How WTC 7 might have fallen IF it were fatally damaged by fire - AE911Truth.org

NIST claims WTC 7 succumbed to "normal office fires". What might it have looked like were that really true? Look at these buildings which succumbed to partial structural damage at their lower floors. Compare the WTC 7 collapse to them.

Pre-Order the DVD "9/11 Experts Speak Out" September 1st 2011:
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=145

Preview the New AE911Truth.org 9/11 Documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIOC1J44RYw

Buy the 9/11 Book "9/11 The Simple Facts":
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=143

Follow us around the web:
http://www.911ExpertsSpeakOut.org
http://www.ae911truth.org
http://www.facebook.com/ae911truth
http://www.twitter.com/ae911truth
http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth
http://www.flickr.com/ae911truth
https://www.ae911truth.net/store/
http://www.ae911truth.org/911investigator

911 photos 2011 9/11 information 2011 911 timeline 2011 9 11 facts 2011 9/11 movies 911 photo 2011

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• 911
• photos
• 2011
• 9/11
• photo
• nist
• office
• fires
• high-rise
• wtc
• wtc7
• Architects
• Engineers
• world trade center
• new york
• terror attacks
• FEMA
• destruction
• September 11
• CDI
• Experts Speak Out
• Richard Gage
• ae911truth

[zombiehellmonkey]

Can't believe that people actually accept the NIST created 'pancaking theory'. They just show how the Asche Conformity Experiment works. I just call them 'pancake believers'!

[beasmith1]

I thought there was a top section that crumbled first? If you look at the usual videos of it starting to fall, it's the top section at the back that goes girst, not the bottom? So I'm not sure that you can say none of the top was damaged. But I do agree that it still looks suspect. But also agree that more investigation needed.

I am interested in the truthers being questioned as much as the official story. Then we may know the right truth in the end. Unlikely, but would be better closure...

[Tommygb21]

LOL @ truthers. again, a completely inept look at WTC 7 by using CD mistake vids. Those buildings that you used as support for your theories were mismanaged controlled demos that went wrong, a sure indicator that CD needs to be perfect to symmetrically collapse a building onto its footprint. so what you actually gained here is PROVING that a CD was not the cause of WTC 7's collapse. cuz if it had been, the damage from the north tower would have ruined the work of the CD team. dumbass.

[MrHangbush]

@hammr25 All I see is a troll

[flatl1n3]

You fail to mention that WTC7 was built on a pre-existing, much smaller, foundation. Steel trusses were used to extend the footprint of this much larger building down to the original footprint. Falling debris wiped out the first 15 floors of one corner, including the foundation trusses. WTC1,2 and & were all non-standard buildings and that is why they collapsed. You will never see buildings built like this again for this very reason.

[MagikalRose]

Good vid, you should have put a bit at the end showing the freefall and total disintegration of WTC7 to show how unfeasible it was.

[hammr25]

All I see is a con man trying to sell DVDs and books.

[UNTC321]

There was also a concrete silo that fail to collapse after a failed demo attempt.

[goodvideos101]

@br007315 Oh really? Is that all I get? A pretentious acceptance of winning, and then telling me to get lost? Wow, you continue to disappoint me. Also, what is your username supposed to be? Are your initials B.R., or did you go to type "bro", but wanted to be cool and hip and use a zero instead of the letter "o", and then had a seizure on the numberpad?

[goodvideos101]

@br007315 Hahahah. Good one!