Building 7

Building 7 is the key to 9/11. It was the building that fell due to small office fires according to NIST

The strongest piece of evidence is how the UK showed its hand, and how everyone but 9/11 truthers ignored this for 15 yrs now

1) SMOKING GUN #1: Jane Standley on the BBC Discussing Building 7 collapse 20 minutes before it does

Jane Standley, a reporter from BBC filmed the WTC destruction from a hotel overlooking Manhattan's skyline.

She reported that the "Solomon building" (otherwise known as WTC 7) had collapsed.

She reported this TWENTY MINUTES (or so) before it happened. From her window, people have identified the solomon building behind her in the distance, standing upright due to its location in correspondence to the other WTC buildings and it is easily distinguishable by it's unique top floor features for a building in that vicinity. No one disputes the timing of her filming, or that the building identified is in fact Solomon building 7.

After she made this 'mistake', her feed was cut. This is a smoking gun because it telegraphs foreknowledge of the building's collaps and the the cut is an admission of guilt.

SMOKING GUN #2: NIST said building 7 collapsed due to fire

UAF physics study proves this is completely incorrect--impossible. Entire EU physics community agrees. US community will not even touch the subject because they are afraid of being 'canceled' and lose their jobs

NIST's model did not include attachment points of the building. It was as inaccurate a model as it could get. What they released to the public was effectively a 1980s era Dire Straits MTV 3D simulation video of building 7 with simple polygons of box girders laying on top of each other.

Meanwhile, REAL engineers actually made a physics-accurate and physics-complete model of the building based on blueprints and engineering diagrams and video of the building being constucted, down to the nuts and bolts, even accounting for the atoms in the building metal alloy of the girders that were used (the spec grade of engineering structural steel used); and they ran this million dollar simulation millions of times for over a year in order to conclude that in no situation even well outside of the tolerances of all the environmental factors could fire have ever collapsed that building

It took this long to complete because they had to get it right. The world demanded it get it right. I am proud to say I funded Dr Hulsey's project with quite a lot of my own money. Well spend I might add

No conventional steel high rise building in history had ever collapsed completely onto its own footprint due to fire (UPDATE: and none ever since. on 911 THREE buildings fell in an impossible way) Typically, it 'skeletonizes' due to total fire (steel beams nearly perfectly intact) and may suffer partial collapse of a few top buildings or leans and becomes unstable. Keep in mind, if fire melted steel then cooking atop your stove or putting cast iron onto a campfire would melt it and we know logically it doesn't work that way.

And this isn't even an argument simply about melting points but rather also the enthalpy of fusion of phase change. You just gotta look it up, mr. como. I studied chemistry in college so you won't win this one.

SMOKING GUN #3: US media did not report on building 7 until 2005.

They blacked out the story long enough to entrench us in at least 2 wars based on false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan). So called "global war on terrorism" (GWOT)

In my mind, this makes the US media complicit with the UK media in covering up building 7. Why would they do THAT? Because it means that 9/11 is a CRIME and a COVERUP.

When you cover up a crime, ask yourselves: WHOSE CRIME ARE YOU COVERING UP?

It sure looks like the UK is a "Person of Interest" in 9/11, because why else would they cover up building 7 being demolished

Who demolished it? It wasn't osama bin laden! Remember? NIST said "FIRE"

We know it was NOT Fire. We proved it with physics.

NIST working with BBC to cover up whomever demolitioned WTC7

Now you see, if WTC 7 were damaged and they had to "PULL IT" as silverstain said, it is NOT possible to set demolition charges to take down the building safely in one day.

Demolition teams take weeks to set it up correctly.

MEaning that someone put charges into that building before 9/11/2001 in anticipation that they would have to take down the building.

WHO DID THAT? WHO WIRED IT UP?

If they wired up building 7 to take down, then it means that they had foreknowledge of an attack on the WTC.

See how this works? It's just logic.

Think this one out. All it requires is for you to change your idea about who the enemy was reported to be, and consider it could be another group.

Look at who is covering up;

Ask yourselves WHY would they be covering up whomever did 9/11?

And why would they lie to you about it for 20 yrs?