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

a reply to: waypastvne

One of the men who was responsible for acquiring the videos through FOIA request, John Farmer, is a member here.

John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission was posting on ATS? Really? How do you know this to be true?

a reply to: ZaneDog


No this is a different John Farmer. Private citizen, did a lot of work on the FOIA for the videos and radar data for the 911 Pentagon attack.

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: secretagent77

BS? Really?

Molton steel, not bull crap... Only thing the two have in common is they both run downhill.

peace

That is colored red. Red steel isn't hot enough to be in a liquid state.

Therefore, your claim of that being steel is rejected scientifically.

There's no opinion involved in this debunking.

Do your research and admit you're wrong.

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: ZaneDog


No this is a different John Farmer. Private citizen, did a lot of work on the FOIA for the videos and radar data for the 911 Pentagon attack.

One more thing. John says that there WAS a video from the navy annex, but the FBI lost it.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: ZaneDog


No this is a different John Farmer. Private citizen, did a lot of work on the FOIA for the videos and radar data for the 911 Pentagon attack.

One more thing. John says that there WAS a video from the navy annex, but the FBI lost it.

Here is a thread here with more details on the videos if you are interested. BRC is John Farmer / 911files.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

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?

I remember reading statements some years ago that some witness had said that they saw trucks coming and going in the days / weeks before the attack.. that they wondered what they were.

a reply to: flice

You had someone confusing a movie (Die Hard With A Vengance) with reality.

Reply to neutronflux

7. Based on my work to 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 and 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 of the transfer trusses, caused their failure, and ultimately caused the failures of Columns 79 and/or 80 leading to a global collapse of WTC7.
8. Specifically, a diesel fuel fire in the fifth floor mechanical room 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 at Truss 2 to cause them to lose strength and fail.

JOSE L. TORERO

There's a serious problem with this report, as it contradicts the findings, two years earlier, of the much better funded, 6 year long NIST report commissioned by the US government. They were quite clear that not only was there no evidence of the diesel fires which the above report hangs upon, but that indeed there was decisive evidence to the contrary:

NCSTAR 1-A Final Report on WTC 7

The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines, (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. p. 49 [pdf p. 91]

Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed. p. 51-52 [pdf p. 93-94]

NIST put the global collapse down to a single point failure caused by ordinary office fires.

But according to JOSE L. TORERO, the collapse requires the unusually high temperatures of a diesel fuel fire, which NIST's account says unequivocally did not occur. This only serves to undermine confidence in both accounts.

Toledo says, "it is my opinion that a diesel fuel fire occurred on September 11, 2001". I am sure you will be the first to concede, we cannot call a theory scientific if it rests entirely upon opinion in place of evidence. If his diesel fire hypothesis came from his computer modeling, it is shockingly unscientific to use his hypothesis as evidence for his conclusion.

a reply to: EvilAxis


My point is not a specific cause of collapse initiated by a chain of events relating to fire. I am not big on the NIST reports in the WTC. I am more partial to the tower floor trusses drooping, pulling in the vertical columns, buckling, then initiating collapse. I think problems of building design and fireproofing was glossed over. But the NIST reports were to find the most probable cause leading to collapse. The vast majority of the engineering and architectural world supports the NIST conclusions. However, disappointed the research was just on major reasons. That the studies where not more in depth to fine tune fire safety and design.


However: the Aegis insurance lawsuit had every Incentive to pursue sabotage if evidence existed.

The Aegis insurance investigation was an independent investigation into the WTC 7 collapse.

The Aegis insurance investigation shows that fire collapse at WTC 7 due to building design, building angles, long span of floors. Insufficient floor connections, and insufficient fire proofing indicates that collapse triggered by fire is the more probable cause of collapse.

The independent Aegis investigation shows that conspiracists are not interested in "truth", testimony, scientific method, nor actual evidence. Conspiracists use innuendo, out of context items, misquotes, hiding of facts to create a false narrative which most people that see the truth movement for the deception that it is as being labeled "sheep" by the 9/11 conspiracy faithful.

Sad the truth movement doesn't understand the difference between innuendo versus evidence, and how they hurt their own cause.


Sorry for the grammar and spelling mistakes. But getting to making French toast is more important than the con artists of the truth movement....

Last thought. I love how people push the conspiracy theories that corporations control the government! Except where 9/11 is concerned. Then all of a sudden the government is telling firefire unions, law enforcement unions, air traffic unions what to do. The government telling insurance companies to eat the billions in payouts over 9/11. All the while the government lost the EPA lawsuits over the botched reporting of the toxicity of WTC dust....