By Jamie Busby
Next on the "to-debunk" list is the mysterious case of Building 7 in the World Trade Centre complex. I say mysterious, it's more like ridiculous if you listen to the official narrative given by Deep State puppets NIST.
This time we shall be looking at what really happened and discrediting "them" where necessary to give a definitive guide to the collapse of Building 7. This article will provide unequivocal evidence regarding this particular facet of the blood diamond that was the 9/11 Deep State crime.
Please see the link above for a definitive guide to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
NIST followed up their nonsense regarding the Twin Towers with an investigation into what on earth happened to Building 7. This was going to be tough; Building 7 had not even been hit by an airplane. It did take limited damage from the falling debris of the Twin Towers and was affected by office fires. But they were not exactly "Towering Inferno" levels of disaster.
Nothing that "officially" happened to Building 7 could have led to it's collapse, though it did of course go on to fall in what can only be described as another text-book controlled demolition. The sudden onset of collapse, the speed at which it fell, a symmetrical descent and the initial collapse beginning at the base of the structure - All features of controlled demolition.
A Dutch controlled demolition expert called Danny Jowenko reviewed the footage and his first words were "That's a controlled demolition". He continued; "...this is a professional job, done by a team of experts... Does the top go first? No, the bottom does... They just blew up the columns and the rest caved in..."
I don't think I need to keep banging on about expert testimony any more to prove this fact.
NIST themselves came up with what was to be a first in the history of architecture... Shyun Sunder, NIST lead investigator said the following;
"World Trade Centre 7 collapsed because of fires. We really have a new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here... the fire-induced progressive collapse..."
VERDICT: Liar, Liar, it can't be just fire...
NIST attributed the collapse of Building 7 due to the failure of ONE specific column, number 79... They also pointed to a further reason that caused it's collapse, another first in history.
Shyun Sunder again; "Our study has identified THERMAL EXPANSION as a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of a structure. For the first time we've shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."
Richard Gage of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' stated the following after hearing what Sunder had said above; "What they're telling us is that our existing building codes to which thousands of skyscrapers are currently designed... there's a serious problem."
VERDICT: NIST were literally making it up as they went along now. If true, this would have meant that every skyscraper in the world was suddenly in danger of collapse due to fire. It should also have led to the suspension of any current building works and a revamp of every safety procedure known at the time. This of course never happened, because NIST were full of crap just to fit the narrative...
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have asked NIST to verify the computer model on which they based their theory. NIST has refused to make this data public and open, we are just meant to take their word for it.
NIST did release 2 computer animations of how Building 7 fell and they would be laughable if it wasn't all so corrupt. The differences when you place the computer models and the real film next to each other are huge, worlds apart. NIST are way off yet refuse to budge. I wonder why...
The actual footage shows that the whole top section of Building 7 falling as one "piece", it's shape preserved perfectly all the way through the actual collapse. This is seen on various camera angles that recorded it falling.
The fact that NIST claims that their computer models "match quite well" with the actual collapse destroys their credibility as an organisation in this case. They were highly respected before 9/11, have they suddenly become useless? Or are they lost in the pockets of their puppet masters?...
NIST also created a computer simulation of the progression of fires that burned inside Building 7. NOBODY has been allowed to verify it. Again, we are just meant to trust them, even though it too is utter rubbish.
One of their graphics showed the 12th floor fires as the temperature allegedly rose from 1pm onwards, eventually peaking at 4pm in the vicinity of poor old Column 79. However, a real picture of the actual building taken at around 3.50pm clearly shows that those fires on the Eastern section of the 12th floor had completely died out. There is other photographic evidence from different angles showing exactly the same, NO FIRES.
Bizarrely, NIST actually state underneath these photos that "there is no indication of fires burning on the East side of the 12th floor at this time." This is totally contradictory to what they claim their computer simulations show us, how strange?!
The "professional debunkers" that I mentioned in my previous article, a collection of paid-off and/or inept misfits from around the world, have claimed that the first and only collapse of a steel skyscraper due to fire EVER is because "Building 7 was weaker than other skyscrapers"... If you think I'm making this up, I assure you I'm not.
They gravitate around the "Popular Mechanics" website, magazine and associated books; you have been warned.
These muppets claim the reason why it was weaker is because it was built on top of an old electrical substation. Even NIST (who they're trying to support) oppose this theory! The NIST report states the following;
"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."
VERDICT: If even NIST themselves are not using this potential "theory" then it's clearly nonsense. What's more, the building was actually reinforced beyond the requirements of all building regulations by the Solomon Brothers, WTC 7's main tenant, in the late 1980's.
Far from being susceptible, Building 7 would have been the last skyscraper on the planet that could have collapsed due to fire alone.
Jody Gibbs, an architect from '9/11 Truth' stated that "No high rise steel structure has ever been destroyed by a fire in the history of construction". This sentiment was echoed by all of his peers and the world's leading architects and engineers. So if this is not possible, how come there was so much knowledge of the impending collapse before it happened?...
Firemen, Police officers and First Responders had been warned that the building would be collapsing up to 5 hours before it actually did. Two fireman spoke to the New York Times afterwards. One said "We were just hanging out until Tower 7 came down" and another said "We stood and waited for WTC 7 to come down". They and many others knew it was going to happen.
At 4.10pm, CNN spoke of how they were receiving information that Building 7 had either collapsed or "is collapsing".
At 5pm, the BBC infamously announced that Building 7 had already collapsed, even though it could be seen standing in the background behind the reporter. She even points towards it at one point but not knowing the New York skyline, she didn't realise it was still there...
Why was this knowledge circulating round our dear friends in the Mainstream Media long before it had actually happened?
Also at around 5pm, CNN captured footage of explosions in Building 7 and Police telling of the collapse, which still hadn't happened, and clearing the area of people. The phrase "The building is about to blow up" can be heard several times from different people and Police officers. A strange phrase to use for a building that is merely on fire...
A First Responder called Kevin McPadden even heard a countdown just before the building collapsed. It was coming through the Police radio and as the countdown ended, he heard multiple explosions coming directly from Building 7 itself. Then it began to fall. These explosions can be clearly seen on video of the collapse.
VERDICT: Word of the impending controlled demolition was somehow leaked and became common knowledge.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth describe the symmetry of how Building 7 collapsed as the "smoking gun". Cathy McGrade, a metallurgical engineer stated "It cannot happen that when you have asymmetric damage, you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse." I think that speaks for itself and makes perfect sense.
VERDICT: The simultaneous "removal" of all supporting columns is the only way Building 7 could have collapsed in the way it did. This cannot be caused by just fire, however fierce. Again, it further proves that what we saw was blatant controlled demolition.
On top of all this, Building 7 came down in just over 6 seconds... This was effectively free fall speed, as was also seen with the Twin Towers earlier that day. Physicist David Chandler studied all the available data and described the speed of it's collapse as "literally indistinguishable from free fall in a vacuum".
On seeing the results of this study, NIST actually altered their own preliminary report. They were forced to acknowledge that the building fell at free fall, in their opinion, for the first 2.25 seconds. This equates to more than a third of the total collapse time. And this admission sealed the fate of their pathetic excuse of an official narrative.
Civil engineer Richard Angle from '9/11 Truth' put it simply; "NIST report admits [Building 7] fell at the rate of gravity for the first 100 feet. Well that's impossible unless there's nothing resisting it."
VERDICT: Controlled demolition, AGAIN... same old story with this lot.
I rest my case with regards to WTC Building 7. Again, the evidence not only backs up what many of us believe but also completely discredits NIST and what the global shadow government want us to think happened on 9/11.
It really grinds my gears that the 'powers-that-be' continue to think we're so stupid that we'll keep accepting their lies. We are able to investigate for ourselves nowadays, the emergence of the Internet has really damaged their ability to keep things secret. This is great for us but sadly too late for all the victims of every corrupt Deep State scam that's ever been committed.
But that's even more reason to continue to expose EVERYTHING we stumble upon. Every "debunking" is a small victory and step towards their annihilation. We just need to reach the tipping point where our collective conscience outweighs their power in the real world; then the Deep State will collapse, hopefully at free fall. I wanna see NIST investigate THAT...
Next, I intend to blow away the lies surrounding "what" hit the Pentagon and "what" exactly landed in that field in Pennsylvania on 9/11. Because that's a right load of crap too; till next time.
https://www.ae911truth.org/ - Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Did you like this article?
Thank you for your vote!
19 July 2019
'Sheer lie’: Iran elite military unit shows VIDEO ‘proving’ no drone downed by US in Persian Gulf
From our advertisers
57 minutes ago
Trump says he waits to hear from Riyadh on oil attacks’ culprit, US ‘locked & loaded’ to respond (blame Iran in other words)
From our advertisers