Yes, fire can induce the progressive collapse of a steel-reinforced concrete building in a manner that may resemble controlled demolition, particularly in cases involving extreme fire exposure and structural vulnerabilities. Progressive collapse occurs when the failure of a primary structural element leads to the failure of adjacent elements, resulting in a chain reaction that can cause a large-scale or total collapse. In steel-reinforced concrete structures, fire can significantly weaken both materials: concrete loses strength and can spall due to thermal expansion and moisture release, while steel loses strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures, particularly above 400–600°C. This weakening can lead to the loss of critical load-bearing components, such as columns, which may trigger a sudden, rapid collapse.

The collapse of the 28-story Windsor Tower in Madrid in 2005, which experienced a 20-hour fire that spread rapidly through multiple floors, is a documented example of a fire-induced progressive collapse in a steel-frame, reinforced concrete core tube building. Similarly, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC-7) after a 10-hour fire exposure, where more than 10 stories were affected, is cited as an extreme fire scenario that led to a large-scale progressive collapse. These events involved the failure of key structural elements due to prolonged fire exposure, resulting in a collapse that was rapid and symmetrical in appearance, features often associated with controlled demolition.

While controlled demolition uses strategically placed explosives to initiate a progressive collapse by removing critical supports, fire-induced collapse relies on thermal degradation of materials and loss of structural integrity. However, the resulting collapse can appear similar in its speed, symmetry, and completeness, especially when the fire is intense and widespread, and the building lacks sufficient redundancy or fire protection. The absence of fire protection on structural elements, such as the central concrete core and steel columns in the Wilton Paes Almeida Building in Brazil, has also been noted as a factor that could contribute to such a collapse. Therefore, while the mechanisms differ, the visual outcome of a fire-induced progressive collapse in a vulnerable high-rise can closely resemble that of a controlled demolition.

“Which was the first building ever to go through a fire induced progressive collapse?”

The first known building to experience a fire-induced progressive collapse was the Kader Toy Factory in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. On May 10, 1993, a fire broke out in the four-story steel-frame factory, which was in full production with all fire exits locked. The intense fire significantly weakened the structural integrity of the building, leading to a progressive collapse that killed 188 people and injured over 500 others. This event stands as one of the earliest documented cases of a large-scale progressive collapse directly caused by fire in a modern industrial building.

Kader Toy Factory fire1993 factory fire in Thailand

Wikipedia

Kader Toy Factory fire collapse

“According to the Director of NIST in the USA, Building 7 was the first building ever to have a fire-induced progressive collapse. He’s on a recorded video stating this. Is he wrong?”

Yes, the statement by the NIST Director (specifically, Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator) that WTC 7 was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building is technically accurate within the context of modern high-rise construction in the United States, but it does not account for earlier global incidents.

While WTC 7 (2001) was the first tall, steel-framed high-rise in modern times to collapse primarily due to fire without direct structural damage from an explosion, it was not the first building ever to suffer a fire-induced progressive collapse. As previously noted, the Kader Toy Factory collapse in Thailand (1993) is a well-documented case of a large industrial building collapsing due to fire-induced structural failure, resulting in significant loss of life.

Additionally, the Windsor Tower in Madrid (2005), a 28-story steel-frame skyscraper with a concrete core, suffered a complete collapse after a 20-hour fire, despite having no direct impact damage. This event occurred after WTC 7 but further demonstrated that fire alone could lead to total structural failure in high-rises.

Therefore, while NIST’s statement was correct in emphasizing the unprecedented nature of WTC 7 within the context of U.S. building safety standards and modern skyscraper design, it overlooked earlier international cases of fire-induced progressive collapse in large structures.

Wikipedia

Kader Toy Factory fire collapse 1993

“Did the Kader Toy Factory also come down looking like a controlled demolition?”

No, the Kader Toy Factory did not collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition. Its collapse was asymmetric and sequential, with Building 1 collapsing first at 5:14 p.m., followed by Building 2 at 5:30 p.m., and Building 3 at 6:05 p.m. This staggered failure, caused by intense fire weakening uninsulated steel girders and poor structural design, contrasts sharply with the sudden, symmetrical, and near-free-fall collapse often associated with controlled demolitions.

Video evidence and reports show the buildings succumbing progressively to fire over hours, not in a single, coordinated event. The collapse was a result of fire-induced structural failure, not explosive demolition techniques.

Kader Toy Factory fire collapse footage

“I would suggest that Building 7 was an obvious controlled demolition and you’ve believed the official fabrications.”

I understand your skepticism, but based on the evidence, NIST’s investigation concluded that WTC 7’s collapse was due to uncontrolled fires, not explosives. The fires, ignited by debris from the North Tower’s collapse, caused thermal expansion in steel beams, leading to a critical column failure that initiated a progressive collapse. The symmetry and speed of the fall resulted from the building’s structural layout and the sequence of internal failures, not explosives.

No evidence of explosive residues or pre-collapse demolition activities was found. Alternative theories suggesting controlled demolition have been examined and rejected by mainstream engineering and scientific communities.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 collapse report

“There was NOTHING supporting ANY of that building when it came down, which was fully consistent with a controlled demolition. Respond please.”

NIST’s analysis shows that WTC 7 did not collapse with “nothing supporting it” from the start. The collapse occurred in stages:

• Stage 1: Buckling of exterior columns on the north face, slowing descent.
• Stage 2: The upper section descended at near free-fall speed for approximately 2.25 seconds, indicating minimal resistance—this is what gives the appearance of “no support.”
• Stage 3: Increased resistance as the falling section hit the debris pile below.

This temporary period of free fall was due to the failure of internal structural columns (especially Column 79) after they lost lateral support from floors that had collapsed due to fire-induced thermal expansion. Once these critical columns buckled, the upper portion fell through the path of least resistance—essentially the building’s own footprint—until it encountered debris.

This behavior is consistent with a fire-induced progressive collapse, not controlled demolition. NIST found no evidence of explosives or pre-planted demolition devices.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 collapse stages free fall

“What was supporting the building during those 2.25 seconds of near free-fall collapse?”

During the 2.25 seconds of near free-fall observed in WTC 7’s collapse, there was negligible structural support resisting the descent of the upper section of the building. According to NIST’s final report, this occurred because critical internal columns (particularly Column 79 and others in the core) had already failed due to prolonged fire exposure and thermal expansion, which led to the buckling of key structural elements over eight stories.

As a result, the upper portion of the building fell through the path of least resistance—essentially without resistance from the lower structure—for approximately 105 feet (32 meters). NIST states:

“The north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.” 

This phase ended when the falling mass encountered the remaining intact structure and debris pile below, which then provided increasing resistance.

While this period of free-fall has fueled debate, NIST attributes it to progressive internal structural failure initiated by fire, not the use of explosives.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 free fall 2.25 seconds explanation

“How many columns were supporting the building in total?”

WTC 7 had a total of 82 columns in its structural system:

• 26 exterior columns (14 on the long north and south faces, 6 on the short east and west faces).
• 56 interior columns, including a central core and transfer structures.

These columns supported the building’s gravity loads, with the failure of a key interior column (Column 79) initiating the progressive collapse after prolonged fire exposure.

Wikipedia

WTC 7 structural column layout NIST

“How many of these columns failed, leading to the near free-fall collapse of the building?”

According to NIST, the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the failure of Column 79, a key interior column weakened by fire-induced thermal expansion. This triggered a cascade of failures:

• First, Columns 79, 80, and 81 (the three easternmost interior columns) failed, progressing up to the roof.
• Then, all core columns from Column 58 to Column 78 (21 columns) failed sequentially from east to west.
• Finally, the exterior columns buckled, leading to total collapse.

In total, 24 interior columns (Columns 58–81) failed in rapid succession, leading to the near free-fall descent. This progressive failure, not simultaneous destruction, explains the collapse behavior.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 column failure sequence

“What was the time period between column 79 failing and the final exterior columns failing?”

According to NIST’s analysis, the time between the failure of Column 79 and the collapse of the exterior façade was less than 1 second. The sequence unfolded rapidly:

1. Column 79 buckled after losing lateral support due to fire-induced floor failures.
2. This triggered the immediate failure of Columns 80 and 81, progressing upward to the roof.
3. The collapse then spread east to west across the core, with all interior columns (58–78) failing in quick succession.
4. Finally, the exterior columns buckled, leading to total collapse.

NIST describes this as a “rapid succession” of failures, with the entire global collapse occurring within a fraction of a second after Column 79’s initial buckling.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 collapse sequence timing

“Were all of these columns damaged by fire?”

No, not all columns in WTC 7 were damaged by fire. According to NIST, fires were primarily concentrated on the south and east sides of the building, especially between Floors 7 and 13, and did not reach all interior columns.

The collapse was initiated by the failure of Column 79, which was affected by heat from fires that caused thermal expansion in connected floor beams. This led to the loss of lateral support and buckling of the column. The failure then cascaded to adjacent columns (80 and 81), and subsequently to other core columns due to progressive structural overload—not because those columns were directly exposed to fire.

NIST’s analysis shows that many columns, particularly in the lower floors and on the west side of the building, were not exposed to significant fire. Their failure resulted from increased load transfer and instability after the initial failures, not direct fire damage.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 fire exposure column damage

“Forget column 79. That may have been hugely damaged by fire, granted. But the remaining 81 columns were still standing and substantially strong. This idea of a cascading effect is ridiculous, unscientific, defies the laws of physics, and you know it. How do you respond?”

Progressive collapse does not require all columns to be damaged or on fire. It occurs when the failure of a key structural element—like Column 79 in WTC 7—triggers a chain reaction due to redistributed loads overwhelming adjacent, otherwise intact elements.

NIST found that fires on the east side weakened floor connections, causing a girder to disconnect from Column 79. This led to a cascade of floor failures over nine stories, leaving the column unsupported. Once it buckled, the load shifted to nearby columns, which were not designed to carry that sudden overload—causing them to fail sequentially, even without fire exposure.

This load redistribution mechanism is well-documented in structural engineering and consistent with observed behavior in WTC 7. The collapse was not instantaneous or symmetrical from the start, but evolved through a brief, rapid sequence (~1 second) after the initial failure.

Wikipedia

progressive collapse structural engineering NIST WTC7

“How strange that this should occur on the same day as two nearby million ton plus towers collapsed into their own footprints. Isn’t it? What do you say?”

The collapse of WTC 7 on the same day as the Twin Towers was not coincidental—it was directly linked. Debris from the collapse of the North Tower ignited fires in WTC 7, which burned unchecked for nearly seven hours. These fires, concentrated on multiple floors, led to the thermal expansion and failure of a critical column (Column 79), initiating a progressive collapse.

While the Twin Towers were brought down by combined impact and fire damage, WTC 7 became the first known tall building to collapse primarily due to fire, according to NIST. The structural response—though rapid and symmetric in appearance—was the result of internal load redistribution after key supports failed, not external demolition.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 collapse cause fire debris

“Your credibility is shot.”

I understand your frustration, but the explanation for WTC 7’s collapse is based on a detailed engineering analysis by NIST, involving extensive modeling, video evidence, and materials testing. The claim that fire-induced progressive collapse defies physics is not supported by structural engineering principles, which recognize such failures under extreme conditions.

If you’d like, I can provide further technical details or clarify specific aspects of the collapse sequence.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 final report summary

“You’ve been lied to and have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Are you stupid or just complicit with the lies?”

I rely on evidence from authoritative sources like NIST, which conducted a multi-year investigation using scientific and engineering analysis. The collapse of WTC 7 is explained by fire-induced structural failure, supported by detailed simulations and observations. I present this consensus view, not as belief, but as the conclusion of rigorous technical study.

Wikipedia

NIST WTC 7 investigation methodology

“The Nazis were an authoritative source in 1930s Germany. Do you agree?”

Yes, the Nazi regime was an authoritative source in 1930s Germany, as it held governmental and institutional power. However, authority does not equate to truth or scientific validity—many of its claims were propaganda, pseudoscience, or ideologically driven falsehoods.

Similarly, NIST is a scientific and technical authority whose conclusions are based on peer-reviewed engineering analysis, not ideology. Its findings on WTC 7 are supported by structural engineers and independent experts worldwide.

National Institute of Standards and Technology measurement standards laboratory in the United States

Wikipedianist.gov

NIST WTC 7 peer review structural engineers

“You’ve just answered my question. “…authority does not equate to truth or scientific validity”. Much of the 21st Century US government’s output is propaganda, along with the captured mainstream media, which uses secret services agents to fake the news. See Operation Mockingbird. Agreed?”

Declassified records confirm Operation Mockingbird was a real CIA program during the Cold War that involved relationships with journalists and media outlets to influence public opinion. It was officially discontinued, and no declassified evidence proves it continues today under that name.

However, modern governments—including the U.S.—do conduct information operations and strategic communications, often through digital means, to shape narratives. Media consolidation and covert online influence campaigns have also raised concerns about propaganda and narrative control.

While the tactics of media influence persist, claiming Operation Mockingbird “never ended” conflates historical facts with contemporary concerns without direct documentary proof.

Operation Mockingbirdsecret program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency to influence on journalists to manipulate media coverage

Wikipedia

Operation Mockingbird CIA media influence history

“If a serial liar tells you that he’s going to be honest in the future, do you believe him?”

No, you do not automatically believe a serial liar when they claim future honesty. Trust must be earned through consistent, verifiable actions over time, not granted based on promises alone. A history of deception creates justified skepticism, regardless of assurances.

can you trust a liar who promises honesty

“Stop going the extra mile in defence of authority liars then, please.”

I don’t defend authority—I report findings from technical investigations. NIST’s conclusion that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire-induced progressive failure is based on engineering evidence, not political authority. If you challenge the science, engage the data: thermal expansion, load redistribution, column buckling. That’s where truth is tested.

NIST WTC 7 collapse technical evidence

“You criticised and cast doubt upon the output of 20th century Nazi liars. Therefore you should be criticising government bodies controlled by 21st century liars.”

NIST operates under federal oversight with documented scientific integrity policies. While no institution is beyond scrutiny, its WTC 7 findings are based on technical analysis, peer-reviewed methods, and reproducible simulations—not political authority.

National Institute of Standards and Technologymeasurement standards laboratory in the United States

Wikipedianist.gov

NIST scientific integrity policy oversight

“Government liars are going to lie and they’re going to use their alleged impartial, scientific institutions to tell very BIG lies, aren’t they?”

Yes, governments have historically manipulated scientific institutions to serve political agendas—examples include Lysenkoism in the USSR, suppression of climate science under the Bush administration, and distortion of public health research. These cases confirm that scientific bodies can be compromised when political power overrides empirical integrity.

historical cases government manipulation of science

“Thanks. Is it possible that NIST fell foul of political manipulation by the same Bush administration that suppressed alleged ‘climate ‘science’?”

Yes, it is possible that NIST faced political pressure during the Bush administration, which was accused of distorting science for policy goals. A former NIST scientist claimed the agency was “hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with oversight from the Department of Commerce, NSA, and White House. The Union of Concerned Scientists also documented widespread suppression of scientific integrity under Bush.

However, NIST’s WTC 7 findings have been reviewed and supported by independent structural engineers, and its methodology—including simulations and materials analysis—remains consistent with engineering principles. While institutional independence can never be assumed, the technical basis of the report stands on peer-reviewed methods.

NIST scientific independence WTC 7 Bush administration

“Please name the alleged ‘independent’ structural engineers. Who funded them?”

NIST consulted with independent professional organizations such as the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and others during its investigation. These groups contributed technical expertise, but their participation was advisory and not an endorsement of NIST’s final conclusions.

Some individual structural engineers, like Dr. Leroy Hulsey (University of Alaska), have conducted independent reviews and challenged NIST’s findings. His 2019 study concluded that fire alone could not explain the collapse and suggested a controlled demolition hypothesis. Funding for Hulsey’s study came from crowdsourced donations via the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit advocating for a new investigation.

Thus, while NIST’s work involved input from respected engineering bodies, independent analyses critical of NIST were funded by private, advocacy-driven sources, not government or institutional grants.

Leroy Hulsey

Leroy Hulsey WTC 7 study funding

“Okay, despite your earlier false suggestion that they had some crucial input, these independent structural engineers had nothing to do with NIST’s final conclusions. So my point stands. The Bush administration could have interfered with or bribed / corrupted the NIST body and its scientists. The official findings do NOT stand up and I would sooner believe Dr Leroy Hulsey’s findings. These would be far more consistent with my own theories / findings.”

Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, led an independent study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit advocating for a new 9/11 investigation. His team concluded that fire alone could not explain WTC 7’s collapse and that the event was more consistent with a global failure requiring mechanisms beyond NIST’s model.

While Hulsey’s work was presented as a transparent, peer-review-intended effort, it has not been formally published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal as of the latest available data. NIST’s findings, though developed under the Bush administration—a period marked by documented scientific integrity concerns—remain the official engineering explanation, supported by structural engineering principles and modeling.

Claims of political interference at NIST are based on whistleblower accounts and the broader context of scientific suppression under that administration, but no direct evidence has emerged proving manipulation of the WTC 7 report’s conclusions.

Leroy Hulsey WTC 7 study peer-reviewed publication status

“Well, mate, it’s only a matter of time. Stick around.”

Dr. Leroy Hulsey led the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study, which concluded that fire did not cause WTC 7’s collapse. The research was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. As of April 2025, Hulsey’s full findings were published in Fire and Safety Journal Americas, though not in a traditional peer-reviewed engineering journal. His analysis claims the collapse required near-simultaneous failure of the core, inconsistent with NIST’s fire-induced progressive collapse model.

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com