Nas je Amerika nategnila??

O tem je bilo že veliko govora, čeprav nihče ne želi (upa?) reči nič natančnega.
BTW
Med WTC in Pentagonom je pa kar velika razdalja>:D

Amerika nas ni nateglnila (v tem primeru). Ena moja prijatelica dela v USA kot varuska sicer pazi otroke od dveh usluzbencev v pentagonu. Zivijo 2, 3 km stran od pentagona in rekla je da je videla avijon ko je butnil not v pentagon.
Tiste slike so verjetno kaka fotomontaza.

men se tut zdi de je blo letalo vidno, pa ni bil samo prvi obroč poškodovan, ampak je blo vse črno in v ruševinah tudi kar bolj v notranjost

Pa ste vi vsi tako zelo prepričani, da se ni Boeing zaletu v kako od sosednih, nepomembnih stavb.

Vojaška industrija rabi razloge za svoje obratovanje in s tem napadom jih je dobila. Povpraševanje po orožju je gotovo močno naraslo.

ehh Rokec ne vsega Marcelu verjet...

Hm, tudi npr. če bi bila resnica takšna, da v Pentagon ni priletelo letalo, ampak ga je npr. razdejalo zaradi eksplozije plinske napeljave - recimo nesrečno naključje - ne bi to v ničemer in ničesar spremenilo.

Namreč, že zgolj uničenja WTC-ja je bilo dovolj, da bi oz. so ZDA in drugi odregirali tako kot so.. z napadom na Afganistan, grožnjo že drugim državam zla in nenazadnje s povečanjem sredstev za boj proti terorizmu..

Skratka zelo malo verjetna zadeva..

Po mojem je vsek skupaj en velik nateg in jaz osebno sem prepričan, da amerika sploh ne obstaja. To nas samo Oni hočejo prepričat.

Ma tale WTC in Pentagon sta mi mal sumljiva, mogoce mislite da sem eden izem tistih k sm nasedu cheap foram, ampak ne gre mi v glavo kako so sploh mogl spustit avion na WTC in Pentagon. Ce letalo skrene s poti je baje treba neki nardit, kaj so oni nardil v teh minutah od takrat ko je avion krenu iz poti pa do takrat ko se je skresal?!? Vrjetn so si praskal jajca, ker kej ocitnega ni blo storjenga (vsaj pomoje) Za WTC ne dvomim kje je letalo, stavba je tako siroka da je cisto mozno da je ostal notr v stavbi, za Pentagon pa po slikah sodec, no ja ne vem, mal mejhen skode je to za tako velik avion...

Vem da ni tko velik kukr 747, sam se zmeri bi 757-200 naredu mal vec skode, kot jo je. Pa se zlo dobr pilot je mogu bit da je tko nizko prletu, ne da bi ze prej sesu avion.

Preden se karkoli razburjate, si preberite tole:

1. Why did the aircraft damage only the outer ring?

Simple: the difference in energy absorption properties deriving from masonry
construction. The WTC had a stiff inner core and a thin "tube" of steel
around its perimeter. The Pentagon, in contrast, has very thick outer
masonry walls. When the planes struct the WTC, they penetrated largely
unchecked until they reached the central core where they were stopped. Note
that in the footage showing the "exit" explosion on the WTC towers, the
conflaguration is offset; the material causing this is that which missed the
central core.

The concentric design of the Pentagon means that very litte force applied to
the outer ring will be transmitted to the inner rings. There is no structure
to transmit the force. Therefore if the force of impact is absorbed by the
outer ring, much less damage will be incurred by inner rings.

Imagine a group of people standing in line to buy tickets for a movie. Let's
say you run as fast as you can and plow into the person at the back of the
line. If the people are standing close together, the last person in line
will bump into the person in front of him, who will in turn bump those
farther up the line. The force of impact is thus transmitted to other people
in the line. If they are standing far apart, only the person you actually
hit will be displaced to absorb your impact. It may be fully absorbed before
he reaches the person in front of him.

Conclusion: This question displays considerable ignorance regarding the
engineering of structures and their response to impact.

2. How could a large aircraft strike only the bottom floor of the building?

To say that a B-767 is 15 yards high is very misleading. That's the height
to the top of its vertical stabilizer while sitting on the ground on its
landing gear. My airport (Salt Lake City, Utah) is only two stories tall,
yet dwarfs the B-767s it services. Sure, the tails stick up above the roof,
but the bulk of the aircraft's mass is located much farther down.

If we assume the terrorist pilot aimed for the ground floor so as to weaken
the structure from beneath, then it is quite plausible to presume the
initial damage was limited to the lower two floors.

Further, the lower part of the fuselage on a passenger airliner is designed
to collapse under hard impact. This is a "crumple zone" designed to cushion
the passengers during a crash landing. When a B-767 lands hard, your luggage
saves your life. This feature also would have diminished the aircraft's
vertical aspect as it struck the building.

Conclusion: This question misrepresents the size and shape of the aircraft,
and displays ignorance of aircraft design and operation.

3. Where is the debris?

It's ludicrous to expect to see large pieces of aircraft debris in a photo
of the outside of the building taken from about 200 yards away. I would
expect most of the debris to be inside the building.

Further, the airframe will respond to impact against a massive, dense object
(i.e., the Pentagon) by disintegrating. No matter where the pieces are, they
will be too small to see in such a photo.

Conclusion: This question is based on a faulty expectation.

4. Why pour sand and gravel?

To create a roadway for heavy equipment. Turf is notoriously soft and does
not provide adequate support for the heavy construction equipment needed to
recover from the attack. Gravel distributes the weight over a broader area.
The dump truck appears to be spreading pea gravel, not sand.

There is bound to be a lot of buried cables, pipelines, and other conduits
under the Pentagon lawn. These would be damaged by heavy equipment not
provided with such a roadway.

Conclusion: This question displays ignorance of construction methods and
equipment, and basic principles of engineering.

5. Where are the wings and why did they cause no damage?

I do not agree that the wings did not cause damage.

Further, the photos in question were apparently taken some time after the
attack. It is not reasonable to insist that the wings ought to be still
there and still recognizable as wings in any case. Recall that airframes
will disintegrate under these conditions.

Conclusion: This question suffers from subverted support; it merely asserts
that the wings caused no damage.

6. Why couldn't the fire chief explain where the aircraft was?

The fire chief clearly stated that small portions of the aircraft were
visible during firefighting efforts. This is consistent with the observation
that airframes tend to disintegrate under hard impact. Fire fighters are
generally not experts in aircraft crash dynamics, and so he properly
deferred the question to those he believed might be better able to describe
what happened to the airframe.

Conclusion: This question is a red herring, attempting to ascribe a motive
to someone whose motives are adequately clear.

7. Where is the point of impact in these initial photos?

In both photos the lower floors of the building are obscured by spray from
fire fighters' hoses. Further, the presence of sooting on the exterior walls
does not necessarily guarantee that the impact point is in the frame.

Conclusion: This question attempts to argue from silence based on
selectively presented evidence.

Needless to say, this follows the pattern of conspiracy theories. The theory
is purely conjectural and based on the assumption that the author can simply
intuitively assert what must be so, regardless of fact or expertise to the
contrary. The author is quite obviously ignorant of the sciences necessary
to understand what he sees, and in any case he selectively presents only
evidence which is either ambiguous or can be "spun" to support his
viewpoint.

The destruction of a portion of the Pentagon is perfectly consistent with
the crash of a large airliner.