✔ The red pill video watch if you want to wake up quickly.(911)

a reply to: Macenroe82

Grenfell tower was a concrete building, not a steel frame, and it was not hit with a directed energy weapon. I wish you guys would at least look at what Judy Wood has to say instead of dismissing her and buying into the OS like a bunch of sheep. Judy Wood might sound weird on the surface but dig deeper people, the facts and truths are in there. She is the only one to sue the government.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: silo13

Thank you for the informing video.

I agree with the narratives "opinions" and he does asked very good questions.

He is correct, fires and jet fuel would not be enough to weaken the entire WTC structure to cause the collapse, something else was in the WTC that shouldn't have been there.

The question is what was it, and how did it get in all three WTC?

The video narratives proves beyond doubt, that all the other high-rises that caught fire, and some burnt the entire high-rise are still standing today, how is it the two WTC, one fell, after only burning for an hour?

No one needs to be an Engineer, or an Architect to see something is wrong with the government OS of the WTC.

Fact is NIST had a preconceived notion that there was no explosives used, yet NIST admits to "never" testing for any explosive residue or evidence of demolition, how ironic is that?

Engineers aren't the ones welding or fitting together the actual structural steel that make up sky scrapers or high rises.

I literally weld and inspect structural beams for a living, I have worked on structural steel my whole welding life.
Back when the WTC were built they were mostly reliant on key welds and rivets. Back then ultrasound of complete penetration welds were not a thing, and a lot of welding defects were most likely overlooked in place to keep the iron workers happy.

Sorry, but from my experience, jet fuel or any sort of 'fuel' mixed with a strong gust of wind rich in oxygen will bring a high rise down.

a reply to: strongfp

Sorry, but from my experience, jet fuel or any sort of 'fuel' mixed with a strong gust of wind rich in oxygen will bring a high rise down.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I have no problem, we all are initial to our "opinions".

You may be correct, however those Towers fell in 10 second, and for the life of me, a few bad rivets couldnt have caused all that.

originally posted by: secretagent77
a reply to: Macenroe82

Grenfell tower was a concrete building, not a steel frame, and it was not hit with a directed energy weapon. I wish you guys would at least look at what Judy Wood has to say instead of dismissing her and buying into the OS like a bunch of sheep. Judy Wood might sound weird on the surface but dig deeper people, the facts and truths are in there. She is the only one to sue the government.

You're correct about the construction but the energy weapons aren't real and judy woods is either seeking publicy or she is truly crazy.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: silo13

Yet we just watched Grendel tower burn for hours and hours...yet it didn't collapse in on itself either.
Something odd here.

Was Grenfell tower a steel framed building or was it all concrete?

a reply to: silo13

As I understand building 7 the NIEST enquity found it was brought down by fire but where is the fire?

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: silo13

As I understand building 7 the NIEST enquity found it was brought down by fire but where is the fire?

Try reading the report, it's all in there.

originally posted by: secretagent77
a reply to: Informer1958

Did you ever look at the connection to hurricane sandy? Judy woods has the answers and they are the truth.

Takes a special kind of stupid to believe no planes were used in the attacks. That pretty much sums up what I think of woods hypothesis.

a reply to: secretagent77

Grenfell tower was a concrete building, not a steel frame, and it was not hit with a directed energy weapon.

This sentence shows your only knowledge comes from conspiracy websites.
WTC 1 and 2 were not steel framed in the traditional sense either.
It was a tube in tube, braced with floor trusses design.
If any one of the three failed, the whole building would fail.

Plus you have no knowledge of basic physics either.
To 'dustufy' steel you have to boil it away. Just like water in a pot.
Go to a few web sites and calculate how much electricity it would take to boil 1 pound of steel.
Then multiply that by the amount of steel in the building.
The result exceeds the total US electrical grid by orders of magnitude.

Woods is a crack pot.
You fell for hers BS.
Plus her only income comes from her books now as she is un-hireable.

So hilarious. Just another video of nothing but innuendo and fantasy. A call for those not able to discern from the cons of the truth movement.

And none of you can talk at length about a lawsuit that went into great detail about the short comings of the WTC 7 design, the events that lead to collapse, and the court testimony why WTC 7 collapsed.

Aegis Insurance VS WTC 7 Owners
www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

I, Jose L. Torero, declare:

1. I am the Director of the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh. I was previously an Associate Professor, Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland. I have authored 20 book chapters and more than 300 technical publications in a broad ,may of subjects associated with fire safety engineering. I was awarded the Arthur B. Guise Medal by the Society of Fire Protection Engineers in 2008 in recognition of eminent achievement in advancing the Science of Fire Protection. I am Chair of the Fire & Safety Working Group at the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Vice Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science. My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. I hold three academic degrees: (1) BEng. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (1989); (2) M.S. University ofCalifornia at Berkeley (1991); and (3) PhD. University of California at Berkeley (1992).

3. In 2003 I was retained by counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation to serve as consulting fire protection engineer. [make this aftidavit based upon the work that 1 have done in studying the factors that contributed to the total collapse of 7 World Trade Center (WrC7).

4. I have reviewed thousands of documents, drawings, and photographs, and actively pmticipated in and reviewed the computer modeling performed on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case.
5. The opinions that follow are based on that review and activity, and are made to a reasonable degree of scientific probability. These opinions and the data and materials relied upon in forming these opinions are more fully set forth in my report dated February 12, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
6. Based on my work to date, including computer modeling performed by me and my staff at the University of Edinburgh in which many columns were removed in the model to ascertain the effect on the structure of the building, it is my opinion that any structural dmnage caused by debris trom the collapse of WTCI or WTC2 played no pm1 in the collapse ofWTC7.
7. Based on my work 10 date, including computer modeling performed by me and my staff at the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that a diesel fuel fire occurred on September 11, 2001 on the fifth floor of WTC7 in the area of the transfer trusses. Such fires. fueled by between 7,350 mId 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel from a leak in the Salomon Brothers' Standby Generator System, would have been of such high temperatures and lasted for such duration that they would have compromised the strength o f the transfer trusses, caused their failure, mld ultimately caused the failures o f Columns 79 andlor 80 leading to a global collapse of WTC7.
8. Specifically, a diesel fuel fire in the fifth floor mechmlical rool11 would heat: (1) the members of Truss 2 that are fully immersed in the mechanical room, including Columns 77, 80, and the eastern diagonal of Truss 2; and (2) the members of Truss 1 immersed in the north wall of the mechanical room, though to a somewhat lesser degree.
9. The diesel fuel fire would have generated sufficiently high structural temperatures in the members afTruss 2 to cause them to lose strength and fail.
10. This failure of the eastern side of Truss 2 would have caused load redistribution towards Truss I and Column 79, which would overload these members. The east diagonal of Truss 1, which had the lowest factor of safety, would have likely failed first and resulted in the subsequent failure ofColull1ll 79. This was manifested viSibly as the sinking of the East Penthouse.

11. The combined effect oflhe failure oflhe eastern side ofTru" 2, Column 79 and the east diagonal of Truss 1, would have resulted in significant load transfer to Columns 73 and 74, as weI! as the core. This was manifested visibly as tlle "kink", As Columns 73 and 74 were not immersed in the mechanical room, and therefore not significantly heated, a delay was observed between the sinking ofthc penthouse and the subsequent "kink",
12. As described in the Second Declaration ofOuy Nordenson, loss of the eastern region of
the building'S interior created a large area of laterally unbraced perimeter frame and activated the fracturing of the floor slabs at the western trench headers leading to global co!apse.


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true, I am aware that ifany ofthe foregoing statements made by me are wilJfully faIse,l may be subject to punishment.

JOSE L. TORERO

I been in commercial construction for 3 decades and been involved in the building of 6 high rises.
These high rises are made of concrete and not structurally supported by steel so they can burn longer with losing equilibrium.
Steel does NOT have to melt to lose its strength it just needs to lose enough of its strength to lose its equilibrium. If the sum of the moment does not equal zero you have failure and when that failure includes multiple floors in a high rise structurally supported by steel the entire structure will lose equilibrium and fall.
In my 3 decades of construction I completed a carpenters apprenticeship, have an associates in drafting and design and a bachelors in construction management. I'm a commercial construction project superintendent.
wiki.math.se...

originally posted by: neutronflux
So hilarious. Just another video of nothing but innuendo and fantasy. A call for those not able to discern from the cons of the truth movement.

And none of you can talk at length about a lawsuit that went into great detail about the short comings of the WTC 7 design, the events that lead to collapse, and the court testimony why WTC 7 collapsed.

Aegis Insurance VS WTC 7 Owners
www.metabunk.org...

Guilty as charged. But please do elaborate on this lawsuit and the findings.
I take it you have read the report and can point out where we can find the important bits.
You know, the ones where it contradicts with what we have seen in the video.
A summary would be nice too.

originally posted by: z00mster

originally posted by: neutronflux
So hilarious. Just another video of nothing but innuendo and fantasy. A call for those not able to discern from the cons of the truth movement.

And none of you can talk at length about a lawsuit that went into great detail about the short comings of the WTC 7 design, the events that lead to collapse, and the court testimony why WTC 7 collapsed.

Aegis Insurance VS WTC 7 Owners
www.metabunk.org...

Guilty as charged. But please do elaborate on this lawsuit and the findings.
I take it you have read the report and can point out where we can find the important bits.
You know, the ones where it contradicts with what we have seen in the video.
A summary would be nice too.

Just posted a bit of sworn testimony...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And links to the lawsuit concerning WTC 7.

Can you provide a specific example.

Or just go on innuendo?

Isn't this the explanation that is negated in the video? Including the computer model?
Even if it is not, does it matter?
I mean, there are experts on both sides, how do you know which of these we should believe?

From what I've seen in the video, the experts at NIST are not to be trusted with their story.
You can see they are under a lot of pressure to convince the public that their b.s. statement is the truth. Can't prove it, just reading body language.
a reply to: neutronflux

originally posted by: z00mster
Isn't this the explanation that is negated in the video? Including the computer model?
Even if it is not, does it matter?
I mean, there are experts on both sides, how do you know which of these we should believe?

From what I've seen in the video, the experts at NIST are not to be trusted with their story.
You can see they are under a lot of pressure to convince the public that their b.s. statement is the truth. Can't prove it, just reading body language.
a reply to: neutronflux

Are you saying the independent investigation by the Aegis insurance company trying to get out of the payment to the WTC 7 owners is not credible? Sworn testimony and technical documents that uphold mechanical failure initiated by a series of events stemming from fire?

Can you provide a credible argument and evidence to discredit the Aegis insurance company and WTC 7 owners that both gave sworn testimony and technical documents that uphold the mechanical failure of WTC 7.

Can you provide a technical and logical argument to discredit the peer reviewed NIST conclusions.

Funny that people want an "independent" assessment of the WTC 7 collapse, but ignore the Aegis lawsuit and sworn given testimony.

You can start with this sworn testimony....

originally posted by: neutronflux
www.metabunk.org...

I, Jose L. Torero, declare:

1. I am the Director of the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at the University of Edinburgh. I was previously an Associate Professor, Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland. I have authored 20 book chapters and more than 300 technical publications in a broad ,may of subjects associated with fire safety engineering. I was awarded the Arthur B. Guise Medal by the Society of Fire Protection Engineers in 2008 in recognition of eminent achievement in advancing the Science of Fire Protection. I am Chair of the Fire & Safety Working Group at the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Vice Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science. My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. I hold three academic degrees: (1) BEng. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (1989); (2) M.S. University ofCalifornia at Berkeley (1991); and (3) PhD. University of California at Berkeley (1992).

3. In 2003 I was retained by counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation to serve as consulting fire protection engineer. [make this aftidavit based upon the work that 1 have done in studying the factors that contributed to the total collapse of 7 World Trade Center (WrC7).

4. I have reviewed thousands of documents, drawings, and photographs, and actively pmticipated in and reviewed the computer modeling performed on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case.
5. The opinions that follow are based on that review and activity, and are made to a reasonable degree of scientific probability. These opinions and the data and materials relied upon in forming these opinions are more fully set forth in my report dated February 12, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
6. Based on my work to date, including computer modeling performed by me and my staff at the University of Edinburgh in which many columns were removed in the model to ascertain the effect on the structure of the building, it is my opinion that any structural dmnage caused by debris trom the collapse of WTCI or WTC2 played no pm1 in the collapse ofWTC7.
7. Based on my work 10 date, including computer modeling performed by me and my staff at the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that a diesel fuel fire occurred on September 11, 2001 on the fifth floor of WTC7 in the area of the transfer trusses. Such fires. fueled by between 7,350 mId 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel from a leak in the Salomon Brothers' Standby Generator System, would have been of such high temperatures and lasted for such duration that they would have compromised the strength o f the transfer trusses, caused their failure, mld ultimately caused the failures o f Columns 79 andlor 80 leading to a global collapse of WTC7.
8. Specifically, a diesel fuel fire in the fifth floor mechmlical rool11 would heat: (1) the members of Truss 2 that are fully immersed in the mechanical room, including Columns 77, 80, and the eastern diagonal of Truss 2; and (2) the members of Truss 1 immersed in the north wall of the mechanical room, though to a somewhat lesser degree.
9. The diesel fuel fire would have generated sufficiently high structural temperatures in the members afTruss 2 to cause them to lose strength and fail.
10. This failure of the eastern side of Truss 2 would have caused load redistribution towards Truss I and Column 79, which would overload these members. The east diagonal of Truss 1, which had the lowest factor of safety, would have likely failed first and resulted in the subsequent failure ofColull1ll 79. This was manifested viSibly as the sinking of the East Penthouse.

11. The combined effect oflhe failure oflhe eastern side ofTru" 2, Column 79 and the east diagonal of Truss 1, would have resulted in significant load transfer to Columns 73 and 74, as weI! as the core. This was manifested visibly as tlle "kink", As Columns 73 and 74 were not immersed in the mechanical room, and therefore not significantly heated, a delay was observed between the sinking ofthc penthouse and the subsequent "kink",
12. As described in the Second Declaration ofOuy Nordenson, loss of the eastern region of
the building'S interior created a large area of laterally unbraced perimeter frame and activated the fracturing of the floor slabs at the western trench headers leading to global co!apse.


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true, I am aware that ifany ofthe foregoing statements made by me are wilJfully faIse,l may be subject to punishment.

JOSE L. TORERO

a reply to: z00mster

You believe a video because it tells you what you want to hear..

But cannot argue against the Aegis vs WTC 7 lawsuit because it has independent evidence, proof, and conclusions!

So your belief is based on faith, not arguments?

a reply to: neutronflux

You believe a video because it tells you what you want to hear..

You believe an insurance report because it tells you what you "want" to hear.

Aegis lawsuit and sworn given testimony.

Testimony, and arguments base off the OS narratives. No one bothered to look into demolition, the fact, that was completely ignored.

The fact is, TPTB would "never" allow any arguments, or science in "any" court of law. Why you may ask? Because it just might prove someone in our government had something to do with planning, and carrying out the demise of the WTC, because we all know 19 alleged hijacker didn't blow up the WTC.

As the evidence prove this is true, by using NIST to help hid the real visual evidence, by "ignoring" and lying about it in their pseudo report.

Another fact is, there is nothing to argue about Aegis lawsuit, it was all a dog and pony show going along with the OS narratives.

Did Aegis test any of the steel for any chemical particle, residue, for any kind of use of demolition? Of course not.

So your belief is based on faith, not arguments?

I would say, your belief are based on faith on the OS narratives, not on real science.

a reply to: Informer1958

Did Aegis test any of the steel for any chemical particle, residue, for any kind of use of demolition? Of course not.

Jones did a debunked test where he falsified thermite in the paper, it's been debunked. It's about as credible as the Judy Woods energy weapons.