911 Hoax

SlettetBruger (1399) skrev:

Hvorfor påpege dem? hvad får man ud af at bevise at USA stod bag? :)

XorpiZ (1406) skrev:

Jeg elsker at du bare sidder og kaster om dig med citater fra tilfældige folk. Det er sgu lettere underholdende :D

Fjolle (1408) skrev:

Og hvad er deres mening om rapportens konklusion?

Hamilton skrev:

Solomon: Do you consider the 9/11 Commission to have been a success, and if so, under what ways do you measure that success? How do you call it a success?

Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted. So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there. In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways. But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted that should be.

Hamilton:
When you conduct a major investigation, you cannot possibly answer every question, you just do the best you can. But for every question you leave unanswered, you create an opening to a conspiracy theory, and a good many of them have popped up here.

The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard. That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make. On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence.

But conspirators are always going to exist in this country. Tom Kean and I got a flavour of this everytime we'd walk through an audience - they would hand us notes, hand us papers, hand us books, hand us tapes, telling us to investigate this, that or the other. You cannot possibly answer all these questions, you just do the best you can.

Fjolle (1413) skrev:

Hvor kopierer du det fra?

Conar (1421) skrev:

så du mener eksplosionerne kan kun være fra kollapserne, og ikke bomber eller andet som eksploderer før kollapserne

Fjolle (1431) skrev:

De sandsynliggør ikke at det er noget der er fremkommet d. 11/9. Det kunne have været der før eller efter af mange grunde.

Fjolle (1436) skrev:

Du ved efterhånden godt hvad pull betyder ikke?

jeff skrev:

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2I feared a collapse of WTC 7. I made the decision as ranking fire officer, and that decision was my responsibility, to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

Fjolle (1438) skrev:

Hvad er problemet?

Conar (1441) skrev:

aldrig før i historien er bygninger kollapset pga ildebrand, og aldrig efter 911.

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Conar (1444) skrev:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
test af stål fra bygning 7 (FEMA)

den er mere hullet end en ost

"maybe the result of long term heating, further study is needed"


hvad siger NIST?

the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Conar (1446) skrev:

jo, C6:
Suggestions for future research

fema skrev:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Sample 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires

Conar skrev:

kunne de ikke låne det stål FEMA testede, eller tage det stål som ikke var afmærket?....

Fjolle (1448) skrev:

Nej. Der står: