Verschwörungstheorien

Dieses Thema im Forum "Politik, Umwelt, Gesellschaft" wurde erstellt von bushido, 4. Dezember 2011 .

  1. 1. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Dann hätte ich mich bushido genannt.
     
  2. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Und wie willst du dann erklären, daß die Terroristen Zugang zu den Gebäuden hatten, um die "Bomben" an den entsprechenden Stellen zu plazieren? Eine Flugzeugentführung klingt da doch schon wesentlich glaubwürdiger.

    Der Satz macht aus deiner Sicht überhaupt keinen Sinn.

    "Debunked" wurde überhaupt nichts. Keiner von uns ist Experte, wir zitieren alle lediglich die Experten, die unserer Sichtweise der Ereignisse dieses Tages entsprechen.


    ----------------------


    Schon in den Kommentaren des Videos finden sich reichlich Gegenargumente für deine Aussagen.

    Wer sagt, daß es sich dabei um Kerosin gehandelt hat? Und wie erklärst du dir die 'pools of molten steel" noch Monate nach dem Ereignis?

    Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum du dies bis heute tust. Der Satz ist kein Argument, sondern eine Provokation. Diese Arroganz verhilft deinen Aussagen nicht zu mehr Glaubwürdigkeit.

    Du vergißt, daß die Türme nahezu in Freifallgeschwindigkeit eingestürzt sind, d.h., und da ist es wohl eher bei dir mangelndes physikalisches Grundwissen, daß es so gut wie keinen Widerstand gab! Das ist mit Verlaub mehr als unglaubwürdig!

    Abgesehen davon gibt es dutzende Beispiele von Bränden in Hochhäusern, die länger und heißer gebrannt haben als im WTC, teilweise über 24 Stunden. Diese Hochhäuser sind nicht eingestürzt. Bei allen drei Hochhäusern haben die Feuer kurz gebrannt. Der South Tower ist etwa eine Stunde nach dem Einschlag des Flugzeuges bereits eingestürzt. Das ist einfach nur lächerlich! Und bei WTC 7 waren es ganz offiziell "office fire", die den Einsturz verursacht haben, da überschreitet die offizielle VT dann die Grenze zum Schwachsinn.

    Sie werden weich, führen aber nicht zu einem Einsturz.

    Wie kommt es, daß bei diesen "Höllenfeuern" Menschen in den Fenstern stehen und nicht verbrennen?
     
  3. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Und sind diese Gegenargumente gut? Oder bewegen die sich auf deinem Niveau?

    Spoiler
    Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

    Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"



    Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

    The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

    I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

    Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

    Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

    In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

    In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

    I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

    Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

    The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

    The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

    It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

    Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

    ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

    METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

    WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE

    - NEU-FONZE

    More on this iron-H2O reaction:

    Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:

    "steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
    The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
    http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?module=C...n&mid=10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf


    Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
    cache dpu-...us - Google zoeken

    Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
    "The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
    "a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation

    In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."

    "The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
    Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation

    Also: IEEE Xplore - Sign In

    Evidently, iron will oxidize about the same rate in air, or in a steam-atmosphere. The addition of water to the piles from the top or pools of it at the bottom thus may have served as an additional source of oxygen, upon combining with hot steel or aluminum.

    The hydrogen generated may have then combined with other materials in the piles, or with oxygen in air, to produce additional heat. (Net thermal result would be same as directly oxidizing iron with oxygen). - Mark Ferran

    Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).

    This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
    Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.

    Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.

    Reminders: Pascal = Newton/m^2, Joule = Newton-meter (N.m). The meters-squared, m^2, will refer to the cross-sectional area of the box column. The meters in the Joule part will refer to the vertical height of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column. The speed of sound in steel is 5100--5960 m/s, depending upon the source one uses. For simplicity in the following I will assume that the speed of the pressure pulse is just the rounded-off 5000 m/s.

    Since we are attempting to find the highest possible reasonable figure for the pressure delivered to the box column by the pressure pulse, assume that the pressure pulse lasts only for 0.001 s = 1 millisecond. Then this square wave of pressure extends vertically for 5 meters. Thus the force over these 5 meters is 2 MN, 10 MJ = 2 MN x 5 m. So the force applied to the cross-sectional area of the box column is 2 megaNewtons.

    Now assume that this force is applied equally across the cross-sectional area of the box column. (We will return to this assumption. It certainly applies to all parts of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column except at the moment of initiation.) Now assume the box column is a square 1 meter on a side and is 3" = .0762 m thick. Thus the steel cross-sectional area is 4 x 0.0762 = 0.3048 m^2.

    We have now determined that the pressure on the box columns due to the pressure pulse traveling down it is 6.56 MPa = 2 MN/0.3048 m^2. This is trivial compared to the 400 MPa yield strength of the structural steel. No yielding will be observed, and indeed, none was in the majority of the structural steel. The exceptions are in the basement, where stresses and temperatures were high. The 400 MPa figure applies to ordinary temperatures, not elevated ones.

    At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.

    "Roaring oven" Ok, it was indeed hot in the rubble piles of WTC 1 & 2. More important, there were definite hot spots which were the hottest. We have seen ample evidence of potential fuels, including ordinary office materials, gasoline in the automobiles in the basement(?) and transformer oil. However, heat always flows from higher temperatures to lower ones. So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.

    Further, perhaps the estimated temperature of the hot spots, obtained via infrared scanning, was 1500 F = (810+273)K = 1083K. Assuming approximately black body radiation. 1000K is red hot, maybe 1500K is orange hot. Yellow hot, then is very close to the melting temperature of iron, (1535+273)K = 1808K. It seems to me a higher temperature than can be reached by burning ordinary office materials. That gasoline was in close proximity seems unlikely. I don't know the temperature of burning transformer oil, but I suppose it is less than gasoline(?) The point behind this addendum is that the pressure pulse hypothesis is highly robust under alternative scenarios and is not dependent on an external source of chemical energy. - David B. Benson, edited by Debunking 911

    From a physics blogger:

    Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.

    My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.

    There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.

    This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.

    You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.

    This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).

    What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.

    A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.

    While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.

    There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”

    All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.

    Now, for the program:

    **BEGIN PROGRAM**

    # Demonstrates the kinetic energy of the WTC collapses, to debunk 9/11 conspiracies # Geocities has shut down
    #
    #!/usr/bin/perl
    #
    # Variables for calculations
    $m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
    $mt = 0; # mass of falling section
    $v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
    $v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
    $v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step $p = 0; # current momentum
    $ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
    $ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
    $de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far $a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant) $t = 0; # cumulative time taken
    $t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
    $d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories) $mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section # # Calculations for WTC Tower One $fc = 13; # floor count of falling section (13 floors for WTC One) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower One\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
    $v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
    $v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
    $ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
    $v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
    print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
    $ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
    $t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower One data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n"); print("\n"); # # Calculations for WTC Tower Two $fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for WTC Two) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower Two\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
    $v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
    $v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
    $ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
    $v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
    print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
    $ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
    $t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower Two data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n");

    **END PROGRAM**

    It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from The Perl Programming Language - www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.

    The Perl program was fixed by seandiggity

    * Edited the bloggers contribution to remove "tons" and replace it with "pounds". It doesn't change what the blogger point was which is there is more than enough combustibles on hand. He did not use the general figure of "Millions of tons" to calculate anything. Of course any silly error like this will be exaggerated as if it means something. This is what conspiracy theorist do.

    At 32,000 sq feet of tenant space per floor and at 4lbs per sq ft of combustible material (at 5 lbs per sq ft NIST found that the fires moved too slowly) for 110 floors (-6 floors for mechanical + 6 for underground) is equal to 14 Million POUNDS of combustible material. Or 7,000 TONS. Clearly a RESPECTABLE amount of burnable material per TOWER. Thus the rubble pile had ~ 28 MILLION POUNDS of combustible material not including what was in the Marriot hotel and its parking garage.

    From a contributor.

    One of the conspiracy sites published an article called "Popular Mechanics Attack on 9/11 Truth." I was pointed in that direction during a debate on a forum, after citing the Popular Mechanics article.

    Since we had been talking about the "melted steel" argument, I scrolled down to that area, which claimed this:

    "Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF."

    That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

    "With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."

    So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

    I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out. Some "truth movement"...

    -Steve

    Wahrscheinlich, weil du ein selbstverliebter, faktenresistenter bist. pools of molten steel...das war sicher ne Rieeesen Bombe.

    Nein ist es nicht.

    Ja und warum genau kann man das jetzt so 1zu1 vergleichen? Kann man nicht? Hatten wir schon?...

    Achso...

    Wie kommt es, dass sich Menschen aus den Fenstern stürzen, wenn es da drin nur muggeligge 500°C?
     
  4. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Ich denke der Beweis wurde durch Dr. Niels Harrrit eindeutig erbracht! Und damit ist auch klar, daß dein "Experte" entweder schlecht informiert ist oder ganz bewußt die Existenz von Nano-Thermit leugnet. Im Übrigen kann er auch aufgrund der offiziellen VT nicht zu dem Schluß kommen, denn auf Sprengstoffe wurde überhaupt nicht untersucht, weder durch das NIST, noch die FEMA, noch irgendeine andere Organisation und das ist 100% Fakt!



    Soll ich dir mein Förmchen und Schaeufelchen reichen?

    WTC 7 ist laut NIST aufgrund von "office fire" eingestürzt! Das ist die offizielle Begründung. Wie kann das sein, wenn zuvor Gebäude der gleichen Art über 24 Stunden und mehr gebrannt, den Flammen aber standgehalten haben.

    Aus Angst und Verzweiflung vielleicht? Wenn Menschen in Panik geraten reagieren die wenigsten rational. Das muß nicht zwangsläufig etwas mit Feuer zu tun gehabt haben.
     
  5. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Kerosin brennt extrem heiß, um solche Temperaturen zu erreichen bei einer so langen Brenndauer benötigst du mindestens Kerosin in großen Mengen.

    Mit Sprengstoff alleine erreicht man nur eine Explosion aber keinen so derartigen Flächenbrand... das ist wie ein Hochofen da kann also an gewissen stellen durchaus Temperaturen von 1500C erreicht werden.

    Bei so hohen Temperaturen wenn verschiedene Materialien zusammenschmelzen zb Stahl und Aluminium kann sogar eine Termitreaktion entstehen die eine Hitze von über 2000C erreicht.



    Du erzählst hier Leuten was von Physikwissen... dabei hast du scheinbar keinen Dunst, entweder du bist tatsächlich unwissend oder du willst uns dreist für Dumm verkaufen.

    Wenn Stahl solchen Temperaturen über längere Zeit ausgesetzt ist und an einigen stellen sogar noch höheren, dann bringt selbst die Brandschutzisolierung nichts. Wenn der Brand zu lange anhält verliert der Stahl seine Tragkraft komplett und das bedeutet das er unter der Last zusammenbricht!


    Ja und? Das ist logisch die Fallbeschleunigung sind eben 9,81m/s und entsprechend ist auch der Impuls wenn 3-5 Etagen Runterkrachen auf die nächste. Die Impulsverzögerung ist minimal, die Etage die getroffen wird hat viel weniger Masse als der darüberliegende Gebäudeteil, ca 1/10 wenn der Impuls da Aufschlägt dann wird die Fallgeschwindigkeit gerade mal um 1/10 gebremst also 0,1m/s und pro Etage wird der Faktor kleiner weil immer mehr beschleunigte Masse von oben kommt, die Kraft ist so groß das du nach ein paar Etage kaum noch Verzögerung hast.

    Aber Newton ist eh nur Mainstream...

    Nein das ist nicht so, länger ja aber nicht heißer... ein normaler Gebäudebrand hat keine Brennstoffe wie Kerosin. Plastik und Holz verbrennen völlig anders und mit viel niedrigerer Temperatur.

    Die stehen ja nicht in den Flammen, sondern einige Etagen entfernt oder nicht dort wo direkt das Feuer brodelt. Die Wärmestrahlung wird von den Betondecken absorbiert. Problematisch ist es im Kern und in den Etagen oberhalb, aber da erstickst du eher am Rauch.

    Unterhalb hat man bessere Chancen weil die Hitze sich eher nach oben ausbreitet und von unten Luft nachzieht (Schornsteineffekt), das ist auch der Grund warum das Gebäude zusätzlich wie ein Hochofen wirkt, von unten wird durch die geborstenen Fenster Luft angesaugt wie im Grill.

    Der Sog kann teilweise so heftig sein, dass Leute im Treppenhaus durch die Luftströmung und dem Rauch das fliehen extrem erschwert wird. (Ist Heute Bautechnisch bei Treppenhäusern zu beachten)
    Diesen Effekt kennt man spätestens seit den Napalmangriffen auf Dächer von Hochhäusern.
     
  6. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien


    Geil!!!! Wie diese 15jaehrige VT Deppen vor 5 Jahren..... Mittlerweile ist es sehr still geworden um diesen geisteskranken Spinner.

    Niels Holger Harrit – Psiram

    Einfach nur lustig die VT Deppen.

    Und mit welcher geisteskranken Theorie kommst du auf so eine saudumme Frage??? Sind alle Gebäudekonstruktionen gleich?
     
  7. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    PSIRAM ist ganz sicher KEINE legitime Quelle, um irgend etwas zu beweisen. Die dort veröffentlichten Texte sind massiv wertend, und dienen ausschließlich der Diffamierung von Individuen.

    Der Artikel zu Harrit ist, wie man an den Zitaten sieht, komplett unbrauchbar.

    Auf den Rest deiner asozialen verbalen Exkremente werde ich nicht weiter eingehen.
     
  8. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    ich dachte sie tragen lediglich informationen über die fehlschüsse be.kloppter menschen zusammen die menschen deren "wahrheit" du stetig ungefiltert übernimmst?
    so wie es sputnik und der rötzer von heise gegenüber den journalisten des spiegels macht?
     
  9. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Viel Spass!

    Spoiler
    THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.


    "The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

    Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

    Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

    "If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

    Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

    What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

    Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

    Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

    It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

    It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

    It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

    And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

    Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

    (1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

    (2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

    (3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

    Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

    Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

    In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

    Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

    We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

    For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

    (4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

    However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

    Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

    So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

    Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

    Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

    (5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

    From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

    CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
    = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
    = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
    = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

    In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

    Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

    Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

    So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

    will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

    This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

    That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

    39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
    97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
    349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
    500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
    1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

    To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

    Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
    Nitrogen 1,038
    Water Vapor 1,690
    Carbon Dioxide 845
    Lightweight Concrete 800
    Steel 450

    Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

    39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
    97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
    349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
    500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
    1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

    The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

    So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

    = (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
    = (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
    = 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

    Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

    1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
    1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

    Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

    So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

    Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

    "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

    Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

    Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

    Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

    Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

    Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

    Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

    Summarizing:

    We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

    Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

    Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

    It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

    "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

    Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

    Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

    Conclusion:

    The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

    So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

    How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?

    Du warst derjenige, der dies begonnen hat! Im Übrigen solltest dich zurückhalten, bist du doch derjenige, der am laufenden Band Texte im Internet klaut und diese als deine eigenen in diesem Forum präsentiert. Ich habe mittlerweile dutzende Beispiel dazu gesammelt.

    World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - Home

    Experten, die dir alles genau erklären.
     
  10. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Das sind Annahmen die nicht zutreffen!
    Beim Einschlag wurden mindestens zwei bis drei Etagen gesprengt, das teilweise zerstäubte Kerosin das innerhalb eines Raums explodiert hat eine extreme Druckwelle. Das ist anders als bei einer offenen Explosion.

    Das Kerosin ist nicht optimal effizient verbrannt, je nach position besser oder schlechter in Verbindung mit anderen Materialen unter ggf. bester Luftzufuhr durch den Kamineffekt sowie an stellen mit Schwelbrand unter Sauerstoffmangel. Es ist also durchaus eine "conduction" gegeben.

    Ebenso die angenommene Menge an Kerosin... die Flugzeuge hatten unterschiedlich viel getankt.

    Außerdem absorbiert der Beton und Stahl nicht die ganze Hitze sondern Reflektiert einen Großteil an Wärmestrahlung die den Raum deutlich stärker aufheizt als ein offenes Feuer.

    Du kannst eine Bratpfanne mit Kerosin die optimal verbrennt nicht vergleichen mit einem Brand in einem Ofen. Vergleich mal Temperaturen von Lagerfeuer und von der Gluthitze in einem Ofen.

    Außerdem ist das Experiment von 1990 mit Stahl hinfällig, weil das bestimmte Stahlsorten sind mit unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften. Stahl != Stahl, da gibt es unzählige Mischungen mit total anderen Härtegraden und Trageigenschaften. Das WTC wurde 1970 gebaut, damals gab es völlig andere Baumaterialien und Sicherheitsvorschriften.

    Der Bericht geht also an tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten vorbei.
     
  11. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Da ist die Erklärung für geschmolzenen Stahl...viel plausibler als 'nachgewiesener' (100% Fakt am *****) Sprengstoff.

    Hatten wir schon oft genug, warum das so einstürzt. Und beim WTC7 stürzt erst das Innere ein und dann die Fassade - wird natürlich in dem geschnittenen Video einfach unterschlagen...

    Es kommt nicht nur auf Konstruktion an, sondern auf verbaute Materialien, auf die Schäden durch die Trümmer, auf die Materialien in den Büros usw., auf Luftzufuhr (Windverhältnisse spielen sicher auch 'ne Rolle), und und und... (ainrsdofogfdevww)

    Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass der Überlebenstrieb so schnell nicht übertrumpft wird. Auf jeden Fall ist das Feuer natürlich nicht überall und auch nicht überall gleich heiß und die Hitze zieht natürlich auch nicht in alle Richtungen gleichmäßig und und und...
     
  12. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Sagst du aus der Sicht eines Laien.
     
  13. 2. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Das sagen die selber... Sie spielen einen hypothetischen Fall durch unter der Annahme, dass das Feuer, was dort gebrannt hat nicht so heiß sein kann wie ihr angenommener "Ideal"-Fall. Stimmt aber vorne und hinten nicht!
     
  14. 2. November 2015
    Zuletzt von einem Moderator bearbeitet: 15. April 2017
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    auf Уралец за полгода до катастрофы снял трещину на разбившемся в Египте самолете — фото ist jetzt ein photo vom mai 2015 der abgestürzten maschine aufgetaucht welches einen riss am heck des fliegers zeigt.
    hopefake.jpg

    wenn man jetzt mal photosearch von Photo Search Results | Airliners.net bemüht gibts diesen "riss" noch auf anderen bildern

    dezember 2012
    1212.jpg

    juni 2013
    613.jpg

    mai 2015 515.jpg

    november 2015

    riss21.jpg
     
  15. 2. November 2015
    Zuletzt von einem Moderator bearbeitet: 18. April 2017
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Nix Flugzeuge

    YouTube-Video

    Die ersten 4 Minuten reichen!
     
  16. 2. November 2015
    Zuletzt von einem Moderator bearbeitet: 13. April 2017
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Oh wow, einige Leute haben die Flugzeuge nicht gesehen und gedacht es wäre ne Bombe gewesen.
    Tausende andere sagen das Gegenteil.

    Und wenn du schon so auf Storys von Fotografen stehst,hier auch einige berichte von Fotografen, manche haben die Flugzeuge eben gesehen und manche nicht und dachten auch es wäre ne Bombe. Völlig natürliches Verhalten. Wer würde denn bei soner Explosion zuerst an Flugzeuge denken? Kommt ja nicht jeden Tag vor, dass Flugzeuge irg. wo reinfliegen.

    Hier einer der z.B nix gehört oder gesehen hat.
    Und der hier hats gesehen.
    Selbst dieser David Handschuh aus deinem Video der das Flugzeug nicht gesehen hat, sagt

    Wie du siehst beweist es rein gar nichts, dass einige Leute die Flugzeuge nicht gesehen haben, in solchen Momenten stehen viele unter Schock oder sind abgelenkt. Selbst Leute die nah dran sind können es übersehen.

    Dann gibts auch Zeugenreaktionen wo deutlich von Flugzeugen geredet wird, wie in diesem VT Video wo behauptet wird, dass es Militärflugzeuge wären. Zumindest haben die Flugzeuge gesehen.
    YouTube-Video

    Wie gesagt, Leute die sagen die haben keine Flugzeuge gesehen, können diese übersehen haben. Leute die direkt vor Ort sagen sie haben ganz klar das Flugzeug gesehen sind hier ausschlaggebend.
    Daher ist das einzige was dein Video beweist, dass es Leute gibt, die die Flugzeuge nicht gesehen haben. Herzlichen Glückwunsch.
     
  17. 3. November 2015
    Zuletzt von einem Moderator bearbeitet: 13. April 2017
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    YouTube-Video

    YouTube-Video

    Nix Flugzeuge!
     
  18. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Ganz bestimmt ziehe ich mir jetzt 2 einhalb Stunden irg. welche Videos rein die eh alle die selben Inhalt haben wie alle anderen die du zuvor gepostet hast.
    Kannst ja die Kernthesen zusammenfassen wenne Bock hast.

    Aber schön, dass du so gut auf meinen Post eingegangen bist.
     
  19. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Here is the deal!

    Ich gehe auf deinen Post ein, sobald du dich mit den Videos auseinandergesetzt und eine sachliche Analyse dazu verfaßt hast.
     
  20. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Jo klar, soll ich vllt. noch ne Power Point Präsentation dazu erstellen?

    Das ist ne Forumsdiskussion. Und du postest quasi Kommentarlos 2 1/2 stündige Videos und verlangst das die anderen sich diese angucken.
    Selbst so Ellenlange Artikel/Blogeinträge nicht zusammengefasst stehen lassen ist schon fast zuviel, aber die kann man dann zumindest überfliegen.

    Woher weiß ich denn, dass du dir die Videos selbst angeguckt hast und nicht einfach paar youtube links rausgeworfen hast, weil du zu faul zum argumentieren bist?
    Wir diskutieren ja hier mit dir und nicht mit diesem Gari Jones, also solltest du auch selber mal konkret werden anstatt nur mit Links umherzuwerfen.
    Also wenn du schon mit soner "langen" Quelle ankommst, solltest du zumindest die wichtigsten Punkte zusammenfassen, am besten natürlich mit Zeitangaben damit man es im Video evtl. kurz nachgucken kann, wenns einem komisch vorkommt.

    Ansonsten könnte auch jeder hier einfach sagen "google selber danach, gibt genug Quellen dazu".
    Dazu braucht man dann kein Forum. Du willst mich ja hier von irg. etwas überzeugen und nicht der Ersteller des youtube Videos.
     
  21. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Das habe ich nicht erwartet.

    Ich sehe mir ALLE Videos an, die ich hier poste!
     
  22. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    dies würde ja bedeuten dass keiner der passagiere ums leben kam die angehörige irgendwelche falschen leichen begraben haben die gefundenen dna-spuren auch nicht echt waren ganz zu schweigen von den übereinstimmenden radardaten und flugzeugkennungen welche ja nachweislich ans fbi gingen und auch öffentlich zugänglich sind...alles fake
    hier ist was ganz großes im gange und bushido hats entdeckt!:-*
     
  23. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    Stimmt.

    Stimmt.

    Wie wollen die Angehörigen denn überprüfen ob die Reste der Menschen (mehr dürfte es wohl kaum gewesen sein) wirklich ihre Angehörigen sind? Weil offizielle Stellen es behaupten?

    Stimmt.

    Schau dir die von mir zuletzt geposteten Dokus an, dann kannst du dir alle diese Fragen sparen! Euer Problem ist, daß ihr euch gar nicht mit den Ausführungen der anderen Seite auseinandersetzen wollt.
     
  24. 3. November 2015
    AW: Verschwörungstheorien

    krasse s.cheiße! ...und wo sind dann all die menschen hin leben die nun mit hitler & stalin in der zwischenerde oder wurden sie nach diego garcia deportiert und kommen in ein paar jahren mit mh370 wieder zurück?
    das musst du aber nun ganz schnell den hinterbliebenen mitteilen! einige von ihnen sind ja bei 911 truth wie ich es mitbekommen habe weil sie einiges an dem bericht zu bemängeln scheinen.
    bitte melde dich dort an und erkläre ihnen dass ihre geliebten nicht gestorben sind die werden sich bestimmt freuen!:-*
     
  25. Video Script

    Videos zum Themenbereich

    * gefundene Videos auf YouTube, anhand der Überschrift.