Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire VERSUS 911/WTC "fire" (parties, state, own)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before you dismiss the following outright, consider this thought: What if you were indoctrinated by the world's greatest propaganda ministry to believe disinformation?
It would be difficult to make sound decisions or come to reasonable conclusions.
Now, the major hurdle in accepting that the destruction of the buildings was an "inside job" is the firm belief and trust in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How much do you believe and trust the people in the government?
That's a personal evaluation, and is subjective.
Do we trust Congress, a body that enacts laws it has not read?
Do we trust the president, when he openly advocates government sponsored theft (i.e., "sharing your wealth")?
Do we trust bureaucrats and the regulatory agencies to be honest, hard working, and frugal?
I don't, but I have many reasons not to trust them.
It's in the public record, in any county courthouse law library.
So it's not a "secret", and the conspirators are in the open. But since the vast majority of Americans do not read law (just like "their" Congress), it is not surprising that the fraud has gone on for so long.
But consider these FACTS. The government TOOK all the privately held gold money, and gave worthless paper in exchange. Congress criminalized the possession of gold money by "free" Americans. The Supreme court rubber stamped the abrogation of all contracts payable in gold coin despite the fact that the USCON forbids states from accepting anything BUT gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. And in complete contradiction to the delegation of powers, Congress suddenly claimed the power to make anything into "legal tender".
So whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, do not be so hasty as to presume that government is innocent until proven guilty. It would be more prudent to assume that government is guilty until proven innocent.
Of course, you should also know that according to the law, in the public record, Congress is absolved of blame because YOU gave consent to this insanity.
I'm sure some idiot will say that 767 is larger than a 707, well no kidding, but in science we deal with mass, not size. A 707 and a 767 both have the same mass. Why? Because the 707s were built with steel and aluminum, while the 767s (and 757s) were built with aluminum and plastic like mylar and carbon-graphite compounds.
Someone actually did, the username was pghquest
Um.. the planes that flew into the WTC were 767's, so lets analize your posting..
Boeing 707, maximum weight 257,000 lbs..
Boeing 767, maximum weight 465,000 lbs..
So by your own admission, the WTC was only built to withstand an impact of a 707, but needed to support a 767 which weighted 1,000 tons more than the building was built to support.
I'm no expert but that number is so inflated that it's not funny. This is from FEMA report itself:
property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
Status:
"Beware the Ides of March"
(set 7 days ago)
13,189 posts, read 8,304,293 times
Reputation: 9756
Quote:
Originally Posted by basicjay
Someone actually did, the username was pghquest
Um.. the planes that flew into the WTC were 767's, so lets analize your posting..
Boeing 707, maximum weight 257,000 lbs..
Boeing 767, maximum weight 465,000 lbs..
So by your own admission, the WTC was only built to withstand an impact of a 707, but needed to support a 767 which weighted 1,000 tons more than the building was built to support.
I'm no expert but that number is so inflated that it's not funny. This is from FEMA report itself:
property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
So, yeah.. It's not 1000 tons more, I don't think
I'm interested: are you the OP by another name? Or did you come upon CD by accident this morning, decided to join, and then decided to use the search engine to look for this old thread?
I'm interested: are you the OP by another name? Or did you come upon CD by accident this morning, decided to join, and then decided to use the search engine to look for this old thread?
That would be the latter, sir. I was looking up the whole 911 thing again and skim through this whole thread. I wasn't even gonna join, but there is a lot of post in here that sound so factual when it's not. Like the 1000 ton difference between 747 and 707. So I couldn't resist on registering and posting for a little correction. But what's the reason you're asking?
Unless the hotel had massive amounts of airplane fuel stored in it the comparison is not valid.
Whenever one is discussing the effects of fire, one must always take into consideration the accelarant used.
Unless you just want to talk conspiracies that would make fox mulder shake his head in shame.....
The hotel was also empty, and only stood 44 floors high.
This is no comparison, and I doubt there ever will be another. I doubt we will ever see another incident like the trade center towers, where a 900,000 pound, fully fueled, and fully loaded 747, flying at a few hundred miles per hour, crashes into a 100 story tall building.
The hotel was also empty, and only stood 44 floors high.
This is no comparison, and I doubt there ever will be another. I doubt we will ever see another incident like the trade center towers, where a 900,000 pound, fully fueled, and fully loaded 747, flying at a few hundred miles per hour, crashes into a 100 story tall building.
I'm not really on either side of the arguments.. skeptical at both the official story and the 911 truthers. But I believe, what you said was false. First of all, please find me a source where it says the plane was 900,000 pound. Where does it say it was fully fueled and fully loaded? Did you actually read the official FEMA report? Because it says on there that the plane was not even half the weight you quoted above. Also, the plane was estimated to be carrying at maximum 10,000 gallon of fuel at the time of crashing - hardly anywhere within it's fully fueled capacity. 3000 gallon of which was consumed at the initial explosion when the plane hits. Leaving 7000 gallon left which was burnt off in timespan of about 30 minutes or so.
And were you aware that, the World Trade Center buildings was designed in mind to withstand airplane crashes?
"This structure was like the mosquito netting, on your screen door. This intense grid, and the jetplane is like a pencil puncturing that screen net. It really does nothing to the screen netting" - Frank. A. Demartini, Manager, WTC construction & Project Management, on an interview which I believe is this one here:
Were you also aware that on FEMA report they didn't mention any evidence of fire reaching above 250 degree celcius? Much below the temperature on which the steel skeletons of the building losing it's strength to the point of collapsing like WTC did. (Which is 1000 degrees celsius ish if i'm not mistaken.. I can get the generally accepted figure, but I can't be bothered atm lol). This is from FEMA report itself:
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140) "
But yeah... Again, I wanna point out that I don't believe in the whole government did it narrative either. I'm just saying that some of the official explanation from the government and congress-backed FEMA investigation have parts which may raise question marks for people to point out for. It didn't help much either that the US government shipped away most, if not all debris that could be used for forensic investigation within weeks of 9/11 incident.
It's stupid to believe in conspiracy theories. But it's not stupid to have a skeptical mind IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
