September Clues 4

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 17:11 schreef Terecht het volgende:

[..]

Je quote hier een uitspraak van mij die je uit zijn verband haalt. Dat laatste incident was gewoon een geval van gemakzucht.
De rest van die incidenten kun je allemaal nog wijten aan miscommunicatie, competitie tussen verschillende overheidsinstaties, incompetentie etc etc. Het is geenszins bewijs voor een 'inside job'.
[..]

quote:

Privacy? Je mag niet zomaar informatie die op een schijf staat aan derden verstrekken.
[..]

quote:

Die explosies kunnen vanalles geweest zijn: van ontploffende gastanks en brandblussers, kortsluiting tot liften die naar beneden stortten als gevolg van brand en de impact van het vliegtuig, etc etc:
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
De getuigenissen zijn te vaag om iets concreets mee te kunnen bewijzen, geenszins bewijs voor 'controlled demolition' oid.
[..]

quote:

Israeli spy ring Die zogenaamd fake tape van Bin Laden is te omslachtig/omstreden om als bewijs te dienen.
[..]

quote:

Hot spots zijn al verklaard:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

quote:

Met dust clouds neem ik aan dat je de zogenaamd pyroclastische wolken bedoelt? Dat is allang ontkracht, die stofwolken die je zag bij het instorten van de WTC's hebben nul komma nul van doen met pyroclastische wolken, alleen al vanwege het feit dat die tussen 100 en 800 graden celsius moeten zijn.
[..]

De flits die je ziet is een plotselinge omzet van energie in warmte, dat komt omdat het vliegtuig zoveel kinetische energie had:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0
[..]

quote:

bron?
[..]

Wat dacht je van staatsgeheim?
[..]

quote:

Staatsgeheim, al is dat in dit geval wat vreemd aangezien deze operatie Mohammed Atta en consorten in de gaten moest houden.
-edit- Niet iedereen in de commissie was op de hoogte van dat rapport, en schijnbaar is niet alle informatie over Able Danger aan de commissionstaff gegeven: http://en.wikipedia.org/w(...)he_9.2F11_Commission
[..]

quote:

Dat had ik al wel begrepen . De punten die je hier nu aandraagt zijn weinig relevant voor de 9/11 commissie danwel NIST. De meeste vragen van jouw zijn allang beantwoord, of zijn niet van belang mbt tot de taken van beide instanties. Wie weet heeft de 9/11 commissie wel de wargames en de harde schijven onderzocht, maar onder het mom van staatsgeheim niet aan het grote publiek uitgegeven. Het is kortom erg suggestief wat je hier stelt, een 'inside job' valt hier nevernooitniet mee aan te tonen.

quote:

Op maandag 17 september 2007 20:49 schreef mouzzer het volgende:


[afbeelding]

Hundreds of first responders and investigators were at the Pentagon on 9/11. For the claims that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon to be true, these people must all be liars or fools, as well as all the witnesses in the links above. Conspiracists scrupulously avoid contacting any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:37 schreef Darklight het volgende:
Spyring:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html

Wat ik niet snap, hoe kan dat beton van die torens verpulveren? Inlc die honderden stalen kolommen
daar heb ik nog geen verklaring voor gezie/gehoord

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:13 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:
Nu weet ik het zeker. Vliegtuigen WTC is een een onmogelijkheid.

Vanmiddag langs schiphol gereden. Mooi lucht. Zonnetje erbij. En wat zag het vliegtuig er mooi in FULL Color. Dat we zwart witte monsters hebben gezien tijdens 911 terwijl het een zonnige ochtend was. Tja vorm enige hier die compulsive govt adepten is het natuurlijk een kul argument. Maar dat deed me vanmiddag definitief voor 100% zekerheid dat er geen vliegtuigen gebruikt zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 01:13 schreef David Letterman het volgende:

[..]

Die gaat altijd pleite wanneer in een discussie om bewijslast wordt gevraagd die hij niet kan geven...

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:37 schreef Darklight het volgende:
Spyring:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html

Wat ik niet snap, hoe kan dat beton van die torens verpulveren? Inlc die honderden stalen kolommen
daar heb ik nog geen verklaring voor gezie/gehoord

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:48 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Light poles door vliegtuig is kolder.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:03 schreef mouzzer het volgende:

[..]

Vergeet vooral een goede analyse te maken:
- stond je zelfde positie als de camera(s) op 9/11
- was het zelfde type vliegtuig
- Stond de zon op dezelfde positie als op dat moment op 9/11
- Had het vliegtuig hetzelfde kleurenschema als flight 175
- Maar voornamelijk hing er ook een enorme rookwolk schuin boven de aanvliegroute en kon je gecombineerd met de stand van de zon zien dat er door de rook er geen schaduw op het vliegtuig viel:

[afbeelding]

Zie bijvoorbeeld hier het veranderen van kleur vlak voor impact as de rechtervleugel en de achtervleugel weer in de zon komen omdat ze onder de rook zitten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NNh6WnVZo

Je gebruikt nu jezelf als ooggetuige om iets te bewijzen waarom negeer je dan de honderden ooggetuigen die flight 77 in het pentagon hebben zien vliegen. Of kiezen we alleen de getuigenverklaringen die passen in onze gedachtegang

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:15 schreef Darklight het volgende:
Na de instorting zie ik geen stalen kolommen staan
die zijn dus weg

quote:

WTC already doomed
That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at two hundred years, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment. On 911 the media neglected to mention this detail in its voluminous romancing of WTC history.

The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street, and the corrosive process was weakening the steel structure itself. You can see these prefabricated aluminum sections falling in the TV demolition footage (such as that taken by Dateline producer Christian Martin and shown on NBC on 911). Also, NBC's Pat Dawson reported how "the steel skeleton...peeled off and fell into the street." Those immense fallen panels, twisted Gothic suggestions of cathedral architecture, became the prominent features in the landscape at that patriotic shrine called Ground Zero.
http://www.teslapress.com/911_history.htm

quote:

Plans To Scrap WTC
Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!

KS: Right, even though it is a little bit into downtown, you still have that, you know that humidity is humidity. What happens is when you bring aluminum, the exterior panels of the World Trade Center, in contact with the superstructure, it's the superstructure that corrodes faster. And then basically and over time, destroys the structural integrity of that building. And what I've been trying to tell people just so they can kind of get a mental picture of what was happening there. It basically was causing something akin to osteoporosis over time - the life cycle and the life span of that building was being shortened by the day. They knew about that in 1988 and ,89. And they had already come up with a price tag that exceeded $5 billion to take them down and put them back.
http://www.rense.com/general60/scrap.htm

quote:

Victor Thorn: Then, of course, we had this nonsense with Schwarz's "galvanic corrosion" 9-11 distraction theory. For months, this man was advancing a preposterous notion that the World Trade Center towers may have collapsed because the steel girders were weakened due to galvanic corrosion. After doing a bit of research, I realized what a blatant false-flag this hypothesis was; but oddly, quite a few 9-11 researchers got sucked into this trap and wasted endless hours debating it. Anyway, Schwarz appeared on WING TV (January 11, 2005) and started pushing this galvanic corrosion crap. When he finished, I asked, "Karl, are you trying to tell me that if planes hadn't hit those towers on the morning of September 11, 2001, and if there hadn't have been a controlled demolition, they would have fallen due to galvanic corrosion?" Schwarz, taken aback, started hemming and hawing, and soon changed the subject. And do you know what? I never heard another word about galvanic corrosion again.
http://www.karlschwarz.com/truth.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:22 schreef mouzzer het volgende:

[..]

Het staat niet het ligt: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:22 schreef mouzzer het volgende:

[..]

Het staat niet het ligt: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo-cropped.jpg

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 21:19 schreef Darklight het volgende:

[..]

Die pancake theorie is dus lariekoek als je dit bekijkt
en ik heb nog geen verklaring waarom het beton verpulvert is, van allebei de torens

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:22 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

je weet zelf ook wel dat alle ooggettuigen verklaringen afgegeven zijn door of TV-zender, govt, fbi medewerkers.

quote:

je weet dat mensen liegen onder groepsverband. Als jy iets ziet en de gros ziet het anders dan ga je de groepswaarheid geloven om maar niet buiden de boot te vallen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 21:19 schreef Darklight het volgende:

[..]

Die pancake theorie is dus lariekoek als je dit bekijkt
en ik heb nog geen verklaring waarom het beton verpulvert is, van allebei de torens

quote:

Op dinsdag 18 september 2007 20:56 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
Ik ga het volgende voor de 4de keer onder de aandacht brengen in de hoop dat iemand er iets zinnigs over zegt:
[..]


[..]


[..]

Ik ook niet.

quote:

to the above two comments: Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just ignorant of reality and not a shill. How did they benefit?
#1 reason: FEAR scared the crap out of people to let them do the following:

Allowed them to curtail civil liberties even further than they already had: patriot act etc

allowed bush to become a dictator (what, he's not you say? then why has the courts ruled what he is doing illegal (eg warrantless wiretaps, torture etc) and yet he has said he will continue, and has done so? and not been impeached? democracy my ass)


gave them a pretext to invade afghanistan: invaded for a few reasons
1) oil pipeline
2) To gain influence in the middle east region (ie US bases etc) for the coming(ie occuring now) war against iraq and then iran and so on
3)Drugs. See "truth and lies of 9/11" on google video
(note that they where already in position to invade at the time of 9/11)


Iraq: for a few reasons:
1) iraq wanted to sell oil in euro's not USD. BIG no no to the US (iran was going to do so as well, partly what all the fuss is about)
2) Bush had a vendetta against saddam(he tried to kill my daddy)
3) to gain permanent millitary bases (now being built in the area) in the region, for coming attacks on iran
4)considered an enemy by zionists


over all this, there are the millitary contractors and security experts who gain from any and all wars/terror/fears etc.

Above them are the international bankers, who are the true power in this world despite what you might think, who base their profits upon peoples and especially governments debts: war= spending, which normally = loaning from intternat. banks= debt = more interest payments for the international banks.
(see "the money masters" on google video)


Next you have the Gold repository under WTC 4, known as one of the worlds largest, which had confirmed amounst of nearly a billion and rumoured amounts of 160 billion in gold, silver and other precious metals in it. Only 260 million has been officially recovered.

Another massive motive is the trillions missing from the pentagon budget, announced only the day before 9/11 by runmsfeld, and promptly forgotten on 9/11. This trillion dollars of missing (ie embezzled) money was nicely covered up by the fact that many of the victims of whatever it was that happened at the pentagon where ACCOUNTANTS AND BOOK KEEPERS! On a similar note, WTC7, the THIRD huge building that collapsed (if you've not seen this collapse, do so) held the offices of cia, fbi, SS, mayor guilliani's emergency bunker and, more interestingly: SEC securities commision. This was where allmost all the evidence for huge fraud and insider trading cases was stored, such as ENRON! with this evidence lost, many multi million/billion dollar cases where set back years or dropped.

ALthough there are many more motives and many groups who have benefited and may or may not have been involved, I'll leave you with one more:

The WTC towers needed either billions of dollars of work done to them or to be brought down due to a few reasons:
massive problems with asbestos and other health concerns, which would have cost many millions if not billions to properly remove. Also it has been claimed by a photgrapher/engineer who worked with some companies involved with the WTC that they where sufffering from galvanic corrosion due to the combination aluminium facade and steel frame, ie the holes for the bolts holding the aluminium on where corroding. He claimed they had been given only a few more years to figure out a safe way to bring it down, and that the cost was estimated between 10 and 20 billion dollars.

What is know is that larry silverstein, the lease holder, took out a record breaking insurance policy against terrorism only weeks before the attacks, when he took over the whole property (3.5 billion). after the attacks he claimed 2 incidents (2 planes ) and recieved over 5 billion in insurance, despite only spending a couple of hundred mill on the actual lease. The cleanup costs (which would have been covered by him if he'd had to bring them down due to asbestos/corrosion) where around 12 billion if I remember correctly, all covered by federal money, and the government has supplies silverstein with billions in ultra low interest bonds to cover rebuilding costs: Basically silverstein/port authority has turned a run down hated building (look it up) needing billions in repairs/demolition into a multi-billion dollar windfall.


There are many more possible motives, and its possible some of the above motives where accidental/ unrelated. WIthout a proper investigation (ie impartial/independant, not the suspects investigating themselves as has occured so far) it's hard to tell

either way, is that enough motive for you? literally trillions of dollars in motive? my estimate - trillions for the iraq war/cleanup contracts/bases, trillion/s for afghanistan/iran/etc middle east wars over next decade, trillions in iraqi oil/afghani pipeline profits, billion(s) in gold (now worth much more due to high price of gold) , 5 billion insurance, 12 billion cleanup cost/contract, billions in loans for silverstein/controlled demolitions inc, God knows how much interest on loans made to pay for these things (this interest is where much of your income tax goes, not building roads etc)

Ill leave it there, with a final note: What motive did the supposed muslim terrorists have? they minimised casualties (planes where nearly empty, towers where struck near the tops so more people (but not too many) could escape, and at a time of day that maximised witnesses while keeping victim numbers down (consider that those buildings normally had over 20,000 people in them) pentagon hit was in the ONE PLACE THAT WAS VIRTUALLY EMPTY due to being renovated to be BOMB/BLAST PROOF! None of that makes sense if you are a muslim terrorist. WHat have they got since then? have they benefitted? NO they have been discriminated against (muslims) blown up, invaded, hated, deposed etc etc