Fake Building 7 video debunked by Dr Judy Wood on The Vinny Eastwood Show

Why did it take 10 years to release this footage? Why was it uploaded in such poor quality? Audio of explosions can be laid over the original audio, Pixels c…


(Visited 83 times, 1 visits today)

Share This Post

29 Comments - Write a Comment

  1. Michael Standcumbe · Edit

    I think it is high time we all come clean and admit that it was not box
    cutters that the "Terrorists" used. It is now crystal clear that it was
    tooth picks!

    Reply
  2. I don't believe a word this woman said. I use my on mind, intellect and
    common sense. It brings be to a very different conclusion. It was no
    accident or fire that caused this building to fall. None, nadda, no way on
    God's green Earth did this building completely and totally collapse from a
    fire and other falling debris.

    Reply
  3. The "official version" (per NIST, and chorused repeatedly to this day by
    the media, left and right) is the most absurd conspiracy theory proposed to
    date. ObL's name hit the air well before the dust had cleared (literally).
    It took the FBI nearly 4 days to identify the presumptive Boston bombers.
    How did they identify 19 'hijackers' whose names were not on the flight
    list so quickly?

    Reply
  4. 1dayU2canBdaGreatest · Edit

    It is a inside job otherwise the u.s government would have done a thorough
    investigation to present to the public! Experts will tell you alot of the
    official story is not possible. Even the most highly educated people are
    labelled nutjobs and ignored!

    Reply
  5. Hey Vinny. Have you heard of a person on YouTube who go's bye the name
    "TheAntiTerrorist". Would be worth you're time checking him out. Quite an
    insightful person.

    Reply
  6. you are also asserting that their should have been pock marks in the
    building opposite, really ? did you climb the face of the building to see
    all that – would a coke can have really indented a concrete building
    standing opposite, WT7 is a large building, very wide, so explosions taking
    place at the core, would perhaps not have projected that much debris,
    especially after most of it had burnt away, so there is a possible
    explanation for there not to have been much projectile matter on collapse

    Reply
  7. @TheDochollidaytexas This event doesn't conform to the profile of a
    demolition. Demolitions are intended to cause collapses. A collapse is
    defined as a "fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of
    external pressure." With a great deal of evidence Dr. Woods has proven the
    WTC towers disintegrated, their mass (1,000,000 tons) turning into fine
    particulate matter. Such disintegration has the profile of a directed
    energy weapon.

    Reply
  8. You`re comment lacks credibility and is also contradictory,why do people
    make stupid comments like these.You say a C-D on one hand & the steel is
    real good on the other so how was all this steel turned to dust on its way
    down,if it was a C-D it would Slam to the ground,as they were built on
    Bedrock why was there not a bigger sisemic signal,a C-d can NOT turn steel
    to dust.Where was the debris pile,Seattle Kingdome left a pile 12% of its
    original height,WTC should have been near 15 storys high.

    Reply
  9. investigate911 d.o.t. org AE911truth d.o.t. org Search: Active Thermitic
    Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

    Reply
  10. @MRNEWSguerillamedia hi again mr guerilla, sure, i was saying this again as
    a response to the lady in the video, saying she could not see pock marks
    from the explosions (the ones which support the controlled demolition
    scenario) she literally says she sees none, thus her summary is: no
    demolition scenario – bit simplistic, im sure there was impact marks on
    other buildings, or why would other buildings be on fire, unless of course
    building 7 was set on fire by hand … anyway.

    Reply
  11. you are so full of shit mrnews – seriously, it didnt slam to the ground,
    are you blind of simply mentally deficient – it is clear that the mass of a
    building being burned out never takes a building down, and not the way it
    did – not equally across the whole breadth of the building – your comments
    dont criticise this, you are a pure truther with no critical judgement –
    i.e just as bad a hardcore conspiracy theorist – go tree hugging, youd be
    more useful to society doing that.

    Reply
  12. JUDY WOOD???!!! hahahahahahaha She has stated 9/11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB,
    on several shows…C2C Bob Tuskin. And she wants us to believe terrorists
    used a space based laser to take down the towers. FOR TEAN TEARS she has
    said poof and dustified and other BS NO FACTS,NO SCIENCE
    /watch?v=ymVay70U_pQ <–sounds like debris to me ANd whoever this guy is
    talking, Didnt notice its revrsed, no forground buildings, flashes stay the
    same size even after zoom. NO WONDER HE DONT KNOW….XD

    Reply
  13. also you yourself say that the fires burnt more on one side, wouldn't that
    indicate an eventual uneven collapse ……. you dont make sense, sorry

    Reply
  14. 2nd part-because curtain wall designed to distribute load force equally to
    box columns 6-ft @ center all the way around.This was the toughest building
    ever erected. But since the NWO saw fit to gut America's steel mills-ALL
    the pig iron being erected now at the same location comes from where? you
    guessed it! Can you believe it? DR Wood should investigate the substandard
    Chinese pig Iron their erecting now at wtc crime scene

    Reply

Post Comment