Man, after reading a few posts in this thread, I don't know what I've gotten myself into. My use of bd has nothing to do with politics at all. I'm simply trying to cut costs in my household. Everybody knows that oil is running out and that the price will continue to rise until it is gone. Even the oil companies know this. The oil companies who develop the alternate technologies first, ie hydrogen etc, will be well ahead of the game. This country is DRIVEN by you and me with our wallets. Beleive it or not, WE control the price of oil. If the price is 3.00 a gallon and we pay it then the price is 3.00 a gallon. If we don't pay it then the price is 2.99 and if we don't pay that then the price is 2.98 and so on. The point is the more people who don't buy the oil, i.e. switch to bd, the lower the price and subsequently reliance on foreign oil. Now, that being said, if I had read this thread back when I had just heard about bd and was interested in it I would have high-tailed it out of here. It's great that alot of you are against war, very Christ-like indeed. However, war is necessary and always has been. Even Jesus got angry and threw the vendors out of the temple. Some of us TRULY beleive this war is justified for many many reasons just as some of us beleive it is not. None of us are Jesus. None of us can guarantee our position. If we do not do what we beleive in our hearts is right then we are wrong. And only Jesus has the right to decide who is right. Let's not alienate potential biodieselers by looking like a bunch of arguing children. Peace to all of you.

branw,
Don't worry, this thread has got a little out of line, but it isn't the intention of anyone to alienate people. We actually do have a thread for airing our views on things religeous, and things political. Please don't be put off by this wandering from the subject. I do know that it does infuriate some people. Anyone who wants to give this exodus thing another looking at, could you please move it to the right place.
Detour, looks as if you are the bad boy this time.
As for who is right; we simply don't know.
regards
dva

BranW, it would be easy to get this thread back on topic by explaining your comment -

quote:

Some of us TRULY beleive this war is justified for many many reasons

Perhaps you could expand on the concept of "this war". Are you referring to the "War on Terrorism", the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, or is it a broader concept which may soon include the countries of Syria and Iran?

I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Syria and Iran are battles whether direct or indirect in the war on terrorism. A few facts...
1. Saddam hated/hates America.
2. Saddam was in a position to hurt America by helping terrorists.
3. We could not/can not prove that he did or that he would.
4. Saddam is not/was not the only evil dictator who poses a threat to the free world.
5. America could not/can not take on all of them.
6. Saddam knew America thought he had WMDs, and thought he was helping terrorists, and still he violated the cease fire agreement because he didn't think America would do anything. He kicked out the very people who were to VERIFY that there were no WMDs. Why would someone do that if they had no WMDs? (Not saying that he did have them mind you.) All other justifications aside, breaking the cease fire agreement of the Gulf War allows for the removal of the regime.
7. America will not have to take on all of the evil dictators. They will now see the error of their ways. Not all, but some. Example.... Libya
8. The terrorists are being funded by someone. The bombing of a train in India yesterday used rxd (I think those are the letters) an explosive which HAD to have been obtained from a government.
9. Terrorism will never be completely defeated. As long as one person wants to kill a bunch of people because they don't beleive in the same God, they will be able to.
10. Organized Governments of the world CANNOT be allowed to support terrorism without it being considered an act of war.


I am not a republican or a democrat. I am an independent. I look at each issue individually and I use logic to decide my position. I am open minded. If my logic is flawed and it can be explained to me logically, I will listen and may change my position. When people start name calling and make no sense, I stop listening. Thank You for your time.

Branw, thank you for your detailed reply. It appears that it is the "War on Terrorism" that you are referring to.

There are many people that consider the War on Terrorism to be a "War OF Terrorism". Most people will date the start of this terrorism war to the 9-11 attack. Since this is the origin of the terrorism war, then it becomes very important to determine who did the 9-11 attacks.

You state that you are a logical person and will look at information dispassionately. Good, I have a starting point for you. I am going to provide you with a link to a single webpage. This webpage deals with the WT-7 tower collapse. You will see a small film of the collapse and it should be apparent to you that it is a controlled demolition. There were at least five different cameras that recorded this event. Further, there is an admission by Larry Silverstein that the building was brought down intentionally.

To wire a building with explosives takes a bit of planning. You need detailed structural blueprints, you need to calculate where and how the charges will be placed, you need to purchase all these explosives and then transport them to the building, you need to place the explosives, wire them up, etc. - all this takes time. It is not something you decide to do on the morning of a SURPRISE attack when everbody is running around dodging falling buildings.

To have all this planning and the explosives pre-positioned on the day of the attack indicates that this was planned.

Some people are able to see that WT-7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, others go into denial because the idea doesn't fit with their understanding of what happened on that day. Their minds will "skip" over the information as it doesn't fit into their matrix. Please take the time to sit there and read the information, to watch the video. Understand what you are seeing. Don't try at this time to fit it in with what you think you know, just take the time to understand this small bit of information.

WT 7

First of all, I intentionally did not mention 9-11 because I don't think Iraq had anything to do with it. It is however the kick-off to the war on terror. Maybe I should have included it.

I notice a few problems right off the bat here. First, I have never heard of anyone ever using the phrase "pull it" when referring to demolishing a building. It is a pretty far stretch. "Pull it" could mean many things. A common phrase in America is "Pull the plug" when referring to giving up or quitting. I have heard and even used the shortened version "pull it". I beleive the guy was talking about how they didn't think they could save it so pull the plug. Maybe you don't use the phrase in Austrailia. Another thing I immediately noticed was


"Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction."

Molten steel is a by-product of many reactions and processes. This is a misleading statement designed to make the reader think about thermite melting steel and nothing else. It is not a false statement but in it's context it is deceptive. This type of thing casts doubt on the whole website. When trying to sell a point of view, it is CRITICAL that you be completely transparent about everything you say. If you are perceived as being untruthful or shady in any way, you lose credibility.



"Wired New York reported "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"."

Who are they quoting? A metalurgist or some guy who walked by and said that's what it looked like? With statements like the above, you must have credible sources. If it was an expert, they should include it on the website.



"Burning diesel can't produce enough heat to melt steel, so it certainly can't evaporate it, but thermite can."

I agree, but with the following stipulation: Diesel, when burnt with nothing else, can't produce enough heat to melt steel. There was much more on fire in there than just diesel. There was a huge Secret Service office in there. There were probably all kinds of flammable things in there. The point is, the above statement doesn't mean anything to me because it pretends that diesel was the only thing burning AND I have no idea of the burning temperatures of everything else in there. It does raise an interesting point though. A rhetorical question... Why require fire-proofing on the steel if there is nothing in there that will burn hot enough to collapse the building? According to my favorite cable television channel, at 1000 degrees F steel loses 50% of it's strength. Buildings are not designed to support themselves with that much strength loss.



You see, part of the problem is that the very first paragraph makes me feel like the creators of this website think they can tell me what I'm reading and I'll blindly beleive.

"stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7"

This couldn't be further from the truth. PLAINLY??? Never once is the word demolished used. As I have described above, this is a gross mischaracterization of the phrase "pull it". They are really grasping for straws here. If you want me to beleive that they intentionally demolished the building then show me a quote where he actually says it.


In summary, I know it was not your intention but this website insults my intelligence. If you can point me to some actual proof I will be more than happy to look at it. I can be swayed, for example I no longer beleive we ever sent a man to the moon, but that's another discussion.

On the webpage was a link to this article. It makes reference to the molten steel.

Steel

There were also the infared pictures taken much later showing the heat.

Siverstein's comments of discussions with the fire department to "pull it" (on video) in conjunction with the video of the firefighters telling the camera man to watch the building because it was coming down soon, indicated to me that there was a plan to bring down the building. The video of the collapse also appears to be identical to many videos I have seen where a building is demolished into it's own footprint.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to look at the webpage. In regards to the moon landing, I think they did go there, but that is for another forum.

In regard to the thermite reaction. I have done this reaction personally. The aluminum and ferrous oxide release 4500 kilocalories per mole! It is an extremely intense reaction. However, it does NOT produce molten steel. The end product is molten IRON. There is a big difference between steel and iron. If there are metallurgists saying that there was molten steel, they are mistaken or don't really know what they are talking about. Normally I feel those people who say the WTC was an inside job aren't even worthy of comment, but I couldn't let that glaring error go.
Nuts, here I go again commenting on things that I REALLY try to stay out of. (sorry for ending a sentence with a preposition). Don't even get me started on the Torah!

Thanks for that info Joe, I did not know that. Is there an internet source that has this information so I can quote it in the future?

Terry:
I assume you are as open minded as I. So I will continue this conversation with some factual information and some of my own thoughts. I just read the article you linked to. The anomolies on the graph did occur before any falling debris hit the ground but not before the building actually started collapsing. I will submit that the spike was caused when the support structure at the impact level finally gave way, and all the floors above slammed down on top of the floors below the impact level. Remember that the WTC was physically attached to the bedrock. Imagine placing a chisel on a rock and slamming down a sledge hammer on top. A direct transmission of force directly to the bedrock with some of the energy being absorbed by the collapsing building.

As for the molten steel, don't underestimate the power of friction. Afterall, the heat in the earth's core came from friction. This would not require an oxygen rich environment. Just my own personal thought though.

Maybe Austrailia was behind it all. Mr. Alan Ratner from Sydney, Austrailia made 2.5 million on selling the scrap steel. He heads the New Jersey Branch of Metal Management. Maybe he snuck over there in the middle of the night and placed the charges when nobody was looking. A conspiracy theory can be formed from anything. Proof is required not just unexplainables. Buildings of this size have never been demolished before. It would not be plausible to expect the same reactions yet they are referred to constantly. Until we set up a test and fly a plane into a comparable tower, we can't know what to expect. For crying out loud, Bill Clinton couldn't even cover up a BJ why would Bush (whom some have referred to as being our dumbest president ever) be able to cover this up.

Finally, I find it extremely hard to beleive that testing for explosives had not been done. At the very least, your boy Ratner could have tested some of the metal he bought and sold not to mention the ones who bought it from him. There would have been traces of explosive residue everywhere near the site. I truly want to understand your position. I just need evidence. Do you have anything else?

P.S. I remember hearing the reporters predicting the collapse of the second building after the first one had but I know they weren't involved. Firefighters are trained to be able to detect the structural stability of buildings. They see buildings collapse all the time from fire. I saw one a little while back on Real TV. The firefighters cleared the area minutes before the collapse. In addition, why would the lowly firefighters be involved in the conspiracy and why aren't they talking?

Joe, a though just occurred. Maybe they are talking about the thermite reaction melting the steel and not actually producing molten steel from the reaction. Just trying to be fair and balanced.

It is easy to dispute what someone may have been implying in a vague remark but how does one dispute the report of the engineer working in basement 6 who was disturbed by smoke at the biginning of the incident. He and his colleague went up to level 4 and found a 50 ton machine had disappeared. Was he lying?

I haven't heard this, what is the source?

Just now on Saturday Night Live, the Hariet Meirs spoof, she used the phrase "pulled it" when referring to withdrawing from the supreme court nomination. I have it recorded.

"Pull it"?
Isn't that part of "Vatican Roulette"?

There's heaps more to the story. I llike starting with WT-7 as it wasn't hit by anything, it just had a few fires on just a few floors.

Here is a link to see the center spire collapsing first, then followed by the floors. This is consistent with the center columns being cut in the basement at the beginning of the collapse. You can also read some comments by witnesses on the explosions.

Watch the tower

As far as testing the scrap, it was highly guarded and sold overseas. There were lots of complaints by the firefighters and others about the lack of an investigation. Here is some early commentary on the problem.

Destroying the evidence

If you watch the videos of the South Tower being brought down you can see the explosive ejecta. There are large pieces of cement and steel being thrown up and out from the detonations. The "Reopen 9-11" webpage has some very good videos on the demolition. There is an expert who illustrates the 'squids' from the explosives. There is also a lot more footage on the WT-7 collapse. Take a look at just the still photograph of the South Tower on the first page to view some of the ejecta.

Reopen 9-11

The firemen associate with WT-7 didn't have to be involved with any conspiracy. They may have simply been told to get out of the way, the building is going to be brought down. If you want to see an interesting video of firefighters talking about the detonations see the short clip on this page, the tag line is "floor by floor it started poppping out"

Firemen

There's also more information coming in about the stand down in the Air Defense system. It is absurd to think of some fellow in a cave in Afghanistan being able to manipulate the American air defence system in the most heavily guarded air space in the world, Washington DC.

Stand down

I'm "pulling it". I could spend forever pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws of the unlimited conspiracy theories. I just pointed out several and you have not ceded one. If you were truly a rational person you would have either realized the truth I have shown or given me a reason why I am wrong. You just keep spouting more and more stuff and I suspect there are some things that can't be explained. Does it add up to what you suggest? Sure, if you only count the crap you want to beleive reguardless of real evidence. In your future debates with people on this matter, will you continue to point people toward the WT-7 stuff that I have just shown cannot be in any way construed as proof or even evidence? The very stuff that was designed to mislead from the very beginning. If you will, then you sir cannot be swayed and you beleive what you beleive because you WANT to. If that is the case then you are an enemy to me and my family. It is the perpetuance of ignorance in this matter that helps fuel the hatred of America and Americans by the rest of the world. Don't you think people hate us enough? Don't you think 3,000 dead on 9-11 is enough? I assure you, if this had happened anywhere else in the world, there would be people like you pointing to websites like the WT-7 one above detailing flimsy conspiracies. I feel I have tried to reason with you and you are beyond reason, but as always, I could be wrong.

And one more thing... If you knew anything about the construction of the two towers, you would know that the floors were attached to the outside walls. The main support of the building was the inner core. When the steel making up the center core got to hot and was no longer capable of supporting the floors above, it collapsed and the above FLOORS began to fall pancaking each other and then the outer walls collapsed inward. Source: "World Trade Center: Anatomy of a Collapse" by the Discovery Channel. Watch it. http://shopping.discovery.com/product-59265.html?jzid=40587878-6-0 That should settle your ridiculous center spire argument though I'm sure you'll continue to use it as your "proof".

I apologize if I sound too harsh but you are putting my family at risk trying to convince people of this garbage.

As Osama's car emerges from the trees in the middle of the screen, you will hear him whisper his veiled threats from Fatherland Security...

What's he saying?

Hello Terry

I think that means you win.

Engineers description of basement explosion.

I like to think I'm scientific and as such I try to discount all information that might be biased or ambiguous or politically driven. I try to start with things which are indisputable and work from there. It is indisputable that building 7 come down though it was not struck by a plane. How can this be explained?