9/11 Терористи или сепак не?

Кој ги урна кулите

  • Терористи

    Гласови: 130 20,8%
  • Американски владини структури

    Гласови: 408 65,3%
  • Појма немам

    Гласови: 87 13,9%

  • Вкупно гласачи
    625
Член од
8 април 2008
Мислења
6.419
Поени од реакции
776
9/11 останува мистерија ...
незнам зошто има 2-3теми у канта ..
мислам дека не е забрането да дискутираме околу иоваа „мистерија“.


Кое е вашето мислење ..
Дали тоа беа терористички напади или пак одредени структури во Америка ја исценираа цела ситуација ...

има многу теории итн.
јас би започнал со „зградата 7“ која се урна на ист начин како и кулите ...
еве и еден клип извадок од BBC кои кажуваат дека зградат 7 се урна .. уште пред да се урне !?!?


и делот со пентагон е под прашалник ...
безбедносните камери а и новинарски екипи и други кои се нашле на местото на настанот не забележале никакви остатоци од огромниот авион .... и многу други нелогичности ... за тоа потоа .. да развиеме дискусија прво ...
 

POWER-MKD

Per aspera ad astra
Член од
1 март 2008
Мислења
4.763
Поени од реакции
644
Јас имам слушнато дека така им било поефтино. Инаку, имале план да ги уриваат, и ќе ги фатело ептен скапо. Вака им се исплатело повеќе. Колку и да звучи морбидно и нечовечки, мислам дека е логично, особено кога станува збор за Америка.
 
O

Out Boy

Гостин
Имаше доволно време да се активираат борбените авиони меѓу првиот и вториот авион, па макар од Пенсакола базата на Флорида да полетеа!

Огрооооомните контрадикции на пентагонската зграда ја открија заверата. Еве споредба на штетата со тоа што удрило. Не иде, нели? Каде се трагите од керозин лево и десно?


Ви личи дека овде удрил Боинг?


Работеле хилти овде:


Еве каков авион наводно удрил:


Се гледа подметнатиот пожар како го зафатил целото крило што било планирано да се реновира:


Непосредно по ударот: авионот испарил со се’ деловите:


Гасење на пожарот пред да се сруши крилото:


Парчиња од здробениот авион :)toe:) Јас баш не ги гледам...


Гасење на пожарот:


Теренот за неполн час беше посипан со песок. (за да се скријат вистинските причини) Штета, ЦИА ги отстранила сите фотографии по нетот каде се гледаат огромните камиони.
 
Член од
14 јануари 2008
Мислења
1.341
Поени од реакции
162
Па јавна тајна е веќе дека им требаше било каков изговор за да влезат во Ирак.
 

Toecutter

Biafran Baby
Член од
12 мај 2009
Мислења
5.243
Поени од реакции
2.444
Immediate and Short Term Direct Impacts

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.
Nikoj ne go poreknuva toa ama vidi go toa vaka : KOJ izgubil rabotni mesta i pari?
Nekoj politicar? Nekoj od Vlasta? pretsedatel, gradonacalnik... NIKOJ.
Obicna raja koja nikoj ne ja ebe i sitni biznismeni. Eve gledas i sega bez nekoja golem nastan ko 9-11 otpustaat na veliko. 'Restruktuiranje', 'Menidzemnt so resursite' i slicni sranja.

A kolku ke profitiraat od irackata nafta? Mislam deka gi izvadija trosocite veke...

A za Kursk i sam znaes deka rusite nemaat sredstva za odrzuvanje na tolkav broj podmornici i brodovi. "Petar Veliki' za malku ke stanese nov cernobil. Ne im e ni prv ni posleden pat toa. Pet nosaci na avioni i dva na helikopteri gi ostavija da 'rgosuvaat eden posle prodadoa na indija eden na kina.

зајтгејст го немаат документирано разговорот за влез на САД во прва светска војна ЛАГА Е....исто и за втора ако очекувале и ЗНАЕЛЕ за напад барем да се спремиле
Za ww1 'Lusitania' bila samo 'diganje na pritisok na javnosta'. Nastanot koj bil iskoristen kako povod bil 'Zimmermann telegram' navodno fatile telegrama od germanija za meksiko kajso se dogovarat germancite da im pratat oruzje na meksiko a meksiko da izvrsi INVAZIJA na sad :pos2::pos2:. Meskiko koj togas bil vo revolucija/gragjanska vojna nemale sol vo ocite da si turat ke ja napagjal amerika i ke gi zemal kalifornija i teksas. Ako ne veruvas vidi 'Zimmermann telegram' na wiki ili google.


дали знаеш зошто бротче не уништиле туку зградите ги кутнале ...
и дали знаеш дека зградата (мислам ја викаа зграда 7) која е покрај кулите се урива на истиот начин после подолго време ... а започнува да гори од некои остатоци кои летнале натаму ... дали знаеш и кој бил сместен у таа зграда ?
Stabovi na tajni sluzbi mislam i drugi parazitski organizacii, insurance i tn.

Имаше доволно време да се активираат борбените авиони меѓу првиот и вториот авион, па макар од Пенсакола базата на Флорида да полетеа!
Za od florida ne znam hehe ama imale manevri istiot den na tema : kidnapiranje patnicki avioni i udar vo wtc... ova ako e slucajno

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction :pos2:— were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Za vakov izvestaj mozam i jas da go iskucam za dve minuti. ova e rabota na eksperti?
Mozda bese ova i mozda i ona... Takvi eksperti na platen spisok na vlasta se poznata rabota.

Znaci site piloti vo svetot se budali.

Koj vadel americka viza znae kolku komplikacii ima. A ovie arapite od fundamentalisticki organizacii nekoj od niv so debeli dosiea i markirani od tajni sluzbi - si dobile viza ko nisto. A obicno ti baraat milion dokumenti i ti postavuvaat idiotski prasanja po ambasadi.

Eve ti i slika


__________________

Pa dobro se gleda.
 
O

Out Boy

Гостин




Може некој да ми посочи каде е авионот? Барем некое делче...

Претерале овие од ЦИА во тоа што може да направи нивен Боинг. Демек торпедо е, буши ѕидови со арматури:




 
Член од
1 јули 2008
Мислења
165
Поени од реакции
18
Абре каков Ирак какви бакрачи. Ирак беше 2003/04, близначките беа 2001. Веке се знае дека се рушени од владини структури, но не за влез во Ирак, туку за влез во Авганистан
 

Toecutter

Biafran Baby
Член од
12 мај 2009
Мислења
5.243
Поени од реакции
2.444
Prvo za Afganistan, a posle i za Irak, osven 'oruzjeto za masovno unistuvanje' spomenuvaa deka Sadam ja naoruzaval i podrzaval al-kaida.
 
M

marsovka

Гостин
Која мистерија у пм ,нема мистерија ан сите им е јасно
финтата беше да донесат проглас за засилена безбедност плус некој денар да лапнат компаниите од нафтата во ирак која ја пумпаа не заебвајте,се работеше за пари тоа многу многу пари
 
Член од
8 април 2008
Мислења
6.419
Поени од реакции
776
не само шо си остварија повод за потрага по теросристи ...
изгубени у преводот шо би се рекло останаа огромни суми на пари .. во зградата 7 биле стационирани многуу владини и тајни структури ... и баш ама баш на 9/11 никој немало у внатре ...

запазете на сликата погоре колку е смешна дупката во пентагон шо наводно демек боинг ја напраил ....

а зградата 7 паѓа на ист начин како и кулите ... а на неа имало само некои парчиња кои летнале и онака тивок оган ... сепак била заштитена до максимум со незнам каков појачан челик ... имале сопствен генератор и залихи на храна и вода за можеби месец дена не се сеќавам точно .... таа била утврдена до максимум а се сруши од некое парче метал кое ја потпалило ... смешно ...

 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
Prvo za Afganistan, a posle i za Irak, osven 'oruzjeto za masovno unistuvanje' spomenuvaa deka Sadam ja naoruzaval i podrzaval al-kaida.
SADAM upotrebin VX vrz kurdite a i vo iran

Имаше доволно време да се активираат борбените авиони меѓу првиот и вториот авион, па макар од Пенсакола базата на Флорида да полетеа!

Огрооооомните контрадикции на пентагонската зграда ја открија заверата. Еве споредба на штетата со тоа што удрило. Не иде, нели? Каде се трагите од керозин лево и десно?


Ви личи дека овде удрил Боинг?


Работеле хилти овде:


Еве каков авион наводно удрил:


Се гледа подметнатиот пожар како го зафатил целото крило што било планирано да се реновира:


Непосредно по ударот: авионот испарил со се’ деловите:


Гасење на пожарот пред да се сруши крилото:


Парчиња од здробениот авион :)toe:) Јас баш не ги гледам...


Гасење на пожарот:


Теренот за неполн час беше посипан со песок. (за да се скријат вистинските причини) Штета, ЦИА ги отстранила сите фотографии по нетот каде се гледаат огромните камиони.
parcinja baras na 1700 celzius плус ако е томахавк штетата ке беше мнооогу поголема...а доказ дека е авион нека ти послужи осиромашениот ураниум(кај авионите врши баланс) но при високи температури зрачи!!!!!!!!

абе човек експлозијата на курск ја приметија сеизмичарите во лондон И ДА СЕИЗМИЧАРИТЕ објаснија убаво НЕМА сеизмички бран од експлозив!!!!!!!!!!!!

разберете мајка му па зарем СИЛА КАКО САД ке си прави чедар....во зајтгејс велат виетнамците го уништиле мадох...можеле и сега да речат САДАМ или АВГАНИСТАН ни уништи брод:tap p:

јас ти реков ли за штетата од уривањето на кулите т реков ама не веруваш....БУЈРУМ.
Conceptually, the economic costs to the United States stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attacks can be broken down into several categories, largely depending on their nature (direct and indirect) and on the time period examined (immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term). Those costs that are short run and direct are clearly the easiest to identify and measure. Estimates covering longer periods of time and focused mainly on indirect costs require numerous assumptions concerning counterfactuals and hence are on less firm ground. Another area of controversy involves the anthrax scare following the attacks. The estimates below treat this as a separate event, although in some of the indirect cost estimates this factor may have had an influence.

Immediate and Short Term Direct Impacts

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.

Immediate and Short Term Indirect Impacts

Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. Real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars.

With production disrupted in some areas (airlines) and consumers increasingly cautious, real GDP shrank in the third quarter of 2001. But in the fourth quarter, demand held up better than initially feared, and GDP increased. However, private sector fixed investment registered a steep decline, and inventories were slashed. Offsetting these forces, however, were household consumption, helped by falling energy prices, and government spending. Defense spending in particular grew by about 9.25% in real terms in the fourth quarter, at a seasonally adjusted annual rate.

Some sectors or firms actually witnessed an increase in demand, notably in the area of security and information technology. Still, while overall demand proved fairly resilient, a number of sectors were hit hard, with declining output and profits continuing into the mid-term.

Overall however the short-term adverse economic impact of the attacks was far less than feared initially, thanks in large part to good economic crisis management. The Federal Reserve, the Administration and Congress acted quickly to restore confidence, inject liquidity and provide resources to deal with the consequences of the attacks. The Federal Reserve by lowering the price of credit and temporarily providing vast amounts of liquidity helped safeguard the integrity of the financial system and saved many firms from bankruptcy.

Medium Term Impacts

Looking beyond the short term, the fact that the attack was premeditated and therefore could be repeated has had a significant impact on five main areas: (1) insurance; (2) airlines; (3) tourism and other industries associated with travel; (4) shipping; and (5) increased defense/security expenditures. In turn, developments in these areas have had a broader effect on wide areas of economic activity.

Insurance. The losses from the terrorist attacks for the insurance industry (including reinsurance) are estimated at between $30 and $58 billion with the main uncertainty concerning liability insurance. By comparison the losses associated with Hurricane Andrew's 1992 damage in Florida came to around $21 billion. Even if the final cost is close to the lower estimate, insured losses in 2001 are likely to have been the highest ever.
Following the attacks, most primary insurers have increased their premiums and curtailed or dropped altogether coverage for terrorism-related risk. The increases in insurance premiums have adversely affected several key industries. The strongest impact has been on aviation, but other sectors, including transportation, construction, and tourism and energy generation have also been affected. Overall it is estimated that commercial property and liability insurance rates have been raised by 30 percent on average.
Airlines. The United States' airline industry was already in a weak financial position before the attacks with rising debt ratios and falling returns on investment. Even with cutbacks in service of the order of 20 percent and significant government support, airline passenger traffic has apparently remained below normal, 100,000 layoffs have been announced and employment in October and November fell by 81,000 (almost 8 percent). Equity valuations compared to the overall market illustrate these difficulties. The U.S. Airline sector has lost around 20 percent of its relative value since September 10.
Tourism and Other Service Industries. Other industries have also been badly affected, such as hotels, tourism, automobile rentals, travel agents, and civilian aircraft manufactures. For example, hotels have reported higher vacancy rates and employment in the sector as a whole fell by 58,000 (about 3 percent) in October and November. Relative equity values for hotels and leisure facilities are off by around 15 percent.
Shipping. Shipping is an area where it is particularly hard to assess the impact of the terrorist attacks. The main problem is one of defining a credible counterfactual—i.e., what would the state of affairs been in the absence of 9/11? For example, in spite of new security requirements, six months following the attacks most available indices showed little evidence of an increase in shipping costs. Some rates had even declined. Maritime shipping rates increased by 5 to 10 percent on average in the two weeks following the attack, but that rise was soon reversed. Airfreight rates, on the other hand were bout 10 percent higher in late 2001 than before the attacks. Given the sharp deceleration of aggregate demand beginning in 2000 and the drop in fuel costs following the attacks, a steeper decline in freight costs should have occurred. The relative stability of freight rates, despite lower fuel costs and under-utilized shipping capacity would tend to suggest that underlying transportation costs may have increased as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
Increases in security and military spending. The President has requested a significant increase in security-related programs in the context of the budget for FY2003. Additional spending of $48 billion was proposed for national defense (an increase of 14 percent from the previous year). In addition the President asked Congress for an appropriation of $38 billion for homeland security, compared to $20 billion spent in 2001. This seeks to improve the preparedness of first responders (fireman, police, and rescue workers), enhance defenses against biological attacks, secure borders and improve information sharing and includes $8 billion for domestic defense spending.
While it is too early to say with any precision, the medium term costs to the economy may be considerable. The shrinkage of terrorism related insurance coverage may have a detrimental impact on investment as lenders become wary of greater potential risks, although there is no strong evidence yet of such a pattern. While providing a much needed short-run stimulus to the economy, the increased levels of fiscal deficits stemming from the acceleration in defense expenditures may, in the medium-to-longer term, retard growth by increasing interest rates and thus reducing private capital formation and productivity
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
CITAJTE FAKTI
Sega ke ti objasnam ne sum skrzav


Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."



Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."


Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. Ft. Of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
__________________
 
Член од
8 април 2008
Мислења
6.419
Поени од реакции
776
чекај ти не разбираш изгледа .. нели документарци итн си гледал и ова мислење на 2пати го постираш како демек тоа е тоа ...

објасни ми ти кај се моторите на авионов у пентагон шо плесна ... од цел авион сакаш да кажеш се се стопило .. и се на се онаа дупка ја направил ?:tapp:
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
odma specijalno za tebe


Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... Such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

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

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

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

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

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

Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."


Violent Collapse: Pancaking floors — not controlled demolition — expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

inaku treba toni toni eksploziv ejjjjjj ama aj eve ;itaj

ova OD EKSPERTI E
This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the community of civil engineerscivil , who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers
__________________

па имам читано доста литература.(imam dva gigabajti za eksplozivi)..како прво експлозивот е згрешен..како втоео треба да има експлозив доле во центарот на зградата потоа труповите и така нагоре:t app:...А ПОТОА НА СЕКОИ 3-4 КАТА и НА крајот НА ВРВОТ ЗНАЧИ ТРЕБАЛО ДА ИМА МИНИМУМ 30 ЕКСПЛОЗИИ зајтгеист лаже и е финансиран од владата i interesno da vidi[....nema ostatoci-baj produkti od eksplozijata neka ne ve manipuliraat imate um

ОБРНИ ВНИМАНИЕ ЗА ТАКОВ ПАД ТРЕБА ДА ИМА НА СЕКОИ “ КАТА ЕКСПЛОЗИВ А И НА ВРВОТ(А НЕМАШЕ))

ОВА СЕ ФАКТИ
Eve i zo[to ne mozele da gi otkrijat
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

seizni;ki dokaz deka nemalo eksplozivi
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

еве за 7мица и толку кој сака факти АМИН кој голта без да џвака нели за жалење е
Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corne

9/11 останува мистерија ...
незнам зошто има 2-3теми у канта ..
мислам дека не е забрането да дискутираме околу иоваа „мистерија“.


Кое е вашето мислење ..
Дали тоа беа терористички напади или пак одредени структури во Америка ја исценираа цела ситуација ...

има многу теории итн.
јас би започнал со „зградата 7“ која се урна на ист начин како и кулите ...
еве и еден клип извадок од BBC кои кажуваат дека зградат 7 се урна .. уште пред да се урне !?!?


и делот со пентагон е под прашалник ...
безбедносните камери а и новинарски екипи и други кои се нашле на местото на настанот не забележале никакви остатоци од огромниот авион .... и многу други нелогичности ... за тоа потоа .. да развиеме дискусија прво ...
ти пишав за 7мица како и за остаток на зрачење во пентагон од осиромашен ураниум...прочитај НЕ Е МИСТЕИЈА...и да сум јас и јас би ги зел снимките тоа е срам за светска сила а ловците не можеле да го идентификуваат оти имало околу 4000 авиони
 

Toecutter

Biafran Baby
Член од
12 мај 2009
Мислења
5.243
Поени од реакции
2.444
Toa deka ne mozele da gi presretnat e prikazna za tie sto ne se razbiraat vo avijacija. 4.000 avioni letale okolu New York i Washington? Procedurata e taa - posto veke imalo F-16 na borbena patrola radi vezbata 'kako da se spreci... wtc' (i samite si priznavaat) ako nekoj avion (4 vo slucajov !!!) isklucat transponder togas ne ti treba prof.Baltazar da ti kaze nesto ne e vo red. E sega konrola na let gi nasocuva F-16 kon poslednata koordinata pred tp da bide isklucen i F-16 koristejki to so ima (on-board radar koj faka cel na 60km a ima lock-on na 40, prednost vo brzina,plafon i manevri) se obiduva da presretne. Ova ne se pravi od 1 avion tuku od par/cetvorka/cela eskadrila.
Posle on-board rad. ID F-16 go presretnuva avionot B-757/767 i odi na vizuelna ID. Za ova vreme se obiduva da kontaktira so avionot koj e kidanpiran preku radio.
Arno ama dva meseca pred napadot bil donesen nov pravilnik kade sto MORALO da se bara dozvola za soboruvanje od Donald Rumsfeld licno koj bil min. na odbrana vo slucaj na kidnapiranje.
Znaci posledniot cekor koj se vika lock-on/amraam/sparrow/sidewinder ili posraniot Vulcan so 6 cevki trebalo da e odobren od Rumsfeld. Sto znaci pilotite nemale ni teoriska moznost za soboruvanje poradi toa sto treba vreme za da go dobies rumsfeld a i dali ke go dobies e prasanje. Osven ako nemal radio stanica go anusot i bil na strek 24/7, jasno e ovaa birokratska procedura zosto e donesena.
 

Kajgana Shop

На врв Bottom