Trade center demolition

[brien]

Quote by: Clarence yeah, I'm thinking about being a trucker myself. So, can diesel explode? burn, sure. explode?

Clarence; I have been in the trucking business for almost 30 years. One thing you will need to become familiar with, if you decide to "drive truck", as we call it in the trade, is the Hazardous Materials Compliance Guide issued by the Federal Highway Administration. It lists every hazardous material and classifies them by their danger to the public's safety. Diesel fuel is classiefied as a Class 3 Hazardous Material and as "FLAMMABLE" and listed in the HMG as an EXPLOSIVE. Please feel free to look it up, don't take my word for it, because when you take your test for your CDL, and you don't know this, you will probably fail the test for your license.

I can't believe there are people walking around in society that really think diesel fuel can't explode. :rolleyes:

Good luck in your career if you choose to drive. The industry needs good, young drivers, and a good owner operator, that is a driver who owns his own rig, is capable of earning up between $50,000 to $100,000 per year, even more, if he is a smart businessman. As a learner in the business, you will have to drive for a fleet such as Wal MArt, or the like, but once you have a few years verifiable experience driving, and maintain a safe and violation free license, you can buy your own truck and be basically self employed. You will be in charge of your own destiny. However, you should keep in mind that diesel fuel is in fact, an explosive.

Quote by: Wonderblob You are right webjedi, it wasn’t cool. I did send him an apology. I just chalked it up to stupidity on my part. Back to the point of the argument, cannot one replace the diesel oil in their truck with cooking oil and keep on trucking. That’s right diesel is only slightly more volatile than the Wesson oil in your kitchen cabinet. You strike a match put it in a tank of diesel and the match goes out it must be atomized or artificially excited (in other words it needs a wick and heat) before it will even burn. But that is still not nearly enough to make it explode. For that it must be atomized into air that has been compressed to the point that it is hot as fire over 1000 PSI. That is a difficult situation to achieve. Now it is possible to achieve combustible vapors by boiling diesel fuel for along time in an enclosed environment and then introducing fire. I don't see how that is possible in a building. By the way I read where the insurance company that insured building 7 sued the building administrators because fuel is not under any circumstances supposed to be stored in the building. The judge dismissed the lawsuit. The evidence of a cover-up is just too overwhelming to me.

Just a point of information. The fires in the towers were over 1800 degrees F. And just one more point. If everything you have written about diesel fuel is true, I have an experiment for you.

Try walking up to diesel fueling station in any ONE of the thousands of truck stops, and attempt your little lighted match experiment while a driver is fueling. You wouldn't make it out of the truck stop alive. They don't place no smoking signs around the fueling stations because the fuel can't catch fire and explode. Please Wonderblob, think about what you are writing here with regard to diesel fuel. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Logical people ALL realize that diesel fuel is flammable and an explosive. The governemnt treats it as such because it is reality, not some gobblygook science.

[jose]

Quote by: brien Try walking up to diesel fueling station in any ONE of the thousands of truck stops, and attempt your little lighted match experiment while a driver is fueling. You wouldn't make it out of the truck stop alive. .

would that be by explosion or by truckers?

[Clarence]

I play dumb sometimes. I understand diesel's characteristics alright. I was looking for what it would take to explode. Diesel engines don't have ignitions, really (I'm sure some of you know), they rely on compression to sort of squeeze the fuel until it explodes. Glow plugs heat the cyliders initially because temperature helps the process of combustion through compression. Lets just say the diesel in WTC7 was not secure and near the main pillars of support. So they caught on fire (how?) and then the building collapsed at the speed of gravity within the hour? Yep

[PatrickHenry]

Diesel won't explode and everyone knows it. Complete red herring.

WTC7 is the smoking gun of the 9/11 plot. An evident, classic, steel-framed building demolition, done with explosive cutter charges.

I was gratified by the folks who converged on the WTC site on September 11, 2006.
Taking to the streets on 9/11

I was seeing people come alive. Come out of the stupor of 9/11 on this fifth anniversary. I was seeing transcendence over the phony movies, the CNN Situation Room, the Bush butt-kissing, the drone of talking heads, the glitzy computer graphics, stupid experts, wooden suits, the lot of them. What a pleasure to touch base with reality. Therefore, I was feeling the danger of the USAPATRIOT Act, the corruption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That this march could be taken away, that these people could be arrested and prosecuted at someone’s whim. But what a pleasure to be on the street with this battalion of brave souls, shattering the silence, giving those souls in the air reason to live again. The purpose was to honor their horrific passing with the truth, to break through the lies, the same that had hung over us like the nuclear-pulverized clouds of the Towers. The concrete dust, radiation, and asbestos contamination had fallen in the lungs of first responders, of those fleeing from the buildings, of those helping others to live, many of them dying as we spoke against this ongoing apocalypse that had calcified the city and nation for so long. <snip> some young guy got up on a stone embankment and began to speak. I can only paraphrase his appeal. It went something like this: “We haven’t come here to antagonize the police. Our purpose is to find justice, to reveal the true perpetrators who took the lives of their fellow policemen and other victims on 9/11. And we expect when the full truth is revealed that the police will be marching side by side with us.” A huge round of applause rose from the marchers. Would that we could diffuse this animosity between citizens and centurions in the bitter Pax Americana. The speaker continued, “We know you have lost friends, maybe family members, men and women who worked close with you. Some with us today have too. My brother-in-law was a cop. I don’t think we’re all that different inside.” He stood there, a guy in his 30s, above the crowd, like a coach speaking to a team, encouraging the players to work together to win. It was the last thing I expected. No more fiery rhetoric or stunning facts. Just one man speaking from the heart to the heart.

[brien]

Quote by: jose would that be by explosion or by truckers?

Probably both

What part of NO SMOKING around fuel stations, and the FHA designation that diesel fuel is a class 3 COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID do some people not understand. I yi yi :rolleyes:

Quote by: PatrickHenry Diesel won't explode and everyone knows it. Complete red herring. WTC7 is the smoking gun of the 9/11 plot. An evident, classic, steel-framed building demolition, done with explosive cutter charges. I was gratified by the folks who converged on the WTC site on September 11, 2006. Taking to the streets on 9/11

Pat. You are just plain mistaken about diesel fuel not being a combustible. "Everyone knows it"???? I guess the Federal Governement doesn't know it. It is rated as a Class 3 flammable combustible in the Federal Highway Hazardous Materials Compliance Handbook. It can't be any more clear than that to me, but if you think you know better than the experts so it fits your theory of the conspiracy, I am not going to tell you otherwise. It will do no good anyway. I refuse to argue with you about what is designated by the government as a combustible substance when it is written in black and white in the Federal Hazardous Materials Compliance Handbook.

Furthermore there are special formula provisions known as :

TP1 & TP 29 to cover filling and storage to prevent combustion.

B1 covers flashpoints above 38 degrees C to prevent combustion.

Combustion that can lead to EXPLOSIONS. Afterall, please rethink what happens in a cylinder of a diesel engine. Compression of a combustible liquid that results in a small controlled explosion to push a piston and its rod to rotate a crankshaft. This is an explosion so to say that diesel fuel is not explosive is factually incorrect.

Really, I am not here to argue this anymore. I have submitted the proof that many people understand to be truthful about diesel fuel. People who don't want to realize this proabably have an agenda and clearly you have one to fit your conspiracy theory. So be it. I am not here to tell you how to think just to provide factual information on diesel fuel, and its properties, which force the governement to list it as a combustible flammable liquid substance.

[Clarence]

brien, diesel will explode. lets talk about WTC7. I think my point has been made. THis is the way the public thinks and the reason this bunk official story has been passed along so easily. Everyone knows diesel is fuel. A building falls down and diesel is in the basement..."well that settles it. The diesel exploded." You've gotta know what I'm saying. It would require intense pressure or heat (from what?) to explode the fuel. Maybe the fuel burned the building down?

The point is, where's the investigation on WTC7? I give up for a while on this one. I feel like slamming my head off something sharp.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you have a reading/comprehension problem, brien?

The word explode means to act as an explosive, creating demolition effects, not combustion effects as a fuel does...you know...fire?

Fires don't result in building collapses.

WTC7 was EXPLODED.

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Do you have a reading/comprehension problem, brien? The word explode means to act as an explosive, creating demolition effects, not combustion effects as a fuel does...you know...fire? Fires don't result in building collapses. WTC7 was EXPLODED.

PH Please you know better than to insult my reading comprehension. You are a better guy than that, aren't you?. Why can't you admit that diesel fuel explodes? It explodes everyday in the cylinders of diesel engines.

PH wrote:

Fires don't result in building collapses.

Some of the WTC fires, to my understanding, were 1800 degrees F, more than enough to melt metals and explode diesel fuel.

Once again, I am not here to argue the conspiracy theories, because they are just theories. Provide one, just one person who was validated conspirator who can testify he/she was in on this "vast right wing conspiracy", and we have something to talk about then. But until at least one credible/verifiable conspirator comes forward, I think it a waste of my time. Sorry, just can't get on board with you on this one.

Quote by: Clarence brien, diesel will explode. lets talk about WTC7. I think my point has been made. THis is the way the public thinks and the reason this bunk official story has been passed along so easily. Everyone knows diesel is fuel. A building falls down and diesel is in the basement..."well that settles it. The diesel exploded." You've gotta know what I'm saying. It would require intense pressure or heat (from what?) to explode the fuel. Maybe the fuel burned the building down? The point is, where's the investigation on WTC7? I give up for a while on this one. I feel like slamming my head off something sharp.

I understand what you are writing but I don't know all of the science and physics of the actual event of the Towers collapsing, and I dare say neither do very many people. They think they know, but do they really know? This is all I am writing. I never wrote you guys were wrong. I simply wrote I am not on board because no credible and validated conspirators have come forward to convince me of this conspiracy theory. Surely someone involved must have become disgruntled or pissed off at the government's Administration and would have come forward to out them. Where are they? They aren't there. This conspiracy couldn't have been pulled off without human involvement.

As I have written so many times before, give me one, just one credible and valid conspirator out of the hundreds that perhaps had to be involved in this conspiracy, and perhpas then we have proof positive to investigate, otherwise I am not interested at thispoint in time.

[PatrickHenry]

OK, here's a question... What is the minimum number of conspirators that would be needed to pull off the postulated 9/11 conspiracy events?

Would all of them recognize their parts in the conspiracy as nefarious, or could the overall picture be compartmented so that "guilty knowledge" would be limited?

There is no doubt that some people had both the boldness and the savage ruthlessness to do the deeds done that day. We just disagree on who they were...

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry OK, here's a question... What is the minimum number of conspirators that would be needed to pull off the postulated 9/11 conspiracy events? Would all of them recognize their parts in the conspiracy as nefarious, or could the overall picture be compartmented so that "guilty knowledge" would be limited? There is no doubt that some people had both the boldness and the savage ruthlessness to do the deeds done that day. We just disagree on who they were...

PH I have no idea. More than a few and less than 100??? I just can answer the question because I am not privy to all of the little nuances that this massive undertaking would require. Can you answer your own question? How many people would it take to pull off the job as you see it in this conspiratorial manner?

[Sonart]

.


Diesel fuel -- ACUTE HAZARDS
EXPLOSION -- Above 52°C explosive vapour/air mixtures may be formed.


.

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . Diesel fuel -- ACUTE HAZARDS EXPLOSION -- Above 52°C explosive vapour/air mixtures may be formed. .

Thanks Sonart. I was beginning to think I was crazy after having 30 years experience with the stuff.. Thought maybe I had breathed too many vapors in those 30 years. I probably have, but that is besides the point.

[Clarence]

so at 125.6* farenheit, diesel may become explosive given there's enough oxygen? I'll bet this fuel was just sitting out right near support pillars and temperatures raised up to 125.6 and then this fuel (how much?) exploded and brought a modern building down on itself at the speed of gravity.

I know I said I'm done but I won't let it go until y'all understand my position. The facilitation of these attacks wouldn't require a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. I believe that is Sonart's phrase actually. It would only require the suppression of any attempt to stop the attacks (that didn't happen did it?) and some well-placed thermite.

Don't look too far into this. The point is there are huge gaps in the official story. You don't have to look very far to see that. Just as ridiculous 9/11 theories muddle my attempts to gain further investigation, 9/11 CT discredits those of you seeking to oust Bush and Cabal. After all, these liberal loonies would do anything to blame Bush. Even say Bush himself flew those planes into the towers. So I can see Sonart's reasoning for debunking.

[brien]

Quote by: Clarence so at 125.6* farenheit, diesel may become explosive given there's enough oxygen? I'll bet this fuel was just sitting out right near support pillars and temperatures raised up to 125.6 and then this fuel (how much?) exploded and brought a modern building down on itself at the speed of gravity. I know I said I'm done but I won't let it go until y'all understand my position. The facilitation of these attacks wouldn't require a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. I believe that is Sonart's phrase actually. It would only require the suppression of any attempt to stop the attacks (that didn't happen did it?) and some well-placed thermite. Don't look too far into this. The point is there are huge gaps in the official story. You don't have to look very far to see that. Just as ridiculous 9/11 theories muddle my attempts to gain further investigation, 9/11 CT discredits those of you seeking to oust Bush and Cabal. After all, these liberal loonies would do anything to blame Bush. Even say Bush himself flew those planes into the towers. So I can see Sonart's reasoning for debunking.

"Vast right wing consiracy" is Hillary Clinton's phrase and I borrowed it for the purposes of this discussion to make light of the conspiracy theories. Sarcasim my dear friend, sarcasim.

I realize there are many holes to poke in the "official" version of event(s), but those holes in and of themselves, do not make the theory "gospel truth." Until I see a more plausible theory supported by credible witnesses, I will reserve my judgement in supporting theories that require a large group of government sanctioned people all acting in unison to pull off the most vicious attack on American soil ever. I am with Sonart on this one.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Clarence It would only require the suppression of any attempt to stop the attacks (that didn't happen did it?) and some well-placed thermite.

It would require a helluva lot more than that, Clarence. It would take tons of thermite, strategically placed in both buildings by hundreds of soulless minions, all completely unnoticed and unnoticable by the thousands of people going in and out of the towers, day and night. And it would have to be placed at exactly the floors that would later be hit by cumbersome, fully laden aircraft, on buildings so non-descript that you'd be hard pressed to count the floors from a few blocks away, much less in the 30 seconds you'd have from 5 miles out. And yet, Thermite charges that were not damaged or prematurely ignited by those very plane strikes.

And of course, if the hijackers weren't flying those aircraft, who was? And what happened to the passengers and crew who publicly boarded that morning and were tracked by civilian air traffic control? And who were the actors hired to fake the phone calls from the airliners?

An imaculately carried out plot of monumental complexity, all without a single one of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of plotters every breathing a word in 5 years... and all accomplished by an administration known it's total incompetence and not being able to prevent leaks to save its life.

Yeah, I believe that.

.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Sonart . It would require a helluva lot more than that, Clarence.

well, yeah it would. granted. I shouldn't be flippant on this one.

It would take tons of thermite, strategically placed in both buildings by hundreds of soulless minions, all completely unnoticed and unnoticable by the thousands of people going in and out of the towers, day and night.

tons of thermite placed by a team of combat engineers. Maybe 5 men if they have a way to move the stuff. I heard there were floors shut down and stuff like that which could explain something. Is it true that Marvin Bush had connections with the security at WTC? I've read so many things that lack the credibility of the MSM. Also it's easier to go unnoticed in a crowd. I'm speculating, ok. I never have claimed to know what happened and that's what really chaps my ass.

And it would have to be placed at exactly the floors that would later be hit by cumbersome, fully laden aircraft,

why?

on buildings so non-descript that you'd be hard pressed to count the floors from a few blocks away, much less in the 30 seconds you'd have from 5 miles out. And yet, Thermite charges that were not damaged or prematurely ignited by those very plane strikes.

I think I understand why,now but Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is highly repeat highly inlikely the burning jet fuel would've started the chemical reactions. It really didn't matter what floors were hit.

And of course, if the hijackers weren't flying those aircraft, who was? And what happened to the passengers and crew who publicly boarded that morning and were tracked by civilian air traffic control? And who were the actors hired to fake the phone calls from the airliners?

I think it's obvious extremist hi-jackers were flying the planes. What?

An imaculately carried out plot of monumental complexity, all without a single one of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of plotters every breathing a word in 5 years... and all accomplished by an administration known it's total incompetence and not being able to prevent leaks to save its life.

We can talk about the competence of this administration in the thread of your choice. LMK. The plotters of the attacks were overseas for the most part. The orchestrators of the aftermath(coup. believe it) number in the tens and the unwitting accomplices and enablers number in the millions.

[webjedi]

Quote by: Sonart It would take tons of thermite, strategically placed in both buildings by hundreds of soulless minions, all completely unnoticed and unnoticable by the thousands of people going in and out of the towers, day and night.

They usually use nitroglycerin and TNT, which is very unstable and would most definitely have been ignited by the initial explosion from the airplanes.

Quote by: Wikipedia Selected columns are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in explosive cables

It's completely ridiculous, and the fact is these conspiracy junkies are trying to find a something to validate their feelings that Bush is evil. No amount of logic will change that. There are literally hundreds other scenarios that would have been easier to pull off, A truck bomb at the Capitol or the White House or even a large building in the middle of the country would have been sufficient; bringing down not one, but two extremely resilient buildings (and let's put aside the Pentagon b/c according to them it didn't even happen - nor did Flight 93) in the middle of NYC in front of the largest audience in the World was overkill in the extreme.

What I think a lot of the conspiracy junkies forget is that before they found out it was Timothy McVeigh that bombed the Murow building in OK City we were ready to go to war with the Muslims, and that was just one truck bomb in Oklahoma. There are thousands of such targets, why choose to engage in a plot that not only is the engineering feat of the century, but could become a total fiasco and reveal the conspiracy if it didn't go perfectly?

::

Ockam's Razor All assumptions introduce possibilities for error. If an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to make the theory more error-prone, and since error is undesirable in any theory, unnecessary assumptions should be avoided.

Assuming you are going to be successful in destroying not one, but two massive structures and keep it a secret is stupid. It just gives you more chance of failure. Terrorists, on the other hand, want to do as much damage as possible, therefore a multi-pronged attack is entirely logical since it gives them more chance of success.

In essence, the assertion that the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers or some other secret group with the knowledge, will, and resources to pull off such a feat while putting the blame on perfectly innocent Muslim extremists would engage is such a monumental effort while even the least intelligent of them could easily see there would have been much easier ways to achieve their goals is fundamentally contradictory. The fact this scenario serves the publicly stated goal of the terrorists is completely lost on the conspiracy junkies. They are not looking for who is to blame, they already 'know' who is to blame, they just need evidence to fit their version of the 'truth'.

If you would like a sane explanation of how the structures of the buildings were actually undermined PBS has a great narrated slide-show on their site.

::

[PatrickHenry]

We hear you. But the facts are that the evidence to support the official story is unconvincing to millions. The 9/11=inside job won't go away.

I really don't care what the sheep believe. I know the facts and they add up to an American attack on America.

[Clarence]

neat slideshow. In the fire section they venture to assume that the fireproofing was blown of the steel. Not partially but completely. I'll up you one and debate the actual NIST report NIST and the World Trade Centerthis PBS presentation was based on. I'm glad you brought it up cuz it points out a lot of other oddities in the investigation of 9/11. For instance, the NIST's findings cannot be used as evidence as stated in their own report. Why? There's also a glaring conflict of interest if you look.Actually we've already discussed this very report a little bit here on Volconvo. Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC I'm no expert. Can we talk about it?

They are not looking for who is to blame, they already 'know' who is to blame, they just need evidence to fit their version of the 'truth'.

I voted for Bush and first decided that the gov't wasn't telling the truth on this one on 9/11. By seeking answers, was led to this notion and now I just want a real investigation. However; I know what you're talking about. The nuances of my position are not so black and white. Just so you know, I believe terrorists are responsible for 9/11.

Look, I know nothing will ever happen on this. 30 years from now, they'll be talking about all the bunk CT theories for 9/11 in little documentaries acting like their plausible and the legitimate quistions will go unanswered. You might not think it but, I'm grounded in reality. Any hope of ousting these provacatuers from thier postions of power lies in this investigation or lack thereof.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The 9/11=inside job won't go away.... I know the facts and they add up to an American attack on America.