Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: WTC7
Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated.
The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.
Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.
The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Shot from the north side of the building on Barclay Street, and between the buildings in the background, the video shows the mass of raging fires taking place on the grounds of the World Trade Center.
- scubadiver's blog
- Login to post comments
This is not new footage
It was actually released almost 10 years ago on a DVD I own but can't remember the title of.
Nor does it show a building "consumed by fire."
Paul Joseph Watson embarrasses the author of this hit piece
Here is‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ Actually Validates Them
Daily Mail in laughable hit piece that claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse
Here is what Paul Joseph Watson writes...
http://www.infowars.com/footage-that-kills-911-conspiracy-theories-actually-validates-them/
Yes It Does!
It kills the NIST team's conspiracy theories:
1. Diesel fueled fires
2. WTC1 collapse debris damages
3. No free fall
4. Sorry, No diesel
5. Sorry, No damages
6. Girder expansion and walking off its seat on column 79.
7. No shear studs
8. Extraordinary fire induced progressive collapse
A 47 story building falls straight down, in the same amount of time it takes your phone to ring twice. But no explosives were involved.
THAT is a conspiracy theory if I ever heard one. HELLLOOO?
Comments at DailyMail...
are mostly in our favor.
Here are the "Highest Rated",
The rating number is "like" over "dislike"
This is sthe stupidest article of dis-information that I've ever seen. Stop trying to revise history with murky "rare angles" of the building. The fact remains that the buildings fell at free fall speed meanin they fell completely un obstructed by anything below it... We can talk about jet fuel all day but all three fell at free fall speed meaning the level below was cleared out before the one above it fell on it. With sandwiching it hits, dislodges, hits, dislodges slowing the rate of falling. Buildings that have controlled demolitions fall in that manner. Not buildings suffering from structural failure. The ALSO tend to lean as the metal distorts which prohibits straight down collapse and would have made them top heavy pulling to whichever side the great damage would have been on. My guess would be the site of impact. Say what you want but the physics and pure mathematics don't lie. It was demolished. Not to mention jet fuel doesn't cut base supports in a straight line with thermite.
- Tony, San Diego, ca, USA, 1/11/2011 23:52
Click to rate Rating 877
Report abuse
There are many, many experts in their chosen fields who see this as a con job, highly distinguished physicists, engineers, avionics, professers, high ranking military personal, plus many more, are they cranks too ?
- Jay, Liverpool, 1/11/2011 22:40
Click to rate Rating 753
Report abuse
That took a long time to find.!
- Alan, Sutton Coldfield, 2/11/2011 1:11
Click to rate Rating 655
Report abuse
Notwithstanding that it took over ten years to 'find' this footage, all it shows is that they torched the command centre before blowing up the whole building.
- Try this at home, London, 2/11/2011 1:29
Click to rate Rating 500
Report abuse
Ms. Keneally would have been well served to have consulted with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of over 1600 architects and engineers who are calling for new investigations of the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers. 50 of them are structural engineers, 40 are high-rise architects, and 42 are PhD engineers. They could have assured Ms. Keneally that fire-induced distortions of aluminum window frames are of no structural consequence. The official investigators tell us that office fires burn only 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed. New York City Building Code required fire resistance of 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.
- Brian Good, California, 2/11/2011 1:14
Click to rate Rating 488
Report abuse
Haven't read all the comments yet, so apologies if anyone else has mentioned this: At approx 5 pm - 20 minutes before Building 7 collapsed - a BBC newsperson, live to camera, announced that: 'We've just heard that Building number 7 in the World Trade Complex has collapsed.' The problem was that the building was clearly in view behind her shoulder. This announcement makes it obvious that a press release was issued in advance of the collapse - meaning of course that those who issued the PR were aware that it was going to collapse - demolition in other words. The trouble was the the BBC were too quick in their broadcast.
- Hilary Paipeti, Corfu, Greece, 2/11/2011 2:11
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.h...
Well, here's the front page
Well, here's the front page of the Daily Mail, so we have some idea of who we're up against... ; -)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Actually I did scroll down
Actually I did scroll down the page to view the video, and no, no sign of buckling outer columns. I think they might have mistaken WTC 5 (seen in distance with a corner chunk missing) for WTC 7
In contrast to the tone of the article, the audio in this video is eerily quiet. Not exactly a roaring inferno. There is some large flame coming out the fourth(?) floor at 01:23. That's the most fire I've ever seen in any image of WTC7's damage. And what the heck is that bubbling frothy flame activity between 0:13 and 0:18? ?
Liveleak link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542