TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"The amount of energy required to melt the girders, the steel in the tower, cannot be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that was in the airplane." "Not possible." "So any melting did not occur as a result of the hit from the airplane." "What are the puffs of smoke coming from? Well, they claim they're from the collapsing floors." "No, no, no. Those puffs of smoke are controlled demolitions." "That's exactly what they are, because that's exactly how they work." "The collapse of the building was caused by controlled demolition." "Building 7, the owner. He is heard on the video. Okay? And he says, pull it. It's pull it." "And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." "And that's when the LINK-seven blew up."

Architects and Engineers discuss the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11, questioning the official explanation of office fires causing the collapse. They present evidence of controlled demolition, including molten steel, thermite residue, and eyewitness accounts of explosions. They call for an independent investigation backed by 9/11 families and technical professionals worldwide. The lack of investigation into explosives by NIST is criticized, and the need for a thorough examination of the evidence is emphasized. Ultimately, they urge people to look at the evidence and demand the truth.

This building is about to be destroyed in what is called a controlled demolition. The initial charges are spaced about one second apart, and you can see that each section begins falling separately. Successful demolitions require that all structural support columns collapse at virtually the same time. If they don't or if something else goes wrong, the result will look something like this. This is World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on 09/11/2001. It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire. As at July 2007, there is no final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology still rules out a controlled demolition.

Speaker 1 discusses the collapse of building 7 and requests a video clip to be shown. Speaker 0 mentions that the collapse is not shown and suggests there might be a code preventing it. Speaker 0 also mentions that questioning the collapse of building 7 is seen as weird and can lead to job loss. Speaker 2 explains that building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, despite not being hit by an aircraft. The building had been damaged by debris and fire, but most of the fires were extinguished by 5:20 PM. Speaker 2 questions the official explanation that the collapse was primarily due to fire and asks for opinions on what it looks like.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, pointing out inconsistencies in the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. They suggest controlled demolition due to the uniform collapse of Building 7 and the presence of explosive materials in the dust. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies of firefighters reporting explosions. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation. The speaker raises concerns about the lack of proper investigation into the events of 9/11.

The speaker describes witnessing a building collapse, with windows breaking and the bottom floor caving in. Another speaker recalls watching a show where Larry Silverstein, the owner of World Trade Center 7, mentioned that the building was brought down through controlled demolition. The speaker confirms that Silverstein used those words. There is a mention of a phone call where someone suggests pulling the building due to the inability to contain a fire. The speaker also mentions contacting the History Channel to inquire about the show, but it was not available to the public. The cause of the collapse is uncertain, whether it was engineered for safety or a result of the collisions.

The video discusses the need for a new investigation into the events of 9/11, specifically focusing on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Architects and engineers present evidence that challenges the official explanation for the collapse, including the presence of molten steel, the use of thermite, and the symmetrical nature of the collapse. The video also explores the psychological barriers that prevent people from accepting this evidence and calls for a comprehensive and independent investigation to uncover the truth. The family members of the victims express their desire for justice and answers.

This video discusses the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001. The speakers debate whether the collapse was caused by fire or controlled demolition. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims that the collapse was due to fires fueled by office furnishings and thermal expansion. However, some eyewitnesses and experts argue that the collapse resembled a controlled demolition. A forensic engineer and his team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks are conducting a study to determine the cause of the collapse. They aim to make their investigation open and transparent, inviting input from various experts and the public. The video concludes with the engineer stating that the collapse was caused by thermal expansion, despite the building's asymmetrical structure.

World Trade Center 7 just before it collapsed on 09/11/2001. It had not been hit by an aircraft. It had been damaged by falling debris and fire. But by 05:20PM, most of the fires have been extinguished. Although the building was 47 stories high, it doesn't fall sideways nor collapse unevenly. For this to have happened, all of the building's vertical supports must have given way at almost exactly the same time. Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that the collapse was due primarily to fire. But what does it look like to you? The National Institute of Standards and Technology still rules out a controlled demolition. So the question is, do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?

Building 7's collapse raises questions about the Twin Towers. Architects and engineers find the official story of the towers' collapse questionable. The upper block of the North Tower did not drive the building down as claimed; it disintegrated before any downward motion. Eyewitnesses reported explosions throughout the building, not included in the official report. Structural steel sections were ejected laterally at high speeds, indicating a controlled demolition. Over 22,100 professionals demand a real investigation.

The speaker discusses the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. They question the official explanation that the collapses were solely caused by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires. The speaker highlights the uniform collapse of Building 7 and suggests that controlled demolition may have been involved. They mention the presence of explosive material in the dust samples and the suspicious elevator renovation prior to the attack. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies from firefighters regarding explosions in the buildings. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation.

The speaker describes the collapse of the World Trade Center and suggests that it was not due to the impact of the planes but rather controlled demolition. They mention seeing the building come down in a series of straight hits and explosions, which they believe indicates the use of pre-engineered and precisely timed explosives. The speaker emphasizes that the only way a building can collapse with such acceleration is through controlled demolition.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the collapse of Building 7. They argue that the building's uniform collapse indicates controlled demolition rather than fire damage. Comparing it to a stack of cast iron stoves, they suggest that the intact structure below should have slowed the collapse. The speaker believes there is more to the story than just planes and fire.

Richard Gage questions the collapse of Building 7, stating that fires have never caused the collapse of a skyscraper before. He argues that the fire NIST claimed caused the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before. Despite not being hit by an airplane, the 47-story building collapsed into its own footprint in under 7 seconds. Experts point out that the building descended in freefall for the first 100 feet, indicating no resistance. The symmetry of the collapse is seen as evidence, as all columns needed to be severed simultaneously. The failure at column 79 on level 12 is mentioned, with experts deeming it impossible for a single column failure to cause the entire building to collapse. The collapse is described as a classic implosion.

Architect Richard Gage is calling for a new investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, including the 47-story Building 7, citing evidence of controlled demolition. He claims Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed, which is not consistent with typical fire-induced structural failures. Gage alleges the presence of molten iron and the chemical evidence of thermite, a high-tech incendiary, in the dust from the site. He says samples analyzed by physicist Stephen Jones revealed iron, aluminum, fluorine, and manganese, elements associated with thermite, as well as unignited nano-thermite chips. Gage questions how Al Qaeda could have had access to the buildings and the sophisticated nano-thermite required for such a demolition. He suggests investigating the security companies involved and the elevator modernization that was underway prior to 9/11, which provided access to the core of the buildings. He believes the implications of a controlled demolition are "dark for our country," suggesting involvement beyond Al Qaeda.

We saw a building collapse after a shockwave ripped through it, and Larry Silverstein mentioned in a TV show that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. He stated that the decision to "pull it" was made due to safety concerns. The speaker contacted the History Channel about the show but was told it was not available to the public. The cause of Building 7's collapse remains uncertain, whether it was intentional or a result of the earlier attacks.

The speaker questions the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the collapse of Building 7. They argue that the building's collapse was not due to fire but rather controlled demolition, citing evidence such as the presence of explosive material in dust samples and reports of unusual elevator renovations prior to the attacks. The speaker also mentions suppressed testimonies from firefighters about explosions in the building. They express feeling threatened while advocating for a new investigation.

In the discussion, the collapse of Building 7 is debated through direct claims by several speakers. Speaker 0 states, "I saw Building 7 come down, and it was a controlled demolition. A classic controlled demolition." Speaker 1 counters with skepticism, arguing that "That building had no reason to come down. There's no history of a high rise fire and a fireproof resulting in failure of the building because the building is, in New York City, parlance, a class one, which is a single word, fireproof." The exchange shifts toward accountability and transparency. Speaker 2 asserts, "I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over a 150 police, firefighters, and first responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the commission report nor investigated further." The conversation then moves to specific explosive claims. Speaker 3 contends, "It was a secondary explosion, probably a device either planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until a hour later. I'm gonna call the vehicle right now. You gotta get back to me. Five minutes and the elevators exploded on us." A sense of urgency and confusion is conveyed, with a voice adding, "We we we we said something's wrong here. I mean, the plane hit up on the Eightieth Floor. I mean, fuck. In five minutes, all of a sudden, now the elevator's exploding on the first level in the lobby?" Personal losses and the human cost are underscored. Speaker 0 reflects on the impact on his own life, saying, "And it's the first thing I think of when I get up in the morning, and it's the last thing at night before I go to bed. I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Kenny Kompel, and Bruce Van Hynes that day." The conversation culminates with a tribute to fallen colleagues. Speaker 2 notes, "343 firefighters, including three of my good friends, Thomas Hetzel, Bobby Evans, and Mike Keefer, perished that day. And these were some of the best and the bravest people in the world. And they, along with the rest of those who were murdered and died horrible deaths, deserve justice."

An architect with 20 years of experience claims the official explanation for the World Trade Center collapses is false. The official reason is that the planes hit the buildings, causing explosions and fires, leading to structural weakening and collapse. However, fires have never caused a steel-frame high-rise to collapse. The speaker claims the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 exhibit 10 key features of controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed straight down into its own footprint at free fall speed for the first 100 feet, despite 40,000 tons of structural steel. The speaker compares the collapse to controlled demolitions. The speaker states that 700 architects and engineers are demanding a new investigation. They believe the evidence suggests controlled demolitions. The speaker asserts that almost every architect and engineer who reviews the information agrees, but the implications are dark because it suggests someone besides Al Qaeda was involved, given the high security of the buildings.

Speaker 0 asserts that 9/11 is the biggest lie of our lifetime and that he was on-site, believing it may have been a false flag. He states it is obvious to him that Building 7 was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down, a uniform collapse requiring all load-bearing columns to fail simultaneously; he contrasts this with the Twin Towers, which he says collapse top-down in a progressive collapse. He notes that the trade centers were designed to withstand jet impacts and, referencing his experience in heavy construction, describes the outer columns as a “fishnet” and the inner core columns as thick steel beams capable of withstanding four to five times the loads. He claims engineers routinely over-design buildings. He mentions that dust samples contained what is called thermitic material, described as an explosive incendiary, and cites documented reports. He alleges extensive elevator renovations in the two to three years prior to 9/11, that many workers had access to the cores of the buildings, and that on the day of the attack the elevator company would not assist in elevator operations and subsequently went out of business. He references sworn firefighter testimonies a couple of years after 9/11 about explosions in the buildings and asserts these were suppressed, as Building 7 was ignored in the 9/11 Commission Report. Regarding Al Qaeda, he contends that Al Qaeda’s role is something he does not think exists, suggesting it is made up. He recalls the FBI’s 2006 statement that there was no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden with 9/11 and notes that Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, helping fight the Russians, and that the CIA helped orchestrate 9/11, calling it “their plan.”

Speaker 1 discusses his involvement in 9/11-related inquiries after receiving concerns from families. He emphasizes the role of whistleblowers who fear disclosure of anonymity, noting that while his office is good at protecting identities, not every congressional office is. He credits investigative reporters for bringing information forward and explains that his involvement began when nine/eleven families approached him with a heavily redacted FBI report on Saudi involvement, asking for it to be unredacted. He mentions that Richard Blumenthal is the chairman of PSI in the last Congress and that the inquiry extended to topics like the PGA Tour’s deal with Live Golf and Saudi Arabia, but that those are private matters not to be intruded upon. He says, however, that due to the redacted FBI document about Saudi involvement, he started gathering information and is currently in a position to review it, with an invitation to the audience to share information, though with the expectation that information will be debunked by his staff. He notes his own background from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and that he initially accepted the prevailing narrative about 9/11 but began receiving information from sources that challenged it, leading him to pursue a more open investigation. He stresses that his staff’s primary goal is to obtain information and debunk it, to poke holes in the claims, and that he does not want to avoid discussing the topic. He acknowledges there are many legitimate questions that he is willing to ask, starting with World Trade Center 7, a building he had not heard of before. He asks why it is so difficult to discuss these topics and why legitimate questions seem to be quashed, suggesting there is something unexplained that has not been disclosed. He mentions public reception, including hostile comments online, and notes that many Americans had never heard of World Trade Center 7. Speaker 1 describes the scene surrounding WTC7, including a BBC reporter on air describing its collapse while the building still appears to be standing behind her. He points to a video that appears to show a single perspective of the event and references a later interview with a controlled demolition expert who asserted it was controlled demolition, though this assertion predates the event. He emphasizes that the building collapsed on September 11, and there are unanswered questions. He recounts Graham McQueen’s investigation before his death, who compiled approximately 150 documented recordings from first responders and reporters on the morning of 9/11 who said they heard explosions. He states that the 9/11 Commission and NIST did not discuss these explosions. He mentions Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7, who had to evacuate, but could not gather because the stairwell between the 6th and 8th floors had been blown out.

Firefighters Raul Angula and Eric Lawyer discuss their push for a new 9/11 commission, focusing on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. They believe the collapses were likely due to controlled demolition, not solely airplane impacts or fires. They've created a document, at Congressman Weldon's request, urging President Trump to reinvestigate with subject experts, excluding political appointees and lead agency personnel, to address neglected or omitted information. Angula, an author of a chapter on high-rise firefighting in an NFPA manual, was prompted by 9/11 Truth members to research Building 7. The speakers highlight Building 7's symmetrical collapse, noting that such an event has never occurred due to fire in a type one fire-resistive building. They cite the University of Alaska Fairbanks report, which suggests the removal of all supporting columns on a horizontal plane for the building to collapse in that manner. They discuss eyewitness accounts of explosions, the lack of testing for explosives by NIST, and the discovery of nanothermite in the debris. They aim to encourage firefighters and families affected by 9/11 to come forward and seek the truth.

Richard Gage, founder of Architecture and Engineers nine eleven truth, leads a group with thousands of members and international attention, calling for a real investigation of the destruction of the three center high rises on 911. Speaking in Toronto for the truth hearing, he says, "I'm representing 1,500 architects and engineers. Now 1,560 actually. And these are demanding a real investigation of destruction of the three center high rises on 911." He asserts that "the people on the street understand that Building 7 is a demolition." He adds that "every architect and engineer that I talked to almost without exception really. When they see Building 7, they agree it is a controlled demolition. And then they're just shocked." "Their jaws are open." "They're receptive to hearing the evidence about the Twin Towers, which of course, unfortunately, is is replete with evidence, science based forensic evidence, documenting its controlled demolition."

The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition. One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire. One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition. One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.