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

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

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

httpyoutubecomwatchvI-OduWFHLxE

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?

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.
--

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.

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...

Quote has been trimmed

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)

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.
--

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.
--

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.
--

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.
--

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.
--

So why wasn’t this damage photographed, ask people like David Ray Griffin (--)? 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.

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.

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?

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB

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?

And the CIA created AIDs to kill black people.

And black helicopters were flying above American farms as a pre-cursor to a UN invasion.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

The conspiracists will believe anything if it fits their anti-American worldview.

The conspiracists have zero sense of proportion.

I love it when they bring up "the Gulf of Tonkin" or "the Bay of Pigs" or "the Reichstag" as "proof" of motivation.

The seem to think that because the government perpetuated such incidences that any government must automaticallybe willing to commit any act, no matter how heinous, because, hey, that's what governments do!

Logic of the conspiracists:

"You once smoked dope. You broke the law. There was a murder on your block. Murder is breaking the law too. Since all law breakers are equally morally culpable, you are the murderer because you smoked dope."

Yes, that's right, it couldn't possibly have been someone trying to insitigate a war to drive the US out of the middle east. Oh no, it HAD to have been a self-induced act of barbaric treachory that would rank as the greatest foreign attack on American history in the 230 year history of the country so a few oil billionaires could become zillionaires!

Clear as a bell.

The conspiracists shouldn't be asking anyone else about "logic" or "rationality"

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

What I wrote regarding the Warren commission is fact, what I wrote regarding the myth of torpedoes on the gulf of Tokin is fact. It is a fact that Nixon lied to the people of America and it is a fact that the American administration has been lying to the American people for years.

If you want to discuss something instead of throwing up straw men to obscure the issue then swell lets discuss the issue, but if your passion is out of control and you think you have to resort to an inferrence that compels folk to dismissal on the basis of the ludicrousness of the items you present then you don't really want to discuss, you want to stifle discussion and that is the hallmark of the bigot not.

You also assume that the government lies about everything!

Actually, no. Governments tell the truth about most things.
.

You are mixing stupidity with reality,

just like most of the americans thought saddam was behind 9-11, iwho cares if elvis is still alive or not? who cares if americans went to the moon or not?who cares if us department hide aliens to the poeples?

This is called stupid conspiracy theory, ccause nodoby gives a damn about it, you know why?? death innoncent peoples arent involved.

Now show me , where 9-11 truth movement talks about CIA making AIDS?? or any other one who believe 9-11.

Simple minded always fall into this easily,

Why everytime you post something on 9-11, is to prove that conspiracy theorist are irrelevent, or out of their minds?? why don't you try to debate? to prove that us governement isnt involved, or to prove alqueada is involve( we will wait for the rest of our life, but at least try) you would look smarter , there is no question about it.