complot van Stilte ?

wie écht de tijd neemt om de foto's en berekeningen te bestuderen blijft met een heleboel vragen zitten....


http://911review.org/index.shtml

http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4

http://911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml


heeft er iemand van Operation Pearl gehoord ?

_{modders, svp niet onderbrengen in ander topic}

aansluitend

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

simulaties

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 02:26 schreef Knarf het volgende:

[..]

Reactie helemaal onderin ook gelezen?

waarop http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/index.php?start=30

[ Bericht 21% gewijzigd door Oversight op 01-08-2004 04:15:07 ]

letterlijke tekst van Operation Pearl

Operation Pearl
_{Version 1.0, 20th October 2003. Please note text is subject to revision.}

1 Summary
It is possible to produce the appearance of a terrorist attack on the United States by means that do not employ terrorists, as such, but by the simple substitution of one aircraft for another, particularly when the transponders of the aircraft involved are turned off. The only people who need to be deceived by such an operation are the radar operators at air traffic control (ATC) centers.
The scenario explored here, called Operation Pearl (after Pearl Harbor), has been described in sufficient operational detail that sound judgments can be made about a) feasibility and b) consistency with evidence on the ground. At the time of this writing it is probably the best available description of what probably took place on September 11, 2001.
Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the passengers of all four flights died in an aerial explosion over Shanksville, PA and the remaining three airliners are at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

2 Introduction
Since March of 2002, persons probing the web for further information about the 9/11 attacks could not fail to encounter, sooner or later, a scenario advanced by Carol Valentine. Called the "Flight of the Bumble Planes" (Valentine 2002), it allegedly came from an informant who would only identify himself as "Snake Plisskin," the name of the hero of the movie, Escape from New York (footnote 1)
The informant outlined the basic hijacking method in an email message to Carol Valentine, comparing it to a flight of bumble bees. Watching bees as they buzz around among flowers, it is very difficult to follow individual bees, since they are always passing close to one another.
This metaphor translates into the flight of two aircraft in a confined locale of airspace. If the separation between them is small enough, radar operators will see not two aircraft, but one. On the morning of September 11, 2001, according to this scenario, all four "hijacked" aircraft landed at a single airport or air base, transferring their passengers to a single aircraft, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, remotely controlled aircraft of various types carried out the actual attacks. The scenario, as presented by Valentine, consists of little more than I have presented here.
Of course, there is a vast difference between an outline and a detailed operational plan. It may turn out, for example, that any attempt to imagine how a specific scheme is implemented runs into snags, as in the attempt by Spencer (2003) to get all four aircraft to one air base long enough for the combined list of over 200 passengers to board a single aircraft, take off and crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Spencer, however, assumed that the takedown of aircraft coincided with the turning off of transponders. In the present paper the scenario is modified to allow takedown prior to the turning off of transponders, assuming that takedown occurred at the first deviation of each aircraft from its flight plan. The refurbished scenario has now been completed to a level of detail that makes it possible to evaluate its feasibility, as well as its consistency with the evidence, as presently acquired and developed.
A scenario named Ghost Riders in the Sky was previously constructed by the author (Dewdney 2002). The purpose of that scenario was simply to demonstrate that alternate scenarios that fitted all the facts (as then understood by the author) could be constructed. The scenario involved killing all the passengers and flight crew with a fast-acting nerve agent, then triggering a software patch in the aircraft flight control systems to direct the aircraft to their various destinations. However, when it became evident that no Boeing 757 had actually struck the Pentagon (see The Pentagon Evidence, also on this website), the scenario was rendered invalid. The Ghost Riders scenario, like the Bush-Cheney scenario, required that the aircraft that struck their respective targets were as advertised, two 767s and two 757s.
The fact that the Ghost Riders scenario must now be rejected illustrates the nature of this inquiry. As in science, hypotheses must be formulated, then tested against the available evidence. If found wanting in the light of that evidence, they must be rejected. It is normal in any scientific inquiry to formulate and analyze more than one hypothesis before one is found that actually works. The same remark also applies to criminal investigations.
3 The Evidence Filter
Any scenario constructed to account for the events of September 11 2001 must pass a graduated test, as embodied in the following items. These fall into three classes:
Suspicious circumstances
• Four of the named hijackers were not in the United States.
• The WTC towers collapsed without adequate heat stress.
• Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights 77 and 93.
• Most of the alleged hijackers were rather poor pilots.
• Evidence of the alleged hijackers developed too quickly.
• Westward excursion of Flights UA93 and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists hurrying to targets."
Anomalies
• The US Air Force failed to intercept any of the flights.
• The hijackers' names did not show up on passenger lists.
• The hijackers' faces did not appear on boarding gate videos.
• Black boxes were missing from all but one flight.
Contradictions
• The Pentagon was not struck by a large passenger aircraft.
• Cellphone calls alleged to have been made by passengers were essentially impossible.
A successful scenario must at least explain the contradictions and account for a majority of the anomalies. It is of course desirable that it also account for the suspicious circumstances, but no scenario need stand or fall in this regard.
It must be remarked that the only scenario ever supplied to the public via the official media was the Bush-Cheney scenario, that Arab hijackers seized control of the four aircraft and proceeded to pilot them into national landmarks, killing both themselves and their passengers. Clearly, the Bush-Cheney scenario, considered in detail, explains none of the suspicious circumstances, none of the anomalies and is directly contradicted by the facts adduced in the third category. As scenarios go, it is a distinct failure.
4 Technical Elements
The two major technical aspects of the Operation Pearl scenario involve radar and remote control. Radar technology has been with us since World War Two, some 60 years ago. Remote control technology has been around in various forms for at least twenty years. With a basic understanding of both radar and remote control in relation to 9/11, it becomes possible for the average citizen to think for himself or herself.
4.1 Radar Substitution
A radar screen is essentially a circular CRT (cathode ray tube - like a television screen) that displays aircraft within the circular airspace represented on the screen. Radar operators are the only people who can be aware of what planes are in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of what is going on in any large volume of airspace and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the radar operators.
The resolution of a radar screen is the size of the smallest point that can appear there, approximately two millimeters in diameter - a "blip." A typical radar screen, less than a meter in diameter, could therefore be described as less than 500 "blips" wide. If the airspace represented on the screen were 500 kilometers in diameter (approximately 300 miles, a not atypical size), each blip would represent a piece of airspace that is more than 500/500 = 1 kilometer wide.
In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within a kilometer of one another, there would be a tendency for their respective blips to merge. With half a kilometer separation or less, the two aircraft could easily appear as one.
Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a distinct risk of collision - unless they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent airspace in the same way as a map, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed. Thus, without additional information in the form of a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not. Altitude information is displayed if an aircraft's transponder is turned on, otherwise, the radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.
If one aircraft happens to be within a half kilometer of another, whether above that aircraft or below it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a horizontal separation that is no greater than half a kilometer (about 500 yards).
Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both planes swerve, each taking the other's former direction. The operator would simply see the aircraft cross and would have no way to realize that a swap had taken place.
There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch up and "pass" another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded up.
Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.
Of course, if the transponders are turned on, as explained in the next section, such confusion is less likely to occur. Even in this case, however, the deception can be complete if the aircraft switch transponder codes.
4.2 Aircraft transponders
Every commercial passenger jet carries a transponder, a device that emits a special radio message whenever it senses an incoming radar wave. The signal carries the transponder code, a multi-digit number that serves to identify the particular aircraft to radar operators at air traffic control centers. The purpose of the code is to make it clear to ATC operators which plane is which. Other information sent by the transponder includes the altitude at which the aircraft is flying. Transponders were implemented many years ago precisely for the reason that radar blips are otherwise easily confused. Transponders make the radar operator's job much easier.
The pilot of an airliner can turn the transponder on or off in the cockpit. He or she can also change the code by keying in a new number.
Transponder codes for all aircraft departing from a given air traffic control region are assigned by the ATC authority more or less arbitrarily. The only important criterion for the numbers so assigned is that they all be different. It sometimes happens that an aircraft entering the control area carries the same transponder code as another aircraft that is already in the area. In such a case, one of the pilots is requested to change his or her code to avoid confusion.
4.3 Remote Control
A remote control system of the type used in this scenario uses a signal interface that does two things: It reads signals from a ground station and sends signals back to it. Both sets of signals must pass through the aircraft's antenna system. In the Boeing 757 and 767 the antenna system is located in the forward belly of the aircraft.
The outgoing signal from the aircraft would include a video signal from a camera located in the nose or other forward portion of the aircraft. Flight data such as control positions, airspeed and other instrument readings are also included in the outgoing signal. The incoming signal from the ground station would include the position of a virtual control yoke (governing direction of aircraft), thrust, trim, and other essential flight parameters.
The virtual pilot would sit in front of a reduced instrument panel and a video monitor. A simplified control yoke or "joystick" control would also be part of the operator's equipment. The remote pilot would watch the instruments, as well as the video image, making continuing adjustments in the aircraft's flight path, just as if he or she sat in the cockpit of the actual aircraft.
Many claims of the attacking aircraft being under "remote control" have appeared on the web since 9/11, but typically with little or no supporting documentation. The claim of a pre-installed anti-hijacking system (Vialls 2001) has proved impossible to verify. Similarly, claims that Global Hawk technology (USAF 98) was used are rampant, but do not quite fit the specific version of Operation Pearl presented here. For one thing, the Global Hawk system does not use remote visual guidance, but onboard navigation electronics that bypass the need for direct, minute-by-minute human control.
The system invoked for the attacks in Operation Pearl is based on the Predator unmanned surveillance vehicle (USAF undated), a modularized aircraft that can be broken into components for ease of shipping and rapid deployment. One of the components includes a remote guidance module which could be refitted to another aircraft (with appropriate modifications) without the need to strip a predator vehicle. The predator operates under remote human guidance from a ground station that, once deployed, would require as few as two human operators during a "secure" operation.
A second possibility involves a system known as a "flight termination system," manufactured by the System Planning Corporation. (SPC 2000) This system permits hands-on control of a nearly endless variety of aircraft, the control interface being to a large degree customizable. For the purposes of the Operation Pearl scenario, either of these systems might well be adaptable to the remote operations of nonmilitary jet aircraft.
Without question, however, the basic technology for the remote guidance of aircraft has been on hand for many years. For a large intelligence organization it would be a straightforward technical operation to install a remote control system in virtually any type of aircraft, whether a large commercial airliner or anything smaller. The aircraft carrying the installation would be available and prepared in advance, then substituted for the passenger aircraft it was meant to replace.
4.4 Electronic towing
An interesting but different form of remote control is invoked by the Operation Pearl scenario in the "cleanup" phase, namely the disposal of the three aircraft that did not crash in Pennsylvania or anywhere else. I call this facility "electronic towing," It consists of two "black boxes" that pick up signals from an aircraft's data bus, a shared electronic pathway travelled by all electronic signals that control the aircraft. (Spitzer 2000) Each black box can read the bus through the data bus monitor, as well as insert information into the bus. Because the connections are already available, installation of the boxes could be completed in a matter of hours on any aircraft. In this relatively simple form of remote control, one aircraft would be called the "slave," the other the "master." In addition, two 2-way radios allow the black boxes to communicate, specifically for the master box to send its signals to the slave box. Under identical conditions, the slave aircraft will do precisely what the master aircraft does. Such control signals could also be taped and replayed later to invoke in the slave aircraft exactly the same behavior as the master.
To initiate towing, the master aircraft takes off first, while the slave aircraft remains on the runway, completely unoccupied. As soon (or as late) as the pilot of the slave aircraft wishes to, a recording of the master signals is played over the radio to the slave aircraft, which then takes off precisely as the master aircraft did. The slave will then follow the master wherever the pilot of the master wishes to go. With a short time delay in the control loop, the slave aircraft would appear literally to be towed by the master, always maintaining the same distance and position behind it. If the pilot of the master aircraft wished to "unhitch" the slave, he could simply cut the control signal. Over the ocean, the unhitched aircraft might fly until it runs out of fuel or it might be blown up by implanted explosives.
5 Operation Pearl
In the detailed scenario to follow, Harrisburg International Airport was selected as the base of operations. However, any airport, airbase or landing strip of suitable length within, say, 50 km of Harrisburg might work just as well. The following table displays the takeoff times of the respective aircraft from Boston's logan Airport, Newark International, and Washington's Dulles Airport on the morning of September 11, 2001. Assuming a takedown at the first deviation, the flying times to Harrisburg International Airport are calculated and the arrival times of the respective aircraft at Harrisburg are displayed. All flying times are based on the assumption of an average airspeed of 805 km/h (500 mph). In each case, 5 minutes is added at either end of the flight to allow for takeoffs and landings.
Flight Take-down Distance to Harrisburg Flying Time Arrival
AA11 8:16 am 420 km 32 + 5 min. 8:53 am
UA175 8:42 am 200 km 15 + 5 min. 9:02 am
UA93 8:42 am 260 km 20 + 5 min. 9:07 am
AA77 8:46 am 240 km 18 + 5 min. 9:09 am
As a convenience, the takedown of Flight UA93 has been made simultaneous with the aircraft's takeoff. Since the flight path was directed toward Harrisburg, the takedown time is not relevant to the calculation as it could have taken place anywhere along the route, yielding the same result for arrival in Harrisburg.
As a feasibility check, we may now calculate whether there was adequate time on the ground in Harrisburg to deplane three of the aircraft, loading their passengers onto Flight UA93. Working backwards, the flight of UA93 from Harrisburg to Shanksville involved a distance of 144 km for a flight time of 18 minutes. Thus, to "crash" at 10:06 am, it had to leave Harrisburg no later than 9:45 am. This would give the agents of Operation Pearl (see Appendix C) some 36 minutes to board the passengers from the other flights onto Flight UA93.
A master timetable for the entire operation has been provided at the end of this article. Readers may wish to consult this table, along with the accompanying map, in order to obtain a birdseye view of all four flights.
We will now examine key elements of the scenario in the form of mini-dramatizations that place the reader in the scene, as it were. The following sketches supply enough detail to provide a secondary check on feasibility. I have used a compact notation to refer to the four replacement flights, simply appending an "X" to the flight number. Thus "UA175X" refers to the replacement aircraft for flight UA175.
5.1 The takedown
The morning of September 11 dawned bright and clear over Boston's Logan Airport as crews arrived for the first flights of the day. The departure lounge for American Airlines Flight 11 was already filling with passengers when John Ogonowski, the pilot, and Thomas McGuinness, the second officer, arrived to board their Boeing 767 and begin the preflight check.
As passengers slowly filed past the check-in counter and onto the boarding ramp, the flight officers proceeded through the cockpit checklist. The weather would be perfect for flying. Only one little detail soured Ogonowski's day. He had been informed that an FBI antiterrorism agent would be aboard the aircraft. Among the incoming passengers, a nondescript gentleman in a business suit settled into a seat in first class. Just as the giant turbofan engines began their warmup, a stewardess reminded the gentleman, now scribbling on a piece of paper, to fasten his lap belt.
"Certainly. Er, would you mind giving this note to the captain?"
She took the note forward, handing it to Ogonowski, who read it with more than passing interest.
"Hmmm. I guess it's real. Take a look at this, Tom."
McGuinness read the note.
My name is Bill Proctor, FBI anti-hijacking team. We have information that hijackers may be aboard the aircraft today. I repeat, may. My partner and I are on this flight to prevent such a happening. We wish our presence on board to be kept confidential. I am in seat 7A. Thank you for your cooperation.
"I'd better take a look at this guy," said Ogonowski. Take her out while I go back for some coffee."
The engines roared to life and the aircraft began to taxi out to the runway. Ogonowski spotted the gentleman and pulled the note from his breast pocket. The gentleman nodded and smiled back.
"I'm sorry. I still have to ask to see your ID."
"Certainly." The man handed Ogonowski a small wallet, flipped open to reveal the famous logo.
On his way to the galley, Ogonowski scrutinized the passengers from the corner of his eyes. Instinctively, he looked for swarthy, middle eastern types, somewhat reassured to see none.
The takeoff was smooth and the 767 climbed into clear blue skies, with several wisps of cirrus off to the west. About 15 minutes into the flight, just as the flight officers were relaxing and thinking a hijacking rather unlikely, another note arrived via the stewardess.
We have spotted two terrorists on board. I must come forward to discuss the situation with you. Bill
"What the hell! Is this guy serious?"
"Jeez. I guess so."
Inside the cockpit, the gentleman wore a serious frown.
"We'll have to land at Harrisburg, where we have facilities to deal with this problem. Use the 80.7 kHz frequency and do not engage in any other radio activity at this time, please. Identify yourself as American Flight 380 and tell them you have a faulty fuel pump in Number Two engine."
"Where are the terrorists?"
"Don't worry, they're here. By the way, you must also turn off your transponder. Now."
Ogonowski turned on the PA system.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we have experienced a slight difficulty with one of our fuel pumps and must land to have it checked. American is sorry for the delay. We'll have alternate transportation ready for you as soon as possible."
The gentleman smiled, nodding approvingly. A murmur of groans and complaints filtered into the cabin.
"One more thing. As soon as we touch down, proceed immediately to the military hangars at the north end of the airport. We have a team of agents there who will board the aircraft as soon as you can get the doors open."
Although Ogonowski sent no messages to New York ATC, he could hear the chatter and knew something was up. About seven minutes before they would land at Harrisburg, he heard that one of the World Trade Center towers was on fire, having been hit by a "commuter aircraft," as the rumor had it. Ahead of him the layout of Harrisburg Airport, faintly discernible in the distance, grew slowly in size. The aircraft banked and made its final approach. Unknown to Ogonowski, another Boeing 757 shadowed flight AA11, below and slightly behind them. It climbed, even as flight AA11 descended. More radio chatter revealed that aircraft had been ordered down all over the United States. Ogonowski would be the first of many emergency landings at Harrisburg International that day.
The 767 glided smoothly to touchdown, its air brakes howling. The aircraft slowly rolled to a crawl, then turned onto a taxiway that led to an Air National Guard hangar, where a man with orange batons waved them in. As soon as the flight crew got the doors open, one of the group of waiting officials rolled a large gangway to the open door and three agents dashed up the stairs. One of them had a bullhorn.
"Ladies and gentlemen. We must ask that you leave the aircraft immediately. Leave all personal belongings and carryon bags aboard the aircraft. This includes cellphones. Do not attempt any cellphone calls, as they could trigger any explosives on board. We'll begin evacuation from the front of the aircraft."
Dutifully, the passengers streamed from the aircraft in orderly fashion, making their way down the steep gangplank and joining a crowd that had formed around another official.
"Ladies and gentlemen. It is now safe to tell you that you have just escaped being hijacked by Arab terrorists. We will apprehend the suspects and search the aircraft for bombs and other dangers to public safety. Unfortunately, this procedure may take some time and we have no facilities for you here. We'll have to put you on another flight, as soon as it arrives. I realize that this is very inconvenient and we apologize. However, you can think of yourselves as among the luckiest people in America today."
As he spoke, two officials led a disheveled man in handcuffs down the gangplank. He had olive-colored skin and a dark beard. A murmur went up from the crowd.
"Where the hell did he come from?" muttered McGuinness. He had a feeling of unreality in the pit of his stomach. He felt nauseous.
By then, another aircraft, flight UA175, had landed and was now taxiing toward the same hangar. The officials herded the passengers into the hanger, where they were told to wait. Then they went to greet the second aircraft, where they repeated the procedure.
Tower personnel were of course aware of the two flights parked at the Air National Guard hangar. They were aware that the aircraft were being inspected by some kind of security team but, beyond that, they paid little heed to the operation. They were too busy coordinating some very busy airspace.
5.2 Swapping aircraft
At the New York air traffic control center rows of radar operators "pushing tin," as they call it, monitored flights into and out of New York airspace, talking to the pilots occasionally on their throat mikes. Each operator had several flights to monitor, a job that guaranteed one of the highest stress levels of any occupation in the travel industry.
The time was 8:37 in the morning. Operators were about to become aware that something was amiss in their airspace. We pick up the conversation between one of them (bold face) and the aircraft under his responsibility. (NYT 2001) My commentary within the transcript has been placed in square brackets.
"USA583 checking in at FL350."
"USA583 Roger."
"42-39 see the 823 FL350 reference that guy on left."
"I gave the FDX turns. Do what you want, reference the FDX."
" R49 310."
"FDX226 contact New York Center on 133.47. Good day."
"33.4 FDX3226 heavy."
"New York UAL 457."
"Sector 10 point out west of LRP 712 at FL410."
"Point out approved."
"UAL175 at FL310."
[The time was 8:40 am. United Airlines Flight 175 came on the air with some information to report.]
"UAL 175 New York center. Roger."
"New York do a favor. Were you asked to look for an aircraft, an American flight about about 8 or 9 o'clock 10 miles south bound last altitude 290? No one is sure where he is."
"Yeah, we talked about him on the last frequency. We spotted him when he was at our 3 o'clock position. He did appear to us to be at 29,000 feet. We're not picking him up on TCAS. I'll look again and see if we can spot him at 24."
"No, it looks like they shut off their transponder. That's why the question about it."
"New York UAL175 heavy."
"UAL 175 go ahead."
"We figured we'd wait to go to your center. We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure from BOS. Sounds like someone keyed the mike and said, 'Everyone stay in your seats.'"
O.K. I'll pass that along.
"It cut out." (UAL 175)
"IGN 93 line."
"Go ahead."
"UAL 175 just came on my frequency and he said he heard a suspicious transmission when they were leaving BOS: 'Everybody stay in your seats.' That's what he heard as the suspicious transmission, just to let you know." (See Note 4.)
[Then US Air Flight 583 called in.]
"Center, where do you place him in relation to 583 now?"
"He's off about 9 o'clock and about 20 miles. Looks like he's heading southbound but there's no transponder, no nothing, and no one's talking to him."
"Hello New York good morning DAL2315 passing 239 for 280."
"DAL2315 New York Center. Roger."
"New York center DAL2433 310."
"DAL2433 New York Center. Roger."
[Four minutes later the time was 8:46 and the mystery had not been solved. Flight 11 was flying an angular route south, then east. Other flights continued to converse with New York ATC.]
"Direct PTW DAL 1489 heavy."
"Roger."
"DAL2315 contact the New York Center on 134.6. Have a nice day."
"134.6 DAL2315."
"34.6 3-4-point 6."
"USA429 leveling off at 350."
I'm sorry, who was that?
"USA429 leveling at 350."
"USA429, New York Center roger."
[As we will shortly see, the radar operator lost track of Flight AA11, as evidenced by his queries of pilots in the area, as well as his failure to make any connection between the World Trade Center fire (about to be reported) and Flight AA11. It appears that the flight had simply been lost in the swarm of blips that crowded every screen at the New York ATC.]
"Anybody know what that smoke is in lower Manhattan?"
"I'm sorry, say again."
"A lot of smoke in lower manhattan."
"A lot of smoke in lower Manhattan?"
"Coming out of the top of the World Trade Center building, a major fire."
"And which was the one that just saw the major fire?"
"This is DAL1489 we see lower Manhattan. Looks like the World Trade Center on fire, but its hard to tell from here."
"DAL1489. Roger."
"Let us know if you hear any news down there."
"Roger."
"DAL 1043 cleared direct PTW."
"Direct PTW DAL 1043."
At 8:51 am, the operator was still in touch with Flight 175, asking the pilot to change his transponder code.
"UAL175 recycle transponder squawk code 1470."
"UAL175. New York."
[But at 8:52 am, things went wrong with Flight UAL175, as well.]
"UAL175 do you read New York?"
"DAL1489 do you read New York?"
"DAL1489. Go ahead."
"O.K. Just wanted to make sure you were reading New York. United, United 175. Do you read New York?"
"IGN on the 93 line. Kennedy."
"IGN on the 93 line East Texas."
"IGN."
"Do me a favor. See if UAL175 went back to your frequency."
"UAL 175?"
"Yes."
"He's not here. East Texas."
"10 - Do you see that UAL175 anywhere? And do me a favor. You see that target there on 3321 code at 335 climbing? Don't know who he is, but you got that USA 583. If you need to descent him down you can. Nobody. We may have a hijack. We have some problems over here right now."
"Oh you do?" (another operator)
"Yes, that may be real traffic. Nobody knows. I can't get a hold of UAL175 at all right now and I don't know where he went to."
[The transcript reveals a new aircraft with transponder code 3321. The aircraft has already climbed to 33,500 feet. This may have been the replacement aircraft.]
"UAL 175 New York."
"New York 583."
"USA583 go ahead."
"Yes. Getting reports over the radio of a commuter hitting the World Trade Center. Is that nordo [no radio] 76 [Boeing 767] still in the air?"
It is interesting that the initial report of the first WTC attack involved not a 757, but a smaller commuter aircraft. From that point on however, things got increasingly hectic at the New York ATC center. Operators glanced at the screen space centered on Manhattan and eastern New Jersey, trying to guess which aircraft was Flight 175.
On all screens there were often several aircraft without transponder codes. Some of these were local flights, mostly smaller aircraft. The presence of such blips would probably have made the radar operator;'s job much harder. Taking one's eye off a suspicious aircraft to check other aircraft in the area, might make it impossible to be certain which aircraft it was when the operator glanced back. This, in any case, was apparently what happened.
5.3 The World Trade Center
It would have been an eerie experience to ride the 757 that we have called Flight 175-X. Walking the aisles, we would have seen the seats all stripped from the aircraft, the walls lined with fuel drums, like so many token passengers. Cables ran up the aisle to the cockpit, where a large black box sat on the floor, just in front of the control console. The pilots' seats were missing. Some of the cables fed into several openings in the console, others passed through openings in the floor into the aircraft's belly, where the antenna system communicated with a ground station.
At the ground station, an operator watched a color television monitor. On it, he could see the Manhattan skyline looming steadily larger. He adjusted the joystick slightly to the right, aiming for the south tower, then pushed the stick forward slightly. The aircraft slowly descended until it was level with the upper third of the still distant building. An ironic smile crossed the operator's face. This was not exactly the intended use of the Predator technology.
About a minute from impact, a steady crosswind that the operator had not taken into account had pushed the aircraft off course to the east, even as the tower loomed faster than he thought it would. He was going to miss! Damn. He pulled the joystick sharply to the left.
Just when the corner of the south tower was about to disappear from the screen , it swung back into view again, the building now appearing sharply tilted to the right. He saw several rows of windows. Close, then very close. In the last frame, he caught a glimpse of some office people staring from one of the windows in horror. Then the screen went blank. To think of how close he came to missing!
5.4 Back at the base
Under the operation Pearl scenario, the takedown of all four flights would be conducted in the same manner, flights UA93 and AA77, being no exceptions. By the time Flight UA93 arrived over Harrisburg, the alarm had been out for a good 20 minutes. Flights were coming down everywhere. Airport tower personnel, as well as those at all air traffic control centers, were simply overwhelmed. In this context, bringing flights UA93 and AA77 into Harrisburg were relatively simple and secure operations involving little more than switching to a new transponder number, landing and proceeding to the same processing area. The same cover story still worked, since it was not known at the time whether aircraft might be targeted, as well as buildings.
The swap of flight UA93-X for flight UA93 would have been far less exposed to radar than the swaps in the NY phase of the operation. As Flight UA93 descended into the radar shadow of the Susquehanna valley close to Harrisburg International, an executive jet rose out of the valley, below and immediately behind the aircraft. The swap would have been seamless, with Flight UA93 turning off its transponder about the same time that the pilot of Flight UA93-X turned his on. Flight UA93-X then turned north to follow an erratic path to the west as far as Cleveland before looping back to head for southern Pennsylvania.
The search for bombs on Flights AA11 and UA 175 may have already been completed by the time that Flight 93 touched down at 9:07 am. The officials in charge of the operation nevertheless had a good 20 minutes to search flight UA93 before hurriedly boarding all the passengers into the one aircraft, an operation that could have been carried out in 20 minutes.
As the passengers boarded Flight UA93, the officials held a special conference with pilot Jason Dahl and First Officer LeRoy Homer.
"Fellows, we've made a thorough check for bombs on board, and we're sure it's clean. Unfortunately, we have some problems with the other aircraft, so we're going to have to keep them grounded for the time being. We don't have proper facilities for all these people here, so we're going to have to ask you to take them all to Dulles where they can be looked after properly. We'll send all personal goods and luggage along on one of the the other aircraft, as soon as we have completed our work. We'll have to board the other passengers now, without delay. You will be picked up by a military escort aircraft as you leave. Please be sure to follow that aircraft and stay in communication with it. Frequency will be 118.7 MHz. all the way. Fly at the same level of 4000 feet. If it should happen to deviate from it's flight path, it may be checking something out. Just stay on course for Dulles. Your escort will rejoin you soon enough."
Pilot and first officer nodded, then climbed the stairs, entered the cockpit and began the preflight check for the second time that morning. Meanwhile, passengers filed into the aircraft, urged on by the officials, until the aircraft was full. As it happened, flight 93 had just enough seats to accommodate the passengers of all four flights.
At 9:45 the 757 roared off the runway at Harrisburg and set course for Washington, even as a military-looking all-white aircraft rose from low altitude to fly off their port wing.
"This is your Escort Bravo One. We're not very fast, here." said the military pilot. "Reduce your airspeed to 400 knots and stay directly behind with minimal separation."
"I've seen that kind of aircraft before," said Homer.
"Yup. That's an A-10 Warthog," said Dahl. "And she's armed to the teeth. See the missiles under the wing?"
"Warthog? Funny name."
"Actually, it's called the Thunderbolt, but I guess everyone thinks the thing is too ugly to be called anything but a warthog."
5.5 The Crash at Shanksville
The two aircraft climbed out along the valley of the Susquehanna, then headed southwest along a succession of valleys, emerging at last into a large, relatively flat basin, partly forested and dotted with farms and villages. Ahead of them, the white aircraft, flight UA93-X, suddenly turned off and began circling around to the east, descending as it went.
Shanksville resident Susan Mcelwain watched the white aircraft pass directly over her minivan:
"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50 feet above my van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound. (UF93 2001)
"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened . . . "
"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."
The description of the mystery aircraft given by Ms Mcelwain happens to match only one military aircraft currently in use by the US armed forces, namely a (repainted) A-10 Thunderbolt, a heavily armed aircraft used in ground support roles. (McChord 2003) Several other witnesses saw the same aircraft, both before the crash and after it, circling the area. (Flight 93, 2001)
Two area residents, both quite close to the crash scene, heard missiles being fired. One, a Viet Nam veteran, was quite sure about what he had heard.
Mcelwain and many others heard one or two tremendous explosions rock the sky over Shanksville. Debris rained down for miles around. One engine landed nearly a mile from the alleged crash site. Body parts, luggage, scraps of metal, bits of in-flight magazine plummeted or fluttered to the ground a mile or more away.
The white aircraft turned, took one more pass, then headed back to its base of operations. Mcelwain called 911.
The Shanksville "crash" of Flight 93 presents us with a number of mysterious reports of a midair explosion (or explosions) as well as the presence of a white "mystery jet" seen in the area by many local residents.
The midair explosion was heard by virtually everyone in the area, of course. The debris field resulting from the explosion was apparently much more extensive than what would result from an ordinary crash, with all the debris within a narrow compass laterally to the incoming flight path. New Baltimore resident Melanie Hankinson, who lives some eight miles from the crash site, found paper debris from the aircraft, including remnants of United Airlines in-flight magazine, Hemispheres. Other debris, including body parts, were scattered over a space of miles. One of the engines were found a "considerable distance from the crash site," according to State Police Major Lyle Szupinka.
Shanksville Mayor, Earnest Stuhl, has stated that at least two area residents, both living within a few hundred yards of the debris field, heard missiles being fired. One of the witnesses, a Viet Nam veteran, had heard missiles fired from aircraft many times during his tour of duty and claimed that it could not be anything else.
5.6 The Attack on the Pentagon
About the time that Flight AA11-X struck the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York, Flight AA77-X took over from Flight AA77. Like Flight UA93, Flight AA77 dropped into one of the numerous valleys that run the length of the Alleghenies, possibly the valley of the Shenandoah River. Meanwhile, Flight AA77-X, an executive jet, fled westward across West Virginia before looping back, close to the border of southern Ohio. At this point, the pilot turned off his transponder and headed straight for Washington, DC.
By 9:30 am Flight AA77-X was already over Virginia, closing rapidly on the capital. As it approached the Pentagon from the west, another smaller aircraft, possibly a cruise missile, came into the Pentagon from the southwest. It came very fast. Flight AA77-X banked sharply to pass over the Pentagon from the same direction, then flew off to its base. Although visible on local radar as an overflight, it was confused with the incoming missile, which would have been visible as a second blip. Operators would have been led to assume that the second blip represented the overflight.
The small military aircraft (or missile) slammed into the lower half of the 80-foot high wall of the Pentagon, its fuselage punching a hole in the two-foot thick limestone block wall. (see The Pentagon Evidence, also on this website)
5.7 Disposal
Getting rid of the original aircraft was trickier than one might suppose. One could not simply wash off the paint with an acid scrub and sell the aircraft to a third world country. Nor could one break the aircraft up and sell the parts. Indeed the parts, thousands of them, were all stamped with serial numbers that were registered to their respective aircraft. They could be traced. For this reason, it would have been much cleaner to dump the aircraft in the Atlantic Ocean.
Perhaps it was not until nightfall of September 11 that the disposal operation started. By then each aircraft had been fitted with slave technology. The master aircraft had already flown out over the Atlantic, the signal from the data bus monitor having been transmitted back to shore and recorded. It would then have been a simple matter to replay the tape to each of the three "non-existent" aircraft at half-hour intervals. Each aircraft would have gone through exactly the same motions as the master aircraft, continuing its flight out over the Atlantic Ocean - until the implanted bomb destroyed it. Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the three aircraft ended up in pretty much the same state as the Bush-Cheney scenario alleges. The locations are quite different, however.
Inspiration for the electronic tow technology came from the eyewitness account of two aircraft sighted by a New Jersey resident and his wife. (names witheld by request)
"Several days before 911, my wife and I were walking on Long Beach Island. It was late in the afternoon when I looked out over the ocean and saw these two passenger jets flying toward us, due west. They were flying amazingly low and amazingly slow. I was amazed to see these two jets were flying closely behind the other [sic], nose to tail, and what was most amazing was that they were perfectly spaced, about fifty feet apart, with absolutely no fluctuations in their spacing. It looked just like one plane was towing the other. They flew right over our heads, and I watched them as they flew westward."
Under the operation Pearl scenario, the strollers witnessed a final test of the master/slave control system.
6 The Evidence Filter
We are now in a position to review the evidence and its relationship to the Operation Pearl scenario described above. Below each item in the original checklist, I have placed a brief explanation of the relationship.
Suspicious circumstances
• Four of the named hijackers were not in the United States. The alleged hijackers were not on the aircraft, in any case. Their names may have been selected from a list of lapsed or stolen passports.
• The WTC towers collapsed without adequate heat stress. The lack of passenger corpses, luggage, etc, had to be concealed by burial.
• Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights AA77 and UA93. Surrogate aircraft were used as substitutes for the originals.
• Most of the alleged hijackers were rather poor pilots. The alleged hijackers were not aboard the aircraft, in any case.
• Evidence of alleged hijackers developed too quickly. Evidence was planted in order to have the story develop quickly.
• Westward excursion of Flights UA93 and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists hurrying to targets. The excursions gave time to load all the pasengers onto Flight 93.
Anomalies
• The US Air Force failed to intercept any of the flights. No interceptors were deployed since their pilots would have reported the substitute aircraft.
• The hijackers' names did not show up on passenger lists. The hijackers were not aboard the aircraft.
• The hijackers' faces did not appear on boarding gate videos. The hijackers were not aboard the aircraft.
• Black boxes were missing from all but one flight. Black boxes were not present on attacking aircraft
Contradictions
• Aircraft striking the Pentagon was not a large passenger aircraft. Flight AA77 did not strike the Pentagon.
• Cellphone calls made by passengers were highly unlikely to impossible. Flight UA93 was not in the air when most of the alleged calls were made.
Expanded timeline for Operation Pearl
Time Event
7:59 am UA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:14 am UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport
8:16 am First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY
8:20 am AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport
8:20 am AA11 transponder turned off
8:30 am First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off
8:35 am Beginning of NY ATC transcript
8:40 am UA175 transponder is turned off
8:42 am UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ
First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ
8:46 am Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code
8:46 am AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC
Nationwide alert begins
8:53 am Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off
AA11 lands at Harrisburg
8:54 am End of NY ATC transcript
8:55 am AA77X transponder is turned off
9:02 am UA175X strikes south tower of WTC
UA175 lands at Harrisburg
Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93
9:07 am UA93 lands at Harrisburg
9:09 am AA77 lands at Harrisburg
9:37 am AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1
9:45 am UA93 takes off from Harrisburg
10:06 am UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA



Map showing the offically-claimed flightpaths on 9/11 - and probable
deviations from those paths under the Operation Pearl scenario
(Map based on original version in USA Today. Yellow lines indicate
flight deviations; yellow numbers are 'swaps' in the table above)
Footnote 1: The plot of the movie, set in a decaying future New York ruled by warlords, involves the rescue of the President of the United States who is being held for ransom. Snake Plisskin (played by Kurt Russel) is released from jail by authorities eager to use his talents to rescue the President.
References
(USA Today 2001) USA Today. 2000. Weapons of destruction. Accessed from <http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/frame.htm> on Jyly 5, 2003.
(Dewdney 2002) Ghost riders in the Sky. Feral News. Retrieved from http://feralnews.com/issu(...)iders_1-4_1.html> May 15, 2003.
(Flight 93, 2001) How did Flight 93 crash? Retrieved from <http://www.flight93crash.com> May 20, 2003. Note: this site uses mostly local and national media sources.
(McChord, 2003) A-10 Thunderbolt. McChord Air Museum. Retrieved from <http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/ REV%20B%20MAM%20 COLLECTION%20a-10%20%20BORDER.htm>
(NYT 2001) The New York Times. October 16, 2001, Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175. Retrieved from <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16FLIGHT175-TEXT.html> July 4, 2003.
(Ostrovsky & Hoy, 1990) Hoy C, Ostrovsky V. 1990. By Way of Deception. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart.
(Serendipity 2002) (ref. incomplete) http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html
(SPC 2000) FTS Flight termination system. 2000. System Planning Corporation, Langley, VA. Retrieved from <http://www.sysplan.com/> May 17 2003. See <http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS/> (flight termination system) and also <http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS/> (command transmitter system)
(Spitzer 2000) Spitzer, C. R. 2000. Digital Avionics Systems: principles and practices. The Blackburn Press (McGraw-Hill), Caldwell, NJ.
(UF93 2001) United Flight 93 Crash Theory Home Page. 2001. How did Flight 93 Crash? Retrieved from <http://www.flight93crash.com> June 10, 2003.
(USAF no date) RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. United States Air Force Fact Sheet. Aeronautical Systems Center, USAF, Langley, VA. No date on document. Retrieved from <http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html>, May 18 2003.
(USAF 98) Global Hawk: U. S. Airforce Fact Sheet. Global Hawk. Aeronautical Systems Center. USAF Langley, VA. Retrieved July 4 2003 from <http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/global.html
(Valentine 2002) Flight of the Bumble Bees<http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html>
APPENDICES
A: The Basic Timeline
(All times are ante meridian or am, EDT)
Flight Departure Deviation Transponder Hit
American 11 7:59 am 8:16 am 8:20 am 8:46 am
United 175 8:14 am 8:42 am 8:40 am 9:02 am
American 77 8:20 am 8:46 am 8:55 am 9:37 am
United 93 8:42 am 9:36 am 9:40 am 10:06 am
B: Table of aircraft
Flight no Equipment Airport On board
Flight 11 Boeing 767 Boston Logan 81 passengers, 11 crew
Flight 175 Boeing 767 Boston Logan 56 passengers, 9 crew
Flight 77 Boeing 757 Wash. Dulles 58 passengers, 6 crew
Flight 93 Boeing 757 Newark Intn'l 30 passengers, 7 crew
C: Estimates of equipment and personnel used in Operation Pearl
The following lists represent the core requirements in equipment and personnel required to execute Operation Pearl. Additional equipment as well as operatives playing minor roles are not included. Also not included are the operatives running "Operation Footprint," the flight training program for approximately 10 Arabs from a variety of middle eastern countries.
Equipment
• 1 Boeing 767 fitted with remote guidance systems
• 3 Executive-sized jet aircraft, one fitted with a remote guidance system
• 1 A-10 Thunderbolt
Personnel
2 agents on each of four aircraft 8
10 agents at the base of operations 10
4 agents to set up WTC demolition explosives 4
2 agents as flight crew on substitute or escort aircraft 6
4 agents as technicians to install RC controls
(also to act as remote pilots) 8
36
This number is certainly an underestimate, but easily mustered by any large intelligence organization. Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency. An arm's-length relationship with the Bush administration, with neocon elements acting as go-betweens, would enable Rumsfeld, Bush, and other members of the US administration to disclaim any "specific" knowledge of a forthcoming attack. (See Ostrovsky and Hoy, 1990.)



The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Poster Thread
faction3
Posted: 2003/10/22 10:14 Updated: 2003/10/22 10:14
Newcomer


Joined: 2003/10/22
From:
Posts: 1 Still Loose Threads
While I wouldn't doubt the Mossad had a hand in 911, these problems remain:
The Mossad cannot have the US military stand-down without the latter's complicity.
How it happened to be the Pentagon was struck
in the least occupied portion [due to construction] & Rumsfeld was purportedly conveniently on the other side of the building.
How it was the case many of the supposed hijackers had living addresses at Pensacola
Naval Base while others were connected to the
US military elsewhere.
How it was, in your scenario, the Mossad had
full access to an airport; here too there
had to have been US military/intelligence
complicity...which dovetails with the co-inky-dink of the CIA on the very day of 911 was
running a simulated emergency of a plane crashing
into the NRO building...which served as a stand-down mechanism for employees there.
Conclusion: At minimum, elements within the
Navy, Air Force, Pentagon & CIA were complicit
in 911.


Poster Thread
woody
Posted: 2003/10/23 21:32 Updated: 2003/10/23 21:32
Regular


Joined: 2003/10/23
From:
Posts: 20 Remains of victims
911research points to a fact which doesn't fit into the scenario: Remains of the passengers of flights 11 and 175 have been found in the WTC rubble:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html

For the scenario to be valid, one has to assume one of the following conditions:

1) Parts of bodies of the passengers have been placed at the WTC.

or

2) Mr. Charles Hirsch is part of the conspiracy.


I've done some calculations with regard to the newspaper article:

2801 persons are victims of the WTC attacks.

92+65=157 persons are "plane victims".

1401 persons are identified.

How many plane victims can we expect among these 1401 people?

If we apply the binomial distribution, we get:

mean=78.5
sigma(standard deviation)=8.6

So there is a 95% chance to identify more than 61 and less than 96 plane victims.

The reality is: Not more than 45 plane victims have been identified. The deviation is 3.9*sigma. The probability to find no more than 45 plane victims is quite small (0.2 %).

Another suspicious circumstance?


Replies Poster Posted
Re: Remains of victims
brad
2003/10/31 5:12

Poster Thread
Jerry
Posted: 2003/11/30 20:00 Updated: 2003/11/30 20:00
SPINE Associate Member


Joined: 2003/10/20
From:
Posts: 10 Re: Operation Pearl
This is a very imaginative and interesting hypothesis, but I think that some of the evidence presented is questionable, and that simpler explanations deserve our first consideration (unless they are well proven to be impossible.)

The damage to the WTC North Tower appears consistent with a large commercial airliner such as AA flight 11, and evidence to the contrary (such as some eyewitness reports, the Fireman's Video, and the BTS on-time flight statistics) seem ultimately inconclusive in my view.

While Flight 77 apparently did not hit the Pentagon, it still seems premature to speculate about what did happen to that flight, in view of a general lack of evidence about its fate (though as Gerard Holmgren has pointed out, the absence of this flight in the BTS database is intriguing.)

Is there any analysis of the debris from flight 93 that would indicate that some other aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania?


Poster Thread
hellsbells
Posted: 2003/12/4 14:32 Updated: 2003/12/4 14:32
Regular


Joined: 2003/11/23
From: Australia
Posts: 20 Re: Operation Pearl
There is a fascinating report that Flights AA11 (originating from Logan Airport, Boston) and AA77 (originating Washington Dulles International Airport) DID NOT DEPART on September 11, 2001. This is posted by Gerard Holmgren at:

http://sydney.indymedia.o(...)=36354&group=webcast
and reposted at:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275927.shtml

The BTS has a website that allows one to check on scheduled departure/arrival and actual departure/arrival times for flights, by airport, airline and date. On September 11, 2001 neither American Airlines flight is logged as departing. (Details how to reach the BTS website are supplied at the indymedia websites.)

The BTS website, however, confirms that the two United Airline flights departed, UA 175 from Logan and UA93 from Newark, on 11 September 2001.

This makes Operation Pearl simpler!!! Only two airliners to 'hijack' not four!!! Amazing, really.

Somewhere I read the news releases by American Airlines and United Airlines about their respective downed planes. While American is rather vague, United is much more specific. I should look for these two press releases. They are completely consistent with the BTS logs.

This Official Legend, already threadbare, becomes even more tattered by these revelations. Fancy that! Two of the planes never took off. Honestly! Wonders never cease.


Poster Thread
kb3764
Posted: 2003/12/10 8:52 Updated: 2003/12/10 8:52
Newcomer


Joined: 2003/10/26
From:
Posts: 1 Re: Operation Pearl
This is a very important article and it may well be quite close to what happened. There are some details, of course, that seem a little dubious. One of these is the transponder of flight 175. The "Expanded timeline for Operation Pearl" says UA175 turned its transponder off at 8:40. Yet it is also said about the New York flight controller that "At 8:51 am, the operator was still in touch with Flight 175, asking the pilot to change his transponder code." And a little later, it says, "The transcript reveals a new aircraft with transponder code 3321. The aircraft has already climbed to 33,500 feet. This may have been the replacement aircraft."

Interestingly, Col. Alan Scott (ret.) (NORAD) said in the public hearing of the 9-11 Commission last May, "United 175, the second airplane, which by the way never turned off its transponder before impact, crashes into the North Tower at 9:02." (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm)

So, what to make of this? Where is the transponder data in the article coming from?

Regarding the Holmgren article about the flights 11 and 77 not departing on 11 September, I think care must be taken in drawing conclusions. What do we know about the general accuracy of these stats? From the BTS database, anyone can see that flight 77 was a daily service and departed normally during the week before 9/11 -- except one week before, when the departure time is given as 0:00, meaning no departure. On Tuesday, August 28, it took off normally. But, true, on the 11th it is missing altogether. But I'm at sea as to what to infer from this.

Sami Yli-Karjanmaa


Replies Poster Posted
Merging Dewdney and Holmgren
woody
2003/12/12 19:48
Re: Merging Dewdney and Holmgren
brad
2003/12/15 7:04
Re: Merging Dewdney and Holmgren
hellsbells
2003/12/15 16:10
Re: Merging Dewdney and Holmgren
woody
2003/12/22 20:10
Re: Merging Dewdney and Holmgren
hellsbells
2003/12/25 12:19
Re: Merging Dewdney and Holmgren to Woody's link
Blackheart77
2004/3/14 11:11

Poster Thread
illdonaii
Posted: 2003/12/16 22:27 Updated: 2003/12/16 22:27
Newcomer


Joined: 2003/12/10
From:
Posts: 1 Re: Operation Pearl - Remote Control of Airplanes
Is it possible to remote pilot or remotely override real pilots to fly the planes according to the official story?


Replies Poster Posted
Re: Operation Pearl - Remote Control of Airplanes
Eincrou
2003/12/19 12:09

Poster Thread
vistajet
Posted: 2004/1/15 5:54 Updated: 2004/1/15 5:54
Newcomer


Joined: 2004/1/15
From:
Posts: 1 Re: Operation Pearl
So many people that are 911 conspiracy theorists have little or no knowledge about aviation. Many here fit that bill. Operation Pearl is pure fantasy. Any airplane buff will tell you that 2 767-200s crashed into the WTC, and that an American Airlines aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. To think otherwise is just plain silly. I'm convinced that 99% of 911 conspiracy buffs are anti-Bush and liberal. Your theories ignore what is fact and seek only to complicate what is already known. for all your theories to be true would require thousands of people to be part of the "grand plan". Not only that but both United and American airlines would also have to be part of the conspiracy. Why did both carriers file insurance claims for the hull losses on 9/11/01. Why are 4 aircraft 2 767-200s and two 757-200s listed as "written off" on 9/11/01? I'll tell you why. Because muslim fundamentalist terrorists conspired to murder thousands of innocent Americans. Instead of pointing the finger at those responsible you look towards the US gov't or of course the other scapegoat the Mossad. You people are either anti-Semitic or have watched too many episodes of the X-Files. You guys are so typical of conspiracy theorists, the bigger the event the more likely a conspiracy was involved. Grow up people, don't be surprised when you "investigation" reveals nothing, because there is nothing to reveal.


Replies Poster Posted
Re: Operation Pearl
brad
2004/1/18 6:08
Re: Operation Pearl
brad
2004/1/18 6:11
Re: Operation Pearl
Blackheart77
2004/3/11 5:42
Re: Operation Pearl
Skymaster
2004/4/16 2:29
Re: Operation Pearl
N911CB
2004/6/29 7:14
Re: Operation Pearl
xusnatc
2004/7/1 4:48

Poster Thread
Blackheart77
Posted: 2004/3/10 7:44 Updated: 2004/3/14 11:59
Regular


Joined: 2004/3/10
From: SF, CA
Posts: 19 Re: Operation Pearl Landing Scenerios
DELETED by author


Poster Threa

logs

The following is a transcript of the radio communications of American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77), which took off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington on Sept. 11.

8:12:29 - AAL77: Good morning ground American seven seven is off of dixie twenty six with information tango.

8:12:36 - Ground Control West: American 77 Dulles taxi to runway three zero.

8:12:39 - AAL77: Taxi three zero American seven seven.

8:16:01 - Local Control West: American 77, Dulles tower. Runway three zero taxi into position and hold you'll be holding for landing traffic one left and for spacing wake turbulence spacing behind the DC 10.

8:16:29 - AAL77: And American ah seven seven is ready.

8:16:32 - Local Control West: American 77, Dulles tower. Runway three zero. Taxi into position and hold you're holding for wake turbulence landing traffic one left and you need to be fifteen in trail of that DC 10.

8:16:41 - AAL77: Position and hold three zero, American seven seven.

8:19:20 - Local Control West: American 77 your departure frequency will be one two five point zero five. Runway three zero cleared for take off.

8:19:27 - AAL77: One two five oh five. Runway three zero cleared for takeoff, American 77.

8:20:26 - Local Control West: American 77, turn left heading two seven zero contact departure.

8:20:31 - AAL77: Two seventy heading departure, American 77. Good day.

8:20:38 - AAL77: Is with you passing one decimal one for three.

8:20:43 - North Departure: American 77, Dulles departure radar. Contact climb and maintain five thousand.

8:20:47 - AAL77: Five thousand, American 77.

8:22:05 - North Departure: American 77 climb and maintain one one thousand eleven thousand

8:22:08 - AAL77: up to one one thousand American 77.

8:23:23 - North Departure: American 77 (whistling sound) cleared cleared direct linden contact Dulles one one eight point six seven.

8:23:28 - AAL77: direct linden eighteen sixty seven American 77 good day

8:23:28 - North Departure Low: O.K. O.K. O.K.

8:23:34 - Radar Control: Got the board there already

8:23:36 - North Departure Low: All right we got normal frequencies all the way around nothing hot at this time. Ah, traffic where is this where is this go one twenty-eight where the hell is that? O.K., O.K.

8:23:43 - AAL77: American 77 with you passing nine decimal one for eleven one one thousand.

8:23:47 - North Departure: American 77 Dulles approach climb and maintain one seven thousand.

8:23:50 - AAL77: one seven thousand American 77.

8:23:55 - North Departure Low: O.K., alright. Point outs at this time you got seven lima vector direct d c a seven thousand november zero nine romeo is at five thousand he's already talking to north north sees the traffic, he's going to climb do whatever he has to do. American 77 is direct linden climbing to eleven switched and gone one tango seven is a point out to manassas seven nine xray's been pointed out to west he's at six thousand on going to join victor one sixty eight other than that that's all you have.

8:24:23 - Radar Control: I got it.

8:25:33 - NH: American 77 contact Washington center one two zero point six five good luck.

8:25:37 - AAL77: point six five American 77 thank you ma'am good day.

8:25:49 - AAL77: center American 77 with you passing one three decimal zero for one seven thousand.

8:25:57 - Controller 5: American 77 Washington center roger climb and maintain flight level two seven zero.

8:26:00 - AAL77: two seven zero American 77.

8:30:38 - Controller 5: American 77 contact Washington center one three three point two seven.

8:30:42 - AAL77: ah thirty three twenty seven American 77.

8:31:08 - AAL77: (unintelligible) American 77 passing two five decimal one for two seven oh.

8:31:23 - Controller 3: American 77 ah climb climb and maintain flight level two niner zero sir. 8:31:30 - AAL77: two niner zero American 77.

8:34:16 - Controller 3: American 77 turn twenty degrees right vector for your climb.

8:34:17 - Controller 3: American 77 turn twenty degrees right vector for your climb.

8:34:19 - AAL77: turn twenty right American 77.

8:37:33 - Controller 3: American 77 recleared direct Charleston climb and maintain cor correction recleared direct Henderson sir climb and maintain flight level three niner zero.

8:37:39 - AAL77: direct Henderson out of two nine for three nine oh requesting three five zero for a final American 77.

8:37:57 - AAL77: center American 77 you copy request for three five zero as a final.

8:38:03 - AAL77: three five zero for a final American 77 thank you sir.

8:39:30 - Controller 3: American 77 amend your altitude maintain flight level three three zero for traffic.

8:39:36 - AAL77: American 77 stop at three three zero.

8:39:52 - Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center in Leesburg, Va: so who wants to talk to American 77 Bobcat or Henderson

8:40:03 - Controller 3: American 77 contact Indy center one two zero point two seven.

8:40:06 - AAL77: twenty five seven American 77 thanks sir good day.

8:40:14 - AAL77: center American 77 with you level three three zero.

8:40:16 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy center roger sqawk three seven four three.

8:40:18 - AAL77: three seven four three American 77.

8:43:52 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 climb and maintain flight level three five zero.

8:43:54 - AAL77: thirty three for three five oh American 77.

8:47:20 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 turn ten degrees to the right vectors for traffic.

8:47:23 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 turn ten degrees to the right vectors for traffic.

8:47:23 - AAL77: ten right American 77.

8:47:33 - AAL77: ten right American 77.

8:50:48 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 cleared direct um Falmouth.

8:50:51 - AAL77: uh direct Falmouth American 77 thank you. (last AAL77 message)

8:56:32 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy.

8:56:46 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy.

8:56:53 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 American Indy radio check how do you read.

8:57:12 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 American Indy radio check how do you read.

8:57:28 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American alt 77 American radio check how do you read.

8:57:35 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: override beeping.

8:57:35 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar: this is uh - Indianapolis Control, Dacos.

8:57:38 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar: this is uh - Indianapolis Control, Dacos.

8:57:55 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: override line beeping.

8:57:59 - Controller 3: American 77 roger maintain flight level three five zero show that as your final

8:58:08 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: outside line ringing.

8:58:14 - AAL: American dispatch Jim McDonnell.

8:58:19 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: this is Indianapolis center trying to get a hold of American 77.

8:58:23 - AAL: uh Indys hang on one second please.

8:58:25 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: what

8:58:26 - AAL: hang on one second sir.

8:58:28 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right

8:58:30 - AAL: who ya trying to get a hold of.

8:58:31 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: American 77.

8:58:32 - AAL: O.K.

8:58:33 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: on frequency one two zero point two seven.

8:58:35 - AAL: one two zero.

8:58:36 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: point two seven we were talking to him and all of a sudden it just uh -

8:58:38 - AAL O.K., all right we'll get a hold of him for ya.

8:58:40 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right

8:58:41 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American ah 77 Indy ah center how do you read.

8:58:51 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy radio check how do you read.

9:00:25 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy

9:00:29 - AAL2493: center American ah twenty four ninety three.

9:00:31 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American twenty four ninety three go ahead.

9:00:33 - AAL2493: yeah we uh sent a message to dispatch to have him come up on twenty twenty seven is that what you want em to do.

9:00:41 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: yeah we had em on west side of our airspace and they went into coast and ah don't have a track on em and now he's not talking to me so we don't know exactly what happened to him. we're trying to get a hold of him we also contacted you company so thanks for the help.

9:00:51 - AAL2493: all right.

9:01:50 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: over ride line beeping.

9:02:00 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: outside line ringing

9:02:07 - AAL: American dispatch Jim McDonnel.

9:02:09 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: yeah this is indianapolis center we uh I don't know if I'm talking to the same guy about American 77.

9:02:13 - AAL: yeah I I I cell called him but I did not get a reply back from him.

9:02:17 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: we uh we lost track control of the guy he's in coast track but we haven't we don't where his target is and we can't get a hold of him um you guys tried him and no response.

9:02:26 - AAL: no response (background noise).

9:02:28 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: yeah we have no radar contact and uh no communications with him so if you guys could try again.

9:02:35 - AAL: we're doing it.

9:02:37 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right thanks a lot.

9:02:38 - AAL: we're doing it thank you.

9:03:07 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar: American 77 Indy.

9:06:20 - Indianapolis Control: override line beeping.

9:06:21 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: Falmouth Decos

9:06:22 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: this is Henderson American seventy seven do you guys have radar on him is he over falmouth or -

9:06:25 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: no we just moved the track there we never you know.

9:06:27 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: O.K. all right you just have the track out there.

9:06:29 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: you guys never been able to raise him at all.

9:06:31 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: No we called company they can't even get a hold of him so there's no no uh no radio communications and no radar.

9:06:36 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: And his last clearance as far as you know is on course to Falmouth and then jay one thirty four right well we're just gonna treat him like non radar and we've already told the next sector they're gonna have to sterilize for him until we find out.

9:06:49 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: O.K. thanks.

9:06:50 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: ID.

9:08:43 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: override line beeping.

9:08:54 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: line ringing.

9:09:27: AAL: and it was a Boston-L.A. flight and 77 is a Dulles-L.A.flight and uh we've had an unconfirmed report a second airplane just flew into the World Trade Center.

9:09:00 - AAL: American dispatch Jim McDonnel.

9:09:02 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector radar associate: Indianapolis Center did you get a hold of American 77 by chance?

9:09:05 - AAL: no sir but we have an unconfirmed report the second airplane hit the World Trade Center and exploded.

9:09:10 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: say again

9:09:11 - AAL: you know we lost American eleven to a highjacking American was off . . . Boston to Los Angeles flight.

9:09:17 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: It was all right I can't really I can't hear what you're saying there you said American eleven.

9:09:23 - AAL: yes we were hijacked.

9:09:25 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: and it -

9:09:27 - AAL: and it was a Boston-L.A. flight and 77 is a Dulles-L.A. flight and uh we've had an unconfirmed report a second airplane just flew into the World Trade Center.

9:09:42 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: thank you very much good bye.

9:10:30 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: calls Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate line beeps.

9:10:32 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: Indianapolis Control, Dacos.

9:10:34 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right this is Henderson there was an American eleven departed off of uh New York goinh to L.A. got hijacked American 77 departed off of Dulles is going to L.A. dispatch doesn't know where he's at and confirmed that two airplanes have been uh they crashed into uh the world trade center in New York so as far as American 77 we don't know where he is but they say uh American eleven was hijacked off of a new york airport going to lax and uh

9:11:07 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos PA: but we don't have a track on him.

9:11:07 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: affirmative.

9:11:10 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: you mean like they just took off without a clearance.

9:11:13 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: no you mean American eleven.

9:11:14 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: yep.

9:11:15 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: he he's depart well I guess he did because he was goin to L.A.

9:11:17 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: but nobody ever tracked American eleven is what i'm asking.

9:11:20 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: don't know that I don't.

9:11:22 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: oh O.K.

9:11:23 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: know just where he lefi from or uh.

9:11:25 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: there's no flight plan in the machine right now and -

9:11:28 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: yeah I just looked at that, too.

9:11:29 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: I'm

9:11:30 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: as far as what we know that's that's all we know I talked to dispatch and that's what they relayed and they confirmed it here that I guess two airplanes about crashed into the the trade center.

9:11:37 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: huh?

9:11:39 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right.

9:11:40 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: oh

9:11:40 - Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: oh

9:13:54 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: override line beeping.

9:14:04 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: line ringing.

9:14:37 - AAL: American dispatch Jim McDonnel.

9:14:39 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: Indy center here.

9:14:40 - AAL: yes sir.

9:14:42 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: American eleven you guys said he departed off of uh New York.

9:14:45 - AAL: Boston.

9:14:46 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: Boston he was going to L.A. and it was a hijacked airplane.

9:14:49 - AAL: yes.

9:14:50 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: and you have you heard anything from American 77.

9:14:52 - AAL: no.

9:14:52 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: O.K. and if.

9:14:53 - AAL: I talked to a winder in the center up there and I gave em them the information I got.

9:14:55 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: O.K. thanks a lot.

9:14:56 - AAL: O.K.

9:14:57 - Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: all right.

meer
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition.

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 04:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Staal heeft namelijk een vloeigrens. Deze grens wordt bij ongeveer 250 graden bereikt. Boven die grens verliest staal bijna al zijn mechanische eigenschappen. Gevolg, het gebouw stort in.

_{The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceed the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.}
de gemeten temperatuur in de KERN van de puinhoop 5 DAGEN LATER!!!, was hoger dan de maximale temperatuur van een kerosinebrand


wát was de brandstof dan?

volgens jou toch kerosine ?

léés op zn minst éérst de details voordat je met commentaar komt.



en het gebouw zou niet INstorten, maar Omvallen met het bovenste deel intact !

vraag maar eens na bij een architect !

[ Bericht 21% gewijzigd door Oversight op 01-08-2004 06:46:12 ]

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 05:06 schreef Boomstam het volgende:

[..]

Geen weldenkend mens laat 2000 mensen omkomen.
en ik ben van mening dat Bush het goede voor heeft voor de wereld

wie zegt dat Bush er ook maar iets over te zeggen heeft ?

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 04:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die iets ook maar iets van civiele technologie af weet slaat hierbij op zijn knieen van het lachen. Staal heeft namelijk een vloeigrens. Deze grens wordt bij ongeveer 250 graden bereikt. Boven die grens verliest staal bijna al zijn mechanische eigenschappen. Gevolg, het gebouw stort in.

steijn heeft 3 jaar Civiele Techniek gestudeerd.

steijn heeft kennelijk niet lang genoeg gestudeerd.

ja,... als je staal op een vaste plek langdurig blootstelt aan een temp van > 250 c dan zal het staal plaatselijk smelten....


NIET als je een kerosinebrand op een verdieping hebt, waarbij de kerosine ook nog een verdampt en voor een groot deel gassen aan de omgeving afstaat die al verbranden vóórdat ze ooit staal kunnen bereiken.

NIET gezien demaximale hoeveelheid kerosine die aanwezig zou kunnen zijn, zéfs als het vliegtuig zich met 100 % volle tanks in het gebouw zou hebben geboord.... ( wat zéker niet zo was. )

bij alle berekeningen in de modellen tot zover, zijn we uitgegaan van 100 % volle brandstoftanks, en kunnen we de situatie NIET nabootsen.

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 04:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Ah, daar hebben we dat prutsverhaal weer.

ach, schaapjes zullen er altijd zijn...

carriere in de politie overwogen ?

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 10:37 schreef Rasing het volgende:

[..]

'We'? De sites die je quote ja.

"WE" : een groepje geintreseerden dat tegenstrijdige informatie bekijkt en beoordeeld op feitelijke juistheid én waarschijnlijkheid.

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 13:14 schreef Viola_Holt het volgende:

[..]

het zal wel bijdragen aan het complot dat die filmpjes niet meer beschikbaar zijn

de filmjes zijn niet meer beschikbaar!

dit is een complot !

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 04:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Ah, daar hebben we dat prutsverhaal weer. Iedereen die iets ook maar iets van civiele technologie af weet slaat hierbij op zijn knieen van het lachen. Staal heeft namelijk een vloeigrens. Deze grens wordt bij ongeveer 250 graden bereikt. Boven die grens verliest staal bijna al zijn mechanische eigenschappen. Gevolg, het gebouw stort in.

nou ff serieus Steijn,...

kun jij dit uitleggen ???

verdacht
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition.

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 23:54 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

het bovenste deel kantelt ook maar daarna valt het door de rest heen
en de val energie die je over hebt bij het neerkomen van het gebouw moet ergens heen
die energie wordt bij het raken van de grond omgezet in vooral warmte staal geleidt beter dan steen dus neemt de hoofdmoot op en omdat de energie dan aleen over een klijne opervlakte afgevoerd zal worden duurt het darna wel even voordat het afgekoeld is

de tempratuur gemeten is dus niet de veroorzaakt door de kerosine

áls het bovenste deel kantelt kan het niet meer door de rest van het gebouw heenvallen...

Bij het plaatselijk smelten van één of twee zijden van het gebouw, zou het bovenste deel moeten omvallen en náást de voet van het gebouw neerkomen.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 00:01 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

vloei grens is geen smetpunt maar structuurovergang in het staal waardoor het het van een sterkere naar een zwakkerre structuur gaat
wat ook de reden is waarom bij smeden het stal meestal verwarmt wordt
[..]

... en jij kan dat proces dusdanig synchroon laten lopen in 4 verschillende kanten van een gebouw, zódanig dat het rechtstandig in elkaar zakt ?

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 00:01 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:


in alle praktijkvoorbeelden waarbij het gebouw bij brand bleef staan was er geen vliegtuig ingevlogen wat al plaatselijk het gebouw verzwakt heel toevalig in de richting waarin de top kantelt als het valt

't is al laat, maar deze snap ik niet....

je bedoeling ?

quote:

Op zondag 1 augustus 2004 23:43 schreef Mastertje het volgende:
Alle gebouwen die onderdeel waren van het WTC zijn opgeblazen, dat is toch wel duidelijk?

Alleen mensen die een beetje open staan voor dingen die ze niet verwachten begrijpen dit dus probeer vooral niet die personen die helemaal "vast" zitten te overtuigen, allemaal nutteloos.

lijkt me ook, maar ik begrijp niet dat deze feiten niet véél meer ophef veroorzaken....

is de mensheid écht zó mak ?

is dit "menselijke struisvogelgedrag" reden dat er ( om maar wat te noemen) ooit een hitler groot kon worden ?

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 00:16 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

als een deel van het gebouw beschadigt/wegvalt zal het punt waarover de top kantelt meer naar de andere kant van het gebouw verplaatsen

dús is rechtstandig instorten (als gevolg van dit zgn vliegtuig) ónmogelijk.... toch ?

en zéker in het geval van gebouw 7.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 00:31 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

nee want als het draai punt zich verder van de beschadigde kant zit komt er meer van de vallende top boven het gebouw ipv ernaast

draaipunt/ valhoek zal altijd náár de richting zijn waar de structuur van het staal het meest is aangetast, in dit geval de plek van inslag.

de top had dus náást het frame terecht moeten komen, al dan niet in delen.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 00:48 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

je kan niet draaien om een punt wat er niet meer is

dús draai(lees BUIG) je over een punt wat er niet meer is...

...anders zou het zijn afgebroken.

From: davidr@davidr.ne.mediaone.net
To: group
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing


Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. I hope other people actually are catching this, but I haven't seen anyone say it yet, so I guess I will. I guess being an engineer may make one more conscious of these things...

onafhankelijk gecontroleerd, dit klopt !

If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:

- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:

- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. Notice that neither plane impact does anything like break off a big hunk of building floors and send it crashing into the street. The WTC towers were specifically designed to survive a direct impact from a jumbo jet - which *both do*.

- The stories from the impact point up burn horribly. Note, fire moves upward, not downward.

- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.

- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.

- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. Anyone who saw the documentary on that horrid skyscraper fire in Philadelphia that led to the codes requiring sprinklers on every floor knows why. There's no way to get fire apparatus into a skyscraper effectively, so it needs to be designed into the structure - which it is. The water flows from the roof reservoirs down. Sprinklers can kill incredible infernos, and that's what these do.

- The fire in the second building goes out.

- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. The bottom does not crumble before the top. The burned out section crumbles also. The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.

In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is.

- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.

There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage - those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. Someone had to have had a lot of access to all of both towers and a lot of time to do this.

This is pretty grim. The really dire part is - what were the planes for? If you're going to demolish the building, what's the point of the flashy display?

The way they're cutting the footage on the news now makes it look like the buildings crumbled soon after being hit by the planes, which is not true. They've also started slowing the clips from after the demolition explosion starts, so you don't see the top of the building go first - but those who taped it, go back and look at the early first-run clips.

If, in a few days, not one official has mentioned anything about the demolition part, I think we have a REALLY serious problem.

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Oversight op 02-08-2004 01:16:44 ]

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 01:08 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

maar aan de andre kant zit de top van het gebouw nog vast dus zal het schanierpunt ergens tussen de overgebleven kolomen zitten als het de andere kant had opgevallen dan had de top nast het gebouw gelegen

dus we zijn het erover eens dat de inslag van een vliegtuig NIET een rechtstandig instorten KAN veroorzaken in dit geval ?


Watch the Sept11Videos carefully:
http://911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml

In one video, you can see the charges going off, and in another, the demolition squibs shooting out. The explosions are progressive, synchronized, and bring the buildings down in almost the free fall time.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 01:24 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]
Hoe hebben ze het voorelkar gekregen dat ze precies instorten van het punt war de vliegtuigen ingevlogen zijn?

dat hebben ze nou nét NIET !

- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. The bottom does not crumble before the top. The burned out section crumbles also. The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.

In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 01:41 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

...of als het zijn bedoeling was is hij gewoon briljant

óf er zat een grotere organisatie achter, zoals "insiders" uit de "informatie-wereld" al een tijdje proberen duidelijk te maken.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 02:24 schreef -Jay-20- het volgende:
Anders leer je zelf ff een verhaal te vertellen i.p.v. met taloze linkjes en lappen gekopieerde tekst te smijten....

anders leer je lezen, inschatten, beoordelen én controleren.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 02:31 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben geen expert op dat gebied maar het zou me niets verbazen als er inmiddels een verbeterde vorm van kerosine wordt gebruikt als vliegtuigbrandstof. Bijvoorbeeld met een hogere klopvastheid. Maar ik weer hier verder weinig vanaf.
[..]



Het feit dat deze bron het over smeltpunten heeft geeft al aan dat de bron niet deskundig is. Ieder bouwkundige/constructeur weet dat staal erg slecht tegen de hitte kan. Dat komt door de lage vloeigrens. De vloeigrens is een gebied waarbij een marginale toename van de spanning in een materiaal en zeer grote vervorming te weeg brengt. Dat is echt basiskennis. Die bron beschikt daar dus al op voorhand niet over.

[..]

Geloof je het zelf. Een voorwerp (in dit geval een van de Twin Towers) gaat pas kantelen als er een krachtenvector ontstaat in de x- of de y-richting (een xyz-assenstelsel) die het zwaartepunt van het voorwerp buiten de reele grenzen van het gebouw geduwt wordt. Als dat niet het geval is zal het gebouw kaarsrecht in elkaar zakken. Als je kijkt naar de omvang van het WTC moet er dus een forse krachtenvector onstaan wil het gebouw omvallen. Als ik de beelden van het instortende WTC bekijk dan zie ik nergens een aanleiding in om aan te nemen dat een dergelijke kracht onstaat. Het is dus zeer goed verklaarbaar dat het WTC recht in elkaar is gezakt.
[..]

Ik heb 2 ooms die architect zijn en zij zullen mij zeker steunen in dit standpunt. Het is namelijk gewoon waar.

1
ik ben ook geen expert op dat gebied, maar wel op gebied van brand en bestrijding.
Met de aanwezige brandstof ( zelfs al zou die qua klopvastheid stabieler zijn dan kerosine ) kun je in die hoeveelheid NIET LANG GENOEG de >250 C temp bereiken, simpelweg omdat de mengverhoudingen brandbare stof/ zuurstof/ katalysator dat onmogelijk maken.
( uitgaand van een werkende sprinklerinstalatie op hogergelegen etage's dan brandhaard/ punt van inslag.)
( hetgeen bevestigd is )

2
Onzin
Bron heeft het over smeltPUNT omdat vloeigrens niet bereikt wordt, aangezien koeling door sproeinevel wordt gegarandeerd.
Tijdens bouw werd rekening gehouden met het feit dat het onmogelijk is om tijdig blusmiddelen hoog in het gebouw te krijgen, dus werden deze bouwkundige maatregelen ingebouwd en op werking gecontroleerd.
Het smelten van staal, lager gelegen dan de brandhaard is niet mogelijk als je weet dat de hoeveelheid brandstof die nodig zou zijn om dit te bereiken er simpelweg niet was.

3

Ik wil graag toekijken als jij een boom omkapt.

het deel boven punt van inslag, zou bij smelten van de stalen framekolom ombuigen náár de richting waar het niet meer ondersteund wordt....
probeer maar eens in het klein, of laat er een simulatie op los...

4
óók afgestudeerde en "praktiserend" architect nabij,... ( mijn broer )
bewijs ons ongelijk, en doe ons er een plezier mee....

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 02:39 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Niet lang genoeg voor een diploma ja, maar wel lang genoeg om enige mechanica en constructiekennis op te doen. Zouden die bronnen van jou ook eens moeten doen.
[..]

Zoals ik eerder aangaf geeft iedereen het woord smelten in deze kwestie gebruikt een brevet van onvermogen af.
[..]

Een brandstof kan pas branden als de hoeveelheid zuurstof voldoende is om deze verbranding te laten plaatsvinden. De kerosine moet dus eerste verdampen/vernevelen voordat het kan branden. Duik trouwens nog eens in de natuurkundeboeken van je middelbare school, dan kun je lezen dat geleiding slecht 1 van de 3 drie mogelijkheden is om warmte te transporteren.
[..]

Ik heb helemaal geen modellen nodig. Zoals je op de diverse beelden hebt kunnen zien is het een groot inferno. De temperatuur waarop staal begint te vloeien (250) graden wordt dus eenvoudig bereikt.

lees nou even alle feiten, voordat je denkt te kunnen weten wat je ziet.

FEIT is dat het "inferno" wat jij beschrijft NIET kán zijn ontstaan met de aanwezige hoeveelheid brandstof.

bereiken van 250 c, en direct erna afkoelen tot omgevingsbrand kán dus niet zorgen voor het bereiken van SMELTPUNT/ vloeigrens van de stalen kolommen.

zéker niet als er inslag is aan 1 zijde van een gebouw, waarna de hitte gelijkmatig wegvloeit.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 03:13 schreef -Jay-20- het volgende:

[..]

Ga nou niet eikelen. Het is al 100 maal voor gekomen dat topics gesloten zijn omdat de poster alleen maar met linkjes en gekopieerde tekst liep te smijten. Dat is gewoon een feit en hoeft verder dus ook niet over gedisscusieerd worden. -punt-

heb je inhoudelijk nog iets bij te dragen ?

het is al 1000 maal voorgekomen dat een user geband werd omdat ie offtopic bleef blaten.

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 03:31 schreef -Jay-20- het volgende:

[..]

...omdat je dat dat dus niet doet dwing je mij er toe om offtopic over de inhoud van jouw post te "blaten"....

ik ben écht goed he ?

quote:

Op maandag 2 augustus 2004 16:14 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
hoe kan het dat het gebouw zo *snel* instorte is ook de vraag
terwijl er zoveel staalconstructie , gigantische stalen balken dus , het naar beneden storten tegen hielden

de wtc was in de TOP geraakt , hoe kan de TOP die veel minder weegt , dan alles wat eronder zit , nu het hele pand in laten storten , recht naar beneden , met een maximale snelheid dat mogelijk is.

dit KAN niet zonder dat er explosieven zijn gebruikt.

... inderdaad, KÁN NIET ANDERS ZIJN GEBEURD.

quote:

punt 2 :

de hitte was zo intens dat stalen pilaren die het gebouw onder in de grond stonden.
DOORGEBRAND WAREN , terwijl dit niet met een vlam gebeurt die boven ni de toren hangt
(half buiten de toren zels , en daarbij , was de rook zwart , wat duid op dat er veel aan tapijt bureaus plastic en weet ik het wat voor matriaal aan het smeulbranden is , de vlammen sloegen er niet uit. feit.
mensen konden de stalen constructie vasthouden , er zijn opnames van mensen die in de opening stonden en dat deden.
hoe kan het dan dat de torens boven doorgebrand moeten zijn en naar beneden kwamen?
de torens hadden nooit gevallen. dit is een zwaar F E I T.
alleen in hollywood films vallen de torens door een vliegtuig inslag. op deze manier.

iets heeft die torens naar beneden gehaalt , van onder af aan.

juist ! én het verhaal van smelten door hittetransport dóór de balken heen is óók al volledig achterhaald.

de sprinklerinstallaties hebben op volle toeren staan draaien tot moment van instorten, dit blijkt uit alle transcripts van de portofoon en telefoongesprekken van de hulpdiensten die ter plaatse waren.

_{als een sprinkler systeem werkt, dan kán de hitte niet zo hoog oplopen.}

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2004 03:12 schreef Steijn het volgende:

Het is dus volstrekt verklaarbaar dat het gebouw recht in elkaar is gezakt.
[..]

DÓE dat dan eens, zónder je te verbergen achter technische termen die de meeste users hier niet begrijpen....

leg nou eens in 10 zinnen,.. én in je eigen woorden uit hoe het mogelijk was.

dan kan IEDEREEN meepraten !




...en als je tóch bezig bent, verklaar dan gelijk even hoe het kan dat gebouw 7 uren na de impact, én ZONDER te zijn geraakt door vliegtuig of brokstukken tóch op DEZELFDE WIJZE rechtstandig instorte ?

[ Bericht 7% gewijzigd door Oversight op 03-08-2004 22:04:54 ]

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2004 02:17 schreef Yakult het volgende:

...knip...(wat mij waarschijnlijker lijkt) en je voert de berekening nog een keer uit, dan kom je al op +/- 500 graden. Tel daarbij de temperatuur van een normale brand en je komt al boven de duizend graden uit.

klinkt aannemelijk.

maar het is niet zo dat 2x de hoeveelheid verwachtte brandstof, ook de temperatuur zou verdubbelen.

wél zou de bereikte temperatuur 2x zo lang aanwezig blijven.

gezien het bewijs uit de sprinklerinstallatie, kun je het oplopen van de temperatuur én de hitte-doorgifte aan het stalen frame UIT-sluiten....


in alle berekeningen gaan we uit van 100% volle tanks om alle sceptici van repliek te dienen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2004 22:20 schreef Yakult het volgende:

[..]

Djiez, zonder vette letters kunnen we het ook lezen hoor Komt nu een beetje over of je in geestesnood bent en niet meer weet wie je moet geloven (zie ook je topic 'expert gezocht')
Dat het gebouw recht naar beneden is ingestort is plausibel. Zoek maar die pancake theorie op die baajguardian noemt, zijn genoeg annimaties van. Enig probleem daarbij is de snelheid van het neerstorten van het gebouw. Een mogelijke verklaring daarvoor is de impuls theorie, lees er anders over op de site van Kijk, misschien dat je dat begrijpt:
http://www.kijk.nl/artikel.jsp?art=2833
Niemand weet of de sprinklers hun werk hebben kunnen doen op de verdiepingen van de inslag. Als ze al hebben gewerkt dan hebben ze niet veel uit kunnen richten door de kerosinebrand (die installatie was ontworpen voor een normale brand).

In dit topic praat je regelmatig over 'feiten' en 'het KÁN niet anders', let daar maar een beetje op.

ik héb het ook over feiten.

ik zal er voor jou specifieke bronnen over posten, ff geduld, wordt wat zoeken.
heb het over gepubliceerde uitgetypte verslagen van geluidsbanden van communicatiemiddelen van hulpdiensten.

hieruit blijkt dat de sprinkler op etage´s ONDER de inslag en brandhaard GOED zn werk deed, en vooraf berekende temperatuurgrenzen werden gehandhaafd.
het inzakken op later moment kan dus niet door aantasting van het stalen frame (door hittegeleiding van hogergelegen vuur) zijn ontstaan, op een dúsdanige manier als de beelden laten zien.

rest volgt

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 00:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Oke, heel simpel, en als je dan niet overtuigd bent dan gooi ik verder de handdoek in de ring. Pak een lineaal van bijvoorbeeld 40 centimeter. Leg deze op de tafelrand en schuif hem er langzaam over heen. Als de lineaal 10 centimeter uit de tafelrand steekt dan ligt dus nog keurig stabiel op zijn plaats. Dit is ook logisch want het grootste deel van de lineaal ligt nog op tafel.

Nu schuif je hem door naar 20 centimeter. De lineaal is dan precies in evenwicht. Je kunt hem in alle standen zetten zonder dat hij valt. Ook dit is weer logisch want aan allebei de kanten van de tafelrand zit 20 centimeter van de lineaal. Hij is dan dus in evenwicht en dus is 20 cm precies het zwaartepunt.

Nu schuif je hem een centimetertje verder zodat hij voor 21 centimeter uitsteekt en voor 19 cm op de tafel ligt. Ieder kind weet wat er nu gebeurd, hij valt. Logisch het zwaartepunt lag immers op 20 centimeter, deze is buiten de tafelrand gekomen dus dan valt hij. En lees nu mijn vorige stukje nog maar een rustig door. :')

tot zover helemaal mee eens.

nu zetten we de lineaal van 40 CM lang, 2 CM breed, en 2 MM dik RECHTOP in het zand, zodat je boven het zand alléén nog 35 CM zichtbaar hebt.

nu nemen we een hapje uit de lineaal, 10 cm onder de top.

stel je even voor dat ter hoogte van het hapje het plastic heel heet werd en smolt.

valt de top dan dwars door een NIET heet geworden stuk plastig heen en rechtstandig omlaag ?

met in je achterhoofd dat de WTC uit 4 zijden bestond ?

knip

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 01:07 schreef Mastertje het volgende:
Jongens, je hoeft er niet eens voor te rekenen.

* Brandweermannen hoorden explosies in het gebouw net voordat het instortte.
* Er stonden mensen in het gat waar het vliegtuig ingeslagen had (temperaturen waren normaal)
* Videobeelden tonen kleine rookpufjes uit het gebouw onder de inslag net voor de implosie.
* Het gebouw viel te snel in elkaar, er moet een vacuum gekreerd zijn in het gebouw zelf.
* Alles was verpulverd, van beton tot aluminium.
* De temperatuur die de dagen na het instorten gemeten zijn, zijn veel te hoog voor kerosine oid.
* Al het bewijsmateriaal is gelijk ingenomen en "gerecycled".

eindelijk een zinnige post.

maar niet ál het bewijs....

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 01:10 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Dat is knappend staal en beton. Ik heb tijdens een practicum diverse trek en drukproeven gedaan met beton en staal. Als dat barst (beton test je onder druk) of knapt (staal test je meestal op trek) dan geeft dat een zeer harde knal.

_{deze was bijna een ban waard}


maar,....

quote:

Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2004 03:12 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Begrijp het nu toch eens. De vloeigrens van een materiaal heeft volstrekt niets maar dan ook echt helemaal niets met het smeltpunt van een stof te maken. Het enige dat je met vaste zekerheid kunt stellen is dat de vloeigrens onder het smeltpunt van een stof ligt. Bij staal ligt dat om en nabij de 250 graden Celcius. En dat staat in de diverse (wetenschappelijke) literatuur die over staal gaan.

De vloeigrens is dus de grens waarop het staal bij een marginale toename van de spanning een grote vervorming ondergaat. De vervorming zorgt weer voor te hoge spanningen in andere delen van de constructie en alles stort dus als een kaartenehuis in elkaar.
[..]

en dan met een herhaling in gebouw 7 ???

8 uur na de inslagen.

in een gebouw wat NIET werd geraakt ?

óók rechtstandig ingezakt

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 00:45 schreef Steijn het volgende:


Alles wat ik in deze draad heb getikt zijn trouwens mijn eigen woorden.

de mijne worden ingegeven .....

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 01:20 schreef Mastertje het volgende:
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/nothtower/collaps_north_tower.htm

Als je daar even naar wilt kijken, zie je toch wel een paar rare rookwolken en explosies die uit de middenstukken van het gebouw komt?

Is dat ook bij een instorting?

en kijk vooral óók even op de volgende pagina van die site.

daar staat de collaps van WTC 7.





mis alléén nog de vermelding dat er géén gevaar voor de volksgezondheid was......

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 01:36 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het altijd een mooi gezicht als een gebouw kaarsrecht in elkaar zakt. Ik moest toch eens gaan kijken bij een gebouw dat pyrotechnisch gesloopt wordt.

maar verder volkomen logich voor een gebouw dat NIET door een vlieg of ander tuig werd geraakt toch ?

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 03:04 schreef Steeven het volgende:

[..]

Lol bewijs? Dat zijn geen bewijzen, anders had het allang in de krant gestaan.

de krant !

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 11:08 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

Zecht Gij hiermee dat ge niet weet wat het geluid van brekend staal en beton is?
reken maar dat het een flinke klap geeft

nee, dat zeg ik niet.

ik zeg dat dat geluid NIET een gebouw 100 meter verderop rechtstandig kan laten instorten.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 12:46 schreef Yakult het volgende:
Oversight, heb je je berekening al gevonden?

ik ga ONZE uitkomstenvoor je posten, maar heb er weinig haast met zoeken naar het specifieke deel,..

voor mij zijn dat namelijk al FEITEN, omdat ze zijn berekend aan de hand van bewezen variabelen, zoals de 100% inhoud van de brandstoftanks.

we zijn in onze berekeningen uitgegaan van 100% volle tanks, zodat er niet achteraf misverstanden kunnen ontstaan, of scepici kunnen komen huilen over hoeveelheid brandstof...

alle brandstof die het toestel dan MINDER bleek te hebben op het moment van inslag, maakt de waarschijnlijkheid van eerder gemelde vermoedens alléén maar vérder onmogelijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 12:48 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

was dat het punt
er wordt de link gelecht mensen hoorde knallen die leken op het ontploffen van explosieven
en dat dit het bewijs zou zijn dat er explosieven zijn gebruikt

het andere gebouw heeft hier niks mee te maken

{IF}
discussion isn't clear
{GOTO OP}
{ENDIF}
eof.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 14:17 schreef TrenTs het volgende:

[..]

Dat is altijd wat mij zo tegenstaat bij die TRU topics; die theorieën zijn altijd erg vermakelijk en soms boeiend maar posts van 6 A4-tjes en 30 links er onder zijn gewoon niet leuk meer. Een synopsis van een website zou het stukken aantrekkelijker maken, zeker voor hen onder ons die graag nog meer doen op een dag, zoals ik.

LUI KRENG !

niet de feiten willen lezen, maar wél meeblaaten ?

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 17:13 schreef Boomstam het volgende:

[..]

aliens bestaan niet, lees de bijbel der maar in het geheel op na

er staat nergens in de bijbel dat aliens niet bestaan.

er staat ook nergens in dat ze NIET bestaan..

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 12:46 schreef Yakult het volgende:
Oversight, heb je je berekening al gevonden?

Part I
by J. McMichael

_{Some of the sources have departed since this essay was originally published on October 21, 2001. Where I could find substitutes I have indicated them with the word "or" and a reference to an alternative copy.
This revision was published November 25, 2001.}



I tried to be patriotic.
I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened. And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the remote control and staring at the flickering images on the TV screen.

But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second Millennium mindset.

But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance.

Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50 a.m.;
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html)
Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc
Geographic information for WTC given at http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html



North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen — or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/ne(...)C58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html)

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel see http://www.webelements.co(...)s/text/Fe/heat.html, http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html).

(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm.)

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building — 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html).

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.

Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/(...)_1540000/1540044.stm or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews): "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C — hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F) (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake — 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm.)

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements — floor trusses and columns — so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel — though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam).

I feel it coming on again — that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline.

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm, http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html).



Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/(...)_1540000/1540044.stm or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews)
and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf).
Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space
BBC News Image (left) is misleading:
A "beam" is always horizontal, "columns" are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.
The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.
The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts



Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#system).


The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings(...)ya_WTC_const.4.gbi). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.


This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity — particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).


According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olm(...)ade_structure300.gif or http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.


Images cached from PsyOpNews:
The Split-Second Error

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg or http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg).

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg).

This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olm(...)thecollapseap150.jpg or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg).

Whatever irregularities caused the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 250 ft high) falling 1000 feet onto the buildings below.

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR).

I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.

This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.

But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air — as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.

Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.

Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks — nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.

The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures — it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.



The University of Sydney — Department of Civil Engineering

And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust — with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/thirdexplosion.jpg).

What has happened here?



I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell — has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.



In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed.

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg or http://www.serendipity.li(...)xafter_closeup.jpg).

I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with — the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.

Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as — spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews).

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower — despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.(...)/rubble_ny091101.htm or http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog).

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario — the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building — phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events — apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why)
In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium — a galloping case of perfect hindsight?

Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam).
Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.

I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR).
There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm, then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location — see copy at http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal.)

But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:

Other buildings — including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] — caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/(...)_1540000/1540044.stm or http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/index.html#why)
(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg or http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg).

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.

I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.

And I believe all Americans are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.

Hand me that remote, will you? I believe <clonk>. I believe <clonk>. I believe ...


voor alle pics en links zie http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 19:01 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt volkomen gelijkt.

LUI KRENG !

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 19:04 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Probeer het een anders te doen, type eens een tekst in je eigen woorden. Gewoon net zoals ik dat meestal doe. Dat geeft in ieder geval aan dat je je zelf ook in de materie hebt verdiept. Pak de hoofdpunten uit een tekst en som deze op. Dit is prutswerk.

Overigens mis ik iets in deze berekening, waar zijn de cijfers en gebruikte formules? Dat lijkt me toch essentieel in een berekening.

dat heb je wel eens als je de links niet bekijkt.....

succes met zoeken !

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 19:09 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben niet lui. Jij bent lui. Als je mensen wil overtuigen zul je een samenvatting moeten maken. Ik kan in 3 alinea's uitleggen waarom het WTC recht in elkaar is gezakt, datzelfde moet mogelijk zijn voor die brandstof berekening.

In dit hele topic heb ik nog geen enkele uitleg in je eigen woorden gevonden. En dat maakt je ongeloofwaardig.

we gaan geen herhalingen posten!

bronnen zijn vermeld, en FEITEN zijn overgenomen.

lees de feiten of ..

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 19:31 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

een hoop links zijn schijnbaar al een tijdje overleden

mogelijk zijn enkele orginele inmiddels uit de lucht.

alle links vanuit de OP hebben een "local-copy" op onze servers.... zie verwijzing naar local-copy's op http://911review.org/Wiki/FrontPage.shtml

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 20:51 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

ja dus hij's volgens zichzelf een patriot moet ditzijn verhaal meer authoriteit of waarheid geven?

stukje achtergrond, zodat hij niet voor moslimactivist wordt uitgemaakt.

quote:

maar het gaat niet om smeltpunt maar om het vloeipunt

waarvan het grote verschil in GEVOLGEN zou zijn dat: _geen

quote:

en niet om het gebouw maar om 1 verdieping en dan vooral 1 kant

dus nóg onwaarschijnlijker !!!!

quote:

valt opzich wel mee heb ooit ieds moeten smeden en ongeveer 40 cm van het roodgloeinde punt kon ik het gewoon vastpakken

dat was vast ijzer en geen staal, maar point plijft gelijk,... smelttheorie lijkt onzin

quote:

nee maar het is wel een mooie tempratuur om bij te smeden omdat het het grootste deel van z'n sterkte kwijt is

inderdaad ! maar alléén heel erg plaatselijk, niet doorlopend 80 verdiepingen omlaag.

quote:

nee als je staal smeed voor grote machine onderdelen is het waarschijnlijk sterker dan staal wat meestal in constricties wordt gebruikt omdat de constructie ook redelijk flexibel moet zijn

dus ?

quote:

mischien is de term vloei en smelt wel door elkaar gehaald

zou eigenlijk geen reeel verschil opleveren.

quote:

oe cynisme wat leuk

quote:

om in de tijd dat het gebouwd was de 2 wtc torens zo hoog te krijgen maar niet met een enorm brede kolom in het midden zoals veel wolkenkrabbers hebben is de kracht netjse verdeelt over de binneste kolom en de kolomen aan de buitenkant

quote:

klinkt heel goed mogelijk met een ik hou het zo simpel mogelijk voor tv uitleg

quote:

ik zou eerder denken dat ze zich wel aan de eisen houden maar met over engineering krijgt het gebouw teveel gewicht kun je minder hoog bouwen wat juist de hele bedoeling was en het is natuurlijk goedkoper

toen ook al ?

quote:

dit klinkt meer als de veiligheids factor voor een lift

5 lettergrepen

quote:

als je eenmaal voorbij het breekpunt bent zal er weing tijd zijn om zulke dingen te zien

quote:

als een hol blok van dat voormaat van die hoogte op de grond komt zal er ook veel van overblijven ja
[..]

quote:

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events — apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

quote:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination."

In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Oversight op 04-08-2004 21:51:54 ]

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 21:51 schreef Steijn het volgende:

[..]

Inderdaad.

quote:

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2004 21:50 schreef Boomstam het volgende:

[..]

En ik vindt dat ie daar trots op mag zijn. Om met zoveel geduld uitleg te geven waar de tekst poster het laat afweten.

of waar jouw grijze vermogen het laat afweten wellicht ?