9/11 Is controlled demolition inmiddels 100% bewezen? #7

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 13:19 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]

Da's toch een film?
Nee, de uitdrukking ken ik helaas niet, wat betekent het dan?

quote:

Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 17:25 schreef Barcaconia het volgende:
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

quote:

Op zaterdag 29 mei 2010 21:03 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
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

Molten steel dripping from South WTC Tower before collapse

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.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 14:25 schreef arie_bc het volgende:

[..]

Je weet dat er echt grote stukken van het gebouw weg geslagen waren he? Er was een hoek van ongeveer 45 graden uit van ongeveer 18 verdiepingen hoog. Andere flats erom heen waren ook zeeeeer zwaar beschadigd door vallende brokstukken. Dan gata het echt niet om wat ramen kapot maar echt hele gaten erin ter grote van een goede flat.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 14:28 schreef Redux het volgende:
jokkebrok:
[..]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
pagina 25

quote:

"If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

quote:

What this site is NOT:

1. A "conspiracy" site/blog - while we can prove what the events of 9-11 weren't as claimed, there's no way (with existing evidence) to prove exactly what did happen. For example, whether or not the "government" knew ahead of time, actively participated in, or simply covered up the events that day. I make NO claims as to what actually happened or why; the closest I will come is some ramifications from 9-11. I simply showing the impossiblities with the offical government explanation of events, in a demand for the truth. The families of the victims deserve nothing less.

2. A site that blithely posts information from dubious sources- everything here is documented with a credible source. Look for the footnotes.

While reviewing this site, please keep these points in mind:

1. Disagreeing with the official version of events doesn't qualify as being a "conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theorist is someone who is making various claims, such as it was an "inside job". I believe the appropriate term is "9-11 Skeptic", with NO derogatory connotation.

2. It's isn't just "crackpots" and "lunatics" who disbelieve the official version of events. Others include members of the committee itself (authors of the official version of events), military personnel, government officials, aviation professionals, eyewitnesses, and more- all reputable and creditable people.

3. There's a vast difference between proving that a so-called "conspiracy theorist" is wrong on a given point and proving that the official story is right on that point. There are a lot of debunkers who will try to discredit a skeptic's arguments as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the official story's demonstrated fallacy.

4. Debunking or discrediting the skeptic isn't the same as debunking the argument raised. Too many debunkers attack the skeptic in an attempt to discredit them, once again as a smokescreen to avoid addressing the point the skeptic has raised.

quote:

“As I continued to wave them back periodically you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth- shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street.”

quote:

"MALE A: Because they can’t come down. There’s f**king explosions going off on Vesey Street. There is debris coming down. I don’t want him coming down that way. I want to bring off of West Street, but I don’t know how secure the site is there.
MALE B: I know, did another plane crash?
MALE A: No, they said it, but we don’t think so. There’s been … been numerous explosions on the … like 89th, 92nd floor."

quote:

“0908 Detective Sgt. Zika reports possible missile launch off of the Woolworth Building and requests to have CPD contact NYPD to check the Woolworth Building.”

quote:

“Upon exiting the vehicle Detective Molina informed us that NYPD Citywide put out a report that a third aircraft was approaching and that persons unknown were shooting from the Woolworth Building.”

quote:

“At this time Detective deMello and myself were in the intersection of Barclay and Greenwich when three unidentified white males in business attire ran up to me and started to scream that a missile had been fired into Tower Two from the top of the Woolworth Building. I looked up to the roof of the Woolworth building and there appeared to be smoke coming from the very top of the building. At this time Detective deMello and myself ran to the Woolworth building. As we entered I immediately asked for the head of security. An un-identified black male in a security uniform ran forward and asked how he could help. I told him I needed a secure elevator to the roof, his response was “follow me”. We walked to a bank of elevators when the doors of one car opened. Two men stepped out of the elevator. A man appearing to be Hispanic identified himself as the building superintendent; he was wearing an ID card on his shirt. The security guard seemed to know him so we took him at his word. He advised Detective deMello and myself that the roof was secure. I told him that we had a report that a missile had been fired from the roof of this building and he advised us that it wasn’t a missile it was an aircraft, a big aircraft. He further advised that he was on the roof when it crashed into Tower Two. At this time we left the building and started to run back towards the Barclay Street ramp.”

quote:

(pa-transcript010.pdf page 9)
Path-channel 021 – Radio Trainmaster (R2)
Page 9

"PAPD OFFICER 2-ALPHA: Desk from 2-alpha…(Inaudible)(STATIC)explosion.
(Inaudible) desk, copy? Desk from 2-alpha!
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, 2-alpha.
PAPD OFFICER: Advise (Inaudible)… there is something … looks like a missile coming out of the wall of the (Inaudible) … the second building."

(pa-transcript016.pdg page 3)
Newark Airport – Ch. 026 – Radio – CPD
Page 3
MALE C: The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They’re shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building!

(pa-transcript028.pdf page 16)
September 11, 2001 – CPD – Ch. O23 – SGT’S Desk – 201-216-6800
Page 16

GREG AT TRADE CENTER: It’s either a missile or … it’s something with the Woolworth Building (Inaudible).

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:10 schreef Redux het volgende:
Nee, ik denk dat die mensen oprecht in de veronderstelling zijn/waren dat er met een raket is geschoten.
Alleen of het echt een raket was, dat is dus de vraag.
Ik kan me voorstellen dat in de enorme hectiek mensen van alles meenden te zien. Er gebeurde zoveel op dat moment. En ik denk serieus dat veel zaken (explosies die gehoord zouden zijn) daaronder vallen.

quote:

“Massive amounts of debris, concrete dust and bodies or parts were more frequent at this point. Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge (GWB) by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying.”

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:13 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Nou, zo'n vliegtuig die naar binnen vliegt werkt een beetje als een buldozer. Bij de inslag duwde deze een hoeveelheid van de brandbare kantoormaterialen voor zich uit. Dan krijg je op die locatie dus ook minder/kouder vuur. Zo zie ik dat iig Combineer dat met een soort schoorsteenwerking waar koude lucht van buiten aan wordt gezogen en het is prima en logisch kloppend te verklaren.

quote:

“Conditions were slow going on the stairwell due to the volume of people. You would move two or three steps at a time and stop. Every second or third floor would be filled with smoke that lasted one or two floors then the stairwell would become clear. It was most surprising that the fire alarms and strobe lights were not activated."

quote:

Major General Albert Stubblebine (ret), former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911 [2]:

Career. Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame [3].

His statement: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs.It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" [4]

quote:

Col. George Nelson (ret), former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic

His essay:
• "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...
• The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …
• With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged."[5]

quote:

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, former Air Force staff member of the Director of the National Security Agency and eyewitness to Pentagon crash. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).

Her statements:
• "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
• There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".[6]
• I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
• The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
• The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon..."

quote:

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, former Air Force combat fighter pilot and Aerospace Engineer. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career.

His statements:
• Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information: "After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening.
• The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...
• You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
• The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission."

quote:

Commander Ted Muga, retired Naval Aviator. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).

His statements:
• "The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
• When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
• And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
• And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...
• Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

quote:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, former Air Force combat fighter pilot and retired commercial pilot, previously flown two of the actual aircraft involved. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

His statement:
• "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
• "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple… 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."
• 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."

quote:

Capt. Daniel Davis, Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, and Founder/Former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:

Career. Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.

His statements:
• "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.
• Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!
• Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:49 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Zoals zwaartekracht 'ook maar een theorie' is? Tis eerder een hypothese die aannemelijk klinkt.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:50 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]

Wat wil je, discusseren of flauw doen?

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:55 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:
want ooggetuigenverklaringen zijn de meest objectieve en betrouwbare feiten toch?

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 17:58 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Ooggetuigen? Feiten??
Heb je ze zelf wel gelezen? Zo ja, dan had je kunnen lezen dat in ieder geval de laatste geen ooggetuige is hoor. Hij (Capt. Daniel Davis, Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, and Founder/Former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp. The following is taken verbatim from PatriotsQuestion911:) heeft het er bv over dat geen enkele brand een vliegtuig kan verwoesten, maw er blijft altijd iets van een vliegtuig over. Dus hij vraagt zich dan af, waar zijn bv de motoren van het vliegtuig wat in het pentagon is gestort gebleven? Dit vraagt ie bv:
[..]

Nou, alsjeblieft, een foto van een motor uit het pentagon-puin:

[ afbeelding ]

En meer foto's zijn te vinden hoor, ook van de wielen, neuswiel etc etc.

Dus ik weet niet wat voor 'ooggetuigen' dit zijn, maar het lijkt nergens op.

quote:

• "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
• There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".[6]
• I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
• The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:06 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]

Dude, kap eens met dat lame reageren van je.

Je kan ook zelf het internet op en zoeken naar foto's van puin bij het pentagon, gevonden vliegtuig onderdelen etc etc.