Jump to content

Nya konspirationer

Klargplutte

By Klargplutte
in Dagrummet

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
zunx Menig

zunx

Posted
Posted

En tråd på 24 sidor, skummade igenom den lite. Vilken info i den vill du att jag ska ta åt mig av? Orkar inte lusläsa 24 sidor. :) ;)

Okej skall sammanfatta.

Konspiratörsteoretikern: Jet A inte brinner vid så höga temperaturer att stålkonstruktionen i WTC skulle ha smällt.

 

Oss andra: Stål behöver inte smällta för att tappa i hållfasthet.

 

K: [visar bild på "smält stålklump"] här menar en auktoritet på området att detta är en klump smält stål från WTC.

 

O: Det där ser ut som en del av konstruktionen med betong, armeringsjärnen sticker ju ut och skulle det vara smält stål i denna mängd skulle knappast armeringsjärnen finnas kvar i de skick de är.

 

K: För att smälta stål måste man använda sprängladdningar, vilka användes för att rasera byggnaderna efter att flygplanen kraschade in emot dom.

 

O: Hur skulle sprängladdningar kunna smälta stål i de mängder att det blir sammanhängande pölar av smält stål?

 

K: WTC-tornen var konstruerade för att stå emot ett kraschande flygplan och även de temperaturer som uppkommer vid brand.

 

O: Och de tålde flygplanen men inte den efterföljande branden. Krascherna skadade tornen så pass att branden var bägaren som fick droppen att rinna över. Det är här som konspirationsteoretikerna inte får ihop det.

 

K: Här är en professor som anför att det måste vara en konspiration. Byggnaderna (WTC) tål brand och kraschande flygplan men inte att konstruktionen smälter.

 

O: Han är professor i teologi.

 

Slutklämmen blir fin:

 

Asbest, det skulle vara för dyrt att sanera WTC från asbest så därför lät man arrangera ett terrorattentat.

 

 

Kan rekomendera en svensk syn på WTC och elfte september 2001: http://www.sbi.se/uploaded/litteratur/SBI%...port%202001.pdf

 

Fråga gärna mer specifikt istället för att be oss titta på en rulle i Arkiv X-anda. Det är inte underhållning det är tragiskt, det dog ett antal tusen människor i händelsen.

 

J.K Nilsson

 

Edit: efter påpekande av Inniuendo så förtydligar jag att jag med professor menade Dr. Griffin. Ett mycket tendentiöst användande av tittlar.

Stål behöver inte smällta för att tappa i hållfasthet.

Nope, men bränderna som flygkrasherna skapade hade avtagit ganska rejält. Tror t.o.m. det står i den officiella rapporten (där kan jag ha fel dock). Problemt är att södra tornet som blev träffat 20 minuter efter det norra kollapsade först. Dessutom träffades det norra tornet mitt på, det södra träffades i hörnet och på video och bilder syns det hur det mesta flygbränslet exploderar utanförbyggnaden.

 

K: [visar bild på "smält stålklump"] här menar en auktoritet på området att detta är en klump smält stål från WTC.

 

O: Det där ser ut som en del av konstruktionen med betong, armeringsjärnen sticker ju ut och skulle det vara smält stål i denna mängd skulle knappast armeringsjärnen finnas kvar i de skick de är.

Vilken bild? :clap:

 

O: Hur skulle sprängladdningar kunna smälta stål i de mängder att det blir sammanhängande pölar av smält stål?

WTC kollapsade i fritt fall, på ca 10 sekunder. Stål faller väl inte igenom hundratusentals kubikmeter betong i fritt fall?

 

O: Och de tålde flygplanen men inte den efterföljande branden. Krascherna skadade tornen så pass att branden var bägaren som fick droppen att rinna över. Det är här som konspirationsteoretikerna inte får ihop det.

Precis som jag sa, majoriteten av allt bränsle gick upp i ett eldmoln utanför det södra tornet.

 

 

Vill påpeka att jag inte tror till 100% på teorierna, men inte heller på den officiella historien. Det är därför som jag "ifrågasätter". ;)

 

Här är en lista över saker som 9/11 Commision Report inte svarar på, men borde.

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 Håller med till 100%! 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).

 

 

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).

 

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

 

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).

 

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).

 

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 (cool.gif.webp 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).

 

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).

Lerede Menig 4

Lerede

Posted
Posted
Stål behöver inte smällta för att tappa i hållfasthet.

Nope, men bränderna som flygkrasherna skapade hade avtagit ganska rejält. Tror t.o.m. det står i den officiella rapporten (där kan jag ha fel dock). Problemt är att södra tornet som blev träffat 20 minuter efter det norra kollapsade först. Dessutom träffades det norra tornet mitt på, det södra träffades i hörnet och på video och bilder syns det hur det mesta flygbränslet exploderar utanförbyggnaden.

Vad vet du om vad som är majoriteten av flygbränslet? Jag såg ett eldklot men jag kan själv inte på något vis bedömma om det var majoriteten av bränslet eller inte.

 

O: Hur skulle sprängladdningar kunna smälta stål i de mängder att det blir sammanhängande pölar av smält stål?

WTC kollapsade i fritt fall, på ca 10 sekunder. Stål faller väl inte igenom hundratusentals kubikmeter betong i fritt fall?

Vad vill du ha sagt här? Betongen faller väl också mot marken tillsammans med stålet? Eller missförstår jag dig?

 

Det kanske starkaste argumentet mot konspirationsideerna måste ändå vara den förmodade kompetensen hos amerikanska myndigheter. Naturligtvis skulle en så här stor komplott vara preussiskt nogrannt planerad och det skulle inte lämnas utrymme för just konspirationsmisstankar.

 

---

 

Fast å andra sidan... Jorden är nog platt och månen, solen samt alla stjärnor är bara lampor. Därtill inses förstås lätt att alla myror och spindlar (tillsammans med alla andra småkryp) är aliens som planerar att erövra jorden. Eller kan du bevisa motsatsen?

 

Man ska inte blåögt tro på ALLT som ALLA myndigheter försöker tuta i oss...men snälla...det måste finns gränser för får skepsism.

Status quo Furir

Status quo

Posted
Posted

Det som jag aldrig förstått eller kommer förstå är varför amerikanska myndigheter skulle vilja förstöra sina egna jättebyggnader... och hur det kommer sig att ingen sagt något trots den enorma planeringen samt de antal personer som behövs för att genomföra något dylikt..

 

men dom har väl fått hjälp av sina kompisar rymdvarelserna, kadaffi, saddam och osama samt alla kommunistdikatorer som blivit utbildade av CIA..

  • 3 weeks later...
coolhand Furir

coolhand

Posted
Posted
Fox News har ju inget direkt framstående rykte...

 

Kanske inte i Sverige men fraga USAs militar vilken kanal de tittar pa och ar den enda kanalen som sager det som det ar...

Bolle Menig 4

Bolle

Posted
Posted
Kan du ge en snabb sammanfattning?

 

/J

Fox har surfat in på fransk sida för foliehattar och har därefter startat sin egen undersökning.

Frågan är alltså hur ett stoort plan kunde göra ett liitet hål i Pentagon-byggnaden. Man ifrågasätter de uppenbarligen obrända saker som syns inuti det skadade huset samtidigt som flygplansexperter förklarar hur länge det kvarvarande flygbränslet borde ha brunnit. Mystiken tätnar iochmed att parkeringsplatsvideon släpptes, då denna för det första inte knivskarpt visar något plan, för det andra är märkt med datumet sep. 12 ! :wub:

Var det svar på dina undringar, J-star?

/Bolle

Hornet Översergeant

Hornet

Posted
Posted

Har sett en längre version också där dom tar up tornen också och kan säga att allt värkar väldigt mysko.

Och det som är värst att det skulle kunna gått till såhär :wub:

Guest J-Star

Guest J-Star

Posted
Posted

Kan du ge en snabb sammanfattning?

Var det svar på dina undringar, J-star?

Japp! Tackar.

 

Som jag redan sagt i den här tråden: flygplan är attans bräckliga. De består till stora delar av luft. Kroppen är en igenkorkad toarulle... vingarna är stabilare men ändå rätt ömtåliga... det enda som håller ihop någorlunda är motorerna. Att då drämma in med en sådan konstruktion i en stor betongkloss... det lämnar inte mycket kvar.

 

/J

Lt.E Korpral

Lt.E

Posted
Posted

Jorden styrs för övrigt av reptilliknande varelser som antagit människo utseende.

 

Behöver jag tillägga att de är utomjordingar och att givetvis hela familjen Bush tillhör dessa?

 

Det är inte klokt vad man kan lära sig genom att titta på TV6!

 

Det bästa med gårdagen program var när de intervjuvade personer som blivit bortförda av utomjordingarna och undersökta med den berömda "sonden".

 

När de visade en sond för en av kvinnorna, så var det precis en sådan de använt på henne. Men egentligen var det en analdilod som de målat med silverfärg...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...