Was Building 7 A Controlled Demolition? You Be The Judge – The Time Is Now

Aside from the molten metal found under all three towers months after the collapses, the actual video of the collapse of Building 7 conclusively shows a cont…


(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)

Share This Post

Comments (45)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
ibeawakened's avatar

ibeawakened · 617 weeks ago

Critical thinking people, WINDSOR TOWER IN MADRID SPAIN, burned uncontrollably for over 24 hours AND NEVER FELL..

911 was an OBVIOUS INSIDE JOB, the evidence is OVERWHELMING.
2.3 TRILLION STOLEN FROM THE PENTAGON CASH COW, as well as ALL THE HOLES IN THE OFFICIAL STORY.
2 all who believe the official lies, why hasn't Saudia Arabia SEEN A REGIME CHANGE? You believe the highjackers had Saudi Passports, not iraqi not afghani, THINK FOR YOURSELF the new fascism is VERY SLICK, MSM IS PURE PROPOGANDA
whitney pitney's avatar

whitney pitney · 617 weeks ago

it was caused by fire get fucking over it idiots!
WTC7WasPulled's avatar

WTC7WasPulled · 617 weeks ago

Building 7 had to be brought down with explosives because even NIST admits freefall, and freefall can only happen with explosives especially straight down into its own footprint. End of story. Any fool can see this, it is not rocket science. What does this mean? Simple, inside job. War on terror is a fraud!
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

@KungFriedChicken nonetheless its enough to take it out without explosives.
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

@KungFriedChicken meh I suppose you're right about that.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

no mate one hole in one corner of the building in one office
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

naaa i dont get into the no plane theory it is a pointless argument with no relevance because it was impossible for the building to implode like that even if 5 planes hit each building
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

naaa i dont get into the no plane theory it is a pointless argument with no relevance because it was impossible for the building to implode like that even if 5 planes hit each building
roquefortfiles's avatar

roquefortfiles · 617 weeks ago

Another brain dead Truther video. With death metal music. Because its made by the same kind of twits that hang out at the WTC Truth Movement sign waving conferences and when you explain facts to them they stand there with a blank look on their faces..."911 was an inside job man".. (I can't tell you why but it just was)

People who blow up buildings for a living watched 7 come down. They were with the fire dept who were simply waiting for it.
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

By the way from the previous comment that you can't find were you implying that there were no planes?
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

debunking911dot(com)/WTC7 There were a lot more than a tiny itty bitty little hole as you suggest.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

for some reason i cannot find my ealier reply to your non existent extensive damage proof.. it only shows i tiny itty bitty little hole... wow lol hahaha.. once again for the dummies.. you will not be able to show any evidence of "EXTENSIVE DAMAGE" to building 7
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

ethwrthwrh
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Afb7eUHr64U This video shows a large rip in building 7 before the building collapsed. Also, with regard to being the first steel buildings in history to collapse due to fire, there are many factors not taken into account. For example, the twin towers had their steel reinforced central concrete core sheared off by airliners (building 7 lacked these cores altogether). No building before had it's vertical load destroyed by an airliner.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

also funny how WTC 4 was it directly below the towers?? the one which took nearly all of the impact damage, yet did not implode regarsles. Buildings must be wired with shit loads of explosives for that to happen there is simply no other way
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

and please no more testimonials and eye witness accounts for evidence.. I want some real deal physical evidence..
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

well prove it and show this extensive damage prior to building 7s collapse..and yes they did implod princess ... fact is WTC 1, 2 & 7 are the only steal frame high rise buildings in the history of the world to implode due to an office fire, as it was, and still is, considered an impossiblity.. especially considering the massive amount of asbestos fire rating the beams were coated in. True stories simply do not have so many anomalies across the entire chain of events...
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

I assure you 7 hours of intense office fires is enough to make a building 7 collapse( no implosion took place). Plus, building 7 did receive major impact damage from WTC building 1 falling over even though it wasn't struck by an airliner.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

I dont blog handsome..anyway, no office fire is capable of being intense enough to implode the building at free fall speed.. and building 7 received no major impact damage, hence why their is no evidence of it having any major damage before suddenly imploding upon its self. physical evidence is non existant throught the entire set of dramas.. no physical evidence of a 757 at the pentagon either.. none.. only two penals with a letter each lol.. no wings, tail section, 2 massive engines, or video
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

I'm not sure what conspiracy blogs you're reading, but I assure you that the heavy damage done to the building from debris with 7 hours of intense office fires show no need for controlled demolition.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

there is no scientific evidence.. its scientifically impossible. Unless a credible scientist wanted his credibility and perks taken away, they're not going to say anything. Nothing to gain and eveything to lose.. they're not stupid lol :-)
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

Who is they? If by they you mean any credible scientist ever then ya I'd suppose.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

because thats the explanation they want you to believe I'd imagine huh
shortdrummer991's avatar

shortdrummer991 · 617 weeks ago

@KungFriedChicken Well then maybe you should consider why it is the official explanation.
KungFriedChicken's avatar

KungFriedChicken · 617 weeks ago

Official freaks lack the ability to look outside the square

Post a new comment

Comments by