World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

This video was a freedom of information requested video which you can clearly hear a deep thud explosion followed by the penthouse partial controlled collapse followed by total controlled collapse. There are people who claim that there were no explosions. They are lying.

Here is a smaller one from earlier

Here is an obvious huge explosion

Eyewitness accounts to explosions " Thumb thumb thum thumb" explosions...

a reply to: Shadow Herder

There are people who claim that there were no explosions.

& now that this has been shared, they will move the goal posts. Again.

Prepare for some mental gymnastics.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.

Let's compare that one boom to a real demolition.



Hmmm...something is wrong ?

a reply to: Shadow Herder
It is clear. I have seen a few videos of this. In regard to that building.

I do know planes, regardless of who sent them, took down one. Through hours and hours of research, watching interviews of experts, it is MORE than possible. I was almost obsessed with this at one point. I still do not know exactly who was behind the planes, but those explosions can melt the steel in the buildings.

#7 though,,,that is the thing that does not match.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.

I watched it happen live. The heat of the jet fuel can do this. You need an engineering degree, not just common sense.

I know the official story is incorrect. Most people should know that. #7 was a controlled demolition. I was on the phone that morning with Bruce Beach, the owner of the Ark II in Canada. I wanted a spot for myself and my daughter and was told I was welcome, then the border closed.

The OP is correct about that building.

a reply to: Mianeye

I imagine regular demolitions don't require the necessity of muffling the explosives. Cuz they don't need to be covert.

a reply to: reldra

The heat of the jet fuel can do this.

you mean the jet fuel that burnt off in a giant explosion in the giant fireball?

the fireball that erupted on impact?

how did the jet fuel survive the explosion of the plane ?

if the jet fuel did survive the crash and explosion then what was exploding?

Funny how the 'supposed' explosive demo of 7 didn't blow out any windows.

I think, honestly, there is at least a somewhat reasonable explanation for this.
Why not assume that, yes, those buildings were wired, but as a safety measure?
Perhaps this is a long shot, but to me it would make sense to have the buildings wired to demo in the event that their structure was compromised. The reason for this would be to, obviously, save the surrounding buildings from damage caused by a tower toppling over.

Not saying the whole event wasn't shady as hell, but surely the whole thing can't be that covert.

Preaching to the choir here I'm afraid.

I've been saying this since I watched them over and over and over and over again on news stations the day of and the many months after.

Brought down by fire my @$$.

Anyone who believes that needs to study building demolition, specifically controlled demolitions.

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered. Not one that I've found has even partially collapsed from an aircraft crashing into it.

The melting point of the construction-grade steel girders is 2,795 degrees, well beyond what jet fuel and the associated things being burnt in it's path could possibly heat the steel to.

Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Well, to be exact, construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That's a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com...

Video on one explanation: www.youtube.com...

Plus if a plane hit that far up, the building would have toppled, not fell straight down like in a demolition...so many people buy that bull$h!t theory...I guess the fluoride in the water is really starting to work along side our failing education system.

Oh, and during clean up, DAYS after the 'crash' there was *still* molten steel in the bottom floors....do the math over 2700 degrees, and held for *how* long?

Right, jet fuel. Whatever.

*rolls eyes*

Sorry for ranting - just so sick of people claiming 1+1 = 3,451 to the quintupled power by the root of 37.

a reply to: Mianeye

WTC7 was done by better professionals .They probably had access to much better materials with a much bigger budget to work with .

a reply to: Shadow Herder



One of the many reasons I dont believe the official story is because of the photo of the woman who is standing in the impact area. I dont have all the facts but if the fires were blazing so high and the heat was strong enough to bend the steel how the hell could she be standing there?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So we have "muffler" on the explosive, and "better professionals"....i see

NIST sure had to do some mental gymnastics and ad hoc methodology to avoid coming up with honest answers. I guess that's why they make the big bucks. Kind of like lawyers only with engineering degrees. The level of dishonesty displayed by them is a stain on the scientific and engineering community.

I don't think it's been mentioned what #7 contained; Securities and Exchange commission which had many of the files related to Enron and WorldCom criminal activity, FBI, CIA, Secret Service and many others. I have heard rumors (?) that the back up files for Pentagon expenditures were kept there, the same ones that were destroyed at the Pentagon in the Office of Naval Intelligence. Can anyone verify or refute that?

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry
You sir, are the man!

I cannot believe that any rational adult still tries to say that jet kerosine burns anywhere near hot enough to melt structural steel. Oh, and of course the disappearing titanium gas turbine engines of the planes are easy enough to explain away and of course the passport of the purported hijacker that must have been thrown out the window of the jet before impact….

…AND THESE PEOPLE VOTE!!!!!!!!

a reply to: Mianeye

I assume what you think is wrong is the sound level? Probably the difference being windows in WTC 7? No?

originally posted by: kissy princess
a reply to: Mianeye

I imagine regular demolitions don't require the necessity of muffling the explosives. Cuz they don't need to be covert.

So, they forgot the pillows around that first one?

Come on - each video is of a single explosion-like sound. How does that prove anything?

a reply to: samkent

Ever tried to break a dual glazed tempered glass window? In the trade we hit them with steel hammers a lot. Rarely do they break if you don't hit them on the edge

a reply to: reldra

you mean the same jet fuel that at the pentagon didn`t even scorch the leaves on the trees next to the building, or burn the plastic insulation off of electric wires hanging down into the hole in the building?
There are plenty of pictures on the net of the pentagon damage and in none of those pictures is there large scale fire damage.
jet fuel in new York burns hot enough to melt steel beams but jet fuel in washington doesn`t burn hot enough to even scorch the leaves of the trees? or burn pictures hanging on the walls right next to the hole in the building.
I`m not buying it.