9/11 #61: To conspire or not to conspire...

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 16:59 schreef Lavenderr het volgende:

[..]

Maar wel allerlei vage sites geloven? Dat begrijp ik dan weer niet.
Hoe spannend sommige complotten ook zijn, en ja, ik mag het graag lezen.

Het is geen kwestie van wazige sites geloven. Het is een kwestie van zelf onderzoek doen en bijvoorbeeld de credibility van de ooggetuigen, de verhalen en de beelden inschatten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 17:05 schreef Daniel1976 het volgende:

[..]

Uit het feit dat manhattan alleen al 1.620.867 inwoners heeft en heel NY zo'n 10.000.000.


Het is niet alsof het in de Stille Zuidzee gebeurde

waar zijn dan de beelden van de amateurs bijvoorbeeld? Jij weet niet dat nagenoeg al het beeldmateriaal afkomstig is van de grote zenders en professionele fotografen?

Je neemt nu gewoonweg aan dat honderdduizenden mensen die vliegtuigen hebben gezien zonder het te onderbouwen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 17:11 schreef Lavenderr het volgende:

[..]

Maar iemand die er zelf bij was weet het toch het beste?
En wat Daniel schreef: een Nederlandse kennis die man en kind verloren heeft door de aanslag, hoeveel meer bewijs moet je hebben dat er geen sprake is van 'vicsims' ?

Er is geen verhaal bekend van een man en zijn kind die omkwamen op 9/11 waarbij de vrouw niet is omgekomen. In mijn optiek dus een lulverhaal van onze trollmod. Zo niet, dan graag namen van die personen. Ze zouden dan zo op te zoeken moeten zijn.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°4:

Q: “What about the thousands of eye-witnesses in Manhattan ?”

A: There is no denying the existence of a large amount of eye-witness testimonies reported by the mainstream media - and even by more credible, independent sources. The vast majority refer to the sightings of the 2nd event at WTC2 - while strikingly few refer to the 1st event at WTC1. With this in mind - and permitting that witness reports might be a reliable source of information - we should concentrate on the available witness reports.

Of course, eye-witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, particularly in the case of brief, rapidly unfolding events. In spite of this commonly-accepted fact, many people seem to be strongly attached to what (they perceive) was reported by "thousands" of eye-witnesses in Manhattan. A key question should be raised: Did most people report a “large passenger airliner?” The firm answer to this is: No.

Of those people who provided details of the object they saw, the majority reported anything but a large airliner. I submit below a cross-section of such testimonies: Of course, this selective list is only meant to get an idea of the variety of the 9/11 eye-witness reports – and is not intended to establish any conclusive proof. However, it goes to show that there was no general consensus on what precisely hit WTC2 :

SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

LIKE A MISSILE
14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17. ”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19. “I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.” - Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic

See: Report on NYC First Responder 9-11 Accounts (PDF 4,79 MB)

Note that 'missile' is mentioned in no uncertain terms even by a few newsmedia people: What to do with those? Did they simply tell the truth? Or were they actually instructed to do so? The latter option is theorized by some and may well be contemplated: If a "Joe Public" had very clearly seen a missile, he would undoubtedly find comfort in the fact that even war-zone experts like ABC's Don Dahler had been initially 'mistaken' as to what he saw. The endless TV replays of the BOEING 767 animation would have eventually put Joe's torments to rest. The TV images would have "cleansed" his recollections.

Generally speaking, the eye-witnesses on record reported a smaller airborne object than a wide-body passenger airliner. This fact alone is, to say the least, rather puzzling : how can a large, low-flying and very loud BOEING 767 be mistaken for a “small aircraft” by so many people? Try to picture yourself in New York that day: would you possibly have mistaken a 767 passing 700ft above you for a "small plane"?

Take “Flight 11”, for instance (the first alleged "hijacked plane"): It would have roared across the full length of Manhattan – from tip to toe, at full thrust and extremely low altitude: tens of thousands should recall that deafening event - yet hardly any witnesses on record (but a handful of newsmedia people) ever mention it.

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 20-04-2012 17:53:24 ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 17:13 schreef opgebaarde het volgende:

[..]

als ongeloofwaardig is, dat alleen van beelden van tv stations er zijn, hoezo zijn er geen beelden van amateurs die aantonen dat er iets niet klopt??

Geen idee. Er zijn geen amateur beelden. Tenminste, ik heb ze niet kunnen vinden. Alles wat je op het web vindt aan video's en foto's wordt toegeschreven aan pro's. Is dat op zijn minst niet een beetje vreemd?

quote:

Er is heulemaal geen aanslag gepleegd?

Nee, ik denk van niet. Ik denk dat de aanslagen een (militaire) media simulatie waren. Een hele smerige hoax ala Operation Northwoods.

Fake terror... om oorlogen te kunnen starten, een onbegrensde war on terror te kunnen voeren, controversiële wetten er door te drukken (Patriot Act bijvoorbeeld) en om de top van het bedrijfsleven veel geld te laten verdienen.

Wat is er nou mooier om je PNAC plannen te kunnen uitvoeren door de hele wereld in de maling te nemen en te doen alsof de torens door een terroristische aanslag zijn vernietigd, terwijl je dit zelf in scene hebt gezet door goed gebruik te maken van de media. Modern warfare tactics... list en bedrog.

Kijk eens naar de mooie insignia's van de PSYOPS divisie van het Amerikaanse leger:















Waarom zouden ze dergelijke divisies alleen tegen de vijand inzetten? Waarom niet het eigen volk belazeren om de publieke opinie richting eigen gestelde doelen te sturen?

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 20-04-2012 18:27:13 ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 18:20 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Ik gaf je een flink versimpelde versie van de situatie als voorbeeld. Dat voorbeeld geeft exact aan waar je hier om vraagt. Een structuur kan makkelijk sterk genoeg zijn om een bepaald gewicht statisch te dragen. De kracht die hij moet weerstaan word echter veel en veel groter als datzelfde gewicht met een snelheid op die structuur klapt.
Dat is precies wat er gebeurt als ik op jouw nek spring. Als ik dat vanaf een paar meter hoogte doe kan je mij niet houden, en zak je door je benen.

Maar waarom ligt de top dan niet nog redelijk intact bovenop de rest van het puin? De top lijkt ook langzaam te verpulveren.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 18:22 schreef Bankfurt het volgende:

[..]

Heb je m'n eerdere vraag gelezen in dit topic over het 3e vliegtuig dat neerstortte in New York,
2 maanden later in Queens (NY) ?

errrugghh toevallig, vlak bij ground zero....

Ja, las het. Heb daar van gehoord inderdaad, maar zie niet echt een verband.

Care to explain?

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2012 18:27 schreef Daniel1976 het volgende:

[..]

Ach het is niet bekend, mevrouw heeft geen zin in publiciteit dus het is niet gebeurd LOLZ.

Je denkt toch niet dat ik prive gegevens van mij waaronder naaste familie en kennissen bekend ga maken aan iemand zoals jij Ik kijk wel uit. dan laat ik je liever in je droom geloven.

Nee, het is niet bekend nee... zoek maar gewoon zelf even. Een dergelijk dramatisch verhaal had groot uitgemeten geworden in de media. Net als bij de overige kinderen en ouders die zouden zijn omgekomen.

Jij jokt, daar ben ik van overtuigd. Je staat overigens bekend flink te trollen als de onderwerpen in jouw ogen absurd zijn. Ga gewoon weg ofzo. Mods die trollen hebben we hier niet nodig.

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 20-04-2012 18:30:38 ]