with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story?

[huxley]

i was wondering how people many belives the lies of the official story of what happend ?

and about what happend on 7/7/2005.


here a sort clip from a great journalists :john pilger

talking about british solders caught in terror. the clip is 4mins

 

[Gonzo]

Re: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Bush was warned of Osama's plan to attack. He did nothing. He went on vacation.
Now the neo con's in America are trying to peg it on Clinton with a fake documentary claiming that they had a chance to kill him. Well, Regan had a chance to kill him when that government gave him money and weapons.

 

[huxley]

Re: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Bush was warned of Osama's plan to attack. He did nothing.

yes he did something he signed a executive order w199i


Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill wanted to investigate the terrorists who were planning to blow up the trade towers on 911, but he was prevented from doing so by our beloved president. George W. Bush signed presidential directive W199i, making it a crime to investigate or hinder the terrorists in any way. Presidential directive W199i prohibited the FBI and Defense Department officials from stopping the terrorists. Why Mr. Bush? Why have you done this great evil?

so what happend to John O'Neill : he's dead . he died on 911.his first day on the job. pbs made a film about him called :the man who knew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill

 

[Logic 7]

Re: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

i was wondering how people many belives the lies of the official story of what happend ?

and about what happend on 7/7/2005.


here a sort clip from a great journalists :john pilger

talking about british solders caught in terror. the clip is 4mins

Both were inside jobs.

 

[wallyj]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Can you or anyone provide a link to this W199i. I have searched and only found the usual conspiracists talking about it. Is it real or another theory that is continually repeated until the rabble believe it? Remember the missile that hit the Pentagon? Or the low I.Q. terrorist?

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official s

Can you or anyone provide a link to this W199i. I have searched and only found the usual conspiracists talking about it. Is it real or another theory that is continually repeated until the rabble believe it? Remember the missile that hit the Pentagon? Or the low I.Q. terrorist?

Try harder.

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1030259305

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

And you really think you can change the world by blowing up a building?

The building is a symbol as is the act of blowing it up.

The Neo-Cons needed something more than a monster they created to whom they gave chemical weapons and who they supported in battling Israel's enemy.

9/11 was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on a gullible nation.

 

[Toro]

RE: with 911 coming up ,w

Conspiracy theories are for the weak minded.

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Toro

You should perhaps exercise a bit of caution using Rex Murphy as a moral compass. This is the guy who wanted the world to see the anti-globalization movement as a group of homosexuals with nothing else to protest!

The facts speak for themselves Toro, there is a growing mountain of evidence that the laws of physics themselves would have to have been suspended on that day for the twin towers to have collapsed that quickly without some internal explosions to assist the cascade downward.

And the next time you want to weld some construction grade steel please feel free to light yourself a pail of kerosene and see how long it takes for the steel to melt...

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official s

Evidence?

The conspiracists don't have "evidence". They have theory and conjecture. They suspend critical judgement to reinforce a pre-conceived worldview.

It ain't the non-conspiracists that are gullible.

The facts speak for themselves Toro, there is a growing mountain of evidence that the laws of physics themselves would have to have been suspended on that day for the twin towers to have collapsed that quickly without some internal explosions to assist the cascade downward.

The story...

The towers fell at or near free fall speeds, a possible sign of controlled demolition.

Our take...

Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..

The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.

Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.

Collapse

Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.

How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.

Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.

Of course the main issue is still whether each tower fell faster than it should have done in air, not a vacuum. Read more on this in an extremely detailed and interesting paper from Dr Frank Greening, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here.

And in the interests of balance, check out the “Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”. Be sure to pay attention to their calculations of collapse time, and the way the pancaking towers are assumed to come to a dead stop as each floor is hit.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

And the next time you want to weld some construction grade steel please feel free to light yourself a pail of kerosene and see how long it takes for the steel to melt...

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

How useful would a hoax of this magnitude be if it could be demonstrated as a hoax without terrorism zealots to refute the more curious anomallies like how despite the horrific damage it was the terrorists ID that survived???

You're going to believe what you want regardless of any arguments presented, so I doubt we have much to discuss.

 

[Texas1]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Sounds like MikeyDB is coming down with a fatal case of CT, I hope it don't kill you.

 

[huxley]

Re: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Evidence?

The conspiracists don't have "evidence". They have theory and conjecture. They suspend critical judgement to reinforce a pre-conceived worldview.

well lets see : w199i, jonh o'neil, norad doing drills at the same time same targets. BUILDING 7 collapsed no plane hit it.(these are all facts)

 

[Zzarchov]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

sorry Huxley, Conspiracists DON'T have evidence.

The problem is neither does the official story. Yet people willingly believe that conspiracy theory, that an evil kabal of demon worshipping muslims secretly outsmarted the most powerful nation in the world with the most powerful intelligence agency in the world despite tipping them off all the way to the highest levels.

Which too me, is an EQUALLY implausible conspiracy theory.

So clearly there is missing information, perhaps something as simple as they had help from rogue elements of the saudi government which is being covered by PR reasons..

But if the government gave the whole 100% story to the general public then they are incompetant. They didn't tell the whole story about Project Mogul "The not so much weather balloon as infrared high tech device that spies on soviet nuclear experiments" that crashed at Roswell until the late 90's. And that gave fertile time for Conspiracies to grow, but all those people who said "it was just a simple weather balloon" were none-the-less just gullibley buying a government story.

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Are you suggesting then that at IMPACT point "I-Point" plus half a second that every piece of carpet paper draperies, every combustible material flashed to flame, heated up within I+3 seconds to a temperature sufficient to melt structural steel then every supporting steel member was heated to its failrure temperature and the building collapsed in roughly eleven seconds is a rational conclusion?

 

[Toro]

Re: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

well lets see : w199i, jonh o'neil, norad doing drills at the same time same targets.

The conspiracists take random events and make connections where there aren't any.

Much of Modern Art exists because of people like the conspiracists who claim to see something when nothing is there.

BUILDING 7 collapsed no plane hit it.(these are all facts)

Well, that settles it, doesn't it?

Its just that simple.

No plane, no other possible reason for collapse, right?

The story...

As WTC7 sustained no significant damage from the collapses of towers one and two, it shouldn't have been on fire, and there's definitely no reason for it to collapse.

Our take...

Some 9/11 photos show collapse debris that appears to be heading for WTC7 (the light-brown building in the shot below)..

WTC7Hit1

The angle of shot makes it difficult to say where that might hit (see this page for another view), but reports from the scene do suggest significant damage.

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

So why wasn’t this damage photographed, ask people like David Ray Griffin (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)? If they were to show you the smoke pouring from every floor of the building, then that may make it obvious... But it could also make you question the “small and limited” fires idea, which is why shots like this aren’t shown so very often.

WTC7MoreSmoke


This is cropped and resized, so be sure to view the original footage on the WTC7 Fire page (at the very bottom, if you’re not interested in anything else).

Other pictures may come still appear, though. Here’s a Steve Spak shot recently located by our friends at Debunking911.com.

7wtc

Read more, including a statement by the photographer, on their site.

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:

news wtc7 1


The author of the original post kindly sent us a copy, which you can download here, although beware: it’s a chunky 24MB and adds little further detail. If you’re short on bandwidth then take a look at the slightly smaller YouTube version, instead.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7.

Much more here

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You conspiracists should actually read some of this stuff.

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

The Americn in particular but the whole western democratic machinery has been subject to lies and misdirection for decades. There was a "magic" bullet involved in the assassination of John Kennedy there were torpedoes fired on American vessels in the Gulf of Tokin and Reagan and North didn't actually break the law selling missiles to Iran....etc. etc.

It is an unacceptable circumstance that the American people have quietly accepted the lies they've been told for years and freely elected to turn their backs on the truth until an actual account of the whole story and presentation of fact is exposed years later.

Are you familliar with Machiavelli and the great-lie theory?

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

Is the importance of whether or not the events of 911 found in determining if it was an inside job of some kind or if it was as the Bush administration would have everyone believe the culmination of a series of events witnessed on that day?

Why would there be any doubt if the American government were beyond reproach? Why would anyone question what really happened if there were no reasons to think that the truth wasn't being told?

It's simple really, the American administration lies and has lied to the world for decades. While quick to point fingers at Saddam Hussein and various other folk, where is Curtis LeMay in this kind of analysis? A man who knowingly burned several hundred thousand men women and children to death in the fire-bombing of Tokyo?

Where is the analysis of the choice by the United States to render the soil of Viet Nam toxic for generations through the use of various defoliants? Where is the analysis of the conscious choice to employ depleted uranium ordinance all over the world?

One sided rose colored glasses all around!

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official s

Are you suggesting then that at IMPACT point "I-Point" plus half a second that every piece of carpet paper draperies, every combustible material flashed to flame, heated up within I+3 seconds to a temperature sufficient to melt structural steel then every supporting steel member was heated to its failrure temperature and the building collapsed in roughly eleven seconds is a rational conclusion?

First, how can you possibly know?

Here is a picture

How can you possible know that every single thing combusted at I+3 and fell in roughly 11 seconds when you can't see every single thing?

Second, "every combustible material" did not flash to flame.

 

[MikeyDB]

RE: with 911 coming up ,who still belives the official story

I don't know but I believe you posted an argument that suggested that this was the source of the necessary heat didn't you?