th floor, the sprinklers from the 21st through the 47th floor were working, and the building was designed to limit fire and smoke spread between floors.
In other words, "debunkers" are contradicting the official story in an attempt to defend it.
It is also important to note that when Steve Spak says that he "saw fire coming out of some of these windows," the picture he holds up is of the southeast wall, not the south face of the building covered in smoke. As WTC7.net points out, "This photograph (of the southeast wall) from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames."
We also have visual evidence of fire on the north face.
The foreknowledge of the collapse spoke of in this video is another interesting aspect to all of this because the fires it shows are unsubstantial compared to other skyscraper fires, and we need only look to other footage taken by Steve Spak on 9/11 of WTC Building 5 for an example. As the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website pointed out in a recent article which compares the other WTC buildings that did not collapse to the three that collapsed completely, "World Trade Center Building 5 was fully engulfed in flames - burning far more extensively than the few small isolated pockets of fire in WTC 7. If any WTC building was going to collapse by 'normal office fires' (the official cause of WTC 7’s destruction) it would be this one. Yet, it did not collapse."
If WTC 7 was possibly poised to collapse it is strange that there were no widespread reports that WTC 5 might do the same given the severity of the fires. The evidence indicates that there were very few individuals that concluded WTC 7 would come down based on direct observation, but rather parroted information passed down by individuals that also somehow predicted the unprecedented and unexpected fall of the Twin Towers, as evinced by the fact that so many firefighters bet their lives on the fact that the Towers were reported to be able to sustain such damage and fire. For the few who did believe WTC 7 might come down based on their own observations it must be pointed out that their opinion would have been skewed after just seeing two 110 story skyscapers crush themselves.
As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT. pointed out in his post "Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings," "Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite."
If you agree that Building 7 needs to be re-investigated please visit the new action page at the "BuildingWhat?" campaign's website posted this past Wednesday.
Update: From the book Mounting Evidence - Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 by Dr. Paul W. Rea, published September 2011:
The WTC-7 Fires...
The fire reports ranged widely. While no one has talked about a towering inferno or even a huge conflagration, Fire Capt. Brenda Berkman did affirm “fire on every floor” (S. Hagan and M. Carouba Women at Ground Zero p. 213). But perceptions do differ, even among professionals, and it would be easy to confuse a lot of smoke with a lot of fire. Mark Jacobson, a journalist who’d reported large fires, recalled “the whole building wasn’t on fire”; instead, he wrote, “there was a lot of fire coming out of a few floors” (NY Magazine 3/37/06). The photographic record also supports the conclusion that the building experienced medium to hot fires on a few floors.
Even those promoting the hypothesis of destruction from fire damage have come in way under Capt. Berkman’s estimate. According to NIST, itself a prime defender of this theory, fires burned on only ten of the building’s 47 floors—and only on six did they grow and burn out of control (NCSTAR1A p. xxxvi). Moreover, officials with Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) of New York who entered WTC-7 said “there was a fire, but they did not think the building would collapse” (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00174.pdf). Thus Con Ed personnel apparently felt the building was safe to enter, reporting only “a fire,” not the “large fires” claimed by many proponents of the fire theory.
It was the Fire Department, then, that predicted the building was going to collapse. Granted, a walkthrough is not an inspection of a tall building. But if in fact the fires were small, on what basis did building security personnel and the FDNY chiefs make a different determination?
