mboost-dp1
911 Hoax
Conar (314) skrev:Kan du ikke modbevise...
Conar, jeg har set en video på YouTube, der ved at tage en række citater og billeder ud af kontekst, rejser den påstand at du i virkeligheden er den irakiske informationsminister "Komiske Ali", der opholder sig i Danmark under falsk identitet, og nu forsøger at vende folk til at tro at 9/11 var en sammensværgelse, for at få hævn over George W. Bush's indtog i Irak, som gjorde dig til grin i hele verdenen.
Kan du ikke lige modbevise det? Og du skal ikke forsøge dig med at sige at dette indlæg er barnligt eller et eller andet i den stil, for det er ment i ramme alvor, og hvis du hævder andet, så er det at "sætte tvivl om [min] person", [url=#314]citat slut[/url].
Når du er færdig med at modbevise ovenstående, så kan vi kigge på dine udtalelser om 9/11, men indtil da kan du nok forstå at vi ikke kan tage dig seriøst, da vi jo naturligt må gå ud fra at du er Komiske Ali, når nu beviserne er så overvældende.
God fornøjelse.
Conar (293) skrev:Nu siger du sikkert: nej de gjorde ikke.
Jo de gjorde.
Dig: nej
Jo.
Og hvem er så den største tåbe?
Bygningerne blev designet og bygget i 1966 - 1973. De har sandsynligvis haft den Kolde Krig op over deres hoveder, og har sandsynligvis designet efter et daværende tankeset. Som sagt tidligere designet til at en Boeng 707 kan flyve ind i den. Der er forskel på at flyve ind i en bygning og på at styrte/kamikaze ind i en bygning. Førstnævnte antager at flyet vil afvige, sænke farten, og et ton andre ting.
Taget historie i betragtning (bl.a. Pearl Harbor) burde man nok have antaget sidstnævnte, jeg har intet bevis set på at dette skulle være sandt, men lad os bare antage, at de gjorde det..
En Boeing 707
har en maksimum lift-off weight (altså, den vægt den kan lette med), på ~151000 kg - og vejer 66000 kg, tom - og det er hvis vi antager den største af allesammen.
De to fly, der styrtede ind i WTC var Boeing 767-223ER og 767-200ER. Kilde - følg linksene til de to flyrouter, også står typen benævnt.
En 767-200ER kan lette med 179000 kg og vejer 82000 kg - altså ca. en hel tredjedel mere end tårnene blev "designet til" at kunne modstå.
Fjolle (284) skrev:Nu var det danskere der havde set det i tv. De har set indtil flere kollapser og ved hvordan stål opfører sig i en brand. Det de sagde var at det lignede et "normalt" kollaps. Ikke at det lignede en demolering.
Jeg snakkede om brandmændene, der var til stede, som mente, at det ikke var logisk, det, der forgik.
Conar (288) skrev:2. impact rammer ikke engang kernen... http://www.youtube.com/..
facts taler for sig selv :)
Jo, den gør. Som du selv siger er kernen "massiv" - i forhold til bygningen er den ret stor, og taget centrum af bygningen i betragtning må det fly have ramt kernen, da vingerne ikke flyver af, men fortsætter ind i WTC, og der ses eksplosioner helt ind i midten af tårnet - fra siden af.
Facts taler for sig selv - det er bare synd at alle dine indtil videre enten ikke er "facts" overhovedet eller at de ikke beviser det, du gerne vil have dem til.
ZiN (352) skrev:Facts taler for sig selv - det er bare synd at alle dine indtil videre enten ikke er "facts" overhovedet eller at de ikke beviser det, du gerne vil have dem til.
Ingen af de millioner af facts jeg efterhånden har postet i denne tråd er facts?
ZiN (352) skrev:Bygningerne blev designet og bygget i 1966 - 1973.
Building 7 blev bygget i 1987, og blev ikke ramt af en fly. Officielt kollapsede den på grund af ildebrand.
"7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building, with a lack of water to fight the fires. The building collapsed completely at 5:20 p.m., when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout."
Disse facts har jeg da skrevet før, men du påstår det ikke er facts eller ikke beviser det jeg vil have det til?
Jeg troede at du var for en konspiration...
Er jo den officielle forklaring, som du ikke tror på... Eller?
"7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building, with a lack of water to fight the fires. The building collapsed completely at 5:20 p.m., when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout."
Er jo den officielle forklaring, som du ikke tror på... Eller?
Fjolle (360) skrev:Hvad er det der ikke er ordentligt ved den forklaring?
FEMA's rapport er fyldt med spekulation og hypotetiske scenarier. Rapporten er fyldt med “appears” og “apparently”. meget lidt af denne rapport er angivet med overbevisning.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Er det en ordenlig undersøgelse i din bog?
Conar (362) skrev:FEMA's rapport er fyldt med spekulation og hypotetiske scenarier. Rapporten er fyldt med “appears” og “apparently”. meget lidt af denne rapport er angivet med overbevisning.
Hvad fanden havde du tænkt dig at de skulle skrive? Man bygger jo ikke højhuse der har sensorer der viser alle positioner af al ting på alle tidspunkter. Det er kun muligt at spekulere og regne sig frem til nogle mulige scenarier.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/J...
From the preliminary NIST report we see that there were 24 steel columns in the core of WTC7and 57 perimeter columns. Clearly, these columns were not weak; on the contrary, it was a very solid building. And it was not hit by a plane at all. According to the reports so far, none of these columnswas severed although a few may have been damaged by falling debris from a Tower.The nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC 1) was about 100 meters from WTC 7. For building 7
to come straight down at nearly freefall speed without explosives frankly strains credulity and leads us to search for a better explanation. Accordingly, several careful studies were performed regarding the collapse of WTC 7.I wish to call attention to this footnote in a paper by Professor Kenneth Kuttler: “any further analysis of WTC7 should include all floors (not just “floors 8 to 46”) and conservation of momentum considerations.” Now why would he say this about including all the floors in further analysis work, and not “just floors 8 to 46”? Dr. Kuttler’s paper points to a NIST solicitation. After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of
building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7: “Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center Building Seven.” We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?”
In the video Loose Change (final cut) there is a tape of a fellow who was trapped in Building 7
before it collapsed, so he’s on the radio, he’s telling how they got out of there. He explained that they
were trapped at floor 8, there was an explosion below them and he and his colleague were trapped.
The explosion cut off their escape routes. “There wasn’t any way that we could find to get out.” Now
that implies a major explosion. He said the firefighters were able to get through and get to them and
get them out of Building 7 before it collapsed. This is strong evidence for a major explosion below
floor 8. As scientists we have to include that evidence and not just limit ourselves to floors 8 to 46 as
the NIST solicitation requires.
New Civil Engineer has an article that says:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
NIST does have photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 7 which they have refused to release despite Freedom of Information Act requests.
NIST uses computer models to analyze the response of the WTC towers to fire which is fine if done in accordance with data and physical laws. However, the model disregards much of the data. In the scientific method, experimental data form the cornerstone of a model, not vice versa. In this case, the actual experiments with WTC floor assemblies did not result in collapse or failure. So NIST, in their computerized “black box” simulation allows warping of not just 3 inches which was based on experiments, but over 40 inches! 23 That’s a major extrapolation from the data. You see, again, a departure by NIST from the careful scientific method.
We do have some structural engineers who are speaking out about the collapses of these buildings. For example, Joseph Phelps is on the editorial board for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He
said “the airplane couldn’t cause this… Something is cutting the columns, it’s called controlled demolition.” And two structural professors in Switzerland are quoted in the newspaper there. There is the reference Tages-Anzeiger, September 9, 2006 .20
Prof. Hugo Bachmann stated: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the highest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts.” I’ve had people say, “well maybe Al Qaeda ran into WTC7 that morning and planted explosives…” This is unsupportable since this was a highly secure building: WTC 7 housed a secret office of the CIA, as well as a Department of Defense office and so on. (It is worth noting that records of ENRON and other businesses under investigation were destroyed when this building collapsed.) Furthermore, it takes time and considerable skill to do a demolition of a skyscraper in the manner we observed. Structural Prof. Jörg Schneider stated: “WTC7
was with great probability brought down by explosives.” 22
Now I’m hoping that NIST will actually go so far as to consider the idea that explosives were used in the destruction of Building 7.
From the preliminary NIST report we see that there were 24 steel columns in the core of WTC7and 57 perimeter columns. Clearly, these columns were not weak; on the contrary, it was a very solid building. And it was not hit by a plane at all. According to the reports so far, none of these columnswas severed although a few may have been damaged by falling debris from a Tower.The nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC 1) was about 100 meters from WTC 7. For building 7
to come straight down at nearly freefall speed without explosives frankly strains credulity and leads us to search for a better explanation. Accordingly, several careful studies were performed regarding the collapse of WTC 7.I wish to call attention to this footnote in a paper by Professor Kenneth Kuttler: “any further analysis of WTC7 should include all floors (not just “floors 8 to 46”) and conservation of momentum considerations.” Now why would he say this about including all the floors in further analysis work, and not “just floors 8 to 46”? Dr. Kuttler’s paper points to a NIST solicitation. After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of
building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7: “Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center Building Seven.” We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?”
In the video Loose Change (final cut) there is a tape of a fellow who was trapped in Building 7
before it collapsed, so he’s on the radio, he’s telling how they got out of there. He explained that they
were trapped at floor 8, there was an explosion below them and he and his colleague were trapped.
The explosion cut off their escape routes. “There wasn’t any way that we could find to get out.” Now
that implies a major explosion. He said the firefighters were able to get through and get to them and
get them out of Building 7 before it collapsed. This is strong evidence for a major explosion below
floor 8. As scientists we have to include that evidence and not just limit ourselves to floors 8 to 46 as
the NIST solicitation requires.
New Civil Engineer has an article that says:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
NIST does have photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 7 which they have refused to release despite Freedom of Information Act requests.
NIST uses computer models to analyze the response of the WTC towers to fire which is fine if done in accordance with data and physical laws. However, the model disregards much of the data. In the scientific method, experimental data form the cornerstone of a model, not vice versa. In this case, the actual experiments with WTC floor assemblies did not result in collapse or failure. So NIST, in their computerized “black box” simulation allows warping of not just 3 inches which was based on experiments, but over 40 inches! 23 That’s a major extrapolation from the data. You see, again, a departure by NIST from the careful scientific method.
We do have some structural engineers who are speaking out about the collapses of these buildings. For example, Joseph Phelps is on the editorial board for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He
said “the airplane couldn’t cause this… Something is cutting the columns, it’s called controlled demolition.” And two structural professors in Switzerland are quoted in the newspaper there. There is the reference Tages-Anzeiger, September 9, 2006 .20
Prof. Hugo Bachmann stated: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the highest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts.” I’ve had people say, “well maybe Al Qaeda ran into WTC7 that morning and planted explosives…” This is unsupportable since this was a highly secure building: WTC 7 housed a secret office of the CIA, as well as a Department of Defense office and so on. (It is worth noting that records of ENRON and other businesses under investigation were destroyed when this building collapsed.) Furthermore, it takes time and considerable skill to do a demolition of a skyscraper in the manner we observed. Structural Prof. Jörg Schneider stated: “WTC7
was with great probability brought down by explosives.” 22
Now I’m hoping that NIST will actually go so far as to consider the idea that explosives were used in the destruction of Building 7.
Conar (353) skrev:Ingen af de millioner af facts jeg efterhånden har postet i denne tråd er facts?
Du har ikke postet nogle facts i denne tråd og da slet ikke millioner af dem, så dit spørgsmål giver ikke nogen mening.
Conar (362) skrev:Rapporten er fyldt med “appears” og “apparently”. meget lidt af denne rapport er angivet med overbevisning.
Underholdende nok, så har jeg hørt næsten samme argument mod evolutions teorien fra kreationister.
Jeg kan kun tro det skyldes uvidenhed omkring videnskab. Da man i videnskab ikke påstår at have absolut viden, så bruger man en masse af den slags sprog.
Mange tak, fordi du endnu engang bekræfter min antagelse om at konspirations nuts er ligesom kreationister.
Conar (362) skrev:Er det en ordenlig undersøgelse i din bog?
Ja. Ved du, hvad en ordenlig undersøgelse er? Man kunne komme i tvivl når du konstant citere misinformation og bruger konspirationssider som informations kilde.
Conar (359) skrev:Der skal jo laves en ny undersøgelse, det er jo det alle truthers vil have. Vi vil have en ordenlig forklaring.
Conspiracy er der jo ikke bevis for.
Jeg tror ikke på det vil ændre en døjt for "truthers". Ligegyldigt hvor mange beviser som gør imod deres fantasi, så vil de aldrig acceptere det. Sandheden betyder intet for dem.
gnarfsan (364) skrev:Hvad fanden havde du tænkt dig at de skulle skrive? Man bygger jo ikke højhuse der har sensorer der viser alle positioner af al ting på alle tidspunkter. Det er kun muligt at spekulere og regne sig frem til nogle mulige scenarier.
NIST og FEMA nægter at frigive fotos og videoer under Freedom of information act, selvom disse fotos og videoer kunne aflive spekulationer om kontrolleret demolition af Building 7. Der befandt sig et vidne på 8. sal som hørte eksplosioner under sig. Frigiv billederne af de nederste etager og lad os se!
Building 7 billeder og video materieale er meget sparsom, meget lig som Pentagon, hvor der kun blev frigivet 1 video af flyet ramme bygningen, selvom der befandt sig mange kameraer omkring Pentagon.
gnarfsan (368) skrev:#367 kortvarrigt strejfede den tanke mig at arne_v havde lavet Conar som en bot bare for at underholde os, men arne ville nok have lavet en lidt mere kreativ AI :P
Nu er i jo 5-6 mennesker mod 1, og jeg skal også jonglere med min familie i den anden hånd.
NIST og FEMA brugte måneder eller år på deres rapporter, og de var mange mennesker.
Give me some slack?
Hvorfor skal du komme med personlige angreb?
Conar (371) skrev:NIST og FEMA nægter at frigive fotos og videoer under Freedom of information act, selvom disse fotos og videoer kunne aflive spekulationer om kontrolleret demolition af Building 7. Der befandt sig et vidne på 8. sal som hørte eksplosioner under sig. Frigiv billederne af de nederste etager og lad os se!
Men der er ikke ret mange, der interesserer sig for det. Alle på nær nogle få der laver de her konspirationssider har accepteret det.
Conar (371) skrev:Hvorfor skal du komme med personlige angreb?
Fordi det er møg irriterende at føre en diskussion sådan her:
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvad så med det her? <Link>
Hvilket er stortset alt hvad jeg har set fra din side, og du har for det meste ikke engang tjekket om der er nogen som helst validitet af dine kilder. Det er spild af vores tid.
Så hvorfor svarer vi overhovedet? For at vise at vi er mange her på sitet de ikke tror på de videnskabeligt set meget meget ringe teorier, der bliver fremført af 9/11 truthers.
Newz.dk er ikke et spørgepanel. Undersøg selv dine spørgsmål bare lidt, før du stiller dem.
Jeg har selv brugt knapt et minut på at søge på de enkelte spørgsmål og en del længere på at formulere et svar på dem. Det kunne du selv have gjort.
Hver link har jo været diskuteret gnarfsan, og der har været links som er postet for sjov... du kan ikke skære alle sammen over en kam.
Så fordi en person har postet et dårligt link for 5 år siden for sjov, eller fordi han tog fejl, så er han for evigt utroværdig, selvom linket blev diskuteret osv...
tænk fremad Gnarfsan.
Det er snart 11. september igen, så mon ikke der kommer nye diskutioner...
Så fordi en person har postet et dårligt link for 5 år siden for sjov, eller fordi han tog fejl, så er han for evigt utroværdig, selvom linket blev diskuteret osv...
tænk fremad Gnarfsan.
Det er snart 11. september igen, så mon ikke der kommer nye diskutioner...
Conar (373) skrev:Hver link har jo været diskuteret gnarfsan, og der har været links som er postet for sjov... du kan ikke skære alle sammen over en kam.
Så fordi en person har postet et dårligt link for 5 år siden for sjov, eller fordi han tog fejl, så er han for evigt utrolærdig, selvom linket blev diskuteret osv...
Hvad mener du? Jeg snakker dit input til diskussionen i denne tråd.
Conar (375) skrev:Tænk fremad.
Hvad vil truthers have?
En ny undersøgelse, eller billeder af Pentagon eller Building 7 fra andre vinkler, og tests af stålet osv. så der ingen tvivl er. Og der er tvivl.
Hvad vil debunkers have?
Debunkers kan se at det er vanvittigt at bush-regeringen skulle stå bag det, og kan se at det giver mening at et højhus ikke kan holde til at et fly af den størrelse rammer det med ~1000 km/t
Conar (375) skrev:Hvad vil truthers have?
Truthers vil bevise at det var bush-regeringen der stod bag det. Med løgn osv.
Gnarfsan (376) skrev:Truthers vil bevise at det var bush-regeringen der stod bag det. Med løgn osv.
Det er jo en løgn.
http://911scholars.org/
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (S9/11T) is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
777 architectural and engineering professionals
and 4453 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
http://www.physics911.net/
PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission actually stated the they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!
At kræve en uafhængig undersøgelse af begivenhederne den 11. september!
=
Truthers vil bevise at det var bush-regeringen der stod bag det. Med løgn osv
?
Conar (378) skrev:
At kræve en uafhængig undersøgelse af begivenhederne den 11. september!
=
Truthers vil bevise at det var bush-regeringen der stod bag det. Med løgn osv
?
1: Der har været flere uafhængige undersøgelser af dem, der har bedst baggrund for at undersøge det.
2: Ja, de hiver ting ud af sammenhængen, lister folk med Ph.D. uden at fortælle hvad den er i. Og jeg afslørede så en af dem som "Electrical Engineer". Siger det dig slet ikke at der er noget galt?
Hvad mener du helt personligt at motivet skulle være?
Jeg svarer på resten senere. Jeg skal handle nu.
Conar (375) skrev:Tænk fremad.
Kørte Danske Bank ikke en reklame med det slogan på omtrent samme tidspunkt som den irakiske informationsminister forsvandt fra skærmen da USA gik ind i Irak? Eller det vil du måske betegne som et "tilfælde"? For PR-medarbejder ville da være en ret oplagt vej at ernære sig af når man tidligere har været informationsminister, og er tvunget til at leve i eksil... ikke sandt, Komiske Ali?
Hvad vil truthers have?
En ny undersøgelse, eller billeder af Pentagon eller Building 7 fra andre vinkler, og tests af stålet osv. så der ingen tvivl er. Og der er tvivl.
Kan du ikke selv høre hvor sindsygt det du siger er? Du forlanger billeder der ikke eksisterer, og tests af stål som du selv har erkendt at allerede er blevet omsmeltet. Hvorfor forlange ting, som man ved ikke findes? En grund: magt. Det er det eneste det handler om for truthers.
Ved at forlange ting der ikke findes ved I at I vil få en negativ tilbagemelding fra de relevante myndigheder. Den tilbagemelding kan I så bruge til at bilde endnu flere ind at myndighederne "forsøger at holde noget skjult", og derved skabe større opbakning til endnu større krav. Og sådan vil I blive ved lige indtil I har fingeren på den røde knap. Formentlig fordi I er for dumme til at få indflydelse via de almindelige kanaler. Heldigvis er det meste af befolkningen alt for intelligente til at spille med på det latterlige spil.
Hvad vil debunkers have?
At I holder op med at fylde internettet med vås, og koncentrerer jer om de mange reelle problemer der er i verden eller overlader det til nogen der ved hvad de taler om.
gnarfsan (372) skrev:Newz.dk er ikke et spørgepanel. Undersøg selv dine spørgsmål bare lidt, før du stiller dem.
forum substantiv <et; -met, fora, foraene>
1. Betydning og brug
fysisk eller tænkt sted, som anvendes til at afholde diskussioner, udveksling af meninger og erfaringer, forhandlinger og lignende
Hvad vil debunkers have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking
A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.
Der er faktisk mange debunkers som ønsker en ny uafhænging undersøgelse af 911, men som afslører falske facts eller umulige teorier. Jeg har postet nogle ting i dette forum som ikke passede, men det er jo ikke ulovligt at lave en fejl. Mener nu også jeg har postet links til FEMA osv som ikke kan være helt uden relevans.
Conar (383) skrev:fysisk eller tænkt sted, som anvendes til at afholde diskussioner, udveksling af meninger og erfaringer, forhandlinger og lignende
Du kommenterer ikke vores svar, men fremsætter bare postulater. Ofte gentagelser. Ikke din egen mening. Kun links. Ergo, du diskuterer ikke.
gnarfsan (379) skrev:Hvad mener du helt personligt at motivet skulle være?
gnarfsan (380) skrev:Og kan du ikke i mellemtiden også overveje hvorfor de er interesserede i at få endnu en undersøgelse? De må jo mene at der har været en anden mulighed, end at de styrtede sammen pga. flyene
Her beder jeg om dine input.
Og jeg har generelt manglet kommentarer til debunkings her.
Ikke mærkeligt at du tror på det når du ikke engang kan finde informationer, jeg fortæller dig hvor du er. Jeg håber godtnok at du bare er doven.
Fjolle (395) skrev:Jeg vil personligt gerne vide hvad du mener er galt med wtc7 kollapset.
Ville gerne vise dig nogle links og billeder, men det må jeg ikke. (joke :)
NIST har ikke fremlagt al info. feks ignorerer de de nederste etager under 8. sal, og
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ siger bare de ikke ved hvorfor den kollapser.
Så jeg mener der skal en bedre undersøgelse til.
Eftersom der mangler billedmateriale fra de nederste etager da den kollapser, kan man ikke danne en ordenlig mening.
NIST siger jo det startede på 13. sal. Det kunne være let at bevise.
Der var fotografer til stede (eftersom man viste den ville kollapse før den gjorde det), men de nægter at frigive disse billeder.
Conar (397) skrev:Ville gerne vise dig nogle links og billeder, men det må jeg ikke.
Jo. det er skam helt fint, hvis de ikke er hen i skoven, som f.eks. buldocere der løfter smeltede?! jernblokke og folk der tropper op uanmeldt med et filmkamera og interviewer en person, modeller af hønsenet med trækul og grillfolie osv.
Conar (397) skrev:Ville gerne vise dig nogle links og billeder, men det må jeg ikke. (joke :)
NIST har ikke fremlagt al info. feks ignorerer de de nederste etager under 8. sal, og
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ siger bare de ikke ved hvorfor den kollapser.
Så jeg mener der skal en bedre undersøgelse til.
Eftersom der mangler billedmateriale fra de nederste etager da den kollapser, kan man ikke danne en ordenlig mening.
NIST siger jo det startede på 13. sal. Det kunne være let at bevise.
Der var fotografer til stede (eftersom man viste den ville kollapse før den gjorde det), men de nægter at frigive disse billeder.
Det NIST er kommet frem til er at en bjælke der holdte 13 etage udvidede sig indtil den fik skubbet en anden bjælke løs. Dette ledte til at hele "indersiden" af bygningen kollapsede hvorefter ydermurene kollapser til sidst.
Hvordan vil du have at folk skulle have taget billeder af det?
Opret dig som bruger i dag
Det er gratis, og du binder dig ikke til noget.
Når du er oprettet som bruger, får du adgang til en lang række af sidens andre muligheder, såsom at udforme siden efter eget ønske og deltage i diskussionerne.
- Forside
- ⟨
- Forum
- ⟨
- Tagwall
Gå til bund