[Hazaanko]

Which means that you must also consider the element of local bias. The fact that he's from Croatia and claims that Serbia (which his country recently fought a war with) is getting preferential treatment must be treated as biased on the grounds that he is likely only hearing one side of the story. I very much doubt that the Croatian media is going to be completely unbiased when it comes to who is getting a fair deal between their own country and an old enemy like Serbia.

That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.

The majority of the time (not ALL the time) I would still take somebody's info from somebody who had actually experienced something even if they were biased .  There is no 'unbiased information.'  Everything you take in is going to have some kind of spin... is not going to contain all the pertinent information/etc.

Considering I have no reason to distrust Trashman, and a very large list of reasons to distrust the UN..... .... ...

[karajorma]

Fine, that's your choice. But even if you trust Trashman he hasn't actually said what you should trust him on. All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes (like a massive plot to reunify Yugoslavia or inflated death counts at Jasenovac).

In other words he's like a eyewitness saying "That guy there did it!" and when you ask him for more details on how the crime occurred or what he actually saw, he simply says "Why are you asking me for more details? I already told you he did it! I WAS THERE!"

Trashman pointed out that the Serb army marched through his town. How does that back up his claim that the EU were supporting the Serbs? Even his eyewitness reports don't back anything up because they have no substance. All they prove is that he was in Croatia during the war, and I've never disputed that.

[TrashMan]

Kaj, have you ever considered what you consider proof?

In your own previous post you said you "proved me wrong" in regards to X and Y, by looking it up on the net.
What kind of a proof is that? A sentance you read or quted from some webpage?
Heck, I could edit the Wikipedia page and add a fef zeroes to the casualites numbers or make or hakc another webpage, and you would go around merrily quoting that same number to people in other discussion, calming it as a fact.
You have never seen a document or a signed witnesss accout, I don't think you even saw a scan of a documnet or something - in other words you're taking someone elses words as a fact, and then attacking me for not providing proof.

I told you where you cna find some (regarding Haag). As for other things, I do have a few books, one a whopping 400 pages ("Vrijeme Krivokletnika") fileld with scans of documents, correspondence between politicians and generals and signed eyewitness accounts. AFAIK, its not on the net, but i havn't checked.
Now I could scan a few pages, but it's on croatian so I doubt you'll understand a word. I could translate it for you but I doubt you wuld belive me.
Even if I did find and post a english version (hm..come to think of it, I do belive a few documents were on english - correspondence with some NATO general and politicians), I bet you would say it's falsified. It's a possibility. But then again, when's the last time you checked if your information is correct, insted of just quting other people? Could your information be false?

This is precisely why you should refrain from calling people liars. Do your homework first.

Trashman pointed out that the Serb army marched through his town. How does that back up his claim that the EU were supporting the Serbs? Even his eyewitness reports don't back anything up because they have no substance. All they prove is that he was in Croatia during the war, and I've never disputed that.

No, no, I used that as an example. Thankfully Serb forces didn't enter it - if they did I doubt I would be in any position to type this.

All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes

I've seen some stuff myself, not all of it of course. I can't be in two places at once. I did see and read documents and talked with people whom I would trust with my life who did see other things.

I could tell you of a few minor incidents that I did witness ( and that officially never happened acccording to hte EU, or happened differently), but I can't really prove them to you now. There are people who cna confirm it, heck I'm sure there's footage out there that still hasn't seen the light of  the day - but right now, right here (especially over the internet), no I can't prove it.

Writing a book? Books on the subject have allready been written but they remain very low-profle. And if I write a book, when will I mod? You DO want to see FOW3, don't you?

That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.

double edged sword.
It's like that deal with a patiet dying froma painfull, uncurable illnes who wants to die and a doctor who thinks he's crazy.
Is the patient uncapable of making a rational decision becoause of the pain? After all, who want's to die anyway.
Or is it exactly the pain that makes his decision far more rational than normaly? After all, only he konws best how much he can take and how much it hurts!
I don't stick to croatia media b.t.w - during the war i watches Serbian news as well, as well as BBC, Al Jazera, CNN and otehr news networks.
Croatian media is especially sucky now...it's back to one party one-mindness.

[Mobius]

Just two things:

It is proved that some articles of the Wikipedia have been "corrected"(please note my sarcasm). I had a discussion in an Italian forum about this worrying event(the Vatican was involved, you can't imagine how many people hate it). I said that old encyclopaediae are better. You can trust books, you can't trust the Internet.

I don't know if the articles mentioned come from the Wikipedia - I just want to remember recent episodes involving sites in which everyone can modify stuff.

Also, I think people who experienced certain events should have more consideration. We remember the massacre of Ebrews mostly thanks to the Ebrews themselves. We would have easily forgotten them. It's also true that people sometimes exaggerate to attract some attention, we can't ignore it. Historicians also make differences, everyone knows of the bad conditions of British workers during the Industrial Revolution(s), no one knows of the even worse conditions of Italian citizens, not even workers... in 1700-1950. I don't know of foreign historians who talked about the subject. This is just an example.

[karajorma]

Kaj, have you ever considered what you consider proof?

In your own previous post you said you "proved me wrong" in regards to X and Y, by looking it up on the net.
What kind of a proof is that? A sentance you read or quted from some webpage?

Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever. 

In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more.

Heck, I could edit the Wikipedia page and add a fef zeroes to the casualites numbers or make or hakc another webpage, and you would go around merrily quoting that same number to people in other discussion, calming it as a fact.

You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.

And ironically enough you couldn't edit the wikipedia page. It's protected against change due to the fact that holocaust deniers keep coming along and changing the number. Fortunately I don't rely on wikipedia.

You have never seen a document or a signed witnesss accout, I don't think you even saw a scan of a documnet or something - in other words you're taking someone elses words as a fact, and then attacking me for not providing proof.

I'm taking the word of a large number of people who know the subject better than me and who can provide credentials proving that they know the subject better than me as fact. Who are your sources?

I told you where you cna find some (regarding Haag). As for other things, I do have a few books, one a whopping 400 pages ("Vrijeme Krivokletnika") fileld with scans of documents, correspondence between politicians and generals and signed eyewitness accounts. AFAIK, its not on the net, but i havn't checked.

I've already asked you what the **** I'm supposed to be looking up about the Hague trials. You didn't bother to answer. You simply told me to go look up the Haag again. Look up what? I'm waiting to see what theory you have that it's part of a conspiracy. So far you haven't even been able to tell me what the conspiracy even is, nor how it relates to your claim that the EU want to make a Yugoslav state.

 As for the book what is it proof of? Hell for all I know the book is 100% the truth and you haven't understood it. Again all you're doing is quoting a source and saying that it supports you. I'm still not seeing how. What does the book itself say that proves you are correct? Even if I can't prove whether or not the book actually says it at least hearing what the book does say would be a step in the right direction because it's not "Trashman says"

But then again, when's the last time you checked if your information is correct, insted of just quting other people? Could your information be false?

Could be. I wouldn't dream of saying that every source I've found is infallible or 100% accurate. You on the other hand seem to be insisting that the sources you can't produce or verify are.

This is precisely why you should refrain from calling people liars. Do your homework first.

I gave you an either/or. You're the one who's picked one of those an insisted that it's the one you aren't. Personally I tend to believe it's the hazy recollections one because when I have checked up on things I've found them to be different from the truth but in a way that could be due to remembering it incorrectly.

Which is why I've repeatedly told you that you need sources to back up everything you say. If you bothered to check them you wouldn't get things wrong. And then I might actually believe you from time to time.

All he's said "I know stuff. I've seen it myself" and then used that to justify the stuff he has claimed. Stuff he didn't actually see with his own eyes

I've seen some stuff myself, not all of it of course. I can't be in two places at once. I did see and read documents and talked with people whom I would trust with my life who did see other things.

I could tell you of a few minor incidents that I did witness ( and that officially never happened acccording to hte EU, or happened differently), but I can't really prove them to you now. There are people who cna confirm it, heck I'm sure there's footage out there that still hasn't seen the light of  the day - but right now, right here (especially over the internet), no I can't prove it.

See! You just did it again. I've seen stuff. My friends have seen stuff. So I'm right.

What have you seen? How does it prove you're right?

You keep saying NATO/EU covered stuff up. So what? How does that prove you're right? I don't doubt that they covered all sorts of stuff up cause they didn't want to look as inept, or they didn't want to look helpless or they didn't want to make themselves a target for attacks from either army. But how does that prove that there was a systematic campaign by the EU/NATO/UN to ensure that Yugoslavia reformed. And how does that prevent your country from doing its own unbiased investigation into Jasenovac  and finding out the truth?

Are you going to answer me this time or are you going to say yet again that the fact that you live in Croatia means you can claim that it's true and not provide an explanation?

That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.

double edged sword.
It's like that deal with a patiet dying froma painfull, uncurable illnes who wants to die and a doctor who thinks he's crazy.
Is the patient uncapable of making a rational decision becoause of the pain? After all, who want's to die anyway.
Or is it exactly the pain that makes his decision far more rational than normaly? After all, only he konws best how much he can take and how much it hurts!

If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?

I don't stick to croatia media b.t.w - during the war i watches Serbian news as well, as well as BBC, Al Jazera, CNN and otehr news networks.
Croatian media is especially sucky now...it's back to one party one-mindness.

Nonetheless you live in a culture which is shaped by Croatian media more than any other. And I assume that's a typo and you're not actually  telling me that you watched Al Jazeera during the war in Croatia.

[Asuko]

Alrighty then. I suppose Karajorma has gotten his piece but he might want more. Trashman has also gotten his piece but he is definitely raring for more.

This is about as close to an intellectual(?) flame war as I can imagine. Frankly, it's sad thinking it that way.

[TrashMan]

Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever. 

In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more.

So you STILL havn't checked out that Haage thing?

And many I ask, what proof you have provided? You also said you READ/CHECKED that it's false. Anyone reading this forums has only your word.

You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.

Hacking impossible? plase....
BBC has never aired false information (knowingly or not?) NEVER? Well really..

I'm taking the word of a large number of people who know the subject better than me and who can provide credentials proving that they know the subject better than me as fact. Who are your sources?

The same..other people with credentials, myself, some people I know..
Alltough ironicly, creadentials don't prove people actually nkow what they're talking about.
Not to mention tha credentails can aslo be easily forged.

I've already asked you what the **** I'm supposed to be looking up about the Hague trials. You didn't bother to answer. You simply told me to go look up the Haag again. Look up what? I'm waiting to see what theory you have that it's part of a conspiracy. So far you haven't even been able to tell me what the conspiracy even is, nor how it relates to your claim that the EU want to make a Yugoslav state.

You aren't reading. Florence Hartman. Other ex-employees. Heck, Carla Del Ponte erself has a questinable career. Ruanda demanded her removed from their caseses becouse of her incompetence.

See! You just did it again. I've seen stuff. My friends have seen stuff. So I'm right.
What have you seen? How does it prove you're right?

What are you, blind? I allready said that ATM I can't prove what I've seen, so theres no point in it, especially with this attitude.
Just..forget it K. What I've seen doesn't matter now and woudkn't bring anything to this discussion anyway, except for more accusations from you that i dont' have proof.

And how does that prevent your country from doing its own unbiased investigation into Jasenovac  and finding out the truth?
Are you going to answer me this time or are you going to say yet again that the fact that you live in Croatia means you can claim that it's true and not provide an explanation?

Oh, there have been investigations, but the data isn't really coming out... I blame it on the current situation in the state.

Do you honestly belive that a historian who lived in the country/region and thus knows it's history, geography and people isn't better adapt at writing about what happened in some region than a researcher who pops in for 2-3 months, gathers some data and goes away, writing his conclusions on the other side of the world.
And yes, the fat that I live here and have traveled around the country during the war DOES mean I know what I'm talking about better than half the so-called historians.

[
If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?

And how would you prove that?

Nonetheless you live in a culture which is shaped by Croatian media more than any other. And I assume that's a typo and you're not actually  telling me that you watched Al Jazeera during the war in Croatia.

Among other things.. I was allways interested to hear how hte world seez things and percives us...suffice to say I was dissapointed.

Mah...You know Kaj...if I used the time I spent on these debates with you (reading, writing, checking data) on actual modding, my campaign woulld have been finished by now. I all our debates nothing has come out of them, and most have turned into flame wars.
So I'm abandoning this sinking ship.

[falco]

I am from Slovenia and as I remember it was only the US that opposed the independence of Croatia and Slovenia from YU not the EU or NATO.
I still remember how then United States Secretary of State James Baker sad that neather Slovenia or Croatia would be recognized for 50 years.
But the EU (especially Germany and Austria) did help us in our independence and without them we would still be in a war that would have left us in even bigger sh*t then we are in right now.

thats my 2 cents

[Mobius]

I think someone should split this discussion, there might be people who have something to say around.

"De Indipendentia Croatiae" or something similar

[karajorma]

Better proof than that which you have so far provided. None whatsoever. 

In terms of proof you have provided none. I have therefore provided infinitely more.

So you STILL havn't checked out that Haage thing?

And many I ask, what proof you have provided? You also said you READ/CHECKED that it's false. Anyone reading this forums has only your word.

I'm happy to provide proof for anything I've said on this thread as I've looked up every single thing. I've not bothered mainly because I know you never bother to read them so it's a waste of my time to cut and paste the links in after I've finished reading them myself. If you want proof I'll post it.

Not if you're abandoning this sinking ship of course though.

You couldn't do that with the BBC website though. That's what got us onto your paranoid nonsense about how you couldn't trust the BBC because they were part of the same EU plot to keep Croatia down.

Hacking impossible? plase....

Is that really the best you can do? The BBC might have false information on it cause it's been hacked? Or I might have hacked the BBC website just to win a forum discussion?

BBC has never aired false information (knowingly or not?) NEVER? Well really..

I never claimed that my sources were all perfect. My only claim is that I have sources. And say whatever you like I'll take the BBC's report on a subject over you saying "I've read a book and it proves I'm right" any day of the week.

The same..other people with credentials, myself, some people I know..
Alltough ironicly, creadentials don't prove people actually nkow what they're talking about.
Not to mention tha credentails can aslo be easily forged.

Ah so now we're back to paranoia again. You still haven't said who these people are or even what they say that backs you up.

You aren't reading. Florence Hartman. Other ex-employees. Heck, Carla Del Ponte erself has a questinable career. Ruanda demanded her removed from their caseses becouse of her incompetence.

I've already said numerous times that the Hague War Crimes trials are being poorly run. You still have failed to prove what this has to do with a plot by the EU to reunify Yugoslavia.

What are you, blind? I allready said that ATM I can't prove what I've seen, so theres no point in it, especially with this attitude.
Just..forget it K. What I've seen doesn't matter now and woudkn't bring anything to this discussion anyway, except for more accusations from you that i dont' have proof.

In case you didn't notice I wasn't even even asking for proof. Your claim is that the EU had some Machiavellian plan to reunify Yugoslavia. Tired of the fact you wouldn't provide proof I simply asked what your sources had seen which supported this. In other words, simply state your theory and don't even bother backing up with proof. Simply say what of this mysteriously covered up stuff you have been on about for 3 pages led you to the conclusion that there was a diabolical plan. You could have told me that they found a UN had a lab where they were breeding 10 foot tall supersoldiers with the words "One Yugoslavia!" stamped across their chests at this point and it still would have been better than what I've gotten out of you in the past 3 pages.

Oh, there have been investigations, but the data isn't really coming out... I blame it on the current situation in the state.

Do you honestly belive that a historian who lived in the country/region and thus knows it's history, geography and people isn't better adapt at writing about what happened in some region than a researcher who pops in for 2-3 months, gathers some data and goes away, writing his conclusions on the other side of the world.

No I don't. And that's why I'm so suspicious of the fact that you can't prove your case!

And yes, the fat that I live here and have traveled around the country during the war DOES mean I know what I'm talking about better than half the so-called historians.

Yet you've made some absolute howlers of mistakes which the so-called historians wouldn't have made.

If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?

And how would you prove that?

It's your analogy. Pick you favourite way.

Mah...You know Kaj...if I used the time I spent on these debates with you (reading, writing, checking data) on actual modding, my campaign woulld have been finished by now. I all our debates nothing has come out of them, and most have turned into flame wars.

The real irony is I would have achieved a lot more since it takes me longer to reply cause I actually do some research.

[TrashMan]

Not if you're abandoning this sinking ship of course though.

In the dingy and rowing away, but still within earshot.
If you're asking myself why am I laving it's beacouse a conversation with someone who ignores what you say or misquotes you ins't fun and has no purpose at all. Keep reading...

I never claimed that my sources were all perfect. My only claim is that I have sources. And say whatever you like I'll take the BBC's report on a subject over you saying "I've read a book and it proves I'm right" any day of the week.

And I don't have?
I never claimed BBC or other are part of some "big plot". But misinformation is quite common, even with big names. How do you think tehy get the information they air? A producer troust the journalists, who trusts his informant, who trusts that harward professor who wrote things in his book, who based his book on the book of person Y, etc.. If the lowest link in the chain doesn't have accurate information, then all the above, even if their motives are honest, are reporting false information.

I can give you severa examples (tied to Croatia in one way or another, jsut to keep on topic):
A Croatian musucian, Marko Perović Thomspon is having a tour in the USA. Half the newspapers there (Sun, New York Times, etc..) call him a neo-nati supporter who was inticing croats to proform war crimes with his songs. That comes based off complaints from some local Serb groups who don't like him and the Simon Weisenthal Center. Apparently, during one of his concerts 4 people were seen carrying extremist emblems, and thus he msut be a anti-semite singer. 4 out of several thousands.The irony is even greater if you listen to his songs. Not a word of hatered in them..

Example 2 - some historians base their numbers off hte documents by Slavko Štrivac, founder of Veritas. He supplies numbers of dead in the conflict based on his reasearch. He's also the lead supplier for documetbs and said numbers for the Haage court.
Yet according to hte Croatian Memorial Center, who has been going over his numbers systematicly, and they proved that over 475 people on the list have not been killed by the HVO, but were either dead before, were killed in inter-serb conflicts (there were quite a few setbs who refused to help the invaders, and were branded as traitors) or died of natural couses. And they have still a lot of names to check.

Ah so now we're back to paranoia again. You still haven't said who these people are or even what they say that backs you up.

Neither have you..but journalists and historians, judges, ex-politicians...mostly from Croata, alltough some are foreigners.

I've already said numerous times that the Hague War Crimes trials are being poorly run. You still have failed to prove what this has to do with a plot by the EU to reunify Yugoslavia.

And again, you aren't reading what I say. Why should I even bother to continue. Statements from the high-raking ex-officials of the court that the court is POLITICAL and that some coutries have ben making secret deals (Like USA gettin a wanted war criminal, Mladić out of Seriba) are far more than just "badly run court".

In case you didn't notice I wasn't even even asking for proof. Your claim is that the EU had some Machiavellian plan to reunify Yugoslavia. Tired of the fact you wouldn't provide proof I simply asked what your sources had seen which supported this. In other words, simply state your theory and don't even bother backing up with proof. Simply say what of this mysteriously covered up stuff you have been on about for 3 pages led you to the conclusion that there was a diabolical plan. You could have told me that they found a UN had a lab where they were breeding 10 foot tall supersoldiers with the words "One Yugoslavia!" stamped across their chests at this point and it still would have been better than what I've gotten out of you in the past 3 pages.

And again...you misunderstood me. The scope of this thread has increased since hte begning, so you probably assumend that the "I know and I have hard proof" encompassed everything I said. Let me clarify this then:
I know a few things
I (well, not my directly) have hard proof some things
I have weak proof for the rest (this mainly includes the new Yugoslavia)

This makes sense, no?... since proving something of such a grand scope would require a awfull lot of hard evidence. What I have is hunderds (literary) small things spaced over a period of several years. Each by itself not very significant, but when you start putting them together you can see a pattern. Still, it's not hard evidence, rather circumstantial one, but that what I belive anyway.

Do you honestly belive that a historian who lived in the country/region and thus knows it's history, geography and people isn't better adapt at writing about what happened in some region than a researcher who pops in for 2-3 months, gathers some data and goes away, writing his conclusions on the other side of the world.

No I don't. And that's why I'm so suspicious of the fact that you can't prove your case![/qiuote]

Did I say *I* was the historian? Nope. I can prove various aspects of my case, however it is hard for the reasons I mentioned before - namely that you will have a hard time finding it. I somehow doubt books like "Vrieme Krivokletnika" or "Gospodari Kaosa" are printed where you live...

And yes, the fat that I live here and have traveled around the country during the war DOES mean I know what I'm talking about better than half the so-called historians.

Yet you've made some absolute howlers of mistakes which the so-called historians wouldn't have made.

I'm not a historian. I'm trying to get a point across, not tripple-check if the date I wrote is correct. Howlers of mistakes? In your dreams maby..

If the patient refuses to prove he's rational then it's the doctor who is correct, right?

And how would you prove that?

It's your analogy. Pick you favourite way.

There really isn't one. It boild down ot whom you belive as both CAN be true.

The real irony is I would have achieved a lot more since it takes me longer to reply cause I actually do some research.

Despite your constant poking and attacks at my charachtrs carefully wowen into your posts I kept this as civil as possible. Mostly due to the fact that youre a moderator.
But I can see any research you do and your memery are clearly selective. There is no point in continuing this discussion - I can just as well talk to a wall. Let this thread be locked.

Oh, wait - that not how it's gonan end! In the long tradition of debates in which kaj here is a participant the htread will NOT be locked before he posts and long and contrived post, full of attacks and misquotes. then it will be locked, so it cannot be replied to and he'sll have the last word.
Let's see if history will repeat itself, shall we?

P.S. - I'm still willing to bet my life you're the one who changed my title.

[Mobius]

Meh, you're n00bs at arguing. A true Intellettual Flaming^TM, something I'm proud of,  follows:

Predefinito  Ecco, leggete questo!
Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
si ma il peso del tavolopoggia tutto sulle gambe, mentre il peso della torre era tutto sotto...sarabbe + sensato dire che al tavolo è stata tolta una consistente parte di piano (una spessa sfoglia...) non una gamba per intero, la struttura inferiore della torre era intatta...


Beh, insomma...l'aereo ha distrutto delle strutture portanti ed è penetrato all'interno della struttura, creando degli spazi vuoti e facendo in modo che piccoli crolli siano possibili. A questo punto, non credo che il peso si sia scaricato sulla base delle torri.

Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
qua ho da ridire, anche se gli usa hanno silenziato i mass-media, ciò non vuol dire che le prove siano state del tutto accreditate...prendere per vero qualcosa senza ascoltare ogni fonte disponibile non è mai una buona cosa


Tu dici?

Citazione:
Fra complottisti e non, oltre 3 mila libri, 628 mila siti Internet e molti film parlano dell'11 Settembre.


Fonte: Focus, Febbraio 2007.

Alla faccia dell'occultismo!

Citazione:
Orginalmente inviato da matteee
mmh italiani molto probabilmente filoamericani...difficile trovare qualche perito imparziale che dia totalmente ragione ad una o l'altra parte, perchè sicuramente avrà cercato prove a favore della propria idea... e mi sembra anche logico? ognuno porta acqua al proprio mulino...


Certo. Tutti quelli che non vanno dietro alle Leggende Metropolitane (TM) sono filo-Americani. Eh già...

Ora scrivo qualcosa che ho letto su Focus, spero che basti...

P.S. Perché non ti decidi a rendere i tuoi post più piacevoli da leggere? Ma he ti costa iniziare una frase con una lettera maiuscola, quando serve?!? Stai attento, ho la mezza idea di Reputare Negativamente queste scorrettezze

Fonte: Focus, Febbraio 2007.

Un sondaggio condotto a Luglio da Scripps News Service dimostrò che, a 5 anni dall'11 Settembre 2001, un americano su 3 non crede che 19 dirottatori abbiano potuto mettere in ginocchio la più grande potenza mondiale. Un po' per eccesso di fiducia nella tecnologia: la convinzione che i mezzi militari funzionino alla perfezione, come dicono gli "esperti" del Pentagono. E un po' anche per (inconscio?) razzismo: gli arabi non possono aver portato a termine un attentato simile. In molti, insomma, credono che sia stato un complotto.

A metà del '300, però, il filosofo Inglese Guglielmo di Occam disse che, quando un fatto può essere spiegato in diversi modi, le spiegazione più convincente è quella che richiede il minor numero di ipotesi successive.

Il principio è detto del "rasoio di Occam". Insomma, non è necessario trovare spiegazioni metafisiche e fenomeni fisici, "non occorre rendere complesso ciò che all'evidenza è semplice". Applicando questa regola alle tesi più diffuse dei "complottisti", abbiamo ottenuto alcune risposte, quelle che seguono. Sperando che risultino abbastanza semplici e convincenti pure per i nostri lettori.

Le spiegazioni ufficiali date adal governo degli Stati Uniti ai fatti dell'11 Settembre 2001 hanno ricevuto una serie di obiezioni. Ecco le principali.

Secondo Leslie Robertson, uno dei due progettisti del World Trade Center, le 2 torri erano state costruite per resistere a un incidente con un Boeing 707, l'aereo più grande a quei tempi in uso. Perché allora, dicono i sostenitori del complotto, le torri sono crollate dopo l'impatto?

I Boeing 767 (peso: 81 tonnellate) che colpirono le due torri sono del 20% più pesanti dei 707 (62 t) e avevano entrambi appena fatto il pieno. Leslie Robertson stesso spiegò, infatti: << non avevamo previsto un incendio alimentato dal carburante>>.

Secondo gli autori del film Inganno globale, le cariche esplosive sono l'unica spiegazione possibile del crollo delle 2 torri. Anche i vigili del fuoco affermarono di aver udito esplosioni. E poi ci sono gli sbuffi dalle finestre che precedettero il crollo.

La prima a crollare fu la torre 2 (torre sud), colpita per seconda, più in basso. Un Boeing 767 ha un'apertura alare di 47,57 m e ogni lato delle due torri era lungo 63 m: l'impatto distrusse quindi gran parte delle putrelle perimetrali di un lato. Quanto ai 48 profilati d'acciaio a T e a H del nocciolo dell'edificio, D. Shyam Sunder, direttore del Building and Fiire Research laboratory dell'Institute of Standards and Technology di Gaithersburg, Maryland, ha calcolato che almeno 10 profilati di 4 piano fossero stati più o meno danneggiati. Il Boeing 767, infatti, è altro 15,85 metri, e ogni piano delle due torri era alto circa 3,79 metri.

<<Se non si fossero incendiati i 37.800 litri di carburante, la torre sud avrebbe probabilmente retto>> spiega Danilo Coppe, esplosivista dell'Istituto ricerche esplosivistiche di parma, che ha oltre 500 demolizioni controllate al suo attivo. <<Per far cedere l'acciaio basta "snervarlo", risultato che si ottiene a 450°C: una temperatura sicuramente superata nell'incendio. Inoltre l'acciaio trasmette il calore molto bene. Quindi se nel centro dell'incendio c'erano 1,500 °C, ce ne saranno stati 1,000 al piano di sotto e 850 a quello ancora inferiore. Insomma, lese le strutture portanti di 4 piani, sono state "ammorbidite" le altre. Su questo punto indebolito gravava però la massa dei piani superiori. Sopra al 77° piano c'erano ancora 33 piani, cioè un grattacielo più alto del Pirelli di Milano>>. Non c'è da stupirsi allora che dopo circa 50 minuti di surriscaldamento, i 4 piani indeboliti dall'impatto abbiano ceduto di schianto, sotto il peso dei piani superiori. Ma le strutture sottostanti, capaci di sopportare il grattacielo fermo, non erano in grando di reggere l'energia cinetica di quello stesso edificio.

Per capire il concetto basta immaginare la differenza di "peso" fra un mattone appoggiato sulla testa e uno che arriva sulla testa cadendo da 4 piani. Edurardo Kausel, docente di ingegneria ambientale e civile al Massachussets Institute of Technology di Cambridge (Usa), ha stimato l'energia generata dal collasso di ogni torre. Con una massa di circa 500 mila tonnellate e un'altezza di circa 411 metri, si arriva a un'energia potenziale totale di 10^19 (10 seguito da 19 zeri) erg, cioè circa l'1% dell'energia rilasciata da una piccola bomba atomica. Una volta messo in moto questo meccanismo, anche strutture intatte come quelle dei piani inferiori non erano in grando di reggere. Ecco perchè il grattacielo si è consumato "come un cerino". Perché non si può trattare di una esplosione controllata? <<Le demolizioni controllate funzionano meglio quando di massimizza l'effetto della forza di gravità, concentrando le cariche nei piani inferiori della struttura>> spiega Brent Blanchard che lavora per la Protec, una delle maggiori aziende di demolizioni al mondo: 1,000 demolizioni in più di 30 Paesi. <<Se si guardano bene i video e le foto del crollo della torre 1 e della torre 2, si vede che l'edificio ha iniziato a cadere esattamente nel punto in cui sono entrati gli aerei. I piani inferiori sono rimasti intatti finché non sono stati coinvolti nel collasso di quelli superiori. Nelle demolizioni controllate avviene il contrario: gli edifici si consumano dal basso>>.

<<L'ipotesi degli esplosivi>> continua Blanchard <<regge solo se si ipotizza che siano stati piazzati in anticipo esattamente nei piani colpiti dagli aerei (cosa non agevole da prevedere) e che le cariche abbiano resistito sia all'impatto del Boeing, sia al calore dell'incendio>>. Quanto agli sbuffi di "fumo" dalle finestre, gli edifici abitati sono composti al 70% di aria e solo al 30% di strutture e contenuti. Quando un piano collassa, l'aria viene espulsa orizzontalmente dalle finestre, dove incontra meno resistenza. Nel caso della torre 1 e 2, è documentato che abbiano ceduto le putrelle centrali prima di quelle peimetrali, con un anticipo di circa 3 piani. {c'è un'apposita immagine, molto esauriente, ndr Mobius}

L'aria e la certa degli uffici, espulse dalle finestre apparentemente intatta, causavano l'effetto della "deflagrazione". Quanto ai rumori molto forti, possono sembrare esplosioni, ma i sismografi del Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory della Columbia University di Palisades (New York), che hanno registrato il crollo della torre 1, della torre 2 e della torre 7, non hanno registrato vibrazioni indipendenti. Inoltre le leggi della fisica dicono che detonazioni sufficienti a demolire colonne di acciaio sarebbero state individuate dai sismografi.

Un caso a parte è quello della torre 7, un grattacielo di 47 piani che crollò alle 17:20 di quello stesso giorno. Secondo il film Inganno globale, era uscita indenne dall'attentato e crollò lo stesso. Perché? Perché come gli altri fu fatta crollare con l'esplosivo.

Secondo la ricostruzione ufficiale la vicenda ha una diversa spiegazione. Il crollo della torre 1 aveva infatti investito lo spigolo sud-orientale della torre 7 scavando una voragine che dal 18° piano andava fino alle fondamenta. La facciata lesionata, quella sud, era rivolta verso le torri: un'area alla quale era impedito a tutti l'accesso, ed è quindi visibile solo in 2 foto, mentre tutti hanno visto la facciata nord, intatta, che rendeva apparentemente inspiegabile il crollo. Dopo la caduta della torre 1, le fiamme divamparono per 7 ore, alimentate da una fuga di carburante sotto pressione. <<Voragine e fiamme spiegano ampiamente il crollo dal basso della torre 7>> dice Coppe.

Successivamente al crollo della torre 7, durante un documentario della tv PBS, Larry Silverstein, proprietario dello stabile, parlò di "pull it". Secondo Inganno globale, "pull" è un termine tecnico che significa demolizione controllata e quindi Silverstein avrebbe ammesso di aver autorizzato la demolizione.

Gli esperti di demolizioni controllate escludono che il termine "pull" sia usato in questi casi. Il solo contesto in cui viene usato è per edifici di pochi piani, quando vengono letteralmente "tirati" (to pull, appunto) con lunghe funi legate a bulldozer; mentre assai più frequentemente il termine "pull" viene usato per indicare l'evacuzione degli edifici. Dara McQuillan, portavoce di Silverstein, precisò il giorno successivo che intendeva "dare ordine ai pompieri di uscire dall'edificio divenuto troppo pericoloso".

Altro caso controverso quello dell'aereo contro il Pentagono. Il buco del muro dell'edificio è largo 19 m, l'apertura alare del Boeing è di 38 m. Com'è possibile? Thierry Meyssan in L'incredibile menzogna e in Pentagate sostiene che il buco è compatibile con un missile Tomahawk{Missile cruise. Potete trovare una dettagliata descrizione in Inglese e in Italiano }, o con un piccolo aereo telecomandato senza pilota.

Nella dirittura d'arrivo sul bersaglio, il "velivolo" ha abbattuto 5 pali della luce: 2 con l'ala destra e 3 con l'ala sinistra {anche qui c'è un disegno, ndr. Mobius}. L'apertura alare del Boeing 757-223 è di 38,05 metri, quella di un Tomahawk è di 2,7 metri: incompatibile quindi con i danni ai pali di entrambi i lati.

Il volo 77 colpì il Pentagono alle 9:38 di mattina, quando i suoi 20 mila dipendenti erano al lavoro e l'autostrada che corre lì vicino era piena di traffico. I testimoni oculari quindi sono stati decine di migliaia e tutti asseriscono di aver visto un Boeing dell'America Airlines volare ad "altezza frumento" (cioè raso terra) prima di schiantarsi contro la parete del Pentagono. Charles Spinney, ufficiale dell'aviazione che ha lasciato il Pentagono dopo aver rivelato per anni le stravaganze finanziarie del ministero della Difesa, ha affermato che <<le foto dell'aereo che colpisce il Pentagono esistono. Sono state prese dalle telecamere dell'eliporto (con la H nel disegno, ndr) {Non so come postarlo, questo disegno XD, ndr Mobius}. L'autista del veicolo dal quale ero uscito in quel momento ha visto l'impatto con tale precisione cha ha persino distinto i volti terrorizzati dei passeggeri ai finestrini>>. Di quei 58 passeggeri e dei 6 membri dell'equipaggio, decollati alle 8.20 sul volo 77, dall'aeroporto Dulles di Washington, oltre che dei 125 dipendenti del Department of Defense (che ha sede nel Pentagono) vittime dell'impatto, i medici legali hanno effettuato il testi del Dna, confrontamdolo con quelli dei parenti per identificare i resti carbonizzati delle vittime e restituirle alle famiglie.

Inoltre, fra i frammenti ritrovati nel buco nel Pentagono erano chiaramente riconoscibili le ruote, un pezzo del carrello di atterraggio e parte della fusoliera{il "tronco" dell'aereo... praticamente tutto quello che rimane se si escludono le ali e i timoni, ndr Mobius}. La documentazione sul Pentagono è limitata per motivi di sicurezza: non bisogna dimenticare che è la sede del ministero della Difesa{Già, ho proprio detto questo in precedenza, ndr Mobius}. Quanto all'assenza di rottami dell'aereo, Jacques Rolland, ex generale dell'aeronautica, ex pilota da caccia ed esperto della corte d'Appello di Parigi per incidenti aeronautici, ha spiegato che ci sono due tipi di crash aerei. Il primo è quando l'aereo impatta contro il suolo con un'angolazione minore di 45°. In questo caso si può dire che l'aereo precipita "piatto": più l'angolazione è bassa più i rottami sono numerosi e schizzano in una vasta area. Il secondo tipo è quando l'angolazione di impatto è fra 45° e 90°, come avviene in picchiata o negli avvitamenti. In questo caso il velivolo si chiude "a cannocchiale" su se stesso, nel cratere che ha creato e che sarà più o meno ampio a seconda della consistenza del terreno{anche in questo caso ci sono immagini molto chiare, ndr Mobius}. Nell'impatto sul terreno morbido il volo 93, che i dirottatori fecero cadere in picchiata su Shanksville, in Pennsylvania, creò un cratere di 35 metri. Reso verticale (la parete del Pentagono) quello che nell'esempio era il terreno orizzontale, il risultato non cambia. Il muro del Pentagono, più resistente, ha ceduto solo per 19 metri. Quanto alle ali, hanno una struttura a spina di pesce fatta di longheroni, che per motivi aerodinamici non è fissata alla carlinga ad angolo retto, ma verso la coda{Avete capito? Io spero di sì XD, ndr Mobius}. Il rivestimento esterno è in genere di 1-3 mm di lega di alluminio: resiste poco al calore. Distrutti nell'urto i longheroni che reggono le ali, queste si sono raccolte lungo l'asse dell'aereo: le loro ceneri sono nel cratere. Al momento della collisione, infatti, le ali contenevano ancora mezzo pieno, circa 20 mila litri di cherosene. Quanto al foro, quello che all'esterno appare come una breccia di 19 metri dall'interno è un tunnel che ha sfondato ben 3 dei 5 anelli concentrici in cemento armato rinforzato di cui è fatto il Pentagono. Nelle foto circolate, quelle prese dal satellite, si vede solo il danno al primo anello, di cui ha ceduto il tetto. Negli altri anelli il tetto ha resistito e il danno non è visibile.

Meno facile spiegare l'abilità del pilota improvvisato, capace di mantenere il velicolo "ad altezza frumento".

<<Inizialmente avevo perplessità sulla capacità del pilota di mantenere il velivolo a pochi metri da terra>> spiega Leonardo lecce, docente di strutture aeronautiche dell'Università Federico II di Napoli. <<Ma in un recente viaggio all'Office national d'études et de recherches aérospatiales{Ufficio Nazionale degli Studi e delle Ricerche Aerospaziali, ndr di quel Grande Amatore di Mobius che sta imparando il Francese!} di Tolosa, centro d'addestramento avanzato per piloti, dirigenti e responsabili mi hanno assicurato che sui velicoli moderni come il Boeing 757-223, ciò è fattibile anche per un pilota non espertissimo>>. {Nella trasmissione televisiva che ho seguito sono stati addirittura tirati in ballo i simulatori per computer tramite i quali il futuro kamikaze ha potuto "addrestrarsi da solo", ndr Mobius}

Forse la perplessità più diffusa riguarda il volo United Airlines 93, quello in cui i passeggeri si ribellarono e da cui partirono, secondo un recente film, telefonate verso i parenti. Fu abbattuto da aerei Usa?

I dubbi sono durati due anni, finché la commissione si è accorta che gli ufficiali del Norad (North American Aerospace Command) {Comando Aerospaziale Americano, ndr Mobius} e della Faa (Federal Aviation Administration) {Amministrazione dell'Aviazione Federale, ndr Mobius} avevano mentito sostenendo sotto giuramento di aver reagito rapidamente e che dopo i due primi dirottamenti si erano levati in volo i jet pronti ad abbattere il volo UA93 se avesse minacciato Washington. Falso, tanto che alcuni commissari volevano deferire i falsi testimoni alla giustizia {come la mettiamo ora, mateee? XD, ndr Mobius}. <<Che figura avrebbe fatto il governo, se avesse ammesso che a un'ora e 25 minuti dal primo attacco non era ancora in grado di fermare il quarto aereo dirottato?>> ha detto John Azzarello, membro della commissione a spiegazione delle false testimonianze.

Le registrazioni audio del quartier generale del nord-est del Norad hanno infatti dimostrato senza ombra di dubbio che i militari non ebbero mai sotto controllo gli aerei dirottati: seppero del volo AA11 solo 9 minuti prima del suo impatto contro la torre nord; del volo UA175 contemporaneamente all'impatto contro la torre sud, del volo AA77 con 4 minuti di anticipo rispetto all'impatto nel Pentagono e del volo UA93 alle 10:07, quando si era già schiantato al suolo da 2 minuti. Se non altro per questo motivo, non possono averlo abbattuto.

I caccia dovevano intercettare gli aerei dirottati, come fecero con quello del campione di golf Payne Stewart. Secondo un portavoce del Norad, da quando la Faa segnala un dirottamento, <<il Norad ci mette pochi minuti per raggiungere qualsiasi punto degli Stati Uniti>>. Nel sito web dell'US Air Forces {Forze Aeree degli Stati Uniti, ndr Mobius}, si sostiene che un F-15 {F-15 Eagle...<pignolo mode off> XD, ndr Mobius} <<può salire a 8,840 metri in soli 2 minuti e 5 secondi e può volare a 3mila km/h {o.O manco fosse un SR-71 o il celeberrimo Aurora(che tra l'altro forse non esiste!!!)..., ndr Mobius}. Quindi, se fossero state seguite procedure normali, il volo 11 avrebbe dovuto essere intercettato alle 8:24, e comunque non dopo le 8:30, 18 minuti prima di andare a sbattere nella torre>>.

Nel 1999 alcuni jet in ricognizione rintracciarono l'aereo del campione di golf Payne Stewart che non rispondeva alla torre di controllo. In quel caso però il transponder dell'aereo, cioè l'apparecchio che comunica costantemente agli uomini radar nome del velivolo, posizione, velocità, altitudine, rotta e destinazione, era acceso, e quindi era facile localizzarlo. Ciò nonostante i jet ci misero un'ora. Ma se il transponder è spento (e la prima cosa che fecero i dirottatori fu spegnere i transponder) l'apparecchio diventa un anonimo puntino sul monitor. Quanto al tempismo del Norad, nel gennaio 2002 Charles Bishop, un giovane pilota di 15 anni, colpì un grattacielo di Tampa col suo Cessna . Anche in questo caso l'allarme giunse al Norad 15 minuti dopo la collisione e i jet arrivarono sul luogo dell'incidente 45 minuti dopo.

Ora datemi il Premio Nobel "Per le Dita più Resistenti". Ho impiegato tantissimo tempo per trascrivere l'articolo, per favore scrivete dei commenti seri.

EDIT: Ho tolto il primo Quote.

EDIT2: "Labor Limae".

 

[jr2]

Could you please correct this, so I can read that?

Default Here, read this!
Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
But is the weight of everything on tavolopoggia legs, while the weight of the tower was everything ... sarabbe + sensible to say that the table has been removed part of a consistent plan (a thick sheet ...) Not a whole leg, the bottom of the tower structure was intact ...


Well, in short ... the air has destroyed the structures and penetrated inside the structure, creating empty spaces and ensuring that small collapses are possible. At this point, I do not believe that the weight has been downloaded on the basis of the towers.

Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
I fault here, even if they use silenced the media, this does not mean that the tests were fully accredited for true ... take something without listening every available source is never a good thing


You say?

Quote:
Among complottisti or not, more than 3,000 books, 628 thousand Internet sites and many film speak September 11.


Source: Focus, February 2007.

At dell'occultismo face!

Quote:
Orginalmente sent by matteee
Hmmm Italians very pro-American ... probably difficult to find any expert giving totally impartial reason to one or the other party, because surely have sought evidence in favor of his idea ... And I think even logical? Each brings water to his mill ...


Sure. All those who are not behind the Legends Metro (TM) are filo-Americani. Eh already ...

Now I write something that I read in Focus, which I hope is enough ...

P.S. Why not you decide to make your posts more pleasing to read? But he will coast to begin a sentence with a capital letter, when needed? ! ? Be careful, I have the idea of half Reputare Negativamente these flaws Tongue

Source: Focus, February 2007.

A poll conducted in July by Scripps News Service showed that, five years from 11 September 2001, an American of 3 does not believe that 19 hijackers have been put in the knee greatest world power. Something for excessive confidence in technology: the conviction that military work to perfection, as they say the "experts" of the Pentagon. And some even for (unconscious?) Racism: the Arabs can not have carried out such an attack. In many, in short, believe that it was a conspiracy.

In the middle of'300, however, the English philosopher William of Occam said that when a fact can be explained in several ways, the most convincing explanation is the one that requires the least number of assumptions above.

The principle is known as "razor of Occam." In short, there is no need to find explanations metaphysical and physical phenomena, "there is no need to make things complicated all'evidenza is simple." Applying this rule to the most popular theory of "complottisti", we got some answers, those who follow. Hoping that are quite simple and convincing well for our readers.

The official explanation given adal government of the United States to the facts of 11 September 2001 have received a number of objections. Here are the main ones.

According to Leslie Robertson, one of the two designers of the World Trade Center, two towers were built to withstand a crash with a Boeing 707, the largest plane in use in those times. Why then, say supporters of the conspiracy, are the towers collapsed after the impact?

The Boeing 767 (weight: 81 tons) that struck the two towers are 20% heavier of 707 (62 t) and had both just full. Leslie Robertson explained himself, in fact: <<we had a fire fed by fuel>>.

According to the authors of the film Deception global, explosive charges are the only possible explanation of the collapse of the two towers. Even the firemen said that he heard explosions. And then there are the windows sbuffi that preceded the collapse.

The first was the collapse tower 2 (the south tower), hit second, lower. A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 47.57 m and each side of the two towers was 63 m long: the impact destroyed so much of the perimeter beams of one side. As 48 profiles steel T and H core of the building, D. Shyam Sunder, director of the Building and Fiire Research laboratory of the Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, has calculated that at least 10 sections of 4 plan had been more or less damaged. The Boeing 767, in fact, is 15.85 meters, and each floor of the two towers was about 3.79 meters high.

"If they had not burned the 37,800 liters of fuel, the south tower would probably rectum>> says Danilo Cups, esplosivista of research esplosivistiche of parma, which has more than 500 controlled demolitions to his credit. <<To divest the steel enough "snervarlo", a result which can be obtained at 450 ° C: a temperature certainly exceeded nell'incendio. In addition, the steel transmits the heat very well. So if the fire in the center were 1.500 ° C, there have been 1.000 on the floor below and 850 that still lower. In short, the injured structures of 4 plans were "softened" the others. At this point, however, weakened weighed mass of the upper floors. Up to the 77th floor there were still 33-storey skyscraper that is a highest of Pirelli in Milan. " No wonder then that after about 50 minutes of warming, 4 floors weakened from the crash have succumbed to the weight of the upper floors. But the underlying structures capable of withstanding skyscraper firm, were not in the big stand of the kinetic energy of the same building.

To understand the concept just imagine the difference in weight between a brick rests on the head and one that arrives on the head by falling 4 floors. Edurardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge (USA), has estimated the energy generated by the collapse of each tower. With a mass of about 500 thousand tons and a height of about 411 meters, we arrive at an energy potential total of 10 ^ 19 (10 followed by 19 zeros) erg, which is about 1% of the energy released by a small Bomb. Once set in motion this mechanism, even intact structures such as lower floors were not big to handle. That's why the skyscraper was consumed "as a cerino." Why not can be a controlled explosion? <<The demolition work best when controlled to maximize the effect of the force of gravity and focused positions in the lower floors of the structure>> says Brent Blanchard working for the Protec, one of the largest demolition companies in the world: 1,000 demolitions in more than 30 countries. <<If you look good videos and photos of the collapse of Tower 1 and Tower 2, we see that the building began to fall exactly at the point where they entered aircraft. The lower floors remained intact until they were involved in the collapse of those superiors. In controlled demolition, the reverse: the buildings are consumed by bottom>>.

<<The hypothesis of explosives>> continue Blanchard <<stand only if it is believed that they have been placed in advance exactly in the plans affected by aircraft (this is not easy to predict) and that the charges have resisted both the impact of Boeing, both the burning heat>>. As for sbuffi of "smoke" from the windows, the buildings are inhabited compounds to 70% of air and only 30% of structures and contents. When a plan collapses, the air is expelled from the windows horizontally, where he met less resistance. In the case of Tower 1 and 2, it is documented that have yielded the central beams before those peimetrali, with an advance of about 3 floors. (Image is a very comprehensive, ndr Mobius)

The air and some offices, expelled from the windows apparently intact, caused the effect of "explosion". As for noise very strong, may seem explosions, but the seismographs of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades (New York), who recorded the collapse of a tower, the tower of Tower 2 and 7 have not registered vibrations independent. Moreover, the laws of physics say that detonations enough to demolish steel columns were detected by seismographs.

A special case is that of Tower 7, a 47 storey skyscraper that collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that same day. According to the film Deception global output was free and collapsed after the same. Why? Because like the other was done with the explosive collapse.

The reconstruction official story has a different explanation. The collapse of a tower had invested the southeastern edge of the tower in July digging a chasm that from 18th floor went down to the foundation. The facade of lesions, the south, was facing the towers: an area which had prevented all access, and is therefore visible only 2 photos, and all have seen the north facade, intact, which made the seemingly inexplicable collapse. After the collapse of a tower, the flames erupted for 7 hours, fed by a fuel leak under pressure. <<Voragine flames and largely explain the fall from the bottom of the tower 7>> says Cups.

Following the collapse of Tower 7, during a PBS television documentary, Larry Silverstein, owner of the building, spoke of "pull it." According to Global Deception, "pull" is a technical term that means controlled demolition and then Silverstein acknowledged that he had authorized the demolition.

Experienced controlled demolitions exclude that the term "pull" is used in these cases. The only context in which it is used for buildings of a few plans, when they are literally "pulled" (to pull precisely) with a long rope tied bulldozers; While far more frequently the term "pull" is used to indicate the evacuzione buildings. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein, clear the next day that it intended to "give orders to firefighters leaving the building became too dangerous."

Other portions of the controversial case against the Pentagon. The hole in the wall of the building is 19 m wide, the wingspan of Boeing is 38 m. How is it possible? Thierry Meyssan in The incredible lie and Pentagate claims that the hole is consistent with a missile (Tomahawk cruise missile. You can find a detailed description in English and Italian), or with a small remote unmanned plane.

In the home straight on target, the "aircraft" has broken down five light poles: 2 with the right wing and 3 with the left wing (even here there is a plan, ndr. Mobius). The wingspan of the Boeing 757-223 is 38.05 meters, that of a Tomahawk is 2.7 meters: therefore incompatible with damage to poles on both sides.

Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am, when its 20,000 employees were at work and the highway that runs near there was full of traffic. The eyewitnesses were then tens of thousands, and all claim to have seen a Boeing Airlines from flying to "high wheat" (ie razed land) before crashing against the wall of the Pentagon. Charles Spinney, an officer of which has left the Pentagon revealed after for years eccentricities financial Defense Department, said that <<photos that the plane hit the Pentagon exist. Have been taken by cameras dell'eliporto (H pictured, ndr) (I do not know how post, this plan XD, ndr Mobius). The driver of the vehicle from which I had left at that time saw the impact with such precision cha even separate the faces of terrified passengers windows>>. Of those 58 passengers and six crew members, on August 20 off the flight 77 from Washington Dulles, as well as of 125 employees of the Department of Defense (which has its headquarters in the Pentagon) of the victims, doctors have performed the legal texts of DNA, confrontamdolo with those of relatives to identify the charred remains of victims and return to their families.

Moreover, among the fragments found in the hole in the Pentagon were clearly recognizable wheels, a piece of the truck landing and the fuselage (the "trunk" the plane ... Virtually all that remains except the wings and rudders, ndr Mobius). Documentation on the Pentagon is restricted for security reasons: we must not forget that is the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense (Yes, I have said this before, ndr Mobius). As for the absence of Fructuoso, Jacques Rolland, a former general of aeronautics, a former fighter pilot and expert of the court of Appeal of Paris for aircraft accidents, explained that there are two types of air crash. The first is when the plane impacts against the ground with an angle less than 45 °. In this case, you can say that the plane falls "flat" means more angle is low scrap are more numerous and schizzano in a wide area. The second type is when the impact angle is between 45 ° and 90 °, as in beaten or avvitamenti. In this case the aircraft closes "telescope" on himself, in the crater that has created and which will be more or less depending on the broad consistency of the soil (here too there are very clear images, ndr Mobius). Nell'impatto on soft ground the flight 93 that the hijackers did fall into beaten on Shanksville, Pennsylvania, created a crater of 35 meters. Reso vertical (wall of the Pentagon) in what was the horizontal ground, the result does not change. The wall of the Pentagon, more resistant, sold for only 19 meters. As for the wings, a structure with herringbone made of spars, which for aerodynamic reasons is not fixed to Cockpit at right angles, but at the tail (Do you understand? I hope so XD, ndr Mobius). The skin is usually 1-3 mm aluminum alloy: resists little heat. Distrutti nell'urto the spars Guiding wings, they have collected along the route the plane: their ashes are in the crater. At the time of collision, in fact, contained the wings still half full, about 20,000 liters of kerosene. As for the forum, outside what appears to be a breach of 19 meters from a tunnel that has far exceeded 3 of the 5 concentric rings reinforced concrete reinforced referred is the fact the Pentagon. In circulated photo, taken by the satellite, you may only see the damage on the first ring, which sold the roof. In other rings has resisted the roof and the damage is not visible.

Less easy to explain the skill of the pilot improvised, capable of maintaining the velicolo "height wheat."

<<Initially had doubts on the ability of the pilot to keep the aircraft a few meters from the ground>> explains Leonardo lecce, professor of aeronautical structures at the University Federico II of Naples. <<But in a recent trip in the Office National d'Etudes et de recherches aérospatiales (Office of Studies and the National Research Council Space, ndr that Great Amatore of Mobius who are learning French!) In Toulouse, advanced training center for pilots, managers and directors have assured me that the modern velicoli as the Boeing 757-223, it is feasible even for a pilot not espertissimo>>. (In the television broadcast that I followed were even pulled in dance simulator computer through which future suicide bombers could "addrestrarsi alone, ndr Mobius)

Perhaps the most widespread doubts on the United Airlines flight 93, one in which passengers rebelled and from which departed, according to a recent films, phone calls to relatives. It was shot down by U.S. aircraft?

Doubts lasted two years, until the Board has found that officials of Norad (North American Aerospace Command) (American Aerospace Command, ndr Mobius) and Faa (Federal Aviation Administration) (Federal Aviation Administration, ndr Mobius) supporting had lied under oath that he had responded quickly and that after the first two hijackings were raising flying jets ready to overthrow the flight UA93 if Washington had threatened. False, so that some commissioners wanted to refer the false witnesses to justice (as we now mateee? XD, ndr Mobius). <<That figure would make the government had admitted that to one hour and 25 minutes from the first attack had not yet been able to stop the fourth hijacked plane? >> Said John Azzarello, a member of the committee to explain the false testimony .

The audio recordings headquarters northeast of Norad have proved without a shadow of doubt that the military had not ever under control aircraft hijacked: flight AA11 succeeded only 9 minutes before its impact against the north tower; Flight UA175 at the same impact against the south tower, flight AA77 with 4 minutes early in relation to the Pentagon and the flight UA93 to 10:07 a.m., when it had already crashed to the ground by 2 minutes. If only for this reason, may not have culled.

The hunt had to intercept the hijacked planes, as did with the golf champion Payne Stewart. According to a spokesman for Norad since the Faa indicates a hijacking, <<your Norad us a few minutes to get anywhere States Uniti>>. The website (Air Forces Air Force of the United States, ndr Mobius), it is claimed that an F-15 (F-15 Eagle ... <pignolo mode off> XD, ndr Mobius) <<may climb to 8 , 840 meters in 2 minutes and 5 seconds and can fly to 3mila km / h (o.O miss was a SR-71 or the famous Aurora (which among other things perhaps there !!!)..., ndr Mobius). So, if they had been followed normal procedures, the flight 11 was supposed to be intercepted at 8:24, and not after 8:30, 18 minutes before going to hit in the tower. "

In 1999 some jets on reconnaissance plane found the golf champion Payne Stewart that failed to respond to the control tower. In that case, however, the performance of the transponder, the device that is constantly communicating men behalf of radar aircraft, position, speed, altitude, course and location, it was turned on, and then it was easy to locate. Nevertheless, we put the jet hour. But if the transponder is turned off (and the first thing they did was turn off the hijackers transponders) the equipment becomes an anonymous dot on the monitor. As for the timing of Norad, in January 2002 Charles Bishop, a young pilot of 15 years, struck a skyscraper in Tampa with his Cessna. Again the alarm came to Norad 15 minutes after the collision and the jet arrived on the site 45 minutes after the accident.

Now gimme the Nobel Prize "For more Dita Resistant." It took me a long time to transcribe the article, please write comments seriously.

EDIT: I have removed the first shares.

EDIT2: "Labor Limae."

[karajorma]

Oh, wait - that not how it's gonan end! In the long tradition of debates in which kaj here is a participant the htread will NOT be locked before he posts and long and contrived post, full of attacks and misquotes. then it will be locked, so it cannot be replied to and he'sll have the last word.
Let's see if history will repeat itself, shall we?

You called for the thread to be closed after you post. And then try to claim I should have no right of reply because it would deny your right to reply?

Well sorry, that's not going to happen. I've several times taken a forum poster to task for attempting to use such underhanded tactics. In a two person discussion you don't get to give a lengthy reply and then close the thread or call for it to be closed. I consider that to be cowardly and have said so on numerous occasions.

P.S. - I'm still willing to bet my life you're the one who changed my title.

You bet wrong mate. I didn't do it.

Your user title changed in early July. I only became an admin in early August

Hazy recollections and a lack of effort doing research strike again!

[Mobius]

Could you please correct this, so I can read that?

It wasn't supposed to be translated, this is not a discussion about 9/11. A post like that is to disencourage the others.

That's the only way to win a Flame War^TM, if you exclude bans.

[Asuko]

Could you please correct this, so I can read that?

It wasn't supposed to be translated, this is not a discussion about 9/11. A post like that is to disencourage the others.

That's the only way to win a Flame War^TM, if you exclude bans.

Dang, man. That's very good. I should start quoting that post from now on.