35 votes

Silent WTC Building 7 Loop

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hey Fireant

Where did the molten metal come from in the basement? Controlled demo can explain it but fire can not. The molten metal IS proof of artificial dismemberment. Is could be said that the leftover molten metal is from cutter charges to cut the beams. Just because there is not evidence of the kind you want, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is other evidence of CD. If someone is shot and you can't find the gun, it doesn't mean they weren't shot. Please move on with your distractions.

fireant's picture

Can you find one example of CD where pools of molten steel

accumulated under the pile?
And your example is ridiculous. If someone is shot, there will be a bullet hole.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

I don't suppose all the architects and engineers have yet found

the conclusive proof of structural evidence of artificial dismemberment? That is the one thing which will prove a case for CD, but is avoided like the plague.
I have searched, specifically looking for what would be prolific and obvious evidence, after believing the buildings were detonated due to AE videos and others. I could find none, but did find overwhelming evidence of shearing, breaking, bending, and stretching of the structural connectors. With hours and hours of raw video at the site as well as the landfills, artificially cut columns and beams would be obvious if the buildings were detonated.

Undo what Wilson did

You are to stupid to sound intelligent

Wouldn't fire be artificial dismemberment? You talk like a complete tool. tell me how fire causes this? So when has a fire ever freakin done this? it has never, where is your proof fire could do this, give me one freakin case study .. You Sir Are an ignorant Asshat of unbelievable porportion

fireant's picture

Ignorance is believing a building can be dismantled

with cutter charges or thermate and miraculously there be no cut up structural members.
And if you think all the indignant name calling helps your case, it only shows you haven't one.
Not that I think you will pay attention, but the damage from the North Tower was fatal. The building was leaning, bulging, and creaking (do you know what that does to the joinery?). Fire merely hastened the inevitable. And yes, there are many examples of structural failure due only to fire. Complete collapse is irrelevant. Fire causes steel to fail. That's why they put fire retardants on it.

Undo what Wilson did

ecorob's picture

you aren't just an imbecile...

You are a GD lying imbecile!

Don't believe your eyes, don't believe your ears, believe this little bitch, fireant.

Screw you, liar.

Why do I talk like that about this?

Because I don't have time to argue with your BS anymore. You will see more and more of me and people like me.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

fireant's picture


If you wish to go off on name calling diatribes, have at it. Obviously this site no longer disciplines personal attacks. It reflects on you, not me.

Undo what Wilson did

There are lots of legitmate questions but...

This video presents two things very much out of context. Can we get some members of the truth movement who care enough about the truth to display things truthfully?

First, there were not small isolated fires, show the other side of the building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5o-zmvMiM&feature=youtu.be

Secondly, all the clips are cropped to artificially shorten the collapse time. Look at the whole thing in context and you will see the building did not instantly blow up, but rather had a progressive internal collapse which resulted in the exterior of the building coming down. What caused this is open to debate, but dont manipulate people by presenting things out of context.


ecorob's picture


Spell it with a z...

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Z, are you aware of any other building (ever) that has

collapsed symetrically as a result of fire? If so, please provide me with that information. I can promise you, I only want to know the truth. It doesn't matter to me if someone proves that I've been duped or I just got the whole thing completely wrong. Digging for the truth pretty much guarantees people will make fun of you and label you...so, as most people who have "woken up" or are "Waking up" know, if you're going to be relentless about finding out the truth...you have to devolop think skin.

Correlation does not prove

Correlation does not prove causation. Lack of correlation does not eliminate possibility. This event has its own unique set of circumstances. It is not any other building. Are you aware of another high rise building which was suspended above a large electrical substation using a novel truss system which then had two 110 story buildings collapse next to it and severely damage it?

There are many unanswered questions about what happened. I will grant you that one would not expect this building to collapse. One would not expect the media blackout about any attempt to ask questions. It is definitely interesting and important to look in to.

What I will not grant is that the building collapsed symmetrically. Did you watch the complete collapse sequence I posted? it is clear that it was highly asymmetric. There is massive progressive internal damage taking place in a very complex manner throughout the extended sequence. The interior of the building is being progressively destroyed. When the interior is gone there is really nowhere to go but down. So the fact that the exterior of the building comes down into the space where the internal structure was does not mean that the entire building instantaneously collapsed.

There are a lot of complex details involved. Ironically I watched basically every piece of content AE911 produced and never learned about the con edison substation or any of the unique structural characteristics of the building. I learned the most about the building from actually reading the NIST report in full.

If the truth movement wants to be taken seriously they are going to have to really dig into the NIST report and understand their position. Simply presenting videos out of context and saying case closed may make for sensational videos but it will do little to convince an impartial independent investigation.

What is clear to me after looking into it is that the fires were much larger than presented and the collapse took much longer and was much more complex than show in the short edited clips. Those who care about the truth should consider why this is presented in this manner.

NIST report can't be trusted. Massive conflict if interest.

A logical person has every justification to consider controlled demolition after watching the video(s) and learning that:

No hydrocarbon fire outside a blast furnace can melt steel, or even weaken steel sufficiently to cause a steel structure to collapse, and even if it could, it could not account for a building falling into its own footprint.

The only way to make buildings fall on to their footprints is to carefully plant explosives within the building. Conversely, if a building falls onto its footprint, we can be certain that someone has planted explosives inside the building.

Silverstein Quote: "and I said...'maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it'...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The engineers who wrote the FEMA report admitted that their "best hypothesis" about why WTC 7 collapsed had "only a low probability of occurrence."

When asked whether it had carried out tests looking for explosive residue, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “because there was no evidence of that.” When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

Dan Rather Quote: "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

I agree that you cannot

I agree that you cannot implicitly trust the NIST report or anything the government does. It clearly has a conflict of interest. That does not, however, justify the "truth movement" in portraying things in a biased manner. Since the truth movement is obviously presenting things in a biased manner you clearly cannot implicitly trust anything they say either. This is the primary point I am making and I wish you would specifically comment on this point. Wouldn't it be better in the long run to have full disclosure and present the issues in context?

"if a building falls onto its footprint, we can be certain that someone has planted explosives inside the building." You are jumping to conclusions. if a building falls into its footprint one should be suspicious of explosives and test for them. You are drawing false conclusions based on improper analogy and speculation. You should have a higher degree of skepticism, question everything.

Please dont use this silverstein quote. Its worthless as evidence. He denies it. Its meaning is ambiguous. Do you really think he would go on a show and say they ordered it down if he was really in the know about this whole plot and had it rigged ahead of time? Do you think the insurance companies would have payed him billions if they thought he staged it? If this is the best evidence people have than the CD argument is really terribly weak.

Could you provide any citation for where the engineers who wrote the FEMA report say their best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence? I know Richard Gage says that they said this but I cannot verify it anywhere else. In fact, when asked publicly the FEMA engineers vigorously defend their work and conclusions.

Explosives: I agree, why was testing not done, big red flag. These are the questions the truth movement should be asking.

Rather: looks can be deceiving, correlation does not prove causation, etc. I agree it should be looked into, but this does not prove anything.

fireant's picture

You are helping to make Z's point.

When you say, "collapsed symetrically (sic) as a result of fire", you are not showing an objective quest for truth, but embellishing your "facts" to favor a particular outcome. Just like AE911, you ignore the damage, which was indeed, fatal for the building, and unless you consider the building falling over in two directions symmetrical, "symmetrical" is just a non-definitive word open for interpretation and manipulation. Truth seekers are more careful and exact with their facts.

Undo what Wilson did

And you just found this video???

Either bring us something new or give it a rest already!!!

This is all old news, I've seen it all before a thousand times.

Yes there are lots of questions, but this silent video certainly isn't the undeniable proof we've all been waiting for.

The reason there is no sound with this video loop

I went to ae911truth.org looking for a pre-made flyer that I could download, print out and put in strategic public locations where I live. I found a resources link at:

I found the flyer I was looking for but also noticed the video loop I posted. This loop was desgined for people or businesses that have computer monitors and or flat screen TV's that are in waiting rooms, lobbys, anywhere a screen is that lots of people end up staring at but would not be able to hear sound.

I posted it because it had a couple of angles of the demolition that I don't recall seeing before and I found it stunning (once again) how freaking obvious it is that building 7 did not "collapse" due to fire. In one way, by not having sound, it removes the distraction of noise and allows the viewer to focus more directly on the visual aspect of the destruction. In other words...no sound necessary.

SteveMT's picture

I noticed those new angles of the demolition also.

Those angles alone make this video worth a watch. Without sound, people generally focus more to what senses are left, in this case visual. There is no doubt about a straight down collapse. Why hire expert demolition companies that plan for months when asymmetric damage and fires can do the same thing? Thanks for posting.

TwelveOhOne's picture

+1, bravo

I liked your idea of flyers so much that I have decided to see if I can find some local locations to do this. What are your ideas for good places to start? I'm thinking the local pub, as I know a lot of folks there and have already been conversing about these ideas with them.

Other locations? I would think, locations where people are waiting a while -- laundromats, doctor's offices, car repair?

Anyway, I haven't really done much activism but am starting to feel that itch.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Gilligan's picture

I'm convinced that this was a controlled demolition. But ...

... can someone please explain the motivation behind it? Hitting the twin towers wasn't enough? What was special about WTC 7 ?

Google is government.

It stored all of the records for the SEC

and there were some big investigations going on regarding corporate fraud. It was also an East coast HQ for the Secret Service

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


Audio is missing.

Obviously pre-wired with

Obviously pre-wired with explosives...

and if Bldg. #7 was pre-wired, then Bldg #1 and #2 were wired with explosives as well. I've read there was major elevator work done in these buildings a year prior to 9/11. You just know they trucked in nano thermite and caked the shafts with that stuff. Who's they?

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In fact, an Israeli front

In fact, an Israeli front company was doing unauthorized "repairs" to the Twin Towers' elevators and sprinkler systems. One of its workers was found with a fake pass to the lowest levels of the Twin Towers. Please watch Ryan Dawson's "9/11 and War by Deception." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I

Bump for that which is obvious...

...except sadly to those poor, self-deluded types whose denial and enslavement to normalcy bias and whose lack of intellectual and emotional fortitude--and perhaps most of all, lack of common sense--prevent them from acknowledging what this really IS: the biggest of big daddies of false flag attack operations.

It just shows how weak we as people can be. If I were a praying sort, I'd pray every day for those among us who willfully blindfold themselves to reality.

It is also sickening and infuriating, however, as their weakness only serves in effect to condone the murders which were carried out that day, and this further extends the crimes and adds insult to the injury wrought upon the victims, their families, our very society, and upon all of the innocents bombed to smithereens in those places in the world where we have taken our total bullshit "War on Terror".

I only wish I could be assured that Hell is real, as there are so many people (many "of power") who so deserve to burn forever in its fire for their involvement in this atrocity....

What would the Founders do?


It was a controlled demolition..

The official story is the lynchpin to our present

"...but that was America before..." mentality. And the lynchpin is false.
Sometimes I'm afraid of what would happen if the country as a whole, all at the same time, realized this. Most of the time though, I hope we do.

Coincidence Theorists agree, nothing to see here, move on

The silence is stunning. The subtitles, almost unnecessary.

Nuff said!

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

Next time I BBQ in the back yard I`ll use office furniture.

It burns much hotter than mesquite.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

deacon's picture

what you say is true

it will also melt your grill,and if it is on concrete
will completely disintegrate that ;)

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

sharkhearted's picture

I think this video would be more effective...

...with the audio.

AE911 Truth puts out alot of good stuff...and I support them 100%.

But they need to go back to the drawing board on this one and add the audio.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.