in the Fast Lane

30 mai 2007

15 gode grunner til å sette spørsmåltegn ved 9/11

En amerikansk, landsomfattende meningsmåling i mai 2006, bestilt av bestilt av organisasjonen 9/11 Truth, viser at over 70 millioner amerikanere (45 %) i stemmeberettiget alder ønsker en ny undersøkelse av 11. september 2001, og myndighetenes rolle i terrorangrepene. Ifølge en landsomfattende måling utført 5.-8. oktober 2006 av New York Times og Washington Post, mente kun 16 % av de spurte at Bush-administrasjonen forteller sannheten når den hevder at den ikke visste på forhånd om terrorangrepene den 11.september, 2001. 53 % av de spurte mente adminstrasjonen «skjulte noe» og 28 % mente at den «for det meste løy».

Her er 15 gode grunner til å stille spørsmål om 11 september er det vi så...
  1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

  2. The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

  3. UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

  4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

  5. William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a 50-ton hydraulic press and ripping the skin off a fellow worker, a report corroborated by the testimony of around three dozen other custodians.

  6. Willie reported that the explosion occurred prior to the airplane's impact, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", which demonstrates that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds prior to the airplanes impacts.

  7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pegelow has pointed out to me.

  8. The destruction of the Twin Towers in approximately 10 seconds apiece is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

  9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

  10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

  11. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

  12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  13. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

  15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

    There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at 911Scholars.org.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Artikler som omhandler 9/11, og generelt USA, er omtrent alltid veldig politisk ladet.. Ta en titt på disse linkene f.eks, så finner du trolig den "andre siden av saken"..

    Selv synes jeg at en del av konspirasjonsteoriene rundt 9/11 bare er usmaklige.. Seriøst, det døde faktisk noen tusen mennesker den dagen..

    .. på min 15årsdag.

    Ellers alt vel?

    SvarSlett
  2. Hehe. Nå ble jeg nesten litt engasjert. :)

    Det jeg mener, er ikke at vi ikke skal bry oss om de omkomne (drepte) etter 9/11. Det jeg mener, er at de ble drept uskyldig, ikke nødvendigvis islamister, men den amerikanske stat. Hvis du begynner å lese mer og se filmer om 9/11 vil du trolig skjønne at dette er mer komplisert enn de aller aller fleste tror, og at 9/11 har alt for mange likheter med John F. Kennedy -drapet.

    Det jeg mener, er at tv og media har latt sannheten unnvære før, og at vi ikke skal tro alt vi hører. :)

    Btw: Nå blir det lett for meg å huske bursdagen din ;) Hehe

    ellers er alt svært bra faktisk! :D

    SvarSlett
  3. Det er ikkje berre me nordmenn som er skeptiske. Amerikanarane sjølv er også svært skeptiske:

    "En amerikansk, landsomfattende meningsmåling i mai 2006, bestilt av bestilt av organisasjonen 9/11 Truth, viser at over 70 millioner amerikanere (45 %) i stemmeberettiget alder ønsker en ny undersøkelse av 11. september 2001, og myndighetenes rolle i terrorangrepene".

    Sitat: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konspirasjonsteorier_om_11._september

    Kilde:
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

    Det er absolutt verdt å ta ein ekstra titt :)

    SvarSlett