Processzorgyártók (és itt nem különböztetek meg CPU és GPU különbséget), akik mérvadóak, azok az Intel, AMD, VIA és a mobil CPU-k, amit nem szabad egy vállrándítással elintézni, ugyanis ott az adott kissebb teljesítményt, kreativitással pótolják, ami igencsak döntő tényező.
Állj, állj ! :) Kivételesen nem veled vitázok, (arra ott a másik topik :))) Minössze arra próbáltam felhívni a figyelmet, hogy szinte exponenciálisan lerövidülnek a gyártási/agyelszívási módszerek...
Vagy keleti alkatrészbázison...ölég jó PC alkatrészeket gyártanak, Tajvan és Dél-Korea környékén is...
Ezzel csak arra próbálok rámutatni, igen erősen fogy a "nyugat" technologiai fölénye. Nézd meg Japánt, 1920-30-ig, sehol nem volt és nézd meg, most hol tart. Ami 60-70 év alatt behozható lemaradást jelent...ráadásul ez a lemaradás, drasztikusan csökken az internet korában.
tevedsz.en hasonloan gondolkodom mint denes.szorakoztato ahogy az usa-hoz kepest sikertelen amugy kedves es szeretett honfitarsaim az usa jovobeni darabokra esesenek viziojaval allitjak helyre megbomlott lelki bekejuket.szorakoztato de nagyon szomoru is
Selected Anomalies in the Official Account of 9/11/01
Many researchers have compiled lists of problems with the official account of the 9/11 attack. One example is the 9/11 Anomalies page on this website. The summary assembles some of the more glaring anomalies, making no attempt to be comprehensive.
Indications of Foreknowledge
Pre-attack put option surges anticipated post-attack stock declines:
Put/call ratios on American Airlines and United Airlines stock increased five-fold and twenty-fold.
High officials avoided the attack targets:
John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial.
Salman Rushdie, Willie Brown, and Pentagon officials were warned not to fly on the eve of the attack.
On 9/11/01 Warren Buffett, an investor in unmanned aerial vehicle maker MITRE, hosted a breakfast meeting of WTC CEOs at Offutt AFB, where President Bush later landed that day.
The World Trade Center and Pentagon were anticipated terrorist targets:
War game scenarios targeted the WTC and Pentagon.
The use of jetliners as weapons was anticipated.
Military's Non-Response
The official story posits a long series of improbable failures:
The official timelines blame the FAA for inexplicably long delays in notifying the military, after originally claiming to have been notified sooner but without specific locations.
Jets were not scrambled from nearest bases.
Jets in the air were not vectored to intercept jetliners.
According to NORAD and 9/11 Commission timelines, military jets flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
Claims that hijacked jetliners couldn't be tracked contrasts with ability of the FAA to land over 4000 aircraft at different destinations in two hours.
At least four simultaneous war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01:
The NRO exercise involved a plane-crash-into-building scenario.
Operations Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian used scenarios involving hijacked passenger planes.
After presiding over the worst air defense failure in US history, the commander of NORAD, head of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense were awarded with promotions and budget increases.
Pentagon Attack Anomalies
The Pentagon was left undefended until after being hit at 9:38:
The Pentagon should be the best-defended building in the world.
The Pentagon was hit more than 80 minutes into the attack.
It is 10 miles from Andrews Air Force Base.
Cheney watched the attack plane approach from 50 miles out.
The attack targeted Wedge 1 of Pentagon's west wing:
Wedge 1 was sparsely occupied, nearing completion of renovation.
Wedge 1 was the only one that had blast-hardened walls.
The top brass was in the opposite side of the Pentagon.
The alleged suicide pilots lacked the requisite piloting skills:
The attack maneuver required extreme piloting skill.
None of the alleged hijackers had flown jets.
Hani Hanjour, alleged pilot of Flight 77, was a notoriously bad pilot.
Total Collapse of WTC Building 7
Is the only case of total collapse of large steel-framed high-rise building blamed on fire.
The collapse had all of the features of a controlled demolition implosion:
It fell straight down with precise radial symmetry.
Its rapid fall was within 10 percent of gravitational free-fall speed.
It collapsed into a tidy rubble pile mostly within the block that the building occupied.
Total Destruction of the Twin Towers
Symmetry and thoroughness of destruction rules out natural processes.
Dozens of firefighters described explosions and likened the falls of the Towers to controlled demolitions.
Destruction exhibited main features of controlled demolitions:
The destruction was total, leaving no parts of the Towers intact.
The falls began precipitously after loud explosions were heard.
Energetic jets of gas and dust emerged from the facade.
Destruction was more thorough than conventional demolitions:
The explosions of Towers were up to 800 feet in diameter.
The rubble was shards of metal and dust.
More than 1000 bodies were "vaporized".
Extreme temperatures persisted in the rubble for three months.
Dust contains residues of explosives:
Abundant minute iron-rich spheroids match the structure and chemical composition of thermite by-products.
Chips consistently found in samples are a nano-engineered thermitic material the the physical structure, chemical composition, and thermal behavior of a high-tech pyrotechnic with high explosive power.
Suppression and Destruction of Evidence
The World Trade Center steel was systematically destroyed:
Controlled Demolition Inc's plan for recycling steel was submitted 11 days after the attack, and approved.
Most of the steel was shipped to Asia for recycling.
Investigators were barred from the crime scene, and saw little of the steel.
Scores of videos from around Pentagon were confiscated and never released.
The NTSB was not allowed to investigate crashes.
Overt Omissions in Official Reports
The 9/11 Commission made hundreds of glaring omissions:
The Report makes no mention of Building 7.
It called the structural cores of Twin Towers "hollow steel shaft[s]."
It did not mention the privatization of the World Trade Center six weeks before the attack.
NIST avoided the core issue of the 'collapses':
It did not consider events beyond when the Towers were "poised for collapse."
It did not demonstrate that computer models predicted "collapse initiation."
NIST disingenuously evaded calls to test for explosive residues.
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Proofs of Demolition Demolition of the Twin Towers is Provable Through Simple Analysis
Despite the destruction of the most significant evidence of the Twin Tower collapses -- the structural steel -- it is relatively easy to prove the towers were demolished. Determining how they were demolished without the benefit of the steel may be difficult or impossible, but proving that a gravity-driven collapse is insufficient to explain the characteristics of the collapses documented by photographic and seismic evidence is not.
There are numerous pieces of evidence that strongly indicate demolition, including the fact that authorities destroyed and suppressed evidence, the more than 100 years of engineering experience with steel-frame buildings, the misleading representation of the towers' design by truss theory proponents and the implausible sequence of events proposed by that theory, and the many collapse features that seem irreconcilable with gravity-driven collapses.
Proving demolition requires more than enumerating evidence. It requires making logical inferences about events using the evidence. Three fairly strong proofs are as follows. These are presented as qualitative arguments only. Each suggests an approach for developing a rigorous quantitative proof.
The towers fell faster than they could have if they were crushing themselves.
The volume of dust was too great to have been the product of a gravity-driven collapse.
The South Tower's top shattered before falling, and so its breakup was not a result of gravity-driven crushing.
hat megis hogy omlott akkor ossze ? olvastam olyan marhasagot hogy alaaknaztak . dehat tobb tucat amator videot lattam a history channel-en , azokon rajta kene lenni a foldszinti robbanasnak is . de ilyen nincs , csak olyan hogy a magasban neki megy a gep , ergo , marhasagokat lehet irogatni de bizonyitani nem megy , a linked meg vagy igaz vagy nem . tudod az van hogy szaz dollarost is lehet hamisitani . linket sokkal konnyebb . en maradok a jozan esznel es ha latom hogy nekimegy a repcsi es bumm , de alul nincs bumm akkorr a fenti bumm-tol omlott ossze
ezt a marhasagot a tervezo biztos nem mondta.en sokat olvastam errol es legalabb 10 oranyi filmet neztem meg ...
Hát igen....
Ha csak a kincstári maszlagot meg a "planted" elméleteket olvasod...
(amelyeket aztán elegánsan cáfolnak, és mondják hogy a többi elmélet is "hasonlóan" cáfolható)
Tessék:
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
ezt a marhasagot a tervezo biztos nem mondta.en sokat olvastam errol es legalabb 10 oranyi filmet neztem meg es a lenyeg az az , hogy a szokasosnal is vekonyabb fuggoleges aceltartokat epitettek be hogy konnyu legyen es olcso . mi a fenenek terveztek volna a hetvenes evek elejen arra hogy belerepulhessen egy repcsi ? ma sem tervezik erre a felhokarcolokat , ugyanis nem szoktak repcsik belerepulni ezekbe . ez volt az elso eset
----------------------------------------------------------------- "szokasos" irodai tuzre terveztek . ejszaka kigyullad az iroda valami elektromos zarlat miatt . biztos NEM terveznek meg ma sem arra hogy belerepitek egy repulogepet tobb szaz tonna kerozinnal az epuletbe 800 kilometeres orankenti sebesseggel -----------------------------------------------------------------
Ehem....
A tervező szerint egy Boeinget is ki kellett bírnia. Arra is tervezték. És kétlem hogy ha egy Boeing becsapódására tervezték akkor úgy gondolták hogy nem lesz tűz.
Egyébként a Denes által idézettt hoszabb lélegzetű eszmefuttatás is jelzi hogy a kerozin viszonylag rövid ideig égett. Ami tovább égett az a "szokásos irodatűz" volt, amit a kerozin gyújtott be.
elkepzelek egy sulyemelot,legyen attilla a neve,csupa izom , kinyomja a feje fole a szaz kilot es tartja , egyre tartja , nekivagok egy kerozinos ego molotov koktelt 55 kilometeres sebesseggel .......sutyy ....mar ossze is rogyott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rég nem látott mélységbe nyomták az eurót - Már megint a görögök? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tavaj szeptemberi szint.... Hej, akkor mijen jól is állt a dollár... Ugye?
