WTC7 - The smoking gun in 9/11 conspiracy

[Winston]

I've been watching 9/11 truth films. One thing that hasn't been explained is how Building 7 of the WTC collapsed even though it was never hit. The official explanation is that fire destroyed it, but fire has never caused a steel building to collapse before, ever. So they said there must have been diesel fuel in it that ignited. They can't come up with any other explanation, so they left it at that.

This is the smoking gun in the 9/11 controversy.

Video where experts claim Building 7 must have collapsed due to controlled demolition.



Sites that analyze this issue in detail

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bu ... h&aq=f&oq=

[Winston]

Here's a very convincing video that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3640256739

And here's a website dedicated to it:

http://www.wtc7.net/

[Winston]

Here you can see some videos where BBC and CNN announced the collapsed of WTC 7 BEFORE it occurred!

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#broadcasts

[Winston]

Check out this new professional video by AE911Truth.org. Listen to what all these expert structural engineers and scientists have to say about Building 7! Wow. It'll make your jaw drop. You won't deny that there's something wrong with the official story after watching this. No way.

[Winston]

Here is a letter I wrote to Steve Neese after he said that he was unconvinced by the 9/11 conspiracy arguments and found the defense of the official story of 9/11 more persuasive. In it, I list some important key points and questions for him to consider, which I think those of you sitting on the fence here will find revealing.

-------------------------------------------------

Steve,
A few key questions and important points. Before we parted, you said that you aren't convinced by the arguments about whether the fires were hot enough to melt steel or not. Well, if we had more time, this is what I would have emphasized to you:

- Yes the fires were not hot enough to melt steel technically, but it's a moot point, cause even if they did melt the steel, how do you remove hundreds of thousands of tons of resistance from steel and concrete, on the 100+ floors below the impact points of the WTC? What I mean is, the twin towers could not have collapsed that fast, no matter what melted. The 110 floors provided a lot of resistance which could not have evaporated and turned to air. It's totally impossible and no one has explained it. Especially considering the fact that the north tower was hit at the very top. How does the very top floor pulverize 110 floors below it as though it were thin air? It's 100 percent impossible.

- Also keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? The WTC did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 11 seconds.

- Besides, if one could destroy whole skyscrapers just by lighting a few floors on fire, then the demolition company would be out of business, since no explosive charges that takes months to set up, would be necessary. All you'd need is kerosene and a few matches. Have you considered that?

- Have you seen the collapse of Building 7, which was NOT hit by a plane? It's considered the smoking gun. It was a 47 story skyscraper made of the best materials. Yet it collapsed in 5 seconds. The government says it collapsed from fire. But have you seen the collapse? If not, look at it and tell me if it looks like a fire collapse. Here:



Here is that new professional video I told you about from AE911Truth.org featuring MANY structural engineers, scientists and demolition experts talking about the collapse of Building 7 and why the official explanation is WRONG. You need to watch it. It's so compelling that it will change your mind if you listen to every words of it. It's a MUST SEE.



Btw, the debunkers have NEVER explained the free fall collapse of Building 7. They simply tried to muddle the waters, cause they CANNOT explain a free fall speed collapse by fire. In fact, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), which was commissioned by the US government, ADMITTED that they could not account for the free fall of Building 7, so they just ignored it. And they ADMITTED that they NEVER even looked for evidence of explosives either, since they already MADE UP their mind from the beginning that ONLY fire could be the cause of the collapse. (since that's what they were ordered to do obviously)

With such damning admissions from NIST, why do you say you trust them and consider them to have explained everything sufficiently, when in reality, they can't answer any important questions and run away from evidence presented?

For example, NIST said there was no molten metal found under the WTC 7 rubble. But many people said they saw it, including fire fighters. Have a look at what they said below. These are good honest Americans, just like you, so why do you ignore their evidence?



Thermal heat imaging from the air also detected molten metal in the WTC rubble as well.

Again, keep in mind that a building collapsing from fire, does so in a GRADUAL manner with UNEVEN deformations, with the building eventually falling over SIDEWAYS, NOT straight down. Do you understand the HUGE difference there? Building 7 did NOT collapse that way at all. It collapsed in 5 seconds at near free fall speed.

I know we all have our biases, including me, but how do you explain all this when you factor it in? Yes it's disturbing. But like Richard Gage said, you gotta follow the evidence (and the money especially) and let the chips fall where they may.

I really urge you to watch the film I recommended to you long ago, called "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" when you have time. It's only 100 minutes, and is the BEST documentary on 9/11 ever. It was made by a member of the European Parliament and features Nobel Prize Winners. Once you watch it, your mouth will drop open and you will be stunned, as you slap your head and wonder, "How could I have been so gullible?!" Guaranteed. Here is the link to see it.

Full length here:


Trust me. All these clips and films are a MUST SEE. I would not ask you to see them if they weren't important and worthy of your time. Once you see them and follow the evidence, you will understand why. The case will be much more clear to you than before.

Regards,
Winston

[Winston]

Russia Today reports that new photos reveal that WTC was exploded from the inside.

[Winston]

Check out this great new song about 9/11 and Building 7 by Martin Noakes. It's very well done and beautifully sung.

[ErikHeaven]

One would have to be completely dumb not to see that 911 was an inside job. Now the question remains what are we going to do about it?

[magnum]

Too much conflicting information.

Hitler once said, lie big enough and the world will believe you.

I think he was insane, but knew how to control a populous.

[Winston]

One would have to be completely dumb not to see that 911 was an inside job. Now the question remains what are we going to do about it?

The only solution is to raise awareness on a mass level and encourage everyone to follow a path of nonviolent noncompliance. That's what the system fears the most.

[Winston]

Here is a video of the ground under the WTC shaking, 12 seconds before its collapse. Isn't this obvious evidence of some kind of underground detonation device?