BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Kwam dit artikel tegen:
Top construction firm: WTC destroyed by controlled demolition.
Veteran Middle East correspondent Alan Hart: Largest engineering firm studied collapse of twin towers and said there was no doubt it was a controlled explosion
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.
“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.
Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”
Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.
Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.
“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.
Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.
Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.
In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.
Listen to the full interview with Alan Hart below. The 9/11 discussion begins at around the 35 minute mark. (klik op bron en scroll naar beneden).
Bron: http://www.prisonplanet.c(...)lled-demolition.html
Website van Alan Hart: http://www.alanhart.net/
Wikipedia:
Klinkt allemaal best betrouwbaar!
Laatste deel: 9/11 Is controlled demolition inmiddeld 100% bewezen?
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 29-05-2010 16:21:13 ]
Top construction firm: WTC destroyed by controlled demolition.
Veteran Middle East correspondent Alan Hart: Largest engineering firm studied collapse of twin towers and said there was no doubt it was a controlled explosion
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.
“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.
Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”
Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.
Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.
“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.
Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.
Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.
In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.
Listen to the full interview with Alan Hart below. The 9/11 discussion begins at around the 35 minute mark. (klik op bron en scroll naar beneden).
Bron: http://www.prisonplanet.c(...)lled-demolition.html
Website van Alan Hart: http://www.alanhart.net/
Wikipedia:
De interviewer Kevin Barrett:quote:Alan Hart is an author, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News[1], and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East.
Hart is the author of several books including a 1984 biography of Yasser Arafat,Terrorism or Freedom Fighters: Yasser Arafat and the PLO. More recently he has completed the trilogy Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews[2] In an article discussing his book, Hart stated that "until enough Americans are made aware of the truth of history, no American president will have the space to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress."[3]
Hart began his career as a reporter in central Africa and served as a war correspondent in Vietnam. He tells of having been the first Western correspondent to reach the banks of the Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. He also tells of having been friendly with both Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat at roughly the same time and having been on friendly term with such leaders as Saudi Arabia's King Faisal, Jordan's King Hussein, and both Egyptian Presidents Nasser and Sadat.
Hart was involved in the failed attempt by the late Shah of Iran to go into exile in the UK after he was deposed from power. On February 9 1979, as a freelance journalist close to the shah, Hart contacted Downing Street to say the deposed royal was interested in living full-time at his lavish estate in Surrey, southwest of London. [4]
In 1973 Hart addressed global poverty with a two-hour film titled "Five Minutes to Midnight." Its world premiere was hosted by Secretary General Kurt Waldheim at the opening of the 7th Special session of the UN General Assembly that had been called to discuss for a new world economic order.
Hart also tells of having been the unofficial linkman in a secret exploratory dialogue between Arafat and Shimon Peres in 1980.
Hart says he was told by his editor Geoffrey Cox early in his career, "Never forget that leaders are the most lonely people in the world because they are surrounded by sycophants who only tell them what they want to hear. They, the leaders, are crying out for honest conversation." Inspired by this advice, he says, he held "private one-on-one conversations over the years with leaders on both sides of the Arab-Israeli connection, giving him a rare insight into the truth of what they really believed and feared as opposed to what they said in public for propaganda and myth-sustaining purposes."
Hart has never been a member of any political party or group. When asked what drives him he has said, "I have three children, and, when the world falls apart, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say, "Don't blame me. I tried." [press release, April 28, 2010]
In May 2010, Alan broke his silence on 9/11 while speaking on the Kevin Barrett Show by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrettquote:For other people named Kevin Barrett, see Kevin Barrett (disambiguation).
Kevin James Barrett (born February 1959) is a former university lecturer, Muslim convert[1] and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.[2] He is a member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 (SPINE)[3], and is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance (MUJCA), established October 30, 2004 [4] with the stated aim of improving "interfaith dialogue, coexistence, and understanding" in light of the events of 9/11.[5] Barrett first received national attention when he introduced Dr. David Ray Griffin at Griffin's lecture in April 2005, in Madison, Wisconsin to 450 people. The talk was shown on C-Span's Book TV. [6]
In the fall of 2006, Barrett taught an introductory class called "Islam: Religion and Culture", an undergraduate course for which he had formerly been a teaching assistant.[7] Before the semester began, it was reported that he planned to devote a week or two of the sixteen-week class to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the War on Terrorism. Controversy erupted when it became known Barrett was planning to discuss conspiracy theories in his lectures.[8] An internal university review found that "although Mr. Barrett presented a variety of viewpoints, he had not discussed his personal opinions in the classroom" and that the department-approved syllabus, which included a section on the war on terror, had been followed.[9]
Klinkt allemaal best betrouwbaar!
Laatste deel: 9/11 Is controlled demolition inmiddeld 100% bewezen?
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Ali_Kannibali op 29-05-2010 16:21:13 ]
Wederom weer allemaal mooie uitspraken. Maar als die demolition expert gelijk heeft, waarom wijst hijd an niet even aan in het NIST rapport waar de berekeningen niet kloppen.
Nou, super bewijs zeg!quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 16:06 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:
Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen.
Echt, je wordt zo simpel van al die aannames. Mensen, kom nu eens met concreet en wel onderbouwd bewijs voor die conspiracy theorieën met degelijke bouwkundige/wiskundige blahblah achtergrond...
tvp om te lezen wat er nog komen gaat.
tvp om te lezen wat er nog komen gaat.
[b]Op vrijdag 24 augustus 2007 09:50 schreef PretKroket het volgende:[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
http://www.popularmechani(...)ld-trade-center#wtc7quote:FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
http://www.popularmechani(...)d-trade-center#steelquote:"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechani(...)d-trade-center#steelquote:Seismic Spikes
Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
Ook een goede site:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
Ik ben het hier overigens mee eens, ik ben niet van mening dat er opzet van de vs achter de aanslagen zit, maar eerder ontwetendheid of onderschatting.quote:Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories
This paper is written to demonstrate that those who believe that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by controlled demolition, rather than the impact of the planes, are mistaken. While I sympathise with the overall aims of protesting against US and UK foreign policy, I don't believe that US officials took part in a conspiracy to murder thousands of their fellow-citizens. I believe that the truth is in fact more alarming: US and UK foreign policy is based on ignorance, not malice. But I don't believe in fighting ignorance with ignorance. However well-intentioned, the demolition theories will not achieve their goals because they are based on an ignorance of good science.
Ik vraag me altijd nog 1 grote vraag af: Als de USA zo graag de twintowers wilde laten vallen, waarom dan niet gewoon een vliegtuig kapen en die torens in vliegen (na een paar goede berekeningen over hoe je die dingen kunt laten omvallen).
Er zijn ZO ontzettend veel haken en ogen aan die conspiracy theorieën over bommen, no planes, etc. dat het gewoon een ontzettend kleine kans is dat de uitvoering goed genoeg is. Er moeten jaren aan voorbereiding en honderden, zo niet duizenden mensen 10 jaar lang hun bek houden over het feit dat ze duizenden mensen vermoord hebben. Kom op, dat is niet mogelijk
Er zijn ZO ontzettend veel haken en ogen aan die conspiracy theorieën over bommen, no planes, etc. dat het gewoon een ontzettend kleine kans is dat de uitvoering goed genoeg is. Er moeten jaren aan voorbereiding en honderden, zo niet duizenden mensen 10 jaar lang hun bek houden over het feit dat ze duizenden mensen vermoord hebben. Kom op, dat is niet mogelijk
[b]Op vrijdag 24 augustus 2007 09:50 schreef PretKroket het volgende:[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
Het probleem in deze discussie(s) is dat iedere complotaanhanger weer eigen 'ideeen' en complotten heeft. Je blijft als niet-complot-gelover bezig met het reageren op aannames en stelling die de complot-gelovers posten. Vandaar ook dat zo'n discussie elke keer weer alle aspecten van de 9/11 gebeurtenissen bijlangs gaat.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 17:25 schreef Barcaconia het volgende:
Er zijn ZO ontzettend veel haken en ogen aan die conspiracy theorieën over bommen, no planes, etc. dat het gewoon een ontzettend kleine kans is dat de uitvoering goed genoeg is. Er moeten jaren aan voorbereiding en honderden, zo niet duizenden mensen 10 jaar lang hun bek houden over het feit dat ze duizenden mensen vermoord hebben. Kom op, dat is niet mogelijk
Dat is het probleem ook juist van mijn eerdere post. Er zijn zo ontzettend veel aannames en verschillende standpunten in dit verhaal dat het onmogelijk is om nu tot de kern te komen. Het is vaak te ingewikkeld en ook niet simpel om te onderscheiden of de schrijven kennis van zaken/achtergrond heeft.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 17:28 schreef Redux het volgende:
[..]
Het probleem in deze discussie(s) is dat iedere complotaanhanger weer eigen 'ideeen' en complotten heeft. Je blijft als niet-complot-gelover bezig met het reageren op aannames en stelling die de complot-gelovers posten. Vandaar ook dat zo'n discussie elke keer weer alle aspecten van de 9/11 gebeurtenissen bijlangs gaat.
Ik ben nu dat stuk van www.jnani.org aan het lezen, hij onderbouwt en schrijft tenminste met bronnen en kennis. Interessant artikel, ik hoop dat ik er helemaal door kom.
[b]Op vrijdag 24 augustus 2007 09:50 schreef PretKroket het volgende:[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
dude? :') ik hoop voor je dat je niet serieus bent
Even voor jou: 2x1/2 = 1/2 x 1/2
[b]Neem mij niet tè serieus, dat doe ik zelf ook niet[/b]
Laat ik het maar even posten, "NIST - Detailed WTC 7 Technical Briefing Presentation Slides (11/19/08 revised) "
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
Bron: http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
Bron: http://wtc.nist.gov/
Hoop beweringen en beschuldigingen weer, maar wederom ook weer geen enkel bewijs.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 18:33 schreef mediacurator het volgende:
Former BBC Reporter Alan Hart Reveals 'Mossad' Involved in 9/11 on Alex Jones Tv 1/5
quote:Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
Ik ben niet bekend met de details van die rapporten, dat gaat waarschijnlijk toch boven mijn pet. Ik ben werktuigbouwer, geen bouwkundigequote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 15:22 schreef KoffieMetMelk het volgende:
[..]
Kan wel wezen, maar de rapporten spreken dit tegen.
Of het kan zijn dat je je eigen conclusies trekt en de rapporten niet serieus neemt. Maar ik meende uit je eerdere posts dat je die wel voor waar aanneemt. Toch?
Sowieso ben ik nauwelijks bekend met de details van 911, ik probeer alleen kritisch en met gezond verstand naar de argumenten te kijken.In mijn post probeerde ik uit te leggen dat de manier van instorten niet onmogelijk is zonder CD. En voor zover weet (of wist) waren die verdieping over het gehele oppervlak ernstig beschadigd. Vooral ook omdat alle 4 (?) de trappenhuizen verwoest waren, en mensen in het bovenste deel opgesloten zaten. Ik ben dus wel benieuwd welke passages uit het rapport mijn verhaal tegenspreken.
De getuigenverklaring van iemand die inmiddels dood is zie jij niet als bewijs ?quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 18:43 schreef arie_bc het volgende:
[..]
Hoop beweringen en beschuldigingen weer, maar wederom ook weer geen enkel bewijs.
Hoop dat het je duidelijk is wat de verklaring van deze man betekend.
Explosies en lijken in wtc7 voordat de wtc 1 en 2 instortte, hoe kan dat ?
We must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
Dat hij nu dood is geeft helemaal geen extra gewicht aan zijn uitspraken.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 20:00 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
[..]
De getuigenverklaring van iemand die inmiddels dood is zie jij niet als bewijs ?
Hoop dat het je duidelijk is wat de verklaring van deze man betekend.
Explosies en lijken in wtc7 voordat de wtc 1 en 2 instortte, hoe kan dat ?
Tsja, de beste man gelooft niet dat de explosies die hij hoorde de fueltanks waren. Het kan best zijn dat deze man het bij het verkeerde eind heeft. Het is een apart geval, maar sluiten bewijs is het niet.
Zijn er meer getuigen zoals deze man?
Daarnaast, explosies VOORDAT wtc 1 en 2 in waren gestort, dat 'VOOR', wat maakt dat uit?
WTC7 werd beschadigd door stukken vliegtuig en puin van de WTC torens. Dat vond ook plaats VOOR de 2 WTC torens in waren gestort. De brand als gevolg van de beschadigingen van WTC7 vond ook plaats VOOR de wtc torens in waren gestort. Dus dat VOOR, wat maakt dat uit?
Zijn er meer getuigen zoals deze man?
Daarnaast, explosies VOORDAT wtc 1 en 2 in waren gestort, dat 'VOOR', wat maakt dat uit?
WTC7 werd beschadigd door stukken vliegtuig en puin van de WTC torens. Dat vond ook plaats VOOR de 2 WTC torens in waren gestort. De brand als gevolg van de beschadigingen van WTC7 vond ook plaats VOOR de wtc torens in waren gestort. Dus dat VOOR, wat maakt dat uit?
Ja, zo denk ik er ook over. Wat maakt het uit? Alles wat er gebeurd is is begonnen met de twee vliegtuigen die zich in de torens boorden.Wat er daarna allemaal gebeurde is een gevolg van dat feit.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 20:21 schreef Redux het volgende:
Tsja, de beste man gelooft niet dat de explosies die hij hoorde de fueltanks waren. Het kan best zijn dat deze man het bij het verkeerde eind heeft. Het is een apart geval, maar sluiten bewijs is het niet.
Zijn er meer getuigen zoals deze man?
Daarnaast, explosies VOORDAT wtc 1 en 2 in waren gestort, dat 'VOOR', wat maakt dat uit?
WTC7 werd beschadigd door stukken vliegtuig en puin van de WTC torens. Dat vond ook plaats VOOR de 2 WTC torens in waren gestort. De brand als gevolg van de beschadigingen van WTC7 vond ook plaats VOOR de wtc torens in waren gestort. Dus dat VOOR, wat maakt dat uit?
Geen tijd om alles nu door te lezen, maar zag wel iets over gesmolten staal. Was dat er nou wel, of was dat er niet? Hieronder een onduidelijk filmpje, waarop lijkt dat gesmolten staal naar beneden druipt. Geen idee of het klopt, maar dat mogen jullie voor jezelf bepalen 
En HOE is die brand in WTC7 nu eigenlijk ontstaan? Het gebouw stond toch wel een eindje van de 2 torens vandaan. Waar komt dan dat vuur vandaan, dat notabene binnen lijkt te zijn begonnen.
[ Bericht 10% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 29-05-2010 21:05:14 ]
En HOE is die brand in WTC7 nu eigenlijk ontstaan? Het gebouw stond toch wel een eindje van de 2 torens vandaan. Waar komt dan dat vuur vandaan, dat notabene binnen lijkt te zijn begonnen.
[ Bericht 10% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 29-05-2010 21:05:14 ]
Geen tijd om alles door te lezen, maar toch die vragen hebben?quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 21:03 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Geen tijd om alles nu door te lezen,
En HOE is die brand in WTC7 nu eigenlijk ontstaan? Het gebouw stond toch wel een eindje van de 2 torens vandaan. Waar komt dan dat vuur vandaan, dat notabene binnen lijkt te zijn begonnen.
In de quotes en linkjes in mijn reacties hierboven heb je antwoord op al je vragen.
Gaan we weer moeilijk doen? Ik lees het morgen wel... ik sta op het punt om weg te gaan.quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 21:06 schreef Redux het volgende:
[..]
Geen tijd om alles door te lezen, maar toch die vragen hebben?
In de quotes en linkjes in mijn reacties hierboven heb je antwoord op al je vragen.
Waarom stel je die vragen dan? Je kunt alles prima nalezen.
't is net of je het niet WIL lezen.
En moeilijk doen? Ik mag zoiets toch vragen, of niet?
't is net of je het niet WIL lezen.
En moeilijk doen? Ik mag zoiets toch vragen, of niet?
Jij bent irritant . Dat is alles. Discussie ging weer normaal aan het eind van het vorige topic, maar nu kom je weer bijdehand doen. -edit, niet doen-quote:Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 21:10 schreef Redux het volgende:
Waarom stel je die vragen dan? Je kunt alles prima nalezen.
't is net of je het niet WIL lezen.
En moeilijk doen? Ik mag zoiets toch vragen, of niet?
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 29-05-2010 21:41:07 ]
