[9/11] Meningen en argumenten #21

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 13:34 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Vergeet dat maar. Je krijgt eerder te horen "Wat een idioot ben je toch dat je die leugens van Balkenende gelooft! Zie hier [insert vage site] met een ander vaag verhaal] bewijs dat Balkenende mee heeft geholpen om de oorlog in Irak te gaan voeren!".

Het nieuwste trucje is die 15 gekidnapped britten. door Iran. Wat dus geenceneerd is door USA/UK

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 13:43 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Het nieuwste trucje is die 15 gekidnapped britten. door Iran. Wat dus geenceneerd is door USA/UK

lees ik hier sarcasme en dus een teken van intilligentie? of is mijn hoop tevergeefs?

Ik vrees dat onze lego-fan het meent. Zou me niks verbazen, 't is helemaal in lijn van het complotdenken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 12:27 schreef Cyclonis het volgende:

[..]

nou dat is dan mooi. ik heb aangetoond dat de totale aanwezige energie gelijk is aan 1/60 deel van de hiroshima bom. deze energie komt vrij in de vorm van hitte en arbeid, aangezien het niet kan verdwijnen. ik vind energie dat gelijk is aan 1/60 deel van de hiroshima bom zeker in staat is om een gebouw totaal te vernietigen.

als jij dat niet vind, prima. ook leuk dat jij nergens probeert te verklaren waar die 10E11 Joule dan naartoe is gegaan, als het niet is vrijgekomen als hitte en arbeid. je zegt in principe: "nou cyclonis, dat is een mooi verhaal, maar ik geloof het niet. ik geloof toch liever in verhaaltjes die beweren dat aluminium niet kan gloeien en die geen energiebalans kunnen opstellen"

Ok

"Nou cyclonis, dat is een mooi verhaal, maar dat een zo hoog gebouw het een en ander aan puin en stof veroorzaakt lijkt me een kwestie van gezond verstand. En als het dan zo evident is dat dit eveneens verantwoordelijk is voor bijvoorbeeld de poelen gesmolten staal en de later gevonden slakken, waarom laat Nist het dan buiten het onderzoek?"

De anomalies Cyclonis. De tientallen zoniet honderden die hier voorbij zijn gekomen in de afgelopen maanden en jaren. Die buiten het theoretisch model vallen, maw er niet door verklaard kunnen worden en of "de negeer, bagatelliseer of ontken behandeling" krijgen. En dan bedoel ik niet per se hier, maar veel belangrijker in de hogere echelonen. De media, de officiele onderzoeksinstituuten, de politici en overheden.

Dus wat zegt, wat voor theoretisch model dan ook als het onvolledig is?

Al vijf jaar worden mensen die aandacht vragen voor de serieuze problemen met de officiele theorie beschimpt en niet serieus genomen. Je ziet het resultaat, het aantal mensen dat inmiddels van oordeel is dat 9/11 een inside job is groeit alleen maar. Komt er een omslagpunt? Ik zou het niet kunnen zeggen, maar dat er een beter antwoord dan de officiele theorie moet komen is wel duidelijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 14:35 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Ok

"Nou cyclonis, dat is een mooi verhaal, maar dat een zo hoog gebouw het een en ander aan puin en stof veroorzaakt lijkt me een kwestie van gezond verstand. En als het dan zo evident is dat dit eveneens verantwoordelijk is voor bijvoorbeeld de poelen gesmolten staal en de later gevonden slakken, waarom laat Nist het dan buiten het onderzoek?"

De anomalies Cyclonis. De tientallen zoniet honderden die hier voorbij zijn gekomen in de afgelopen maanden en jaren. Die buiten het theoretisch model vallen, maw er niet door verklaard kunnen worden en of "de negeer, bagatelliseer of ontken behandeling" krijgen. En dan bedoel ik niet per se hier, maar veel belangrijker in de hogere echelonen. De media, de officiele onderzoeksinstituuten, de politici en overheden.

Dus wat zegt, wat voor theoretisch model dan ook als het onvolledig is?

Al vijf jaar worden mensen die aandacht vragen voor de serieuze problemen met de officiele theorie beschimpt en niet serieus genomen. Je ziet het resultaat, het aantal mensen dat inmiddels van oordeel is dat 9/11 een inside job is groeit alleen maar. Komt er een omslagpunt? Ik zou het niet kunnen zeggen, maar dat er een beter antwoord dan de officiele theorie moet komen is wel duidelijk.

100den? Ik vind het al knap als je 10 kan verzamelen waar je meer dan een minuut over na moet denken om te bedenken waarom ze niet kloppen of onterecht zijn Je bedoelt zeker dingen als poelen gesmolten staal wat nooit hard is gemaakt?

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 14:52 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

100den? Ik vind het al knap als je 10 kan verzamelen waar je meer dan een minuut over na moet denken om te bedenken waarom ze niet kloppen of onterecht zijn

Tel alleen de getuigen die het over gebeurtenissen hebben, tegenstrijdig met de officiele theorie.

quote:

Je bedoelt zeker dingen als poelen gesmolten staal wat nooit hard is gemaakt?

Yup, die John Gross hier ontkent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 15:00 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Tel alleen de getuigen die het over gebeurtenissen hebben, tegenstrijdig met de officiele theorie.

Dat mag je dan uitleggen hoe je dat ziet. ajb

quote:

Yup, die John Gross hier ontkent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

Gek he. De enige rapporten (die hier langs zijn gekomen iig) hadden het over gesmolten metaal.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 15:04 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Dat mag je dan uitleggen hoe je dat ziet. ajb

Iedere getuigenverklaring die niet overeenkomt met de officiele theorie (noemde al Rodriguez) is een anomalie.

Die dito behandeling krijgt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 15:13 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Iedere getuigenverklaring die niet overeenkomt met de officiele theorie (noemde al Rodriguez) is een anomalie.

Die dito behandeling krijgt.

Zoals? Mensen die harde knallen hoorden? Daar had cyclonis een hele mooie verklaring voor weetje nog.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 14:35 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Ok

"Nou cyclonis, dat is een mooi verhaal, maar dat een zo hoog gebouw het een en ander aan puin en stof veroorzaakt lijkt me een kwestie van gezond verstand. En als het dan zo evident is dat dit eveneens verantwoordelijk is voor bijvoorbeeld de poelen gesmolten staal en de later gevonden slakken, waarom laat Nist het dan buiten het onderzoek?"

De anomalies Cyclonis. De tientallen zoniet honderden die hier voorbij zijn gekomen in de afgelopen maanden en jaren. Die buiten het theoretisch model vallen, maw er niet door verklaard kunnen worden en of "de negeer, bagatelliseer of ontken behandeling" krijgen. En dan bedoel ik niet per se hier, maar veel belangrijker in de hogere echelonen. De media, de officiele onderzoeksinstituuten, de politici en overheden.

Dus wat zegt, wat voor theoretisch model dan ook als het onvolledig is?

Al vijf jaar worden mensen die aandacht vragen voor de serieuze problemen met de officiele theorie beschimpt en niet serieus genomen. Je ziet het resultaat, het aantal mensen dat inmiddels van oordeel is dat 9/11 een inside job is groeit alleen maar. Komt er een omslagpunt? Ik zou het niet kunnen zeggen, maar dat er een beter antwoord dan de officiele theorie moet komen is wel duidelijk.

gezond/logisch verstand is alleen toepasselijk op iets waar je verstand van hebt. als jij niks snapt van energiebewegingen/structuren/krachten/materialen moet je niet je gezond verstand er op loslaten want dan ga je alleen maar fouten maken.

dit heeft dus niks met gezond verstand te maken. een energiebalans opstellen doe ik trouwens ook niet om details te verklaren, maar om een waarde aan je te presenteren van de hoeveelheid energie die beschikbaar is voor destructie.

NIST laat dat buiten haar onderzoek omdat NIST er niet van uitgaat dat er zoveel non-experts allemaal theorieen gaan lopen rondbazuinen over beam weapons, explosieven en rocket propelled grenades.

ik heb ook zoiets van, als je het wilt weten, ga het dan zelf even onderzoeken ofzo. NIST heeft een onderzoek gedaan en conclusies gepresenteerd die zijn geaccepteerd door de wetenschappelijke wereld. als je het er niet mee eens bent, kun je je tegenonderzoek verrichten en die presenteren. heb je daar niet de capaciteiten voor, dan heb je pech. zolang je blijft komen met argumenten die zijn gebasseerd op "wie weet hoever de technologie van het leger wel niet is ontwikkeld" gaat je theorie alleen maar serieus genomen worden door mensen die er net zo weinig van snappen als de conspiracy theorists.

wat ik heb geschetst is dus geen theoretisch model ofzo. het is een weergave van de hoeveelheid energie die beschikbaar was voor destructie. het is iets wat je in gedachten kan houden wanneer je uitspraken doet als "de potentiele energie was niet genoeg om de mate van verpluvering en verhitting te verantwoorden". ik heb aangetoond dat de aanwezige potentiele energie equivalent is aan 216.8 ton TNT oftewel 1/60 deel van de Hiroshima bom.

als jij dus voortaan zulke uitspraken doet, mag je me dus ook uitleggen waar die potentiele energie dan naar toe is 'verdwenen' en hoe groot de energie van jouw 'bron' dan wel niet was en waarom de energie van jouw 'bron' dus wel voldoende was om de mate van verpulvering/verhitting te verantwoorden.

nogmaals: wat ik heb aangetoond is geen model of iets dergelijks. ik heb slechts de hoeveelheid potentiel energie omgerekend naar equivalente tonnage aan TNT en een vergelijking getrokken met de Hiroshima bom. verder wijs ik je er op dat gezien de 1e wet der thermodynamica deze energie ook vrij is gekomen bij het instorten. als je het hier niet mee eens bent, zou ik van jou wel eens willen horen waar ik fout zit. leg mij bijvoorbeeld uit dat ik het fout heb dat de potentiele energie van het gebouw 10E11 Joule bedroeg. leg mij uit dat deze energie niet is omgezet in hitte/arbeid maar in [jouw uitleg]. leg mij maar uit waarom ik de eerste wet van thermodynamica verkeerd heb geinterpreteerd/toegepast.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 14:35 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Ok

"Nou cyclonis, dat is een mooi verhaal, maar dat een zo hoog gebouw het een en ander aan puin en stof veroorzaakt lijkt me een kwestie van gezond verstand. En als het dan zo evident is dat dit eveneens verantwoordelijk is voor bijvoorbeeld de poelen gesmolten staal en de later gevonden slakken, waarom laat Nist het dan buiten het onderzoek?"

De anomalies Cyclonis. De tientallen zoniet honderden die hier voorbij zijn gekomen in de afgelopen maanden en jaren. Die buiten het theoretisch model vallen, maw er niet door verklaard kunnen worden en of "de negeer, bagatelliseer of ontken behandeling" krijgen. En dan bedoel ik niet per se hier, maar veel belangrijker in de hogere echelonen. De media, de officiele onderzoeksinstituuten, de politici en overheden.

Dus wat zegt, wat voor theoretisch model dan ook als het onvolledig is?

Al vijf jaar worden mensen die aandacht vragen voor de serieuze problemen met de officiele theorie beschimpt en niet serieus genomen. Je ziet het resultaat, het aantal mensen dat inmiddels van oordeel is dat 9/11 een inside job is groeit alleen maar. Komt er een omslagpunt? Ik zou het niet kunnen zeggen, maar dat er een beter antwoord dan de officiele theorie moet komen is wel duidelijk.

Echt waar? Groeit het aantal mensen wat van oordeel is dat 9/11 een inside job is? Hoe kom je daarbij? Waaruit maak je dat op?
Want volgens mij groeit die groep juist niet! Volgens mij neemt die groep alleen maar af. Ik vraag me af hoe jij daar bij komt.

Daarnaast, wat betekent het voor jou dat die mensen niet serieus worden genomen? Dat er wel iets van waar moet zijn wat ze zeggen? Want volgens mij komt het juist omdat wat die mensen zeggen gewoon onzin is, en daarom worden ze niet serieus genomen.

aangezien dit verhaal al zo vaak langs is gekomen en blijkt dat velen het gewoon niet lezen plaats ik het maar ipv een link (mischien kunnen bepaalde mensen er dan niet omheen om het eindelijk een keer te lezen)

quote:

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor
August 25, 2005 06:13 AM EST


This past week I had the great pleasure of meeting William Rodriquez, a humble man from Puerto Rico who worked at the World Trade Center. He looked healthy in spite of suffering from many 9-11 related toxic diseases.


The occasion was at a special meeting at the Schaumburg, Illinois Township Library in the Chicago suburbs. This informative presentation served as a memorial for the many victims as we approach the fourth year anniversary of 9-11. In addition to William other knowledgeable and well qualified individuals presented their thoughts: Phil Jayhan, Dave VonKleist and Christopher Bollyn, a journalist with the American Free Press. This event, which should have been standing room only, was sponsored in part by the American Free Press as well as Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid, a physicist and author of Painful Questions.

A press release was sent to all of the print media in the Chicago area about a month in advance of this event. There was a very tiny isolated notice about the event in one of the Chicago papers. Surely the local newspapers would wish to interview the participants on such an important subject as 9-11. But, only one Hispanic television station sent a journalist and a camera. So we must assume that the other Chicago news organizations have already determined exactly what they desire their readers to believe about 9-11. Let's not deviate from the government version and confuse people with the truth!

William Rodriquez gave an outstanding, sensitive discourse of his experiences on that fateful morning. He appears to be a genuinely warm, gentle caring human being and it is easy to believe that his relationship with his many fellow employees was much more - they were also his long time friends. Daily, he met with them for breakfast in the Windows on the World Restaurant on the 106th floor. Nearly two hundred people, most of William's friends, were in the restaurant that morning. None of them survived. Not only did he lose his job on 11 September 2001, he lost most of his friends. William would have also perished had he been in the restaurant that morning but he arrived at work at 8:30 a.m. rather than his usual time of 8:00 a.m.

William had worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. "He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries." The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. "He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" William led Felipe David outside to safety. William continued to hear people screaming and returned to the building in spite of police orders. There were people encased in elevators. There were people who needed help.

There was a swooshing sound coming from the freight elevators on B2 and B3. Water from the fire sprinklers from all of the floors had gone into the elevator shaft. There were two individuals trapped below who were in danger of drowning. Rodriguez was able to secure a long enough ladder to extend into the shaft to facilitate their escape from a watery grave.

He had possession of just one of the five master keys that opened all of the stairwell doors at each of the floors in the 110 story building. The other four key holders were trained for emergencies. They had already left the building. Firemen from New York City Unit Six arrived. Each fireman, in addition to protective clothing, had about 70 pounds of equipment. William, who now had the only key, led the firemen up stairwell B. Firemen were going up as victims were coming down. The stairwells were narrow with no windows.

The firemen made it up to the 27th floor but were exhausted from the burden of their equipment. As William had ascended up the stairwell he, as well as the firemen, had heard explosions from the 20th through the 30th floor. Chunks of the building were falling down all around them and they could literally hear the building coming down. Yet, the firemen continued to climb and give aid. After all, they assumed the fire was isolated at the location where the plane entered.

On the 33rd floor, William was able to procure some dust masks from a maintenance office. The air was thick with smoke. On the 33rd floor he found a woman laying on the floor in a fetal position. She didn't know where to go or what to do. They had fire drills twice a year but because of employee turnover, not everyone had a clear view of emergency procedures. While some individuals intuitively respond appropriately in an emergency, others are absolutely paralyzed by their fears.

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.

They continued to ascend to the 39th floor. This is as far as William got before he was turned back by the firefighters. As he began his descent he heard the plane hit the south tower.

He made it back down to the hole where the front doors used to be before they were blown out. The bottoms of the elevator doors were blown partially open. He couldn't breath, his eyes burned, his leg was burned. Someone yelled: "Don't look back!" William looked back momentarily then raced for the first cover he saw - a fire truck. That is where he was found. Pulverized concrete mixed with asbestos and smoke created a dark cloud of doom. Flashlights were necessary. William received temporary medical assistance and then went to work trying to find survivors.

The mangled bloodied bodies of the jumpers blanketed the ground. William will never forget the anguish he felt or the sight of this senseless horrific carnage. This was evidence of desperation - people desperate to escape possible death by suffocation or by fire chose death by jumping. The fires were contained and isolated. Much of the flame actually burned outside of the building upon impact. The fire was out - even at the giant gaping hole where the plane breached the building where people worked, talked with friends and felt relatively safe.

William Rodriguez saved lives that day. Currently he is attempting to alert the public to what actually happened. He is a courageous witness to those terrible events. The controlled censored media doesn't really appear willing to report the real news but rather they promote whatever the propaganda ministry wants the masses to believe. It takes continuous courage to go against such opposition but that is the kind of man he is. He says that he owes it to his friends - those that were slaughtered for some covert political agenda.

William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.

The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group ignored his plea to tell his story. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years. The taxpayers certainly did not get their money's worth.

William Rodriguez also contacted the FBI who never followed up. The media was not interested. CNN spent a day filming and interviewing him at his home but when it was shown the following day it was thoroughly edited. Some reporters have subtly warned Rodriguez to keep quiet as he could jeopardize his life. They said "You do not know who you are dealing with!" He already looked death in the face and he will probably continue to courageously tell his story. He is speaking the truth and he is speaking it for his friends. He says: "I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

William Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a RICO lawsuit filed against George W. (warmonger) Bush and others. He is alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes. So not only is he speaking for his friends but he is seeking justice for all of the victims, both those who died and those who were injured.

The World Trade Center twin towers were built from 1968 to 1972. To fireproof the building a mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed during the construction. However, this fireproofing technique was banned in 1971 by the New York City Council. By then there was already hundreds of tons of this material in the building. Later, some of this material was removed yet there was still about 100 tons of asbestos remaining. Asbestos was used in other areas that would not leave the harmful residue unless there were extraordinary circumstances such as those that occurred on 9-11.

William Rodriguez says: "I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can't even say a word." Thank goodness for the alternative media where one may still discover the truth.

On 11 September 2001 our defense systems failed, NORAD failed, our president, intent on a goat story, failed to immediately respond; the twin towers failed - they collapsed - the only known steel frame buildings in history claimed to have failed because of fire. Other steel frame buildings have been known to burn for hours and hours yet they did not collapse. Of course, we do not know the cause of their failure as the evidence was rendered unavailable for investigation - either immediately sold or otherwise withheld. There was also the failure of the local authorities to warn the people about the toxic air that burned their lungs and blanketed their homes and would create life long health problems. They were told that there was no problem.
After 9-11 there was a failure to discover exactly who made millions on all of the put options on American Airlines and United Airlines. That was another failure. So many failures and I haven't heard of one person reprimanded for inefficiency. However, there are those who were promoted.

However, there were also great successes:
The firemen who gave their lives - crushed in the totally unexpected and unusual building collapses. There were medical people who tenderly treated the trauma struck victims. The policemen did not fail and the thousands of volunteers who searched for the dead and dying did not fail. There were search and rescue dogs who did not fail - many of whom have since died of cancer. And William Rodriguez did not fail. He acted appropriately -just like a man of integrity and courage should act. He did not hesitate. Unlike others who should have responded immediately, he sprang into action and made selfless sacrifices for others.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 15:00 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:
Yup, die John Gross hier ontkent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

Toch leuk om te zien dat zowat het eerste bewijs van gesmolten staal waarmee ze afkomen een allang fake gebleken foto is uit een van de papers van Steven Jones.
Jones zelf heeft trouwens al toegegeven dat de foto fout is en heeft hem verwijderd.
http://screwloosechange.b(...)-hot-core-photo.html

"and let us never tolerate any outrageous conspiracytheories"
... wat een gejank van Bush ...

scherp

Hieruit begrijp ik dat je niet erg onderlegd bent in begrijpend lezen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:32 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:
"and let us never tolerate any outrageous conspiracytheories"
... wat een gejank van Bush ...

quote:

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.

The war against terror must not serve as an excuse to persecute ethnic and religious minorities in any country. Innocent people must be allowed to live their own lives, by their own customs, under their own religion. And every nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and dissent. When these avenues are closed, the temptation to speak through violence grows.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html

...

quote:

Geef dan gewoon antwoord op mijn vragen en leg uit wat blijkt uit dat verhaal van Rodriquez.... Is dat nou zoveel gevraagd?

ja...je zou het ook gewoon kunnen lezen want anders is het weer de mening van een ander en je hebt al meerdere malen aangegeven dat je die niet geloofd itt NIST en implosionworld

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:46 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Het is dus WEER een uitspraak die uit de context gerukt is....
De zoveelste al....

I see a pattern......

quote:

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.

nog steeds gejank

voor degenen die het interesseert, ik heb een reactie geschreven op het artikel van http://www.mindfully.org/(...)-Training13jun06.htm

geschreven door NILA SAGADEVAN

Dear Nila,

I would like to respond to your article on: http://www.mindfully.org/(...)Training13jun06.htm.

I am an Aerospace Engineering student at the Delft University of Technology (http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=8750d4e4-f258-4661-9ac9-0fcc0b89f90d&lang=en), in my last year and finalizing my Master's thesis. My specialiazation is in the field of Control & Simulation. I am the son of a pilot of the MD-81 who also happens to be an airplane mechanic. I have also flown quite a lot in my life and do so regularly, but have not yet acquired my PPL.

First of all I would like to point out the irrelevance of the pictures you have used at the top and bottom of your article. You may call this nitpicking but the top picture is clearly meant to imply that a Boeing 757 is more difficult to fly because it happens to be larger. I know from theory and interviews with pilots that this is not exactly the case. The main difference between handling a small Cessna aircraft and a heavy transport jet is that the heavier ones generally have a larger response delay to your control input. The difficulties in flying a larger jet are not in the actual flying, but rather in monitoring the state of the aircraft. There are many more systems on board that need to be monitored. The flying in both cases are governed by the same equations of motion since both aircraft are stable systems in contrast to most military aircraft for example. The parameters may differ of course, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a pilot of a small single engine airplane could not successfully FLY a larger jet to a specific target, solemnly based on the difference in sizes. I will come back on this later.

I agree that simulators are not easy to operate, but then again, they are not more difficult to operate than a normal airplane. Flying in a qualified simulator is considered equal to flying in a real jet and the hours you fly in a qualified simulator are valid flying hours. A completely untrained pilot will indeed be unable to navigate any kind of airplane to any geographic location. However, it is my understanding that the hijackers were actually trained in single engine airplanes and have possible trained in simulators with heavier aircraft. This should be enough to navigate the heavy aircraft to any position on Earth that is within range. The main things that the hijackers would need to be familiar with are:

- general feel of flying
- general feel of flying the heavy aircraft (being able to anticipate and correcting for the response delay)
- being aware of the aircraft's operating limits
- knowing where to locate the FMS (flight management system)
- being able to engage autopilot
- being able to engage altitude hold and airspeed hold
- being able to set a desired frequency in the NAV transponder

All of the above requirements are not so hard to meet with some training. Pilots receive extensive training not to simply fly the plane from point A to B, but to SAFELY fly the plane from A to B. You are obviously aware of the fact that the greater part of a pilot's training and the training he still needs to do at least twice a year for the remained of his career are mostly aimed at responding to emergency situations. My father for example, has to train in a simulator environment multiple times a year and all they do is training for emergency situations.
It is obvious to me that it was never the hijackers intent to safely fly the airplane anywhere, and therefore they would not need the extensive training a normal commercial pilot needs to operate the plane safely. Simply flying and navigating the plane is very basic and any moderately intelligent person should be able to become familiar with this in a simulator environment in a matter of weeks.

You are over exaggerating the incompetence of the hijackers in flying their Cessna's. Hanjour obtained his commercial pilot certificate in 1999 and you and other conspiracy theorists are twisting the fact that he was reported to the FAA 5 times for 'incompetence' as a result of his poor English to somehow convince readers that this has anything to do with his abilities to fly. It is clearly stated that he already had his commercial pilot certificate before he did his oral exam. The fact remains that he had his commercial pilot certificate and was looking for a job as a pilot in Saudi Arabia. I see no reason to believe that he was incompetent to fly an airplane simply because someone uttered "He could not fly at all". If this were true then why did the FAA grant him his pilot certificate?

I have also read into Ziad Jarrah, who also obtained his PPL. Marwan al-Shehhi also obtained his pilot license and spent hundreds of hours in a 727 simulator. Mohamed Atta also obtained his PPL and has also trained extensively in a simulator environment. All of this can even be found on Wikipedia, which also lists its sources.

At this point it is clear to me that the whole essence of your entire article is flawed, because your article is titled "The Impossibility of
Flying Heavy Aircraft
Without Training ".

Clearly, the pilots were all able to fly and at least 2 of them are reported to have had extensive training on heavy jets in a simulator environment. I really wonder why you would every claims such as:

"although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172"
"And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport"

Given the facts against your statements I can only conclude that you are either misinformed, or that you are deliberately trying to fool simple minded readers.

Let us continue.

You write: "For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of piloting, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.".

This whole passage is obviously irrelevant since all 4 pilots were well familiar with cockpit layouts and at least 2 of them (I find it safe to assume all 4 of them) were well familiar with modern flight simulator environments.
You are also exaggerating the complexity of a modern cockpit and you fail to point out the irrelevance in light of the goals of the hijackers. While it is true that a modern cockpit is a very complex environment, most of the instruments are not needed to simply navigate the plane to a geographic location. The only things that the pilots would need is the speed indicator, altitude indicator, heading indicator and localizer arrow. They would also need to be able to operate the FMS. The first 4 cues are all integrated in one single display in every modern cockpit and is placed right in front of you. The FMS is usually also located on top of the instrument panel and is easy to operate. I see no reason whatsoever why 4 pilots should be completely mystified by the 'complexity' of this cockpit.

These instruments are alike in every modern jet and therefor it is not necessary to be specifically trained for that particular aircraft in order to be able to operate it. When a pilot gets schooled for another type of jet than he is used to, it is mostly a matter of understanding its systems and its specific operating limits and parameters. Both Boeing and Airbus make their cockpit layouts as alike as possible such that is is relatively easy for pilots to switch between aircraft types.

Thus again, you have failed to prove or even suggest why it would be overly difficult for the 4 hijackers to successfully operate the planes they hijacked..

You are also guilty of making certain simple techniques seem very difficult with phrases like: "and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues"

Since you are an aerospace engineer and a pilot, you are obviously aware that navigation takes place in a radial coordinate system, which is the most easy way of determining your position in a flat plane. All the pilots would really need is a radio beacon in proximity to their targets and then a heading which they need to intercept and that will bring them right to their targets. Since I am going to post this email on several websites I will explain how this works
Imagine the target is at a random point in 2D space. If there is a beacon in proximity to that target and the line in between te beacon and the target make a 90 degrees angle to the vertical, and the beacon is to the right of the target, the pilot would only need to intercept the 90 degrees TO radial if he is at the left of the target or the 270 degrees FROM radial if he is in between the target and the beacon.
The process of achieving this is as simple as it can get. There is a convenient localizer in the the synthesized display which is basically simply an arrow that goes to the right if you need to go right, and it goes to the left if you need to go left. As long as you keep the localizer centers, you are right on target. It is even possible to let the autopilot do this for you.

Your phrase "She / he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)" is therefore entirely misleading since all these 3 cues are given in 1 single synthesized display in modern cockpits and separately right next to each other in older cockpits, but still right in front of you.

For the readers, you can find such a display on http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/isgc/NEWS/newsbrf400img3.jpg which is a very good example of how the main instrument looks that is required to fly and navigate the airplane, in total disregard of safety.
The airspeed is the number on the left, the altitude is the number on the right. The heading is indicated at the bottom and the localizer can be found as the black dot at the bottom of the artificial horizon (it is centered now, which means that is is right on track)
The airspeed for this airplane is thus 148kts, the altitude is 830 feet and its heading is about 332 degrees. The image is a bit unclear but usually the DME (distance measuring equipment) will also indicate the distance to/from target in this display.

Thus again, you have failed to prove that navigating an airplane to a target is anywhere near an impossible task.

The next paragraphs you write about flying blind are therefor also completely irrelevant since it is not difficult at all to localize a target using instruments for a pilot with the moderate skills the hijackers had. At a certain point they also lowered their altitude where your whole IFR arguments become void, unless you can prove that the visibility on that day was so bad that they would have needed and IFR approach all the way to their targets.

You are also misleading your readers with your paragraph about accidents of inexperienced pilots while flying under IFR. Most of these cases took place during landing and not while navigating from one point to the other. You are therefor comparing two separate situations since it was never the intention of the hijackers to safely land the airplanes.

You are citing certain people about the hijackers in order to attempt to discredit their abilities to fly. However :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93

seem to indicate that all 4 pilot hijackers were deemed qualified by the FAA to obtain their pilot certificate and there is proof that at least 2 of them have logged many hours in a simulator environment on heavy jets.

Your attempt to discredit their abilities based on the exclamations of unnamed individuals seems futile to me.

You then continue with speculating that it should be difficult for a man to overpower a sitting man who may be stronger. I am a skilled amateur fighter (muay thai kickboxing) and I know that strength and size do not always matter in a fight. A man that is standing has an enormous advantage over someone who is sitting with his back to his attacker. You also speculate that the pilot would turn the plane upside down rather than handing over the controls and that the hijacker would then break his neck. I hope you understand that a Boeing 757 is not a fighter plane and it will take considerable time for it to turn on its back. The hijacker would thus not fall straight on his head, but would tumble along the side of the cockpit. you should also not presume to know what the reaction of the pilot was during the hostile takeover. He may have stood up and tried to fight. Who knows. I do find your logic flawed that a fighter pilot would pretend like his Boeing 757 is a fighter jet and turn it upside down.

You continue your article on the assumption that the Hanjour has no idea whatsoever on how to navigate the airplane. Evidence points to the contrary and I therefore find it entirely acceptable that he was able to set his NAV transponder on a desired frequency and follow a heading that will place him straight on track to the Pentagon. He can let the autopilot take care of speed and altitude and even the initial navigation. Your entire argument that he would have no idea where on Earth he was is totally unfounded and is based on the flawed assumption that Hanjour has no piloting skills even though he gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999.
And as you know, an argument that is based on an invalid assumption is no argument at all.

Your phrase "It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin."

Is therefore completely void and only serves to misinform and deceive ill-informed readers.

Your phrase "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

Is also based on a false assumption that none of the hijackers had any idea of how to operate navigational systems. You also attempt to convince readers of the impossibility of accomplishing the desired tasks of the hijackers by making it SEEM impossible.

Even though 3500 feet per minute is quite high for a descent rate, it is nowhere near impossible. Turning off your transponder does not require you to be able to spell the word 'transponder' at all. So I see no reason why you should make this comment, except for trying to convince your readers that it somehow matters. Believe it or not, many people actually use such arguments to try to make me believe that he would not be able to switch off his transponder.

It is also obvious that the people in the towers thought this was a military plane. I think it is safe to assume they have never before in their life seen a commercial jet deliberately plunging down into the pentagon. This does not mean however that a Boeing 757 can not do this. I have seen many instances of test pilots doing the most amazing things with a Boeing 747, including a barrel roll. A Boeing 757 is a stable plane that can basically do any kind of maneuver that the pilot wishes as long as he does not exceed its operating limits.

I have always failed to see the relevance of the argument that the plane hit the point in the building where there were minimal casualties. If it would have hit in another side of the building with maximal casualties, you could basically also say that it was somehow planned to hit the building right there.

I also don't see why it would be impossible for an airplane to fly on close proximity to the ground at 500MPH. I am very well aware of the effects of wing-in-ground effects but it is certainly nowhere near impossible for a plane to accomplish this.
The only thing that happens when a plane at high velocity flies close to the ground is that the tip vortices get 'broken' in the ground and therefore there is a reduction in induced angle of attack which increases lift. It is therefore nearly impossible to LAND an airplane on its rear wheels in this situation, because in order to descent more you would need to point your nose down. It is however not impossible at all to fly an airplane at high speeds close to the ground due to the effects that you mentioned.

You correctly state what happens when a plane gets close to the ground and that he would not be able to get lower to the ground unless speed is reduced. This is however not the only way to accomplish lowering your altitude. As an aeronautical engineer you obviously know what speed reduction basically means. It means that the lift decreases and therefore the airplane can get lower to the ground. This same effect can also be accomplished by simply reducing your angle of attach, i.e. pushing the stick forward, which also decreases lift.
It makes me wonder, why you failed to point out this fact.

What makes me even wonder more, is the fact that you use the ejected light poles as an argument, but that same argument voids conspiracy theorists conclusions that a cruise missile was used, since a cruise missile would obviously have been incapable of knocking out multiple light poles.

I will post this review of your article on multiple websites and I hope that other people can review this and I look forward to your reply.

I do however want to point out that your article is very biased and you do not substantiate most of the claims you make. You also base your arguments on flawed assumptions such as that none of the hijackers were capable of operating even a small aircraft, even though they have all obtained their pilot license. You also use a lot if ridiculing phrases and words that seem to serve no other purpose but to mislead your readers and you follow up by making certain simple techniques/systems seem overly sophisticated in order to convince your readers that you know what you are talking about so they won't be too critical on your flawed article.

In short, it is my conclusion that your article is not only based on a false assumption, but it also stresses a lot of irrelevant information. It seems to me that you have your opinion ready about who was behind the 9/11 attacks and you are willing to present articles on the web with void arguments and misleading information. I do not mean this as an insult to your person but I do find it worrying that an engineer and pilot goes through such lengths in order to convince others of your personal opinion.

Regards,
Kenneth Verbist.

en dit was zijn antwoord:

Kenneth,

Thank you for your response (to an article than actually began its life as an email to friends a few years ago).

Re your comment “...my conclusion that your article is not only based on a false assumption, but it also stresses a lot of irrelevant information...”

Having perused your missive (admittedly fleetingly -- I’ve limited time) I shall withhold response until you’ve fully perused the following two websites:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Until such time, I’m afraid we’d both be wasting our time (you, especially).

For example, may I suggest you begin with this:


Capt. Russ Wittenberg


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s.

Wittenberg had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Capt. Wittenberg is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth <http://pilotsfor911truth.org/>

Statement:

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…


"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com <http://www.arcticbeacon.com/17-Jul-2005.html>


Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon:
"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high-G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Have a good day.

Kind regards,

Nila Sagadevan

had ik eindelijk gedacht dat ik een slim iemand had gevonden, hij claimed nochtans zelf een piloot en aeronautical engineer te zijn, en ook hij kan uiteindelijk niet eens uitleggen waarom zijn hele artikel is gebasseerd op een foute aanname. hij heeft ook nog eens allemaal aerodynamische verschijnselen opgenoemd waarvan hijj niet kan aangeven waarom ze relevant zijn.

en als laatste komt ook hij niet verder dan een stukje text quoten uit een conspiracy site.

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:54 schreef Cyclonis het volgende:

Until such time, I’m afraid we’d both be wasting our time (you, especially).

Misschien is hij toch slimmer als je denkt Cyclonis.

Nee...ik zit hier niet om jouw te overtuigen, daar ben ik al tijden geleden mee gestopt.

Jij vroeg naar die getuigenverklaring van William Rodriguez ,naar aanlijding van de post van NorthernStar, ik gaf hem je in de hoop je daarmee van dienst te zijn. Wat je er verder mee doet of geloofd zal mij verder een worst wezen.

quote:

Hier denken een aantal mensen nog dat ze anderen kunnen overtuigen door heel hard te schreeuwen dat de Amerikaanse regering liegt en dat iedereen die dat niet gelooft maar dom is.

dat idee heb ik meer met jouw posts.....

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:01 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Misschien is hij toch slimmer als je denkt Cyclonis.

ik heb heel duidelijk zijn hele artikel onderuit gehaald. 80% van zijn artikel is er op gebasseerd dat die kapers rookies waren en helemaal niet konden vliegen. als je een beetje onderzoek doet naar de kapers wordt het duidelijk dat ze alle 4 hun brevet hebben gekregen van de FAA endat minstens 2 honderden vlieguren hebben geboekt in een boeing 727 simulator. dit is precies de training die een piloot tegenwoordig krijgt wanneer hij trained voor een groot vliegtuig. vroeger had je nog dat je als piloot in opleiding ook gewoon meevloog, maar tegenwoordig geschied dat allemaal in simulatoren.

ik zie dat zinnetje eerder als een teken dat hij er niet op in wenst te gaan omdat hij zelf ook wel weet dat zijn hele artikel nergens op slaat en op onwaarheden berust. heb ik duidelijk aangegeven in mijn betoog.

Mijn god...hieruit blijkt weer dat je er niet zo goed in bent .

Lees het nog eens rustig over

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:07 schreef Cyclonis het volgende:

[..]

ik heb heel duidelijk zijn hele artikel onderuit gehaald. 80% van zijn artikel is er op gebasseerd dat die kapers rookies waren en helemaal niet konden vliegen. als je een beetje onderzoek doet naar de kapers wordt het duidelijk dat ze alle 4 hun brevet hebben gekregen van de FAA endat minstens 2 honderden vlieguren hebben geboekt in een boeing 727 simulator. dit is precies de training die een piloot tegenwoordig krijgt wanneer hij trained voor een groot vliegtuig. vroeger had je nog dat je als piloot in opleiding ook gewoon meevloog, maar tegenwoordig geschied dat allemaal in simulatoren.

ik zie dat zinnetje eerder als een teken dat hij er niet op in wenst te gaan omdat hij zelf ook wel weet dat zijn hele artikel nergens op slaat en op onwaarheden berust. heb ik duidelijk aangegeven in mijn betoog.

Ok

quote:

Zoals ik al gezegd heb, ik heb zijn verhaal al gelezen. En ik zie er niks in staan waardoor ik aan het NIST verhaal ga twijfelen.

Mijn god...en weer een bevestiging .

quote:

Lees het nog eens rustig over

slaat op de draad , niet op het arteikel van William Rodriguez ,dit naar aanleiding van de

quote:

Vandaar dat je dan wel de moeite neemt om mij te verwijten dat ik niet goed begrijpend kan lezen

opmerking van jouw.

Nu begin ik me echt af te vragen hoe serieus we jouw posts moeten lezen aangezien jouw post interpretatie te wensen over laat

quote:

Ow wat leuk dat je dat bedoeld. Nou dat maakt ineens veel verschil hoor.

Ik zie nog steeds geen aanleiding om aan het NIST rapport te twijfelen

jeez

en als je nu begrijpend had gelezen wist je dat het mij niks uit maakt waar jij in geloofd en dat het mij ook niet ging om jouw te overtuigen maar dat het ter informatie voor jouw was naar aanleiding van een vraag, waarop jij mij ging vragen naar een interpretatie van het artiekel waarop ik antwoorde dat ik dat niet ging doen

je bent echt ongeloofelijk

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:25 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Ow wat leuk dat je dat bedoeld. Nou dat maakt ineens veel verschil hoor.

Ik zie nog steeds geen aanleiding om aan het NIST rapport te twijfelen

zolang er geen enkel wetenschappelijk instituut op deze wereld een goede reden geeft waarom de NIST analyse niet klopt is er ook geen aanleiding toe.

zolang de enige mensen op deze wereld die de conspiracy theories aanhangen bestaan uit een stel mensen die zich totaal buiten hun vakgebied profileren als techniek deskundigen, en onzin uitkramen zoals "aluminium does not glow", blijft die aanleiding om te gaan twijfelen ver achterwege

quote:

Waarom verspil je zoveel tijd aan zeiken op mij als het jou toch geen worst kan schelen wat ik denk?

goed ik zal me bij deze onthouden van het geven van informatie waarnaar jij vraagt

Oh wacht dan kom je natuurlijk weer huilen dat mensen geen antwoord op de vragen geven/weten

quote:

Waarom verspil je zoveel tijd aan zeiken op mij als het jou toch geen worst kan schelen wat ik denk?

antw:
goed ik zal me bij deze onthouden van het geven van informatie waarnaar jij vraagt

Oh wacht dan kom je natuurlijk weer huilen dat mensen geen antwoord op de vragen geven/weten

niet selectief quoten waardoor de context uit zn verband word gerukt......ook iets waar je heel goed in bent is me opgevallen (alhoewel ik je dat niet direct kwalijk kan nemen want het is meestal het gevolg van niet goed begrijpend kunnen lezen)

[ Bericht 32% gewijzigd door merlin693 op 10-04-2007 17:44:50 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:38 schreef merlin693 het volgende:

[..]

niet selectief quoten waardoor de context uit zn verband word gerukt......ook iets waar je heel goed in bent is me opgevallen

Jezus, negeer 'm dan gewoon als hij je zo ergert.