Building 7

Did you know that the vast majority of people do not know that a third building, WT7 or Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed on the afternoon of September 11th 2001

Why did the WT7 building collapse when no plane hit it? It did have a few fires but these could not have possibly collapsed the building as we have seen from the paragraph above. If you watch the collapse of this building on it was obviously a controlled demolition and if this was a controlled demolition then the Twin Towers where also.

​Jewish owner of the Twin Towers Larry Silverstein stated:

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it’. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Silverstein’s comment obviously means the WTC 7 building was the result of a controlled demolition. But to prepare a building the size of WTC7 for demolition takes at least 2 days. Are we to believe that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda wired WTC 7 for demolition? No I don’t think so.

​Silverstein Properties won an $861 million award from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million, netting a profit of about $500 million. The word greed comes to mind with the Jewish Silverstein, already collecting 4.5 billion from the insurance company for the terrorist strikes on the Twin Towers.

Danny Jowenko was a world renowned Dutch demolitions expert and he said of Building 7 “It’s a controlled demolition, a team of experts did this, its professional work, without a doubt.” It is one thing for the average person to suggest WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, but for a demolitions expert to say that is entirely another thing. Danny Jowenko died in a suspicious car crash in 2011 on a quiet road in Serooskerke, The Netherlands. His car supposedly hit a tree but there was no skid marks on the road and his dog was in his car but didn’t die. Dr. Alan Sabrosky, said in a radio interview in 2010, that his scepticism of the official 9/11 story was prompted by Jowenko's testimony. Jowenko's death comes three days after Sabrosky gave an exclusive interview to PressTV in which he again reiterated his belief.

Watch this revealing professional documentary about Building 7 which is part of the 5 hour documentary of the movie 'September 11th the New Pearl Harbor'. This part is 22 minutes and shows you it was definitely a controlled demolition that brought down Building 7.

Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Alaska University, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused the failure of Building 7”. His team has wrote a report about WT7 (a 4 year study) and the link to this report is below[streamerType]=auto

​On March 25, 2020, Dr J. Leroy Hulsey and fellow researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modelling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

​A link to the final report is below.

Below the collapse of Building 7 from 23 different angles

The BBC TV managed to announce to a world audience that Building 7 (Salomon Brothers Building) had collapsed twenty minutes before it happened. Reporter Jane Standley makes the announcement that WT7 has collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed and you can see WT7 in the background behind her.

​That is because they were just reading from a pre-planned script. The BBC are actively taking part in the cover up of 9/11 as is all of the media as mentioned earlier. We can see that because they could show a documentary with a lot of the information that I have collected here which shows Israeli involvement but no they keep to the same ‘Arabs’ did it script which is unproven and a lie.

Professor Jonathan Barnett of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who analysed a section of steel from WTC 7 and said that fire would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. Another source can be attributed to civil engineering professor Abolhassan Astanch-Asl, with the University of California at Berkeley. He spent two weeks at ground zero studying steel from the buildings, one of which was a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7. Professor Astanch-Asl reported that “parts of the flat top of the I beam, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.” This phenomenon would require temperatures of 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit.

​Temperatures required to melt steel occur around 2,500 degrees F. Jet fuel, which is primarily kerosene, cannot burn much hotter than around 1,500 degrees F. Normal office fires are known to be capable of reaching temperatures of around 1,100 degrees. The Key to understanding how office fires could not have contributed to the collapse of Building 7, is the fact that steel has a terrific capacity as a heat sink. Heat applied to one section will travel and disperse that heat to whatever other steel it is attached to, necessitating many, many hours to achieve temperatures hot enough to even begin to bend steel, let alone melt it. Never in the history of modern architecture, before or after 9/11, has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire alone. Moreover, video evidence shows only a few small fires still burning at the time of Building 7’s collapse around 5:20 pm on the afternoon of 9/11.

​Kurt Sonnenfeld was the FEMA videographer who, for 29 days after 9-11, filmed the crime scene at the World Trade Center, including the sub-basement levels of WTC 6 and 7.

​Kurt Sonnenfeld released his book El Perseguido (The Persecuted) on May 8, 2009, at the 35th Annual Buenos Aires Book Fair in Argentina, where he lives in exile since 2003. Sonnenfeld's book tells the history of his persecution at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years after his official mission to Ground Zero as FEMA’s videographer.

Kurt Sonnenfeld gave an interview about WT7 and said: “What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building Seven when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There’s no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 911 Commission”.

​If WT7 was a controlled demolition then the government’s version of events on 9/11 was a lie. Maybe WT7 was being used to co-ordinate the events of 9/11 and they had to bring it down to hide the evidence. I will also note that the CIA had offices in the WT7 building. WT7 was also owned by one of the Jewish owners of the Twin Towers, Larry Silverstein, what a coincidence.

Daniel Barnum, FAIA, Architect: “I have known from day one that the buildings were imploded and could not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes.”

Kamal Obeid, S.E. Structural Engineer: "A localized failure in a steel-framed building cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards at free-fall acceleration."

Scott Grainger, F.SFPE, Fire Protection Engineer: "All three collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."

Oswald Rendon-Herrero, PH.D., Forensic Engineer: “Building 7 came down very smoothly. NIST tried to prove the ridiculous theory that this was started by one column.”

Kathy McGrade, B.S. Metallurgical Engineering: “In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel. And yet we have evidence of molten iron in the rubble pile.”

Roland Angle, C.E. Civil Engineer: "The official explanation of the failures defies known scientific methods of analysis and is untenable in the face of logical investigation."

For further analysis of Building 7 see

The BBC and the 9/11 Lies

On February 25 2013, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there was a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence was presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

​The BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with the BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to support the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV license fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony refused to pay his TV license fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

​Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, the BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

​Rooke was charged with a crime for not paying his TV License Fee. However, he lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in a court of law. Tony Rooke withheld payment of his government-mandated BBC license fee because the BBC is violating UK anti-terror laws. By withholding evidence that the official 9/11 story is not true, which in turn shields the real perpetrators of 9/11. The judge “conditionally discharged” the conviction against Rooke and did not fine him, did not ask him to repay the license fees that had already been withheld, and only charged him the lowest level of court fees legally possible under the circumstances (£200).

​The judge had privately seen summaries of all the evidence that Rooke was planning to present, and we believe that this evidence and the experts (Architects and Engineers) he brought in his defense, plus the overwhelming support for him outside the courtroom, had a significant influence on the judge’s decision. To this day the BBC refuses to show the real evidence about WTC7 and that is because Jews control the BBC as evidenced earlier.

​As part of his effort to expose the public to 9/11 Truth, Rooke created Incontrovertible, a new documentary that chronicles his legal battle against the UK’s most powerful news agency. (He is also the producer of Offensive, a film about former UK police intelligence analyst Tony Farrell and the persecution he endured after questioning the official explanation for 9/11 and the 2005 London terror attacks.)

According to Rooke, the primary goal of Incontrovertible is to motivate people to follow his lead. “It’s a film that we hope will encourage others to do the same,” he explained. “Anti-terror laws are global. Just as we utilized [the British government’s] own legislation against them, so too can Americans, all Europeans, and anyone in the world who doesn’t want to let the 9/11 lies carry on anymore.”

​Below a link to Mr Rooke’s 9/11 documentary ‘Incontrovertible’

The following is from the article titled ‘9/11 and the Collapse of WTC Building 7: The BBC’s Role in Distorting the Evidence and Misleading the Public’

​The public relies heavily on the mainstream media as its means of finding out information about the world and for forming its opinions about global political events. So are we getting the information that we should be from these corporate media networks?

​How can it be then, that on the vital issue of the on-going global war on terror, and the event that sparked this war, namely 9/11, the BBC is guilty beyond question of deliberately and actively supporting the cover up of irrefutable evidence which would help bring the true perpetrators of 9/11 to justice and most likely bring an immediate end to the global war on terror as we know it.

​So overwhelming is the evidence against the BBC on this issue that it has recently been challenged in a British court of law. It lost, and yet the vast majority of the public would have absolutely no idea about this. It has also been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly all around the world that if the BBC would simply show the public the damning evidence that it is deliberately withholding, the vast majority of the public would instantly understand and believe that they have been lied to about 9/11 on a truly grand scale and that what really happened on that day is in fact very different to what we have been told, as the judge in the courtroom in Sussex, South-East England, quickly realised when he saw this evidence in February 2013

However uncomfortable it may be, the unpalatable facts of the matter are that the BBC has been very deliberately complicit in the cover up of one of the greatest crimes in history, and that this cover up has allowed the deaths of more than one million innocent people to occur. This includes over 600 needless deaths of British service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

​The BBC has the blood of these people on their hands because it could and should have ended the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it could have ended the global war on terror overnight if it had just done its job and presented the now officially acknowledged facts and evidence of 9/11 to the public. But instead of doing this it has chosen to bury the evidence, wage a campaign of twisted and distorted information, and to actively smear and discredit the thousands of professional experts from all around the world who have tried to bring this evidence forward, not to mention hundreds of the BBC’s fee paying public who have tried in vain to get the BBC to show this evidence so that the public can simply make up their own minds.

​Once again the facts are devastating for the BBC. Over the course of the last 5 years since NIST’s bombshell announcement of free fall, the BBC has run a number of additional documentaries looking at the so called ‘conspiracy theories’ about 9/11. While continuing to ignore the issue of confirmed free fall of WTC Building 7, the BBC has repeatedly reported to the public that there is no evidence to support the claims of the so called ‘conspiracy theorists’ that there were explosives used to bring down the three towers. This is exactly the same line that NIST has also tried to maintain. Why then is there a lengthy list of absolutely incontrovertible evidence and eye-witness accounts which clearly shows that what the BBC and NIST are saying about this is complete nonsense and that explosions were clearly going off throughout all three towers?

​Below a link to the full article which I suggest you read which shows how the BBC lies and misinforms the public about 9/11. The BBC is helping the perpetrators of 9/11 by covering up the truth. Also part of the 9/11 cover are the other T.V networks in the U.K ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 which are all owned by Jews.