Government bak 9/11?

[Leviath]

Det de gjorde var jo ikke verre enn vri på styrespaken og se på GPSen hvor New York var.

Litt verre var det nok. Men så hadde da også noen av kaprerne legitime flysertifikat.

 

F.eks.:

Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

[-sparks-]

Min påstand er at treningen deres var overdreven til sitt eget formål. Men såklart, de hadde vel mye middler å brenne og la mye innsats i det.

 

Jeg kan ikke se hvorfor man skulle behøve noe mer enn å vite hvor throttle spakene, og styrespaken er og hvordan disse reagerer på input. kunne lese readout på GPS, eller ta med egen håndholdt GPS. Skru av autopilot.

 

Alt dette kan du igrunn finne ut med google, det er flymaskiner det finnes tusen av, og det er ingen hemmelighet hvordan de flys.

Endret 27. august 2009 av -sparks-

[Pricks]

Det er jo litt snodig da at brann og politi menn som var på stedet denne dagen bekrefter det "konspirasjonsteorister" sier om eksplosiver i tårnene.

Det er direkte feil. De rapporterte smell/eksplosjoner, men som kjent er det flere ting enn eksplosjoner som forårsaker smell, og som kjent er det flere ting enn bomber som forårsaker eksplosjoner.

 

 

 

Hvorfor går du ut i fra at nanotech sol-gel basert sprengstoff ikke har nok sprengkraft?

Det er du som går ut ifra ting. Helt utrolig hvilke fantastiske historier trutherne dikter opp. Det neste blir vel at Bush selv brukte alien-teknologi (han er selv en alien, må vite) for å gjøre det personlig.

 

Men du og Betroz er visst ikke helt samkjørte her... Hvor ble det av bombene Betroz mente folk hørte, hvis de brukte "nanontech sol-gel basert sprengstoff"?

[alskfjas]

Hvorfor går du ut i fra at dette var en sivil operasjon? Hvorfor går du ut i fra at nanotech sol-gel basert sprengstoff ikke har nok sprengkraft? Du tror du har rett? Er du interessert i å vite sannheten? Støtter du i tilfelle en sivil kommisjon med rett til å stille folk for retten?

Hvis dere skal ha rett, må iallefall alle som jobbet i wtc, alle passasjerene på flyene og mange i rejeringa ha vært med på det. Det lar seg bare ikke gjøre uten at noen sprekker. Det er jo allerede utarbeidet en rapport fra en sivil kommisjon. http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[Ballemannen]

Hvorfor skal alle som jobbet i wtc absolutt ha fått vite om det? Og alle passasjerene er vel døde? Mange i regjeringa? Jaså? Skulle ønske noen hadde undersøkt akkurat det da. Ikke bare at du sier at sånn måtte det være.

 

Men når du er inne på akkurat det kan du google å lese om historien til William Rodriguez, og så kan du undre deg over hvorfor ikke vitnemålet hans ble tatt til etterretning av denne kommisjonen du setter din lit til. Deretter kan du undersøke hvilke andre vitnemål som det ble sett bort i fra. Den sivile kommisjonen har nemlig ikke undersøkt for eksplosiver. Kean og Hamilton har uttalt at kommisjonen var "set up to fail", og flere medlemmer sluttet i protest mot at myndighetene var så hemmelighetsfulle. Styrelederen Zelikow er dessuten bestekompis med Condolleezza Rice og en erke-neokonservativ lømmel.

Her er noen få av de uttallige hullene i rapporten (tatt fra David R Griffins Ommissions and Distortions):

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

 

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

 

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

 

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

 

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

 

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

 

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

 

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

 

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

 

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

 

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

 

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

 

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

 

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

 

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

 

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

 

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

 

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

 

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

 

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

 

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

 

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

 

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

 

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

 

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

 

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

 

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

 

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

 

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

 

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

 

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

 

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

 

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

 

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

 

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

 

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

 

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

 

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

 

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

 

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

 

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

 

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

 

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

 

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

 

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

 

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

 

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

 

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

 

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

 

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

 

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

 

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

 

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

 

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

 

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

 

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

 

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

 

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

 

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

 

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

 

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

 

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

 

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

 

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

 

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

 

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

 

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

 

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

 

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

 

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

 

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

 

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

 

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

 

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

 

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

 

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

 

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

 

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

 

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

 

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

 

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

 

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

 

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

 

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

 

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

 

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

 

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

 

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

 

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

 

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

 

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

 

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

 

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

 

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

 

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

 

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

 

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

 

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

 

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

 

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

 

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

 

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

 

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

 

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

 

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

 

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

 

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

 

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

 

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

 

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

 

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

 

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

 

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

 

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

 

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

[Ballemannen]

Det er jo litt snodig da at brann og politi menn som var på stedet denne dagen bekrefter det "konspirasjonsteorister" sier om eksplosiver i tårnene.

Det er direkte feil. De rapporterte smell/eksplosjoner, men som kjent er det flere ting enn eksplosjoner som forårsaker smell, og som kjent er det flere ting enn bomber som forårsaker eksplosjoner.

Hakk i plata di eller?

Ja, flere ting enn eksplosiver smeller. Men mange rapporterte om folk som døde i kjelleren før flyene traff, folk som mistet huden, folk som ble forbrent. Alt dette før flyene traff. Seismisk aktivitet støtter også disse utsagnene.

 

Hvorfor går du ut i fra at nanotech sol-gel basert sprengstoff ikke har nok sprengkraft?

Det er du som går ut ifra ting. Helt utrolig hvilke fantastiske historier trutherne dikter opp. Det neste blir vel at Bush selv brukte alien-teknologi (han er selv en alien, må vite) for å gjøre det personlig.

 

Men du og Betroz er visst ikke helt samkjørte her... Hvor ble det av bombene Betroz mente folk hørte, hvis de brukte "nanontech sol-gel basert sprengstoff"?

Hva mener du egentlig? Hvor det ble av bombene?

Hvor går jeg ut ifra ting? Jeg har da ikke diktet opp noe. Alskfjas var så sikker i sin sak på noe han diktet fullstendig opp at jeg foreslo at ting ikke nødvendigvis måtte være slik han forestilte seg det. At du setter ut stråmenn med alien osv tyder bare på at du ikke har bedre argumenter på lager. Synd for deg.

[Leviath]

Men du og Betroz er visst ikke helt samkjørte her... Hvor ble det av bombene Betroz mente folk hørte, hvis de brukte "nanontech sol-gel basert sprengstoff"?

Man kan vel ikke forvente samkjøring når selv ikke yppersteprest Gage er enig med seg selv i akkurat samme spørsmål. Han mener jo at det måtte være brukt thermite (eller thermate eller hva pokker de kaller det i disse dager) for at det ikke skal se ut som eksplosjoner, samtidig som han mener det er helt avgjørende at det var intense eksplosjoner for at bygningene skulle falle.

 

http://tinyurl.com/nwhj5b

 

:!:

[Ballemannen]

Ok, jeg trodde det var David Ray Griffin dere likte å kalle "yppersteprest", da han i det minste er teolog.

 

Når det gjelder klippet ditt er det ikke verdt så mye. Kryssklipt og useriøst. Tror du kanskje han mener at wtc1&2 kan være en kombinasjon av cutter charges og høyeksplosiver, mens wtc7 var mer tradisjonell der tyngdekraften gjorde mesteparten av jobben? Man skulle jo tro at det var hinsides enhver tvil at wtc1 og 2 ser ut som en eksplosjon. De ser ut som to vulkanutbrudd med tilhørende pyroklastisk sky. Igjen - hvor kommer energien fra? Går regnestykket opp vha tyngdekraften alene? Det burde ikke være så vanskelig å finne ut. Hvorfor har ingen av de offisielle granskningene prøvd seg?

 

edit:

her er et bilde FEMA har i rapporten sin som viser wtc1 30 sekunder etter starten av kollapsen:

Endret 27. august 2009 av Ballemannen

[Pricks]

Men mange rapporterte om folk som døde i kjelleren før flyene traff, folk som mistet huden, folk som ble forbrent. Alt dette før flyene traff. Seismisk aktivitet støtter også disse utsagnene.

Nei, det er bare tull. Den seismiske aktiviteten var i forbindelse med at tårnene falt sammen. Folk ble forbrent som følge av at tårnene ble satt i brann av flyene som krasjet inn i dem.

 

Men du og Betroz er visst ikke helt samkjørte her... Hvor ble det av bombene Betroz mente folk hørte, hvis de brukte "nanontech sol-gel basert sprengstoff"?

Hva mener du egentlig? Hvor det ble av bombene?

Du mener det ikke var bomber, men noe fantastisk teknologi som ikke var bomber. Han mener det var bomber. Selvmotsigelser i fleng!

 

Man skulle jo tro at det var hinsides enhver tvil at wtc1 og 2 ser ut som en eksplosjon.

De ser ut som bygninger som kollapser.

 

De ser ut som to vulkanutbrudd med tilhørende pyroklastisk sky.

Det er en sky av røyk og støv, noe som er helt naturlig når ting pulveriseres av enorme krefter.

 

Igjen - hvor kommer energien fra?

Er du klar over hvor stor masse en slik bygning har eller?

 

Går regnestykket opp vha tyngdekraften alene?

Javisst.

 

her er et bilde FEMA har i rapporten sin som viser wtc1 30 sekunder etter starten av kollapsen:

Hva med det?

[Ballemannen]

Pricks, denne kverna har vi vært gjennom før. Du klarer ikke svare ordentlig, men kommer med åpenbare feil, og det er derfor du heller ikke legger noe mer tyngde bak det enn egne meninger.

[Pricks]

Ja, og kverna endre med at du ikke klarer å svare for deg

[alskfjas]

Pricks, denne kverna har vi vært gjennom før. Du klarer ikke svare ordentlig, men kommer med åpenbare feil, og det er derfor du heller ikke legger noe mer tyngde bak det enn egne meninger.

Haha.

 

Man skulle jo tro at det var hinsides enhver tvil at wtc1 og 2 ser ut som en eksplosjon. De ser ut som to vulkanutbrudd med tilhørende pyroklastisk sky.

Hvor er tyngden her? Er ikke dette "egne meninger"?

[Ballemannen]

alskfjas, hva ler du av? Skjønte ikke helt hva du mente jeg.

 

Ja, og kverna endre med at du ikke klarer å svare for deg

Jeg forstår faktiskt ikke hvor du vil hen. Du kan da umulig være interessert i å diskutere, men heller forsøple ethvert forsøk på diskusjon. Fortell meg hvor jeg ikke har klart å svare for meg. Du, derimot, skriver i praksis bare "nei, sånn er det ikke" når du vil ha fram noe du mener er et poeng. Jeg husker ikke et sted, tidlig eller seint i tråden, der du har vist til en eneste kilde annet enn et og annet youtube klipp.

 

Folk ble forbrent som følge av at tårnene ble satt i brann av flyene som krasjet inn i dem.

Ok, du må ha lest feil igjen. Jeg skrev da tydelig at vitneutsagn, bla fra william rodriguez, sier at folk ble skadet FØR noen av flyene traff.

 

Du mener det ikke var bomber, men noe fantastisk teknologi som ikke var bomber. Han mener det var bomber. Selvmotsigelser i fleng!

Hvordan kan det være en selvmotsigelse når jeg ikke sier i mot meg selv? Hvor har jeg sagt at det ikke var bomber forresten? Hvis jeg sier sprengstoff eller eksplosiver så mener jeg også bomber. Vitner nevner som sagt også det de hører som bomber og eksplosjoner, feks i Oral Histories som ble utgitt i 2005 (12000 sider fra New York Times).

 

Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.

...

So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.

Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

Flere sitat under

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]

We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times

 

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]

So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

 

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [battalion 6]

We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

...

We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.

Interview, , New York Times

 

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]

Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times

 

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]

It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times

 

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]

There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.

Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times

 

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

...

You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it.

Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times

 

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.

Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.

...

North Tower:

We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times

 

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]

And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times

 

James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed.

Interview, 12/30/01, New York Times

 

Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)

I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times

 

Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]

After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden someone said it's starting to come down.

...

This would be the first one.

...

This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

 

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

 

Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

 

Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)

Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up. I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.

Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times

 

James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)

We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two towers was starting to come down.

...

When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved wrong.

...

The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions?

Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

 

Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)

We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down. Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much further.

Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

 

Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]

North Tower:

John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.

Interview, 01/09/02, New York Times

 

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)

We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

...

[it was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

...

He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.

...

I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

 

Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

That's basically where we were. Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off. I was, I believe, ahead of the rest of the firefighters and officers there. I made it to the corner, and I took about four running steps this way when you could feel the rush of the wind coming at you. I believed that that was a huge fireball coming at the time.

Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

 

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]

We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the building collapse.

First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.

...

You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times

 

Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [safety Command]

Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary explosives or more planes or whatever.

Interview, 12/03/01, New York Times

 

John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]

We were walking into darkness. As we walked through those revolving doors, that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black, and then the collapse came. It just rained on top of us. Everything came. It rained debris forever.

Interview, 12/12/01, New York Times

 

Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)

I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten feet away from her and she couldn't even hear me, because the building was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn't even hear me. I just saw everybody running; and she saw us running, and she took off behind us.

Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

 

Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

There was an explosion and after we started running, I was able to make it to Chambers and West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and with all the cops and everybody else running, rescue workers. I grabbed her and I said just stay with me. We will try to get out of here.

Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times

 

Linda McCarthy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

So when that one went down. I thought the plane was exploding, or another plane hit. I had no idea it was coming down. But I couldn't see it gone, because I couldn't see it really in the first place with all the smoke.

Interview, 11/28/01, New York Times

 

James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running. Everyone is, firemen, PD, everyone is running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street. This is North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away from the first smoke.

Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times

 

Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]

As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

Interview, 12/11/01, New York Times

 

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []

I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.

I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Interview, 12/05/01, New York Times

 

Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]

When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down. We were right in front of 6, so we started running and how are you going to outrun the World Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove under a rig.

Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

 

Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)

I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

 

Juan Rios -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

I was in the back waiting, you know, so we could wait for patients and I was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I hear people screaming and a loud explosion, and I heard like "sssssssss..." the dust like "sssssssss..." So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big cloud of dust and debris coming from the glass...

Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

 

Michael Ober -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought they would ever come down, so I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it.

Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times

 

Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

Mike Mullan walked one flight up, and then the most horrendous thing happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black. The wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust, all the -- and everything went dark.

Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times

 

Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [battalion 31]

Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed.

...

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.

Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

 

Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times

 

Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)

I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean.

...

I was assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when I heard the second tower explode. When I tried to evacuate the area, by running up Fulton, got halfway up.

Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times

 

Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)

Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes. It kind of dissipated.

...

That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.

Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

 

John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

The best I can remember, we were just operating there, trying to help out and do the best we could. Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.

Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

 

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)

You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times

 

Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)

At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

...

Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce Medjuck and I asked him to tell them on the radio to send us MTA buses to get people out. That didn't happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

Interview, 10/30/01, New York Times

 

David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.

Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times

 

Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

The next thing I heard was Pete say what the f___ is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.

Interview, 10/23/01, New York Times

 

Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.

...

At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.

Interview, 01/17/02, New York Times

 

Man skulle jo tro at det var hinsides enhver tvil at wtc1 og 2 ser ut som en eksplosjon.

Min mening er at de ser ut som bygninger som kollapser.

Fixed your post.

Andre kan bedømme selv:

 

De ser ut som to vulkanutbrudd med tilhørende pyroklastisk sky.

Det er en sky av røyk og støv, noe som er helt naturlig når ting pulveriseres av enorme krefter.

Du glemte å sette "min mening er at" igjen. Skjerpings!

Andre kan bedømme selv:

 

Igjen - hvor kommer energien fra?

Er du klar over hvor stor masse en slik bygning har eller?

Ja, det finner du i mange artikler, bla NIST's NCSTAR1, nemlig ca 288100 tonn.

 

Går regnestykket opp vha tyngdekraften alene?

Javisst.

Forklar (og ta med kilden din)

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 av Gregory H Urich

 

her er et bilde FEMA har i rapporten sin som viser wtc1 30 sekunder etter starten av kollapsen:

Hva med det?

Mange vil stusse over at alt bortsett fra stålet pulveriseres til pudder i løpet av noen korte sekunder. Ikke bare at det ble pulverisert, men det faktum at støvskyen utvidet seg minst 5 ganger i løpet av 30 sekunder er noget spesielt.

 

alskfjas: Igjen, hva lo du av? Har du noe å tilføye?

[alskfjas]

alskfjas: Igjen, hva lo du av? Har du noe å tilføye?

Jeg lo av hykleriet ditt. Du anklager pricks for å komme med ubegrunnede meninger, og argumenterer selv med "ser ut som" ditt og datt.

Du bør dessuten lære deg litt om kildekritikk. Sitater og "fakta" fra tards-r-us.com er ikke nødvendigvis en god kilde. Den rapporten er f.eks. skrevet av en med bachelor i "Electrical and Computer Engineering". Gjør det ham til noe autoritet innen bygningskonstruksjon. Er det sannsynlig at wtc var lettere enn empire state building? Uansett er noen hundre tusen tonn flere hundre meter over bakken mye potensiell energi.

Hva skal det egentlig bevise at det ser ut som et vulkanutbrudd? At betongstøv og vulkansk støv ligner? Hvor er relevansen?

[Leviath]

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 av Gregory H Urich

Anser du Gregory Urich som en pålitelig kilde?

[Ballemannen]

alskfjas: Igjen, hva lo du av? Har du noe å tilføye?

Jeg lo av hykleriet ditt. Du anklager pricks for å komme med ubegrunnede meninger, og argumenterer selv med "ser ut som" ditt og datt.

Du bør dessuten lære deg litt om kildekritikk. Sitater og "fakta" fra tards-r-us.com er ikke nødvendigvis en god kilde. Den rapporten er f.eks. skrevet av en med bachelor i "Electrical and Computer Engineering". Gjør det ham til noe autoritet innen bygningskonstruksjon. Er det sannsynlig at wtc var lettere enn empire state building? Uansett er noen hundre tusen tonn flere hundre meter over bakken mye potensiell energi.

Hva skal det egentlig bevise at det ser ut som et vulkanutbrudd? At betongstøv og vulkansk støv ligner? Hvor er relevansen?

Det er nettopp det som er poenget mitt. Jeg skriver i det minste at det er mine meninger når det er det det er. Du og andre skriver helst at "jo, sånn er det". Og det pisset ditt med tards r us og sånt gidder jeg ikke forholde meg til. Det er sak man må se på, ikke personer. Denne gangen er det jeg som etterlyser kilde fra dere, ikke omvendt. Du kan ikke svare på et spørsmål med et spørsmål. Pricks sa at det ser ut som en bygningskollaps. Jeg sa at det ser ut som en vulkan som eksploderer. Relevansen ligger i at det skal en del energi til for at en pyroklastisk sky i det hele tatt kan dannes. Rart at du må ha inn dette med teskje.

[Ballemannen]

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 av Gregory H Urich

Anser du Gregory Urich som en pålitelig kilde?

Ja, jeg tror ikke han ljuger bare for å irritere deg. Anser du 911 commission report som en god kilde? Anser du pancake teorien til FEMA som en god kilde? Anser du JREF som en god kilde?

[alskfjas]

Jeg sa at det ser ut som en vulkan som eksploderer. Relevansen ligger i at det skal en del energi til for at en pyroklastisk sky i det hele tatt kan dannes. Rart at du må ha inn dette med teskje.

Det er jo ikke noe pyroklastisk sky, det er en sky av støv etter wtc. Regner med at du er inneforstått med at det ikke eksisterer noe vulkan på Manhattan? Kilde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Volcano_Map.png.

[Leviath]

Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 av Gregory H Urich

Anser du Gregory Urich som en pålitelig kilde?

Ja, jeg tror ikke han ljuger bare for å irritere deg.

 

Hvis Gregory Urich er en mann du vil lytte til er kanskje følgende interessant lesning:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/Open...RichardGage.pdf

 

Og i denne lille saken referer Urich til artikkelen du oppga tidligere:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/Fala...guments2_14.pdf

 

Men kanskje han lyver denne gangen?

[Betroz]

Interessant klipp : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDh-2DtGMB0