I ran across a great picture of the Windsor Tower conflagration and posted it side by side with the image from 9/11 of a woman standing in the dark hole in the WTC made by the plane.

The Windsor fire raged out of control for 28 hours, while both WTC towers "collapsed" in less than 2 hours.

Good link for friends who try to tell you that the fires weakened the steel and initiated the collapse.

http://www.sheilacasey.com/2008/06/windsor-fire-in-madrid-vs-wtc-fires-on-911.html

Most of these (but not all) have been posted by me and others in the last months. However, the research community doesn't seem to pick up on them (please point them to this blog). I still read claims, for instance, that the fires did not cause windows to break (it did). The long straight gash in WTC7 is not discussed on any website about WTC7 (except for debunking sites). The Steve Spak footage which shows the south side of WTC7 has hardly been discussed at all.

Links are included to high quality versions of the footage for those who want to use it in a film/documentary/presentation. All footage (except Spak's) can be verified in the 9/11 TV archive: http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Fires

NBC 9/11 16:49

High quality AVI: http://www.mediafire.com/?8fmy9ezlwzy (the original mpeg went corrupt)

August 19, 2007 ~ "Mr. Bloomberg said there was “no danger” that the building would collapse "

Full article here

Surprising that this 9 alarm fire had "no danger" of collapsing even though it was being torn down and had been severly damaged 6 years ago. It's also surprising that it takes 4 days to disasemble each floor, as described in another article about the building. See this article.

All that evidence and nobody seems to put it all together. And what about how this modern building became a "toxic waste dump"... how did all that toxic material get there??

It's also very telling what happens to steel when torches are used as seen in these pictures provided in the article. Notice the lack of slag in the DB steel compared with the imfamous WTC column pictured last:

(EDIT: It appears there is an optical illusion at work, the object on fire is the other Tower, not WTC7. Moving to blog section. -r.)

This is huge! While digging through the 9/11 archive i found this footage.The west side of WTC7 is burning with the South Tower standing in the background.

There goes the theory that debris from the collapsing South Tower caused the fires in Building 7.

FOX 11:47 PM

Screencapture of the high resolution video:

Link to high resolution XVID (please save a copy of this file on your hard disk and upload it to other video hosters)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TUHGLNRE

Link to the streaming movie on archive.org
http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109112306-2348 (@ 41 minutes)

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.