Kan jepp.. Men ikke nødvendigvis da verken du eller eg kan med 100% sikkerhet at dem er tatt før eller etter rydding..BA. skrev:Nei, det kan jeg ikke bevise, noe jeg heller ikke ser noe behov for. Den offisielle rapporten synes jeg er god, og har ikke sett noe som svekker den noe særlig. Når da disse bildene heller ikke svekker den, iom at de kan være tatt etter skjærebrenning, så står forklaringen like sterkt.Dj_Devil skrev:BA. skrev:DJ. Devil: Jeg tror kanskje mange av dine påstander kommenteres her:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html
Ellers kommenterte jeg omigjen de skråskjærte bjelkene. Det kan ha vært gjort etter at tårnet raste av hensyn til letemannskapenes sikkerhet.
Eg kan gå med på at dem kuttet dem om det var en gass brenner dem brukte.. En punkt eksplosjon og gass brenning kan gi lik effekt. Finner ikke bilder som var tatt før dem begynte å rydde som var av mer detaljer. Så kan ikke med 100% sikkerhet si at det bilde er før eller etter opprydding.. Men hva du velger å tro kan være noe annet enn hva eg velger å tro. Med mindre du sitter med sikre bevis på at akkuratt di bildene er fra under opprydding å ikke rett etterpå.
Ganske enkelt... Har du en kule å slipper den ned. Å uten hinder så vil kulen falle 100% rett ned.BA. skrev: Jeg forstår ikke helt tankegangen din. Tyngdeloven sier at den skal falle rett ned, hvorfor mener du ting skal falle skrått ned?
Hvis du mener at det skulle ha falt i et hjørne først og deretter ligget litt skjevt mens det falt rett ned, så er det også hva det gjorde.
Tårn delen hadde hinder... Så om vi setter ett tårn under kulen så vil kulen treffe tårnet først så bytte retning... Da faller den ned men ikke 100% lodrett ned. Tårn delen hadde ett stort å solid tårn den sku gjennom.. Med mindre den plutslig hadde null støtte under seg så den fekk litt start fart. så skal den i følge tyngdeloven da ikke falle lodrett rett ned. Den vil støte på det massive tårnet å forsiktig knekke av.
Sant samtidig som det er usant...Igjen, tyngdeloven tilsier at den skal falle rett ned og ikke utenfor.Å det forklarer ikke på det tårnet hvor den over delen, om den hadde hatt en hel bygning å falle på. Hvorfor den ikke falt uttenfor. For den delen hadde naturligvis knekt å dratt mye med seg. Men ikke hele bygningen. Å igjen bare om core delen ikke var inntakt.
Tyngde loven tilsier at det skal falle rett ned.
Men tyngdeloven tar ikke hensyn til ting som kommer i veien..
Tårnet var konstruert til å tåle over det dobbelte av den vekten di tårn delene besto av. Så den delen sku ha vippet, krasjet inn på bygningen og enten forblitt oppe på tårnet eller knekt av å krasjet vedsidenav.
Så din påstand er da at fordi det er så få mennesker som har tørt å prate offentlig om dette så er det usant? Det bare forsterker teorien om at det er noe mer som ligger bak enn bare en flybrann og kolaps.Det du har funnet fram er påstander om smeltet stål.Så du velger å ikke tro på bevis\fakta eg har funnet til deg?
Jeg vet ikke hvem sitt sitat du forholder deg til, men det jeg kjenner til er det kun noen få kilder.
- Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
- Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
- and the American Free Press newspaper
The American Free Press refererte kun til de andre to, og dermed sitter vi med to vitner til disse dammene med smeltet stål. Mark Lorieux(Loizeaux) fortalte senere at han kun snakket ut fra informasjon han hadde fra Peter Tully., altså er vi nede i en eneste kilde.
Det ar altså kun Peter Tully som rapporterte om dette, men som "American Free Press"skriver det "Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site."
Det ser ikke ut som det er gjort noen analyser av denne smelten, og om den er identifisert som stål.
Bildet med hotspottene viser temperaturer på opp til 747ºC, men ikke på langt nær de 1535ºC som skal til for å smelte stål.
Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Active Nano-thermitic Explosives in Dust from 911 WTC Catastrophe
Physics Journal Publishes Rigorously Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper
Pictured above, is hard forensic evidence of explosive red Thermitic chips--the "Loaded Gun" itself, found in multiple WTC dust samples, with a well documented "chain-of-custody" record. Sample (b) was collected approximately ten minutes after the destruction of the second tower (North Tower).
The photograph of the red Super-thermite chips (Nano-thermite) above is from a peer reviewed paper, which was published by an impressive scientific group of experts, in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. The paper's first author is Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark and an expert in Nano-chemistry
Dr. Niels Harrit, expert in Nano-chemistry, co-author of a published paper by a noted scientific group, who discovered hard physical evidence of Nano-thermitic explosives in multiple samples of dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe. Frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack he says, "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, Grandfather, which side were you on? I will be able to answer them, I was on your side."
Conclusion of paper: "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
The science-based analysis showing that the World Trade Center Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions; includes, hard "Smoking Gun" forensic evidence by Dr. Steven Jones as well as solid evidence by other renowned scientists and experts. Dr. Jones is a highly regarded Scientist and Brigham Young University Professor Emeritus of Physics.
Corroborating evidence of Dr. Jones’s results, includes testing by government agencies and private independent laboratories. The evidence clearly indicates the presence of Thermitic based explosives, which was found in multiple samples of WTC dust. All three World Trade Center Towers were pulverized by controlled demolitions using Thermite based incendiaries to cut steel support columns and Superthermite explosives (a.k.a. Nano-thermite or energetic nanocomposites) as "cutter charges".
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." --Spoken by Congressman Larry P. Mcdonald, 1976 (Killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets)
Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Brigham Young University Professor, Materials Scientist and Director of the Transmition Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, co-author of a published paper by a noted scientific group, who discovered hard physical evidence of Nano-thermitic explosives in multiple samples of dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe.
Nano-thermite or Superthermite is Thermite in an ultrafine form, composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at lest one component being 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon. Nano-thermite is a high-explosive. Standard Thermite is not an explosive—it is an incendiary. Thermate (Thermite plus sulfur) based incendiaries can easily melt through massive steel support columns and is used to weaken buildings in the preliminary stages of controlled demolitions. Thermitic based reactions produce molten iron as well as molten iron microspheres as byproducts. A distinctive chemical signature in its residue also remains as evidence of Thermitic based reactions, samples of which, originating from all three WTC Towers, as well as throughout ground zero, tested positive for Thermitic based reactions. Additionally, many credible witnesses are on record as seeing large pools of molten metal. Large multi-ton iron rich "meteorites" have been found and have been tested positive as being produced by Thermitic reactions.
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist, author of numerous papers published in prestigious scientific journals, including Nature, Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, co-author of a published paper by a noted scientific group, who discovered hard physical evidence of Nano-thermitic explosives in multiple samples of dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles ... hTemp2.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Sannsynligvis pga normal kollaps, men kanskje vi kan gjøre oss ferdig med de argumentene vi holder på med her?falt WTC 7 pågrunn av at den normalt kolapsa? eller ble den sprengt ned?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html skrev:Owner's Admission?
Silverstein's Apparent Admission that Building 7 was Demolished
Larry Silverstein, the controller of Building 7, the third skyscraper to totally collapse on 9/11/01, gave an interview, portions of which were reproduced in a PBS documentary aired on September 10, 2002, entitled America Rebuilds. The story that Silverstein assented to the demolition of WTC 7, based on an excerpt from the interview, has been widely circulated on websites, books, and videos. This page first recounts that story, in much the same form as it appeared on earlier versions of this page, and then proceeds to examine the issue in greater depth.
'Pull it' as Demolition Admission
Silverstein apparently admitted that the building was deliberately demolished by the New York City Fire Department late in the afternoon.
Silverstein's alleded admission consists of his following on-camera statements shown in America Rebuilds.
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. 1
What does Silverstein mean by "the decision to pull" Building 7? Many observers have suggested that a later passage in the same documentary indicates that, in this context, "pull" means to destroy a building through controlled demolition. In preparation for the controlled demolition of irreparably damaged Building 6, a Ground Zero worker says
... we're getting ready to pull the Building Six.
An alternative explanation for Silverstein's remark is that he was referring to a decision to "pull" firefighting operations in Building 7. That explanation is advanced in a September 9, 2005 statement issued by Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. 2
However, there are several problems with this explanation.
* According to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
* Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only after the attack on the Twin Towers.
* Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation -- far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that "they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.
* The building had several areas of fire -- hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.
However, if we imagine that the "decision to pull" had been made before 9/11/01, Silverstein's comment makes more sense as an admission that there had been a deliberate decision to demolish the building.
A Closer Look
Although many people are convinced that Silverstein's statement is an admission that he and the fire department commander conspired to demolish the building, the statement fails to support a case for such a crime.
* The common assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition lacks support. A Google search for the term "pull" in relation to controlled demolition fails to return uses of "pull" meaning demolition outside of the widely circulated story of Silverstein's admission on 9/11 conspiracy sites. See the analysis on wtc7.net.
* Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this.
* The above quote by a Ground Zero worker about pulling Building 6 is not evidence that "pull" means controlled demolition, since he was apparently referring to using cables to literally pull down portions of the building.
A more sophisticated interpretation of Silverstein's comment is that it is bait, eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation that is easily denied if not refuted. While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse documented in photographs and videos of the event and the rubble pile that resulted. Those visual documents establish that the building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition, including:
* Very rapid speed of fall
* Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis
* Production of large quantities of dust
* Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top
Håper da du leste hva eg skrev.. Det hadde bare blitt spekulasjoner fra min side. Derfor kommer eg heller ikke til å diskutere det.. For ingen vits å diskutere bare rene spekulasjoner... Sant vell?BA. skrev: Kan du holde deg til det beste argumentet, så vi kan gjøre oss ferdig med en ting om gangen her?
Jeg klarer det visst ikke selv, men selv om jeg besvarer flere argumenter enn ditt beste, så trenger vi ikke å skyte inn enda flere før vi har gjort oss ferdige med dem vi allerede diskuterer.
