中國的普通人真的認(rèn)為認(rèn)為9/11事件是假的嗎？或者是某種陰謀？

Do Chinese "people" think 9/11 was fake?

2024-09-20 沖動的小李 9894 31 5 收藏糾錯&舉報

譯文簡介

網(wǎng)友：被劫持的波音客機撞上了世貿(mào)中心的頂部，而紐約世貿(mào)中心卻從底部倒塌了。我對這個奇怪的現(xiàn)象感到非常不解！這種現(xiàn)象違反了物理原理。

正文翻譯

@CaiLei
just an individual and do not represent all Chinese people.

僅僅是個人意見，不代表全體中國人。

The hijacked Boeing passenger plane hit the top of the World Trade Center, but the World Trade Center in New York collapsed from the bottom. I was very puzzled by this strange phenomenon! This phenomenon violates the principles of physics.

被劫持的波音客機撞上了世貿(mào)中心的頂部，而紐約世貿(mào)中心卻從底部倒塌了。我對這個奇怪的現(xiàn)象感到非常不解！這種現(xiàn)象違反了物理原理。

So, I have a question:

所以，我有一個問題：
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Was the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York not caused by a Boeing passenger plane, but by someone detonating a directional explosive device in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in New York? Who was the murderer who planted the directional explosive device?

難道紐約世貿(mào)中心的倒塌不是由波音客機造成的，而是有人在紐約世貿(mào)中心地下車庫引爆了定向爆炸裝置造成的？埋設(shè)定向爆炸裝置的兇手到底是誰？

評論翻譯

@LAWAL MUHAMMAD
9/11 is one of the things I listened to more people about and read more than 2 books for. I still find it difficult to understand why Americans with their educational system end of believing it's a plane that destroyed that massive building from the top and so many other unbelievable issues

911事件是我聽到最多人討論并為之閱讀了超過兩本書的事情之一。我仍然難以理解，為什么美國人在他們的教育體系下，最終相信是飛機從頂部摧毀了那座巨大的建筑，以及其他許多難以置信的問題。

@@Alex B
well, maybe its because 2 giant fuckin planes slammed into the towers, quite obviously. We know they hijacked the planes, and we know they hit the towers. We know that most structural engineers have explained as to how it happens. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but it is enough to weaken it. Weak structural metal + literally 100s of thousands of tons of steel on top of it = structural collapse.

嗯，也許是因為兩架巨大的飛機狠狠地撞上了雙子塔，這一點相當(dāng)明顯。我們知道他們劫持了飛機，并且我們知道他們撞擊了雙子塔。我們知道大多數(shù)結(jié)構(gòu)工程師已經(jīng)解釋了這是如何發(fā)生的。噴氣燃料燃燒的溫度不足以熔化鋼材，但足以削弱它。脆弱的結(jié)構(gòu)金屬 + 實際上有數(shù)十萬噸的鋼材疊加在上面 = 結(jié)構(gòu)崩潰。

Think of it like this; if you have an attic or roof catch fire on a house, the fire may not destroy the foundation of the house, but it will severly weaken the roof structure to the point of collapsing inward, which dominoes into the whole thing started to collapse. The “explosions” people heard, are coincidentely very similar sounding to large metal being sheared, such as the collumns near the foundation/basement that sheared under extensive pressure.

可以這樣想：如果房子的閣樓或屋頂起火，火災(zāi)可能不會摧毀房子的地基，但會嚴(yán)重削弱屋頂結(jié)構(gòu)，導(dǎo)致向內(nèi)坍塌，進而引發(fā)整個建筑的坍塌。人們聽到的“爆炸聲”，恰好聽起來非常像大塊金屬被剪切的聲音，比如在地基/地下室附近的柱子在巨大壓力下被剪斷。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Some of the collumns had a “perfect” 45 degree shear in them, which can occur with an explosion/demolition, but also can occur when structural metal is compressed with too much load and it shears at the angle of least resistance (which would be roughly 45 degrees).

一些柱子有“完美”的45度剪切，這可能是爆炸/拆除時發(fā)生的，但也可能是在結(jié)構(gòu)金屬承受過大負荷時，在最小阻力角（大約45度）發(fā)生剪切。

@Wilbert Chua
please explain to us why WTC 7, which was not hit, collapsed.

請向我們解釋為什么沒有被撞擊的世貿(mào)中心7號樓會倒塌。

@Alex B
The building caught fire due to debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2. The building burned for roughly 7 hours. The water sprinkler system did not function on the lower floors due to them being connected to city water lines that were damaged in the collapse of the first 2 towers. The immense heat on the lower floors caused the inner floors to start collapsing down/inward. This severely weakened the structural integrity of the building. One column in particular, in the hottest corner where the inner floors started collapsing, started buckling due to the structural integrity being gone from the floors being gone. The column buckled/warped and collapsed, which caused a domino effect of one column after another falling one by one until a total collapse occurred under its weight.

該建筑因世貿(mào)中心1號樓和2號樓的殘骸而起火。建筑大約燃燒了7個小時。由于下層樓與在前兩座塔倒塌時受損的市政供水管道相連，噴水滅火系統(tǒng)在下層樓無法正常工作。下層巨大的熱量導(dǎo)致內(nèi)層樓開始向下/向內(nèi)坍塌。這嚴(yán)重削弱了建筑的結(jié)構(gòu)完整性。特別是在最熱的角落，內(nèi)層樓開始坍塌的一個柱子，由于樓層的缺失導(dǎo)致結(jié)構(gòu)完整性喪失，開始彎曲并最終倒塌，這引發(fā)了一個接一個柱子的多米諾效應(yīng)，直到整個建筑在其重量下完全倒塌。

Most people just see the very famous news clips showing the front side of the building, which on camera looks perfectly fine and intact. This is deceiving because the building is in fact not perfectly fine and is not structurally intact. Footage from the backside shows you the building had immense damage, and huge fires blazing through out it. It was a disaster waiting to happen. A disaster that did end up happening. Everyone was so focused on WTC 1 and WTC 2 that they basically paid almost no attention to WTC 7. As soon as the first 2 towers fell, they immediately evacuated everyone (as pretty much every building in downtown did at that time) which ultimately saved everyones life in WTC7.

大多數(shù)人只看到展示建筑正面的著名新聞片段，鏡頭中的建筑看起來完好無損。這具有欺騙性，因為實際上建筑并不完好，結(jié)構(gòu)也不完整。來自背面的錄像顯示建筑受到了巨大的損害，并有大火在其中燃燒。這是一場等待發(fā)生的災(zāi)難。最終災(zāi)難確實發(fā)生了。大家都如此關(guān)注世貿(mào)中心1號樓和2號樓，以至于基本上沒有注意到7號樓。前兩座塔一倒塌，他們立即疏散了所有人（當(dāng)時幾乎所有市中心的建筑都這樣做），這最終拯救了7號樓所有人的生命。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

All the evidence supports the towers falling due to structural integrity issues and terrorists. There is no actual hard evidence supporting the theory that the American government did this to its own people as some cover up plot. There is no conspiracy here. This was a terroristic heinous act perpetrated by people who hated America, thats it.

所有證據(jù)都支持塔樓因結(jié)構(gòu)完整性問題和恐怖分子倒塌。沒有實際的確鑿證據(jù)支持美國政府為了掩蓋陰謀而對其人民這么做的理論。這里沒有陰謀。這是由仇恨美國的人們實施的恐怖暴行，僅此而已。

@Robert Buchanan
Perhaps you should just go read about it yourself.
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

也許你應(yīng)該自己去讀讀相關(guān)資料。
世貿(mào)中心受控拆除陰謀理論 - 維基百科

@Kevin Skinner-Smith
The construction of the building ensured it would not collapse but explosives ensured it did
Who placed them there????
Izzy did like they texted all there workers to not go in that day

該建筑的設(shè)計確保它不會倒塌，但爆炸物卻導(dǎo)致了倒塌
是誰把它們放在那里？？？
伊茲齊確實像是他們給所有工人發(fā)短信讓他們那天不去

@@Alset Alokin
The more deaths the stronger the false flag

死亡人數(shù)越多，假旗行動就越顯得合理
譯注：這里的“假旗行動”通常指的是一種隱蔽行動或心理戰(zhàn)策略，其中一方偽裝成另一方進行攻擊，以誤導(dǎo)公眾或敵人，使其相信攻擊來自其他國家或組織。這句話可能在討論某些陰謀論或?qū)μ囟ㄊ录慕忉尅?/b>

@George Harrison
I agree with you totally on why the towers collapsed due to weakening of the steel beams due to intense heat from the burning jet fuel.
But I do think it is possible that our government, controlled by the folks that financed the campaigns of its leaders (eg with $14 billion last election) and continue to lobby them, could sanction some covert operation for the financial benefit of those folks.

我完全同意你關(guān)于雙子塔因燃燒的噴氣燃料產(chǎn)生的高溫導(dǎo)致鋼梁弱化而倒塌的解釋。
但我確實認(rèn)為，我們的政府可能被那些資助其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人競選（例如在上次選舉中投入了140億美元）并繼續(xù)游說他們的人控制，可能會批準(zhǔn)某些秘密行動以謀取這些人的財務(wù)利益。

In my opinion, individual people have emotions of love and hate, but large corporations are cold blooded entities that seek to ruthlessly maximize shareholder return.
Like with all crime stories, any good detective will suggest you to follow the money - who benefited from the crime?

在我看來，個人有愛與恨的情感，但大型公司是冷血的實體，旨在無情地最大化股東回報。
就像所有犯罪故事一樣，任何優(yōu)秀的偵探都會建議你追蹤資金流向——誰從犯罪中獲益？

Sure the Arab kids who were recruited on that suicide mission did so based on some ideological reasoning, but they were mere pawns - question is who was the mastermind behind the operation? Was it really Bin Laden - the guy whose family was business partners with the Bush family? Or was he the scapegoat to launch the counterterrorism operations, setup Homeland Security etc for the benefit of our military industrial complex? Because at the end of the day, it is the MIC that benefited most.

當(dāng)然，被招募執(zhí)行自殺任務(wù)的阿拉伯年輕人是基于某些意識形態(tài)理由，但他們只是棋子——問題是誰是這次行動的主謀？真的是本·拉登——那個家族與布什家族是商業(yè)伙伴的人嗎？還是他被當(dāng)作替罪羊，以發(fā)動反恐行動、建立國土安全部等，以利于我們的軍事工業(yè)復(fù)合體？因為歸根結(jié)底，受益最多的是軍事工業(yè)復(fù)合體。

It is also true that some countries are suffering from our hegemonic policies much the same way that colonized countires did in the past two centuries, and this crazy attack could be simply them lashing out out of desperation, knowing full well that we would go all out for revenge.

同樣，一些國家正像過去兩個世紀(jì)被殖民的國家那樣，因我們的霸權(quán)政策而受苦，這次瘋狂的襲擊可能只是他們在絕望中發(fā)泄，完全知道我們會全力以赴進行報復(fù)。

We can only speculate. But I do suspect there is a lot of vested interests behind our foreign policy, mostly to keep our currency and hegemony strong. I mean that is only logical. Any empire is a living organism that desperately wants to live and grow at the expense of others. Ours is no different.

我們只能推測。但我確實懷疑我們的外交政策背后有很多既得利益，主要是為了保持我們的貨幣和霸權(quán)地位。我是說，這是合乎邏輯的。任何帝國都是一個活生生的有機體，拼命想在別人的犧牲下生存和發(fā)展。我們的也不例外。

@@Ken Hopgood
do you write comics for Disney??

你是為迪士尼寫漫畫的嗎？？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

@Bob MacKenzie
Those planes could not collapse the steel girders that got progressively bigger as they got closer to the ground without being cut with thermite. It is against the law of physics.

那些飛機如果沒有用熱硫酸鋁切割，隨著它們接近地面，鋼梁逐漸變粗，它們無法導(dǎo)致鋼梁倒塌。這違反了物理定律。

@Hans Meuller
And what “l(fā)aw of physics “ are you referring to?

你說的是哪一條“物理定律”？

@Bob MacKenzie
A simple test pile empty cardboard boxes one on top of another up to about twenty feet. now drop a bowling ball on the top box. The first box will stop some of the ball’s energy and every box after that will rob more energy from the ball until the ball stops before it hits the ground.

一個簡單的測試方法是堆疊空紙箱，一個疊一個，直到大約二十英尺高?，F(xiàn)在在最上面的紙箱上扔一個保齡球。第一個紙箱會阻擋一些球的能量，之后的每個紙箱都會繼續(xù)吸收更多球的能量，直到球在接觸地面之前停下來。

@John Savage
I lived in Saudi for 6 years. The vast majority of Saudi citizens do not hate Americans. Saudis like America more than most other countries citizens like America.

我在沙特住了六年。絕大多數(shù)沙特公民并不討厭美國人。沙特人喜歡美國的程度比其他大多數(shù)國家的公民還要高。

@Alex B
I was referring more or less to the Al-Qaeda or Daesh or the deeply hateful islamic state associated people. I wouldnt think the every day saudia hates america, especially the ones who partake in the capitalists side of saudia/UAE. I would assume most people are normal. I just mean the crazy terrorist ones are the ones who hate us and celebrate it lol

我指的或多或少是基地組織或伊斯蘭國或與之相關(guān)的極度仇恨的伊斯蘭國家的人們。我不認(rèn)為普通的沙特人討厭美國，特別是那些參與沙特/阿聯(lián)酋資本主義一方的人。我認(rèn)為大多數(shù)人都是正常的。我只是說那些瘋狂的恐怖分子是討厭我們并慶祝的人，哈哈。

@Kenneth Ferrari
One thing people keep forgetting is that there was a previous terror attack in the World Trade Center. While a lot of that damage was repaired the under base was probably not as stable as before. So when the planes hit the damage from the previous attack probably helped finish the collapse.

人們一直忘記的一件事是，世貿(mào)中心之前曾發(fā)生過一次恐怖襲擊。雖然很多損壞已經(jīng)修復(fù)，但下部基礎(chǔ)可能沒有以前那么穩(wěn)定。因此，當(dāng)飛機撞擊時，之前襲擊造成的損壞可能加速了倒塌的完成。

@@Mike
You’re wasting your time. These people want to believe it’s a conspiracy, and nothing you say will change their mind.

你在浪費時間。這些人想要相信這是一個陰謀，你說的任何話都不會改變他們的想法。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

@Piet Verhagen
The building would still not collapse from below. This was especially clear in building WTC 7.

從下方仍然無法導(dǎo)致建筑倒塌。這在世貿(mào)中心7號樓尤其明顯。

@Luciano
What did America gain by killing Americans? Opportunity to invade Afghanistan for not joining the ‘central Bank’ and stripping its Assets and Displacing 10s of Millions. What the owner had to gain? He Gained Billions by the Destruction off the towers whilst he had a doctors appointment and Mr Bush reading a book upside down waiting for the phone call…

美國通過殺害美國人獲得了什么？有機會入侵阿富汗，因為阿富汗沒有加入“中央銀行”，并剝奪其資產(chǎn)，迫使數(shù)千萬移民。建筑所有者有什么收獲？他通過摧毀雙子塔賺了數(shù)十億美元，而那時他有一個醫(yī)生預(yù)約，布什先生正倒著讀一本書等電話……

@Alex B
We had the federal reserve, which is the central bank. They brought us out the 1987 recession and was set on a 10 year plan. In the late 1990s, that came to a close so there was a very short recession at the start of the 2000s. The federal reserve then again right after 9/11 gave 45 billion to the economy to stabilize it, which it did. We had no reason to go into Afghanistan other than for terrorists. We had plenty of oil and plenty of money here.

我們有聯(lián)邦儲備系統(tǒng)，它是中央銀行。它讓我們擺脫了1987年的經(jīng)濟衰退，并制定了一個十年的計劃。在1990年代末，這個計劃結(jié)束了，所以在2000年代初期只有一次非常短暫的衰退。然后，聯(lián)邦儲備在911事件后又向經(jīng)濟注入了450億美元以穩(wěn)定經(jīng)濟，而這確實起到了作用。我們進軍阿富汗沒有其他理由，除了對付恐怖分子。我們這里有充足的石油和資金。

Cool, the leaseholder got paid out by insurance for the destruction of the towers. Your really trying to make the claim that the American government killed almost 3000 people and destroyed entire sections of downtown new york, just for one guy that owns a building downtown to make some money? Please make that sound even remotely logical. Please.

很酷，租戶通過保險獲得了雙子塔被毀的賠償。你真的試圖聲稱美國政府殺害了近3000人，摧毀了紐約市中心的整個區(qū)域，僅僅是為了讓一個擁有市中心建筑的人賺錢？請讓這聽起來至少有一點邏輯。拜托

or are you saying it was for the port authoritys who owned the building? or are you saying for one of the thousands of companies that leased the space within the tower? Please make this make sense. Show me some sort of actual concrete evidence that implicates the government or the people who owned/leased the buildings. Dont show me shit that looks like it could be, or implies that it could. Show me something that actually proves it. This is why conspiracies are stupid, because people connect dots that dont fit, and have no actual evidence to back it up. They see something that looks suspicious and connect it to another suspicious event and assume they are tied together with no actual strings between them.

還是說這是為了擁有該建筑的港務(wù)局？還是說是為了在塔內(nèi)租用空間的數(shù)千家公司中的一家公司？請讓這有意義。給我一些實際的具體證據(jù)，牽涉到政府或擁有/租用這些建筑的人。不要給我那些看起來可能或暗示可能的東西。給我一些真正證明的東西。這就是為什么陰謀論是愚蠢的，因為人們連接了一些不匹配的點，且沒有任何實際證據(jù)支持。他們看到一些看起來可疑的東西，并將其與另一個可疑事件聯(lián)系起來，假設(shè)它們之間有聯(lián)系，但實際上沒有任何關(guān)聯(lián)。

@Michel Proulx
Please explain why a bird hitting a plane nearly destroys it, but a building SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand an aeroplane crashing in it dissolves in a few minutes…

請解釋為什么一只鳥撞上飛機幾乎會摧毀飛機，但一個專門設(shè)計來承受飛機撞擊的建筑卻在幾分鐘內(nèi)解體……

@Alex B
why do birds hitting planes destroy planes? because engines arent designed to ingest debris, especially jet/turbofan/turbine engines. The precision needed for these engines to work is fractional. Any slight damage to the rotating fans will cause them to be out of balance or out of line, which causes one rotor to contact another rotor, which causes a chain reaction and essentially the complete destruction of the engine. The bird strike that captain Sully experienced is a good example.

為什么鳥撞飛機會摧毀飛機？因為發(fā)動機并不是設(shè)計用來吞食碎片的，尤其是噴氣發(fā)動機、渦扇發(fā)動機和渦輪發(fā)動機。這些發(fā)動機運作所需的精確度非常高。即使是對旋轉(zhuǎn)葉片的輕微損傷也會導(dǎo)致其失去平衡或偏離軌道，從而使一個轉(zhuǎn)子與另一個轉(zhuǎn)子接觸，引發(fā)連鎖反應(yīng)，基本上完全摧毀發(fā)動機。蘇利機長經(jīng)歷的鳥擊就是一個很好的例子。

As far as the planes dissolving within minutes, that is also a lie. They did not just dissolve or disappear. They were ripped into a million different pieces, some sticking out of the building, some burning within the building, lots of falling it to the streets, some falling onto other buildings, etc.

至于飛機在幾分鐘內(nèi)解體，那也是謊言。它們并沒有只是解體或消失。它們被撕成了無數(shù)碎片，有的嵌在建筑物中，有的在建筑物內(nèi)燃燒，很多碎片掉到街道上，有的掉到其他建筑物上，等等。

A plane is not designed to be able to impact a large steel structure and survive. Its designed to fly in completely unobstructed air space that is free of debris and large steel structures. It exploded because its not designed to withstand hitting buildings lM, I dont know how thats so hard to understand. It was a 750,000 pound piece of metal that was holding 50,000 gallons of some of the most highly combustible jet fuel you can purchase, thats why it fucking exploded and got destroyed into a million pieces.

飛機并不是設(shè)計用來撞擊大型鋼結(jié)構(gòu)并生存下來。它的設(shè)計目的是在完全無障礙、沒有碎片和大型鋼結(jié)構(gòu)的空域中飛行。它爆炸是因為它并沒有設(shè)計來承受撞擊建筑物，哈哈，我不知道這怎么這么難理解。那是一塊75萬磅（約340噸）的金屬，里面裝有5萬加侖（約189,270升）極易燃的噴氣燃料，這就是為什么它他媽的爆炸并被摧毀成百萬碎片的原因。

Im not sure what is so hard to understand about this. Do you expect the plane to be perfectly fine as if we could just pull it back out the building in a few pieces and put it back together? Did you just expect the engineers that build the towers to say to themselves “you know what, what if a 747 was to ram itself into it at full speed, we should probably implement that into the design”? Did you just expect the building to absorb 139 million newtons of force like it was nothin? Thats 31 million pounds of force dude. There pretty much aint nothing on this earth that will withstand that, no matter what you want to say or believe.

我不確定這有什么難理解的。你是否期望飛機完好無損，就像我們可以將它從建筑物中拉出來，分成幾塊然后重新組裝起來一樣？你是否期望建造這些塔樓的工程師們會自言自語“你知道嗎，如果一架波音747全速撞上去，我們或許應(yīng)該將這一點納入設(shè)計中”？你是否期望建筑物能夠承受1.39億牛頓的力量，像沒事一樣？那是3100萬磅的力量，伙計。地球上幾乎沒有什么東西能承受這種力量，無論你想說什么或相信什么。

@Alset Alokin
It's a perfectly executed controlled demolition that collapsed the towers and building 7 virtually perfectly into their own footprints. What cute terrorists would take such care of ground zero’s surroundings? The feat was very sophisticated and costly. Without perfectly timed steel column cuttings and structural explosions, high-rise buildings could not pancake and would tip over when meeting structural resistances along the way.

這是一次完美執(zhí)行的受控拆除，使得雙子塔和7號樓幾乎完美地倒塌在它們自己的基座上。有什么可愛的恐怖分子會如此精心照顧零地帶周圍的環(huán)境？這一壯舉非常復(fù)雜且耗資巨大。沒有完美時機的鋼柱切割和結(jié)構(gòu)爆炸，高層建筑無法像薄煎餅一樣倒塌，當(dāng)遇到結(jié)構(gòu)阻力時會傾斜倒下。

@@Dean Terry
So how about explaining the logic behind that ludicrous statement. Makes me laugh how people say what they believe happened but can’t explain the logic or rationale behind it. Have you forgotten that 2 planes hit those buildings? So what did they do, plant a whole bunch of explosives in the hope that terrorists would fly planes into them, or did they pre arrange that too? Imagine the phone calls, maybe something like this…..”yeah hi, this is mr bush, erm, yeah we need some terrorists to hijack some planes, in our country, fly them into some buildings that we’ve pre rigged with explosives so that we can then detonate, bring them down and then everyone will think that you did it.

那么，解釋一下那個荒謬說法背后的邏輯吧。讓我笑的是，人們說他們相信發(fā)生了什么，但卻無法解釋背后的邏輯或理由。你是不是忘了有兩架飛機撞上了那些建筑？那么他們做了什么，種下了一大堆炸藥，希望恐怖分子會駕駛飛機撞上去，還是他們也預(yù)先安排了這一切？想象一下那些電話，也許是這樣的……“嗨，我是布什先生，嗯，是的，我們需要一些恐怖分子劫持幾架飛機，在我們的國家，將它們撞向我們已經(jīng)預(yù)先安裝了炸藥的建筑物，這樣我們就可以引爆它們，使其倒塌，然后所有人都會認(rèn)為是你們干的。

Oh and did I forget to add that it will be a suicide mission so you won’t survive by helping us, oh and also, after you’ve helped us with that, we’ll wage war on you and kill loads more of you for crashing planes into buildings that we were going to destroy anyway” and the answer would be something like….”yeah certainly mr bush, we’ve got a whole bunch of suicidal nut cases that will gladly do that for you, just let us know what date and what buildings you need us to hit and we’ll sort that out for you” something like that eh??

哦，我是不是忘了補充，這是一次自殺任務(wù)，所以你們幫忙后也不會幸存，哦，還有，幫了我們之后，我們會對你們發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭，殺死更多你們，因為你們將飛機撞向我們本來就打算摧毀的建筑物?！倍卮鹂赡苁恰笆堑模?dāng)然，布什先生，我們有一大群自殺狂熱分子會樂意為你做這件事，只要告訴我們?nèi)掌诤湍阈枰覀児舻慕ㄖ铮覀儠槟惆才藕玫?。”大概就是這樣，對吧？

Or, they really did get lucky and by pure one in a billion luck, bit like winning the lottery 20 times in a row, that just as they had completed planting all their explosives over several weeks or months, low and behold, some suicidal terrorists just happened to hit the exact buildings that you had planted explosives in, of all the targets they could have chosen they luckily chose the ones that you had planned to bring down yourself!!!

或者，他們真的碰巧幸運，純粹是一比十億的運氣，就像連續(xù)20次中彩票一樣，就在他們完成了幾周或幾個月的炸藥種植后，竟然有一些自殺恐怖分子恰好撞上了你們預(yù)先種植炸藥的確切建筑物，在所有他們可能選擇的目標(biāo)中，他們幸運地選擇了你們自己計劃要摧毀的那些建筑?。?！

Because let’s face it, if you had planned a controlled demolition you would evacuate the buildings 1st right?? You wouldn’t be sending 300 emergency workers into the deaths would you?? You wouldn’t trap thousands of people in a building that you were going to destroy right??
What’s your logical reasoning for a controlled demolition? What’s your logical explanation as to why they would do that and what was the point of the planes?
If you’re going to make a statement like you have, back it up with the reasons and the logic behind it, so please, humor us all with your explanations!!

因為讓我們面對現(xiàn)實，如果你計劃了一次受控拆除，你會先撤離建筑物，對吧？？你不會派300名緊急救援人員去送死，對嗎？？你不會把成千上萬的人困在你打算摧毀的建筑物里，對吧？？
你對受控拆除的邏輯推理是什么？你對他們?yōu)槭裁匆@么做，以及飛機的作用是什么，有什么邏輯解釋？
如果你要發(fā)表這樣的聲明，就用理由和背后的邏輯來支持，所以請用你的解釋取悅我們所有人吧?。?/b>

@Alset Alokin
Hey, you ever heard of false flag operations? Inside jobs? Physics?

嘿，你聽說過“假旗行動”嗎？內(nèi)部作業(yè)？物理學(xué)？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Weeks prior to the ‘pull’, drilling and knocking had been going on, performed by some mysterious contractors. You think a bunch of Arab contractors would have been allowed to walk in and out of the buildings without suspicion? After the pull, molten steel were found on the steel columns, all cut at a particular angle. The termites kept them molten for a very long time at ground zero. Jet fuel couldn't have caused molten steel, what more perfectly cutting them at predetermined angles.

在事件之前的幾周，已經(jīng)有一些神秘的承包商在進行鉆孔和敲擊。你認(rèn)為一群阿拉伯承包商會被允許不受懷疑地進出這些建筑物嗎？在事件之后，在鋼柱上發(fā)現(xiàn)了熔融鋼，全都以特定角度切割。誰讓它們長時間保持熔融狀態(tài)。噴氣燃料不可能導(dǎo)致鋼材熔融，更不用說它們是如何按照預(yù)定角度完美切割的了。

Wtc 1 & 2 were built to withstand direct plane impacts. Wtc 7 was not even hit by anything. All fell in similar fashion; all fell in controlled demolition fashion. Explosions were heard and seen seconds before and during the pull. The official narrative that jet fuel weakened the columns does not hold water at all. Most of the fuels were already burnt in fireballs, both can be seen outside the windows of the buildings. Floors below were not affected at all. Instead, explosions were heard at lower floors and basements. If what they claimed was true, the top floors above the impact floors would have bent, caved in, hung on one side, or tipped over the buildings, not collapsed free fall into all the floors below without any resistance. You can't cheat physics.

世界貿(mào)易中心1號和2號樓是為了承受直接的飛機撞擊而建造的。7號樓甚至沒有被任何東西撞擊。所有建筑物都以類似的方式倒塌；都是受控拆除的方式。爆炸在拉動前幾秒和拉動期間被聽到和看到。官方說法是噴氣燃料削弱了柱子，這根本站不住腳。大部分燃料已經(jīng)在火球中燃燒，兩個都可以在建筑物的窗戶外看到。下面的樓層根本沒有受到影響。相反，爆炸聲來自較低的樓層和地下室。如果他們所聲稱的是真的，撞擊樓層以上的頂層樓層應(yīng)該會彎曲、塌陷、一側(cè)懸掛或傾倒，而不是無阻力地自由下落到所有下面的樓層。你無法欺騙物理學(xué)。

Israhelis were filmed dancing right after the pull. HMM..
Also, Boeing planes can be remotely hacked and controlled. Just like mh370.

以色列人在事件后被拍到在跳舞。嗯……
此外，波音飛機可以被遠程黑客攻擊和控制。就像MH370一樣。

@Dean Terry
1st off, there is absolute clear video evidence of the building’s collapsing at the point of the planes impact, you can visibly see the walls buckle inwards at the exact point of impact in both buildings. They don’t collapse from the bottom like a controlled demolition.
But, with that said, you still haven’t given a logical explanation for the use of planes? What you’re trying to do is justify your own allegation that it was a controlled demolition, but you’re avoiding any logical explanation as to why do it that way.

首先，有絕對清晰的視頻證據(jù)顯示建筑物在飛機撞擊點倒塌，你可以清楚地看到兩棟建筑物在撞擊的確切點墻壁向內(nèi)彎曲。它們不像受控拆除那樣從底部倒塌。
但是，話雖如此，你仍然沒有給出使用飛機的邏輯解釋？你試圖為你自己的受控拆除指控辯解，但你在回避為什么要用這種方式的邏輯解釋。

In 1993 there was a failed attempt to blow up one of the towers, there lay an absolutely perfect alibi for an explosion. Hey everyone they tried before and failed but this time they got it right!!
Remote controlled planes??? To bring down buildings that you’ve already rigged?? All they had to do was plant the explosives properly unlike the 1993 failed attempt, and then blame terrorists. That would have involved much much fewer people to pull off, and nothing would have been captured on camera.

1993年曾有一次未遂的炸毀其中一座塔樓的嘗試，那時候有一個絕對完美的爆炸不在場證明。嘿，大家，他們之前嘗試過并失敗了，但這次他們成功了??！
遙控飛機？？？為了摧毀你們已經(jīng)安裝好的建筑物？？他們所要做的就是正確地安裝炸藥，不像1993年那次失敗的嘗試，然后歸咎于恐怖分子。這將涉及更少的人來完成，而且不會有任何東西被攝像頭捕捉到。

If you’re going to pull off the biggest crime in history you’re gonna make sure that nothing gets seen or captured on camera. But hey, no let’s do this for the whole world to see and scrutinise and question.
So I’ll ask you again, what is your logical explanation for why they would do this in the way that you are suggesting?

如果你要完成歷史上最大的犯罪，你會確保沒有任何東西被看到或被攝像頭捕捉到。但嘿，不，讓我們讓全世界都看到、審視和質(zhì)疑。
所以我再問你一次，你對他們以你所建議的方式這么做有什么邏輯解釋？

@Myron Sanderson
The insurance paid out big time to the Isareli owners!

保險公司給以色列所有者支付了巨額賠償！

@@Dean Terry
No mate, I’m simply trying to get idiots to explain the reasons behind their ludicrous claims, but none of them ever can!

不，伙計，我只是在試圖讓那些白癡解釋他們荒謬主張背后的原因，但他們從來做不到！

@Justin Andrews
Well the Pentagon miraculously lost the paper work on like 2.3 trillion dollars when ‘the plane’ hit one wing of the building. And somehow half the floors were under renovation in all of the buildings that went down, and most of the employees weren’t even there. Having them all empty would make it pretty obvious that someone knew it was gonna happen.

當(dāng)“飛機”撞上一棟建筑物的一個角落時，五角大樓奇跡般地丟失了大約2.3萬億美元的文件。而且不知怎的，所有倒塌的建筑物中有一半的樓層正在裝修，大多數(shù)員工甚至都不在那里。讓它們?nèi)靠罩鴷苊黠@地表明有人知道這將要發(fā)生。

@Tom Tuttle
This was some kind of a jewish talmudist ritual to mark the start of the devil's carnival on Earth. This carnival is still going on and the peak hasn't been reached.

這是一種猶太塔木德的儀式，標(biāo)志著魔鬼在人間狂歡節(jié)的開始。這個狂歡節(jié)仍在繼續(xù)，高潮尚未到來。

@John Koh
not only that, even more bizarre is WTC 7, the shorter building besides the twin towers, which was not hit it all also collapsed completely!

不僅如此，更奇怪的是7號樓，它是雙子塔旁邊較矮的建筑，根本沒有被撞擊卻也完全倒塌了！

@Daniah
My god, the book didn't mention that it collapsed from the bottom. But the teacher showed us some videos in class, and it seemed like many people jumped from the building.

我的天，書上完全沒提到他是從底下倒塌的。但是之前上課老師給我們放了一些視頻好像很多人從樓上跳下來

@@Steve Marker
It was Jewish space lasers.

那是猶太人的太空激光。

@Myron Sanderson
No, Zionist intervention!

不，是猶太復(fù)國主義的干預(yù)！

@Thomas Brown
Yes, clearly it was collapsing from the bottom.

是的，顯然它是從底部倒塌的。

dexe this answer dude. You're better than this.

刪除這個回答，伙計。你值得更好的。

@Veronica Roberts
The OP doesn’t care about little things like proof or video footage. Both structural failures began right at the fire points. The upper sections then slammed into the floors below them cause a cascade pancake collapse. Everyone watching saw it happen that way in real time and the recordings have been reviewed endlessly. There was never a bottom up collapse as the OP describes.
There is no point engaging with them because you can’t fix their level of stupidity.

原帖作者不在乎像證據(jù)或視頻畫面這樣的小事。兩處結(jié)構(gòu)性失效都是從火災(zāi)點開始的。然后上部結(jié)構(gòu)猛烈撞擊下面的樓層，導(dǎo)致連鎖式的煎餅式倒塌。所有觀看的人都實時看到這種情況的發(fā)生，錄像也被無休止地審查過。根本沒有像原帖作者描述的那樣從下往上倒塌。
與他們互動毫無意義，因為你無法改變他們的愚蠢程度。

@@Matthew Fu
It’s a rage bait, and I promise you, not all Chinese people are as uneducated as him.

這是煽動憤怒的內(nèi)容，我向你保證，并不是所有中國人都像他那樣沒有受過教育。

@Jay Bazzinotti
The stupid comments on this of morons who think it wasn’t the planes is unbelievable

關(guān)于那些認(rèn)為不是飛機造成的白癡的愚蠢評論真是難以置信。

中國 普通人 9/11事件

很贊 ( 5 )

收藏

中國的普通人真的認(rèn)為認(rèn)為9/11事件是假的嗎？或者是某種陰謀？

中國的普通人真的認(rèn)為認(rèn)為9/11事件是假的嗎？或者是某種陰謀？