BUILDING 7 NEW PROOF? SHOWING EXPLOSIONS INITIATING COLLAPSE FAKE?

This footage surfaced off a digital camera. It seemingly shows detonation charges going off right before the collapse. Yet more smoking gun evidence. or a ve…


(Visited 53 times, 1 visits today)

Share This Post

Comments (40)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Kristian Chase's avatar

Kristian Chase · 608 weeks ago

Ken .... your an idiot.. flash adding?? Really? Flash or no flash.. it should never fallen on 9/11..
Ken Reynolds's avatar

Ken Reynolds · 608 weeks ago

if your going to go to the trouble of adding the flashes on the north side of wtc 7 at least make sure they're round instead of square like the second one, nice tr. What else did you edit and alter in this video
Look who the tenants were and the need to destroy the evidence within certain offices related to previous crimes.
Thank you Edward Current!!! :)
The audio has been dubbed? What a retard! He clearly hasn't seen this video!
/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM
MrEdwardClayton's avatar

MrEdwardClayton · 608 weeks ago

I see a lot of parallels between the 9/11 "Truth" movement and the Intelligent Design movement. Neither apply scrutiny to their own beliefs, and both camps tend to fall for obviously fraudulent "evidence" for their cause, based upon the fact that it appeals to their confirmation bias.
By the way, did you miss the UFO in the background?
mexicaniggy's avatar

mexicaniggy · 608 weeks ago

I'm sorry lol I couldn't sit through this crap, does he ever even mention the UFO above the building @ 0:45?
Stefan Burns's avatar

Stefan Burns · 608 weeks ago

are you guys actually watching this video... this is scary that there is proof right and front of you and you still think merica is honest and true, WE HAVE NO HOPE MAN
Richard Alexander's avatar

Richard Alexander · 608 weeks ago

The flashes of light in WTC7 was a hoax:

watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM
lol seriously. I didn't even know WTC 7 collapsed until like 2 months after, and when I found out it was like, "yeah, so? Add that to WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6." Side note, why do all the videos on youtube that are the biggest crocks of shit, have names like "truth", "proof", "evidence" etc. It's like the ugly people who insist on telling you how "hot" they are... as if you need to be told something that would be obvious if it were true.
Emigdiosback's avatar

Emigdiosback · 608 weeks ago

fake.
what would be the point of bringing down that third tower.. would the two big ones not be enough? answer me that one.
LAnonHubbard's avatar

LAnonHubbard · 608 weeks ago

Edward Current was here :)
"Here, take a look what do you see?" I see a nutcase falling for faked footage. It doesn't surprise me, the truther movement is based on edited footage and logical fallacies.
Wow he even included the "ufo"
CowKingxxx's avatar

CowKingxxx · 608 weeks ago

hey look at the sky a uof passis by at59 sec
Well,Why did they do this...The fire was weak!
I question it too even though I believe they were brought down with explosives. The only thing that makes me think it could be real is that seems like the closest video of building 7. All other videos I've seen are from pretty far away.
leecooper9911's avatar

leecooper9911 · 608 weeks ago

0:36
leecooper9911's avatar

leecooper9911 · 608 weeks ago

Dod, why it is mirror image ???
SeedlingNL's avatar

SeedlingNL · 608 weeks ago

It wasn't crappy engineering. It was, in fact, very smart, because this particular design allows fast building AND offers far more floorspace then any other design. The floors hang from both inner core and outer frame, and do not have to support the floors above. That the buildings stood as long as they did was a testament to their strength. But they simply were not designed with modern fully laden airliners in mind, being flown into the structure for maximum damage.
Superlibertytv's avatar

Superlibertytv · 608 weeks ago

So what you are saying is that it was crappy engineering even though the buildings were designed to take two impacts from planes... I guess they figured the planes would be low on gas when they arrived. Ok... got it, crappy engineering.
SeedlingNL's avatar

SeedlingNL · 608 weeks ago

Wow... you did NO research into these questions at all, did you... Steel doesn't need to MELT to lose the ability to support a building, it only has to become SOFT. Other buildings survived being on fire... BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUFFER MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and BURNING JET FUEL. They were not build like WTC 1,2 and 7, which used a tube-in-a-tube design. And structural points didn't give away at the same time, the videos clearly show floors sagging until the remaining connections failed.
Superlibertytv's avatar

Superlibertytv · 608 weeks ago

Do you realize how hot it would have to be to melt steel?? How is it that we are the only ones to have a fire for a few hours and have a complete collapse, when there are many building that have had raging fires in history and the steel structure is still standing? Plus, the idea that all of the structure points would give way equally at the same time is absurd, and then to have it happen in three buildings when it never happens anywhere else in the world is even more absurd.
Cody Sellers's avatar

Cody Sellers · 608 weeks ago

[ IF YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA IN 2008 TO PROVE YOUR NOT AN RACIST VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN 2012 TO PROVE YOUR NOT AN IDIOT].

THE NDAA NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT TO IMPRISON AMERICAN CITIZENS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS

OBAMA: PASSES IT
MITT ROMNEY,NEWT GREENWICH,RICK SANTORIUM,RICK PERRY [ SUPPORT IT ].

RON PAUL OPPOSES IT AND ALWAYS WILL

RON PAUL REVOLUTION LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION.

RON PAUL 2012 RESTORE AMERICAN NOW!!!

Post a new comment

Comments by