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

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:07 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

wanneer er officiële vondsten zijn en verklaringen mbv robuuste natuurkundige principes die tegenover enkele ooggetuigenverklaringen staan waar overigens ook nog practische bezwaren aan kleven en je gelooft de ooggetuige versie dan leg je buitenproportioneel gewicht op ooggetuigenverklaringen waarvan al héél erg lang bekend is dat ze héél erg vaak onbetrouwbaar zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:08 schreef Redux het volgende:
Waar reageer ik lame??????

quote:

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

[..]


[..]

Ooggetuigen? Feiten??
Heb je ze zelf wel gelezen?

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:17 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

Dat durf ik best te beweren hoor & is ook helemaal niet vreemd. Is genoeg bewijs te vinden dat herinneringen extreem flexibel zijn en dat je mensen heel gemakkelijk dingen kunt laten herinneren die helemaal niet gebeurd zijn.

Daarnaast vind ik je vraagtekens van "kenners" niet heel erg overtuigend wanneer je er geen bron o.i.d. bij zet. Ik zou ook kunnen zeggen dat ik "als wetenschapper' dit of dat vind, maar als ik dan anthropologie studeer is mijn vraagteken over valsnelheid niet veel meer waard dan die van een ieder niet-wetenschapper.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:18 schreef gorggg het volgende:
Ik snap het nut niet van het plaatsen van die verklaringen in dit topic. Zolang die personen niet met nieuwe bewijzen komen, draagt hun mening niets bij aan de discussie. Iedereen kan hier ellelange lijsten met verklaringen en meningen plaatsen, zonder dat dit iets bijdraagt. Zoals het volgende bijvoorbeeld:
[..]

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:21 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat komt omdat je deze discussie 3 topics in kwam met de vraag naar onze/mijn mening. Maar elke keer als die gegeven wordt reageer je geirriteerd etc etc. Het deed de discussie niet goed en nog stteds reageer je a-relaxed.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:23 schreef gorggg het volgende:

[..]

Niemand moet iets. Het gaat erom dat het imo geen nut heeft om een mening van iemand het hier te plaatsen indien die geen nieuwe elementen (argumenten/inzichten/bewijzen) aanbrengt.

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:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:25 schreef Redux het volgende:

[..]

Op welke punten is het NIST rapport niet volledig?

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:30 schreef Redux het volgende:
Zou je zo aardig willen zijn die punten nogmaals te geven dan?

quote:

COMMENT: Appendix L to NIST’s June 2004 “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center” contains NIST’s “Interim Report on WTC 7”. (See http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) On page L-26 of this interim report, NIST states that “Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”

REASON FOR COMMENT: The contrast between NIST’s prior assertion that floor 12 was “burned out” by 4:45pm, and NIST’s current computer model, that shows a raging inferno at 5:00pm, could not be more apparent. This discrepancy calls into question the veracity of the Report.

SUGGESTED REVISION: This discrepancy must be acknowledged and explained in the Report. Furthermore, the photographic or other visual evidence NIST relied upon for its statement in Appendix L that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm must be included in the final version of its report.

quote:

COMMENT: To support NIST’s assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an “unknown source” (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of “at least 10 minutes,” using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

quote:

COMMENT: This comment relates to NIST’s assumptions regarding combustible fuel loading for the 11th and 12th floors. In NCSTAR 1-9, at p. 375 (para. 1, sent. 7-9) NIST states:

NIST assumed that the combustible mass of furniture was about the same in an office as in a cubicle. Since the loading of other combustibles was reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors (Chapter 3), NIST assumed that the total combustible mass in an office was double that of a cubicle. Thus, the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32kg/m2.

However, Chapter 3 tells us that, contrary to NIST’s assertions in Chapter 9, the loading of other combustibles was not reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors. On page 55 (para. 6, sent. 1) of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission occupied the 11th and 12th floors and the north side of the 13th floor. On page 56 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST further reports that American Express occupied the southwest sector of the 13th floor. On the same page, NIST reports that the “combustible load in the offices was described as high by interviewed American Express managers.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 56, para. 4, sent. 3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: Recall that American Express occupied only the southwest sector of the 13th floor. How, then can NIST credibly claim that the combustible load on the entirety of the 11th and 12 floors, both occupied solely by the SEC, was reported to have been high? Were American Express managers given regular access to the SEC offices, such that they would be qualified to comment on the combustible fuel load there? Moreover, are American Express managers qualified to give an opinion on the quantity of combustible fuel load as compared to offices in the Twin Towers?

SUGGESTED REVISION: Clearly American Express personnel are competent to provide information only on the state of the American Express offices, which were confined to the southwest sector of the 13th floor. NIST must provide real support for its assertion that the combustible load on the 11th and 12th floors was high in order to merit any increase in estimated average combustible fuel load on these floors. If it cannot provide such support, it should re-run its computer models with the lower combustible fuel load on these floors and report those results to the scientific community and the American public.

quote:

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floor 13

COMMENT: This comment is regarding NIST’s treatment of the combustible fuel load of the 13th floor. On page 375 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 8, 9) NIST states as follows: “The density of combustibles on the 13th floor was varied and not well known. The average value [for the 13th floor] was assumed to be the same as the 12th floor.” Here again, the only reported description of the combustible load on the 13th floor was from American Express managers, who were competent to comment only on the southwest sector of the 13th floor. In Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-9, page 57 (para. 2, sent. 2, 3) NIST reports that in the SEC occupied sections of northern perimeter of the 13th floor were “a hearing room and multiple testimony rooms facing it. There were additional testimony rooms on the northern portion of the east and west sides of the floor, and a storage room at the northwest corner.”

Importantly, NIST reports that the “testimony rooms were sparsely furnished, with just a table and a few chairs.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 57, para. 2, sent. 4) Furthermore, an examination of the schematic diagram of floor 13 (Figure 3-8, p. 57) reveals that the hearing room appears similar to a court room. Court rooms are also sparsely furnished, with a few tables and chairs. Finally, it is doubtful that there was any appreciable level of additional combustibles present in these testimony and hearing rooms.

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST has apparently greatly overestimated the fuel loading on the 13th floor.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must justify its use of the higher combustible fuel load on the 13th floor in Chapter 9 of the Report with more than just bare assertions. NIST clearly had more information available to it regarding the layout and make up of floor 13, as reported in Chapter 3, than it lets on in Chapter 9. This discrepancy must be reconciled.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:35 schreef Redux het volgende:
Ok, een vraag voor ik het doorneem. Heb je de punten zelf doorgenomen en het NIST rapport er op nagelezen, of copy-paste je die punten gewoon van die URL over?

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:39 schreef Redux het volgende:
Ja, maar wat is dan nu het geval? Je zegt dat bepaalde punten in het NIST rapport onvolledig zijn en je wil hier van MIJ / ONS antwoord hierop.
Waarom ga je er dan zelf niet naar op zoek? Het is net of wij ons maar moeten verantwoorden voor de stellingen die op die sites gedaan worden.

Waarom wil je dat antwoord van mij en zoek je zelf de antwoorden niet op door het NIST rapport op die punten na te lezen? Waarom moeten anderen dat voor je doen?

quote:

These public comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report are being submitted by the following individuals:

James R. Gourley, Esq.
Chemical Engineer
International Center for 9/11 Studies
jrpatent@gmail.com

Tony Szamboti
Mechanical Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage
AIA Architect
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Steven Jones
Ph.D. Physicist
S&J Scientific Co.

Kevin Ryan
Chemist
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Niels Harrit
Ph.D. Chemistry
University of Copenhagen

Ron Brookman
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Chris Sarns
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Kamal Obeid, SE PE
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scott Grainger, PE
Forensic Engineer
Civil Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge
Logistical Systems Consulting

Bob Fischer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Justin Keogh
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:42 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

article not found
[..]

erg misleidend wat die professoren daar gezegd zouden hebben. Veel er van claimen helemaal geen kwade opzet maar worden weergegeven alsof ze dat wel doen door toegevoegde "editors notes" . Sowieso staan er allerlei phd's tussen die professor genoemd worden.
[..]

werkt niet
[..]

een filmpje? Ik wil gewoon weten welke wetenschapper wat precies niet gelooft zoals je zegt?
[..]

iemand uit t leger die claimt dat er niets gevonden is. Zoals al eerder gepost is er heel erg veel gevonden
[..]

Ik krijg vrij weinig gevonden in dit interview met Rumsveld dat aangeeft dat hij zijn eigen versie niet gelooft.

Dus nogmaals, ondertussen zijn we er al uit dat ooggetuigen in principe niet zo betrouwbaar zijn, maar zeg je "er zijn ook veel kenners die jouw versie ondersteunen". Welke kenners & wat zeggen ze dan?

Tweede vraag; wil je voortaan eerst zelf je bronnen lezen voordat je ze post, want als de helft niet werkt begin ik een vermoeden te ontwikkelen dat je gewoon je eigen mening met een zekere stelligheid verspreid.

quote:

Op zondag 30 mei 2010 18:46 schreef Redux het volgende:
Nee, jij beweert dat het NIST rapport op bepaalde punten onvolledig is. Je roept dat in een discussie maar je weet niet eens hoe dat NIST rapport eruit ziet (die pdf die ik je eerder mailde had je volgens mij nog nooit gezien).

Je roept dus dingen terwijl je volgens mij niet eens weet waar het precies over gaat.
Sorry, maar volgens mij werkt het niet zo in een discussie.
[..]

Jij weet niet eens hoe het NIST rapport eruit ziet. Het enige wat jij doet is linkjes en quotes neerplempen.
En dat pretendeert een 'neutrale' houding in de 9/11 discussies te hebben, zoals je een paar topics terug meldde.
Ik ben weer weg, met zo'n smurf 'discusseer' ik verder niet.