Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > the Controled Demolition of WTC 1,2,7 and the pent

Sunofone

Jun 12 2005, 01:08 AM

here are a few details to start this thread i could not possibly include all the evidence in one post--please post any images that you feel are relavent but are missing from here
*******************************************************************
WTC1 --
video of collapseshowing flashes
*****************************
videos of collapse showing balls of fire erupting from the tower as well as ground tremor affecting the tripod and shot

*****************************
video of squibs or evidence of cutting charges

*********************************************************************
WTC2 --
video of flashes from wtc 2

******************************
images of balls of fire from WTC2

**********************************************************************
WTC 7 --
video of WTC 7 collapsing showing the center building on top and center collapse first-evidence of a technique known as "crimping" or taking out the middle support first
*******************************
video showing squibs in the collapse of WTC 7
user posted image

****************************************************************************
pentagon evidence soon to follow

openmind1963

Jun 12 2005, 01:19 AM

i do'nt see anything but the building collapsing my friend.but i'm not gonna tell you you do'nt see it!

Sunofone

Jun 12 2005, 12:47 PM

south tower evidence of demolition--this sequence begins a few seconds prior to collapse--the fires were out according to firefighters yet unbelievably rows of cutting charges can be seen igniting and erupting flame and then a larger explosion bellows out huge balls of fire afer which the tower collapses in on itself--it didnt tip over as you would expect from a building that has had some of its supports buckle
user posted image

********************************************************************
more cutting charges from WTC 2
user posted image

*****************************
south tower
user posted image

north tower
user posted image

Shaftsbury

Jun 12 2005, 05:22 PM

QUOTE

the fires were out according to firefighters

The fires were out ? I have done lots of searching on this subject, and NEVER have I found any evidence that the fires were out prior to the tower collapses.

In fact the information I have found suggests that fire department communications were so severely crippled that they couldn't tell what was happening in the upper floors of the towers.

And also the main focus of the initial emergency response was on search and rescue, NOT fire fighting.

Source

Also:

QUOTE

Police Department helicopters circling the Twin Towers reported that the North Tower, the second to fall, was glowing red on the outside, an indication that it was in danger of imminent collapse. Cops inside the building heard the warnings and most of them got out. Firefighters, who had inferior radios that were incompatible with the NYPD’s system, did not, and scores of them were killed when the skyscraper gave way.

Those pictures you provide, to me show only evidence of the floors sequential collapse as postulated in the official accounts and subsequent reports.

Since you suspect the US government of falsifying the events and reports, how do you feel about external reports?

Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers - Institute for Research in Construction National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada

Neo2005

Jun 12 2005, 05:26 PM

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 12 2005, 05:39 PM

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:26 PM)

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"
[right][snapback]671457[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.

Neo2005

Jun 12 2005, 05:41 PM

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 12 2005, 12:39 PM)

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:26 PM)

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"
[right][snapback]671457[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.
[right][snapback]671507[/snapback][/right]

Why did you quote my post to say that?

The Skeptic Eric Raven

Jun 12 2005, 08:26 PM

Some people hate the government so much they will believe anything that makes it look bad.

Monkyburd

Jun 12 2005, 09:38 PM

A frigin plane nailed into the building traveling close to the speed of sound. I would fall down from that if I were a building too.

Moron.

openmind1963

Jun 12 2005, 09:59 PM

may i please ask a simple question please?if these dynamite charges were set off in the building,who put them there and set off the charges?has anybody that planted or detonated any of these charges,came forward?

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 12 2005, 11:35 PM

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:41 PM)

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 12 2005, 12:39 PM)

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:26 PM)

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"
[right][snapback]671457[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.
[right][snapback]671507[/snapback][/right]

Why did you quote my post to say that?
[right][snapback]671512[/snapback][/right]

Sorry Neo, I'll watch more closely where I post next time.

Sunofone

Jun 13 2005, 01:05 AM

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 11:26 AM)

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"
[right][snapback]671457[/snapback][/right]

WRONG!!
a plane never touched WTC 7 !!
and no engineering manual or expert can explain the collapse of WTC 7 --fire cannot produce these results\/
user posted image

or these "SQUIBS" \/
user posted image

just look at the video included for WTC 7 --fire cannot cause a building to collapse in this manner --for sol's sake "the emporer is naked" --you people can sit there and gloat over his new clothes but i will always insist he is naked!!!!!!!!

ps---A PLANE NEVER BREACHED THE SUPPORTS OF THIS BUILDING!!!!

pss---NEVER!!!!

Sunofone

Jun 13 2005, 01:13 AM

QUOTE(MonkyTurd @ Jun 12 2005, 03:38 PM)

A frigin plane nailed into the building traveling close to the speed of sound. I would fall down from that if I were a building too.

Moron.
[right][snapback]672136[/snapback][/right]

not if you were "designed" to withstand multiple impacts from planes with "more" potential energy(ie-larger fuel tank and higher top speed)--your the only moron stickin you turd where it dont belong--rationalize your statement or quite trolling

Sunofone

Jun 13 2005, 01:18 AM

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 12 2005, 11:39 AM)

QUOTE(Neo2005 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:26 PM)

A 747 hit the towers.
Your reading to much into it.
There were no squibs.
It was a 747! that if anything was the "squib"
[right][snapback]671457[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry but I'm not sold on the idea of a government conspiracy to knock the towers down. It's going to take a lot more substantial evidence to prove this theory out.
[right][snapback]671507[/snapback][/right]

if a 7 billion dollar insurance payoff and a pipeline through afg worth trillions doesnt sell you "nothing" will--plus,if you believe the "official story",you may even sympathize with the israeli war crimes against palestinians

aquatus1

Jun 13 2005, 01:28 AM

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer. Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 13 2005, 02:09 AM

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 13 2005, 02:28 AM)

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer. Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.
[right][snapback]672462[/snapback][/right]

Thanks Aquatus,

I probably stomp around conspiracy theory more than most but in order to support this I'll need to see more evidence. It really doesn't bother me that somebody should attack my opinion; it just helps me come to a conclusion.

mrmonsoon

Jun 13 2005, 02:16 AM

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 12 2005, 06:28 PM)

Yes, he must be a war crime sympathizer. Heaven forbid he's an intelligent individual with his own opinion on the matter.
[right][snapback]672462[/snapback][/right]

Everyone is intitled to their own mind and opinion on this and all subjects. I think the only prequesite would be to have proof of what you say, when you say it here.

turbonium

Jun 13 2005, 02:41 AM

Why is it that whenever the WTC 7 collapse is proven to be a controlled demolition, as in sunofone's earlier post with the video, that there is never a provable counter argument made? All you do is pick on a comment he makes outside the evidence he has presented. That speaks volumes to me about the "methodology", as aq1 likes to say, about those buying the Gov't story.

If you can't provide actual EVIDENCE to support the story that Bin Laden and 19 Arab 'hijackers' did everything on 9/11, then you're just blowing smoke. We put up links and evidence to support our case. So to you I say the same - put up or shut up.

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 13 2005, 03:11 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jun 13 2005, 03:41 AM)

Why is it that whenever the WTC 7 collapse is proven to be a controlled demolition, as in sunofone's earlier post with the video, that there is never a provable counter argument made? All you do is pick on a comment he makes outside the evidence he has presented. That speaks volumes to me about the "methodology", as aq1 likes to say, about those buying the Gov't story.

If you can't provide actual EVIDENCE to support the story that Bin Laden and 19 Arab 'hijackers' did everything on 9/11, then you're just blowing smoke. We put up links and evidence to support our case. So to you I say the same - put up or shut up.
[right][snapback]672557[/snapback][/right]

All I'm saying is that I still have an easier time buying that terrorists knocked the towers down. Keep working at it, you might get enough evidence someday.

turbonium

Jun 13 2005, 04:38 AM

QUOTE

All I'm saying is that I still have an easier time buying that terrorists knocked the towers down. Keep working at it, you might get enough evidence someday.

We DO have enough evidence
Molten Steel

QUOTE

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Molten steel cannot be the result of these fires - period!! The melting point of steel is 2800 F. Hydrocarbon fires such as this can only reach a MAXIMUM temperature (in ideal controlled conditions) of 1520 F.
From this link is shown that NO steel framed structure has collapsed in either actual fires OR in controlled experiments....
Tests of Steel in Fires
In the case of the fire at One Meridian Plaza, the fire burned uncontrolled for the first 11 hours and lasted 19 hours. Contents from nine floors were completely consumed in the fire. In addition to these experiences in fire incidents, as a result of the Broadgate fire, British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington in the mid-1990s to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beam reaching 800-900 degrees Centigrade (1,500-1,700 degrees Fahrenheit) in three tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade [1,100 degrees Fahrenheit]), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

user posted image

At 3 PM, not long before the virtual free-fall collapse (as the video shows), this photo shows how much the fires were "raging" in WTC 7! Not that it would matter if they were all-encompassing fires - as I have proven with the above source, no such fires can cause the collapse of the steel frame, and these fires certainly cannot create molten pools of steel, as were found in the basement of the builiding (as with WTC 1 and 2).

This evidence alone is proof that the WTC 7 building did not collapse due to the fires within it.
Where is your proof to counter these points of evidence?
Molten steel. Free fall collapse. Fire temperatures. First ever steel framed collapses.
Back up your case that Bin Laden and his gang could defy the laws of physics and change the properties of steel and fire.

Links and sources are required, as I have done here in my post.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Dowdy

Jun 13 2005, 05:51 AM

i'm not going to be bothered reading everything that was said here but if you want a very good convincing 45min doco that said the WTC was controlled demolition download it here

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 13 2005, 09:13 AM

QUOTE(Dowdy @ Jun 13 2005, 06:51 AM)

i'm not going to be bothered reading everything that was said here but if you want a very good convincing 45min doco that said the WTC was controlled demolition download it here
[right][snapback]672702[/snapback][/right]

Okay, I did what you asked, Pretty impressive. Now lets say I buy into all this. This is not to say I accept it but lets say I do buy into it. What are we going to do? I'm a American citizen, pay my taxes, have one son in the military, personally work as a federal contractor, I even vote and carry the card for a political party.

What do you recommend I do?

Sunofone

Jun 13 2005, 12:43 PM

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 03:13 AM)

What do you recommend I do?
[right][snapback]672804[/snapback][/right]

get your child out of the military-- it has been hi-jacked by oil cartels--he should be defending the homeland --start spreading the truth --our govt has also been hi-jacked by people who strive for a one world govt--they are posessed with destroying the constitution and defacing america--its going on right now under everyones noses--only by spreading the truth and awakening others can we summon the beast that is the mob and that "it" may seek swift vengence and justice--

aquatus1

Jun 13 2005, 01:22 PM

And then?

Mob rule?

Shaftsbury

Jun 13 2005, 02:38 PM

QUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 13 2005, 12:43 PM)

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 03:13 AM)

What do you recommend I do?
[right][snapback]672804[/snapback][/right]

get your child out of the military-- it has been hi-jacked by oil cartels--he should be defending the homeland --start spreading the truth --our govt has also been hi-jacked by people who strive for a one world govt--they are posessed with destroying the constitution and defacing america--its going on right now under everyones noses--only by spreading the truth and awakening others can we summon the beast that is the mob and that "it" may seek swift vengence and justice--
[right][snapback]672915[/snapback][/right]

Hehe ya that's a good one, pull all the honest people out of the military so the only ones left in control, and with the good weapons are the corrupted.

Then when they least expect it attack them with rocks and bottles?

I think you might want to rethink that strategy just a bit.

unknown

Jun 13 2005, 03:29 PM

QUOTE(Shaftsbury @ Jun 13 2005, 11:38 AM)

Hehe ya that's a good one, pull all the honest people out of the military so the only ones left in control, and with the good weapons are the corrupted.

Then when they least expect it attack them with rocks and bottles?

I think you might want to rethink that strategy just a bit.
[right][snapback]673151[/snapback][/right]

Let me give you my little prediction of the future. Gun control will be pushed forward. Civil war will start in this country in a from of a complete martial law*. World War III will start in the next 5-10 years.

*already started.

WTC7 Was a controlled demolition. http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm
Download chapter 5, wich has to do with building 7. It says that it went down due to fire. Silverstein said it himself that he pulled the building on CBS. So the whole report was a full out lie.

No steal structured building went down due to fire, ever. Not before nor after 911.

Before this conversation goes further these 2 points have to be proven false, otherwise we will just be going back and forth insulting each other.

Shaftsbury

Jun 13 2005, 03:51 PM

The last time I checked this thread was about the controlled destruction of WTC 1,2,7 and the pentagon so why are we suddenly focused only on 7?

Unless ALL of these buildings were brought down in the same manner this theory really doesn't make sense.

And if they were all brought down the same way, I can't imagine the logistical nightmare involved in the planning, execution, and coverup, we would be talking about literally thousands of people that would have to be paid off, not to mention that it would have had to be an international conspiracy if NORAD was involved.

unknown

Jun 13 2005, 04:04 PM

QUOTE(Shaftsbury @ Jun 13 2005, 12:51 PM)

The last time I checked this thread was about the controlled destruction of WTC 1,2,7 and the pentagon so why are we suddenly focused only on 7?
[right][snapback]673262[/snapback][/right]

It's not only on 7.

A steal structured building has NEVER went down due to fire. What make 911 so different? I am focusing on building 7 because it's the easiest to see the lie in.

If you cant disprove the facts about 7, then we can talk about 1 and 2.

But first I want to hear your opinions of why the 2 towers went down. Was it due to the impact/fire/etc. Plz give as much detail as you can.

Shaftsbury

Jun 13 2005, 04:31 PM

I have already posted my feelings on towers 1 and 2. (see my previous post near the start of this thread) I tend to belive the information stated in that Canadian government document that I provided the link to.

The steel columns were severely damaged and stressed by the airplane striking them, the fireproofing insulation was dislodged from the steel, and after the jet fuel ignited combustible material on multiple floors, the floor trusses, being the weakest part of the construction, failed resulting in a sequential collapse of the floor slabs.

(this is obviously a greatly simplified statement by me, I suggest you read that pdf)

You keep bringing up the point about no other steel structure collapsing because of fire, but aren't you really trying to compare apples and oranges?

Please list the other highrise steel structures that were struck by a large commercial airplane and burst into flames, that you are using as a comparison.

Fluffybunny

Jun 13 2005, 04:45 PM

QUOTE

But first I want to hear your opinions of why the 2 towers went down. Was it due to the impact/fire/etc. Plz give as much detail as you can.

This qoute wasn't directed to me, but if you don't mind I would like to answer it.

Although the fire from the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the steel, it was hot enough to weaken it. At 1100 degree steel loses approximately one half of it's strength (something that we have to keep in mind when fighting fires in tall steel reinforce buildings.). The kinetic energy of a fully loaded airplane striking the building destroyed several supports, weakening the structure. Much jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts and vents into lower floor starting hot fires weakening the steel of the floors above and below the impact sites.

The fire loading of the offices is also a factor. Although the jet fuel does not burn incredibly hot, much of the materials found in offices do create a great deal of heat(having been in several I can attest to that fact), which would continue to weaken a structure.

The weakened steel in conjunction with the damage to the structure of the building would be cause enough for a partial collapes of the floors(how many tons of weight are contained in the top 20+ floors?), the kinetic energy of the falling floors would be enough to continue to pancake the rest of the building downwards.

I don't see a problem with the results of the collapse of the two buildings; it seems reasonable to me that things would go the way they did.

As for building 7; I am not sure and have not studied that matter enough to comment on it...

Sunofone

Jun 13 2005, 07:29 PM

QUOTE(Fluffybunny @ Jun 13 2005, 10:45 AM)

The fire loading of the offices is also a factor. Although the jet fuel does not burn incredibly hot, much of the materials found in offices do create a great deal of heat(having been in several I can attest to that fact), which would continue to weaken a structure.

As for building 7; I am not sure and have not studied that matter enough to comment on it...
[right][snapback]673350[/snapback][/right]

ok fluff so are contributing the molten pools of steel found and the cores of both towers to these fires fueled by the office materials? there is no doubt that they were there and took close to six weeks to cool--what about the firefighters discussing secondary explosisions-read up on albert turi and paul isaac jr--is their testimony mute? maybe you should study up on WTC 7 as it "is" a major smoking gun destroying the official story--have you read the whistle-blowers threads newest addition? the bush administration is falling apart and their own people are turning on them in morgan reynolds and karl schwarz--imo the scary part is that they actually "want" to be discovered--they want a violent revolution--but we can beat them with information and an uprising doesnt have to happen--when enough people have awaken we will be able to walk up to "all" those involved and slap cuffs on them and throw them in a dark hole for the rest of their lives--only when the mob has been aroused will the military officials holding high rank turn on their commanders that have been giving them treasonist orders and expose them without fear of retribution

Redneck

Jun 13 2005, 09:24 PM

QUOTE

No steal structured building went down due to fire, ever. Not before nor after 911.

No 110-storey steel-framed structure has been hit with a fuel-laden 767 before, has it? In the chaos of a collapsing building there are bound to be some things we don't understand. Engineers disagree on whether the fires or the damage imparted by the aircraft was the primary cause of the collapse. But just because aspects of the event are not well-understood does not mean that we should embrace some nutjob conspiracy theory to fill in the gaps. The tactics being used in this thread are no different from those creationists who sieze on problems with the theory of evolution to fabricate specious arguments and leap to wild conclusions.

And of course when nobody with an engineering background supports their views, the conspiracists allege that it's all due to intimidation by shadowy government forces, making their claims impossible to refute.

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 13 2005, 11:47 PM

QUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 13 2005, 01:43 PM)

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 03:13 AM)

What do you recommend I do?
[right][snapback]672804[/snapback][/right]

get your child out of the military-- it has been hi-jacked by oil cartels--he should be defending the homeland --start spreading the truth --our govt has also been hi-jacked by people who strive for a one world govt--they are posessed with destroying the constitution and defacing america--its going on right now under everyones noses--only by spreading the truth and awakening others can we summon the beast that is the mob and that "it" may seek swift vengence and justice--
[right][snapback]672915[/snapback][/right]

One world government? Bit of a jump from the oil arguments. I can't really pull my kid out of the military. Can't pull my nephews either. Guess I'll just keep right on working for the military-industrial complex.

turbonium

Jun 14 2005, 01:31 AM

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 02:13 AM)

QUOTE(Dowdy @ Jun 13 2005, 06:51 AM)

i'm not going to be bothered reading everything that was said here but if you want a very good convincing 45min doco that said the WTC was controlled demolition download it here
[right][snapback]672702[/snapback][/right]

Okay, I did what you asked, Pretty impressive. Now lets say I buy into all this. This is not to say I accept it but lets say I do buy into it. What are we going to do? I'm a American citizen, pay my taxes, have one son in the military, personally work as a federal contractor, I even vote and carry the card for a political party.

What do you recommend I do?
[right][snapback]672804[/snapback][/right]

Every single American that becomes aware of the truth is another small step towards solving the problem. It works by the magic of word of mouth, where information not available on the 6 oclock news is passed from you, to your family and friends, from your friends to their family and friends, and on and on. Small cells of awareness become small communities of awareness, to larger towns and cities, to state counties, to states, and ultimately to the nation.

The ultimate change must be the public rejection of the Federal Reserve as the private, for profit corporation that issues the money to the citizens at interest. The control and issuance of money must be returned to it's rightful place, the lower Congress, who shall be held to limited terms of office, and where all amounts of currency issued and all decisions are held in full view of the public.

This will drive out the puppet presidents and congressmen who are beholden to the money lenders not to their voting public. The current administration will then be subject to proper scrutiny, investigation and justice for their criminal actions. All future Gov'ts will then be held to the same criteria to ensure that a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

turbonium

Jun 14 2005, 01:42 AM

QUOTE

No 110-storey steel-framed structure has been hit with a fuel-laden 767 before, has it?

That's why WTC 7 is important - it was not hit by anything, so it takes that "excuse" out of the equation. If you can't get past that, you can't even begin to defend the rest of the problems we have with the official story. No engineer with any integrity can or will explain the WTC 7 collapse as due to the fires. It can't be done - period.

unknown

Jun 14 2005, 03:08 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jun 13 2005, 10:42 PM)

QUOTE

No 110-storey steel-framed structure has been hit with a fuel-laden 767 before, has it?

That's why WTC 7 is important - it was not hit by anything, so it takes that "excuse" out of the equation. If you can't get past that, you can't even begin to defend the rest of the problems we have with the official story. No engineer with any integrity can or will explain the WTC 7 collapse as due to the fires. It can't be done - period.
[right][snapback]674839[/snapback][/right]

Anyone who's done any type of research about building 7 knows that it was demolished. The real question that should be asked is why did the government lie about it and why it was demolished.

The following link has a lot of information about this event. On the bottom are seismic readings that are identical to a demolition.
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm

Redneck

Jun 14 2005, 03:30 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jun 13 2005, 08:42 PM)

QUOTE

No 110-storey steel-framed structure has been hit with a fuel-laden 767 before, has it?

That's why WTC 7 is important - it was not hit by anything, so it takes that "excuse" out of the equation. If you can't get past that, you can't even begin to defend the rest of the problems we have with the official story. No engineer with any integrity can or will explain the WTC 7 collapse as due to the fires. It can't be done - period.
[right][snapback]674839[/snapback][/right]

That's exactly how it's being explained by engineers; it collapsed as a result of fires that consumed the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that were stored within it. It's not well understood - that's not the same thing as saying that it's impossible.

Diesel suspected in 7 WTC collapse

And the Federal Reserve is not a freaking corporation.

turbonium

Jun 14 2005, 03:59 AM

QUOTE

And the Federal Reserve is not a freaking corporation.

Sorry, but it is a freaking corporation. From this link The Fed

The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".

From this link Fed Info
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation reconstructed to the best of my ability from notes taken during the conversation on October 8, 1992.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

To top it off, the Federal Reserve is mostly owned by freaking foreigners!

unknown

Jun 14 2005, 04:25 AM

Those who see my posts know that I love quotes. I've got a quote for just about anything

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency...the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered. --Thomas Jefferson

Redneck:
Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, burned for 19 hours in 1991 and never went down. I challenge you to show me evidence of serious fires in WTC7. Why are we even arguing about this? Have you even seen video of the building falling? Compare it to a controlled demolition. Tell me the difference between the two.

turbonium

Jun 14 2005, 04:38 AM

Concerning WTC 7 the FEMA report concluded that : “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
FEMA Report pdf
In other words, "We don't know what else to blame it on other than fire, but we don't really believe fire could have done it."
<<<WHERE'S THE RAGING FIRE?
<<<WHERE IS ANY FIRE?

<<<I DON'T SEE FIRE BUT I DO SEE DEMOLITION SQUIBS!

- A steel framed building with very small fires totally collapses in near free fall time.
- Diesel fuel fire (or any hydrocarbon fire) cannot melt steel into a molten pool as was found in the WTC 7 basement!!

WildBrain

Jun 14 2005, 05:31 AM

QUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 12 2005, 09:13 PM)

QUOTE(MonkyTurd @ Jun 12 2005, 03:38 PM)

A frigin plane nailed into the building traveling close to the speed of sound. I would fall down from that if I were a building too.

Moron.
[right][snapback]672136[/snapback][/right]

not if you were "designed" to withstand multiple impacts from planes with "more" potential energy(ie-larger fuel tank and higher top speed)--your the only moron stickin you turd where it dont belong--rationalize your statement or quite trolling
[right][snapback]672448[/snapback][/right]

The WTC was not designed to withstand multiple hits from larger planes in fact it was designed to take an impact from the largest plane in 1974 which was much smaller then the jumbo jets that struck it on 9/11. Even then it was designed for an ACCIDENTAL strike which would be at a much lower speed then the intentional strikes that happened.

turbonium

Jun 14 2005, 06:17 AM

QUOTE

The WTC was not designed to withstand multiple hits from larger planes in fact it was designed to take an impact from the largest plane in 1974 which was much smaller then the jumbo jets that struck it on 9/11. Even then it was designed for an ACCIDENTAL strike which would be at a much lower speed then the intentional strikes that happened.

OK, this has all been talked about before, but I'll re-hash it once more. First, the planes were not "jumbo" jets, they were the much smaller 767's. And the 707 was capable of more damage than the 767, due to faster cruising speed and that it carried more fuel, being less fuel efficient than the 767. From this link is the below text. See link for all the calculations. WTC hit comparisons of planes
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Outside of this, it has been noted by all analyses, even the FEMA report, that the plane impacts were not the cause of collapses. Also admitted is that all the jet fuel burned up within the first few minutes after the impacts.

Redneck

Jun 14 2005, 01:00 PM

QUOTE

In other words, "We don't know what else to blame it on other than fire, but we don't really believe fire could have done it."

No - what they said is that they don't understand the event completely. That's because they're cautious professionals, unlike conspiracy lovers who will seize on a few puffs of smoke on a blurry video and declare with total confidence that this proves that explosives were usedt.

QUOTE

Diesel fuel fire (or any hydrocarbon fire) cannot melt steel into a molten pool as was found in the WTC 7 basement!!

You know I wasn't able to find any mention of this outside of conspiracy-oriented web sites. But assuming it's true, what does that prove to you?

And federal reserve isn't a corporation, it's a central bank, established by a federal law(the Federal Reserve Act if I'm not mistaken) and accountable to the government. It is a government entity. This belief is downright bizarre. I think you're confused by the fact that the member banks are private.

unknown

Jun 14 2005, 01:18 PM

QUOTE

No - what they said is that they don't understand the event completely. That's because they're cautious professionals, unlike conspiracy lovers who will seize on a few puffs of smoke on a blurry video and declare with total confidence that this proves that explosives were usedt.

Do you even know who Larry Silverstein is?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/pullit.html
Watch the video of him saying it himself to pull the building. I realy dont understand why this is STILL being argued over.

QUOTE

And federal reserve isn't a corporation

Prove it.

Sunofone

Jun 14 2005, 03:28 PM

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 05:47 PM)

Guess I'll just keep right on working for the military-industrial complex.
[right][snapback]674609[/snapback][/right]

you mean oil cartels -- well then you wont be able to complain when america is turned into a police state and you child is in the middle east murdering innocent citizens for their oil which will be financing your downfall -- you dont honestly think that his service will save you from such a fate -- there is still time the mic wont turn on us until the draft has minimized the threat of resistance here in america--even then they will use foreign troops --

Sunofone

Jun 14 2005, 03:39 PM

QUOTE(Redneck @ Jun 14 2005, 07:00 AM)

You know I wasn't able to find any mention of this outside of conspiracy-oriented web sites. But assuming it's true, what does that prove ?

duh....research it yourself--find out the only possible causes for such "pools"
heres a starting point
*********************************************************
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3886

QUOTE

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, * told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile."

Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.

This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.

The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.

Dr_Strangelove

Jun 14 2005, 11:35 PM

QUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 14 2005, 04:28 PM)

QUOTE(Dr_Strangelove @ Jun 13 2005, 05:47 PM)

Guess I'll just keep right on working for the military-industrial complex.
[right][snapback]674609[/snapback][/right]

you mean oil cartels -- well then you wont be able to complain when america is turned into a police state and you child is in the middle east murdering innocent citizens for their oil which will be financing your downfall -- you dont honestly think that his service will save you from such a fate -- there is still time the mic wont turn on us until the draft has minimized the threat of resistance here in america--even then they will use foreign troops --
[right][snapback]675619[/snapback][/right]

Well, my son and his wife, she also was in the service, probably won't be going to Iraq. Me, I wish a oil cartel would buy my company. If you haven't been reading the papers lately the telcom industry isn't doing so hot. Personally, considering things like Carnivore and Magic Lantern maybe that police state is already here. For now though working for the Man does pay the bills.

Redneck

Jun 15 2005, 12:22 AM

QUOTE

Do you even know who Larry Silverstein is?

Yes.

QUOTE

Prove it.

The Federal Reserve is an independent central bank. Go to your local university and ask any economics or business school professor.

QUOTE

duh....research it yourself--find out the only possible causes for such "pools"
heres a starting point

I don't remember reading that in the NIST or FEMA reports.

Redneck

Jun 15 2005, 12:23 AM

QUOTE

Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.

Note that the phrase "experts disagree" is not synonymous with "it is impossible."

turbonium

Jun 15 2005, 01:55 AM

QUOTE

The Federal Reserve is an independent central bank. Go to your local university and ask any economics or business school professor.

The below bold text is from this link Federal Reserve
It is from the Federal Reserve Act, from the Fed's OWN WEBSITE!!
4. General Corporate Powers

Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power—

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

End of freaking story!!