The 9/11 Building 7 HOAX

Making fun of the proponents of conventional controlled demolition since 2011

This HOAX video was created by Edward Current - a pro-fire collapse proponent. He made the video to poke fun at the pro-conventional controlled demolition proponents.

LOL - I didn’t even know I’m blocked until I wanted to link to his profile

What he did was to invert the video of Building 7 going down, made it go down faster and even added in a UFO and people aren't the wiser...

I understand why he did it, but it actually caused more damage than good, because he could have rather focussed on the truth of what happened to Building 7, but unfortunately he bought into the ridiculous fire induced collapse put out by NIST.

He does not even know the MASSIVE ANOMALY with Building 7 that disproves a fire induced collapse as well as a conventional controlled demolition. (I emailed him to share it with him, but he did not wan’t to accept that he’s been fooled.)

More than enough people have pointed out exactly how WRONG NIST is, so no need for me to rehash it here.

In 2020 he came clean about the HOAX video, WTC7 Explained: Comprehensive Final Edition. Don’t waste your time watching it. Rather watch this video: Building 7 - The UNCOMFORTABLE Truth. Below is a snippet from Edward Current’s admission.

He does make good points, because for a controlled demolition you need to prepare the building, and that can take months and there will be a lot of cables etc, because remote controlled conventional demolition requires radio silence and there is no way you could switch off cellphones, police / firefighter / ambulance radios and more months prior to detonation.

There is also a very important observation to be made with regards to the pro-conventional demolition proponents that people miss when being sold the idea that Building 7 came down due to a conventional controlled demolition. Have you spotted it?

Their videos NEVER have a soundtrack - The videos are silent. Why?

This montage of various angles might just be the nudge you need to notice the GLARING problem with the conventional controlled demolition sales pitch.

Now that we’ve established the demise of Building 7 was silent, you need to ask yourself the question why? We can find a hint, when we look at the seismic reading recorded when Building 7 went down.

Question: What would you expect the seismic reading of a 230 000 ton building hitting the ground to be? After all, a Taylor Swift concert measures a 2.3 on the seismograph.

Let’s have a look at the official data recorded and if you want, you can read my previous article, discussing the seismic readings recorded.

SEISMOLOGICAL OBSERVATION OF IMPACTS AND COLLAPSES AT WORLD TRADE CENTER - Prepared by Seismology Group Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades NY 10964 - Version of 9/14/01

What does the official data state? No primary or secondary waves recorded. That is a massive problem…

There is something else to note with regards to the demise of Building 7, which is nicely explained in this snippet from the 9/11 Observable Evidence Series: Building 7 - The UNCOMFORTABLE Truth. Here are the highlights:

What have we learnt?

1. The building fell silently

2. The seismic reading is not in line with a fire induced collapse or that of a conventional controlled demolition.

3. When looking at the dust cloud was also not in line with a conventional controlled demolition.

Question: What the hell was going on with Building 7 then for over 8 hours?

Did we not see it burn for the whole day? Is what we see not smoke from fires?

Will you be willing to entertain the idea, that what we are seeing is a building frothing up into dust for most of the day on September 11, 2001. After all the North Tower also lathered up prior to it’s disintegration, from one side and one side only, but for a very short period.

Something you can be certain of is that fire did not cause it, explosives did not cause it, thermite / nano-thermite / thermate did not cause it and nukes sure as hell did not cause it. That brings you to one single conclusion - Some sort of COLD DEW technology that is NOT in the public domain, but we sure as hell saw it in action on September 11, 2001.

Look at this experiment - What do you see whilst this iron bar begins to liquefy after being subjected to intersecting microwave and sound waves? Just so that you know the electrical power source is a standard Canadian wall socket.

It had “smoke or dust” coming out of it, it was cold to the touch and the process was ongoing. This scientist also managed to have steel glow bright white or yellow and guess what. It was cold to the touch!

Where have we seen something similar to this but on a grander scale? A place where massive steel beams got broken up, you have glowing pieces of steel and ongoing “smoke or dust” for over 100 days?

I don’t think we’ve ever had a situation like that, or have we? I wonder - If you had something like that happen in real life, how would you suppress it, or run counter narratives / disinformation to keep the general public in the dark of what was going on after a massive dramatic event? I guess, we’ll never know.

What we do know is we were told the following about ground zero…

1. All the steel was quickly shipped off to China, thus the lack of debris even though on Sept 12, 2001 it was being reported - “Where is all the rubble?” And then from Sept 13, 2001 it was NEVER talked about again. The first responders were running bucket brigades for the first couple of days whilst looking for survivors, before the earth moving equipment came in for the clean up operations.

2. The rubble pile was hot - never mind the first responders, cadaver dogs and more climbing all over the rubble pile on the day. NONE of the earth moving equipment broke down due to working on a simmering inferno - no blown oil pipes or valves due to heat.

3. The “smoke” for 100 days was due to massive fires in the basements, but 60 minutes and CNN (Oct & Dec) got VIP tours of the mostly undamaged basements and they weren’t full of smoke and there were no fires recorded by them.

4. The only way the first responders could “contain” these “fires” was to truck in massive amounts of soil, as water did not put out these fires.

But hey, this is just a completely implausible, tin foil hat wearing, mentally challenged, basement dwelling conspiracy theory believing freak, that just CANNOT be true. If you have ANY inkling of thinking it could be possible, then you’re a cult following KOOK!

It’s not like the NIST subcontractors that were tasked with the security, cleanup and compiling reports, that made up the 10 000 page NIST report, could have been hiding certain facts from the public, eh?

This brings us to the important take away most of us have - The Government narrative is bunk. Only people pushing the government and Wikipedia approved counter narratives, like explosions, thermite or nukes should be listened to, not this scientist.

Any other independently forensically investigated evidence, that was used to sue NIST’s 23 subcontractors for science fraud in 2007 and made it to the US Supreme court in 2009, should NOT be talked about, looked at, and be made out to be some sort of sci-fi movie type idea, that has no merits. Trust your “experts” that will never distract you away from the real truth of the events on September 11, 2001.

My other Building 7 articles, in case you missed them;

1. Building 7- Didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.

2. Building 7 - The REAL Truth Cut

3. Building 7 - The Ted Walter Cut

4. Building 7 - A WAKE UP CALL Discussion

---

Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book full of evidence.

And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.

Free PDF downloads: 9/11 – Finding the Truth & 9/11 – Holding the Truth