Former Bush Team Member About WTC Collapse

quote:

Op zondag 12 juni 2005 23:20 schreef tong_poh het volgende:
weer dit verhaal. Alleen vertelt nu iemand anders weer hetzelfde conspiracy theory.

Ik heb meer wetenschappelijk bewijs gezien op documentaires die goed aangeven waarom de twin towers zijn ingestort, dan bewijs dat het door explosieven komt.

Hun onderbouwen hun meningen alleen maar met dingen zoals: dat kan niet en dat is nooit eerder gebeurd of dat is daarna nooit meer gebeurd. Dat ze eens met echt bewijs aan komen zetten

quote:

Op zondag 12 juni 2005 23:31 schreef MDF het volgende:

[..]

Er is meer bewijs voor een conspiracy dan die kleuter docu's van Discovery.

Je moet echt wel volstrekt naief zijn om de officiële versie te geloven.

Oh ja........ Sinterklaas bestaat ook!

quote:

Op zondag 12 juni 2005 23:53 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
tong_poh, als er solid evidence was stond de wereld al lang op z'n kop he. They are still gathering it.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 00:01 schreef tong_poh het volgende:

[..]

Er komt geen solid evidence, want die bestaat niet. Kun je wachten totdat je een ons weegt.

Er is naar mijn mening wel genoeg evidence om de bestaande officiële verhaal te verifiëren.

quote:

Op zondag 12 juni 2005 23:48 schreef tong_poh het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou willen zeggen: Kom maar op met dat bewijs!

Maar ik heb zowat alles hierover gelezen. Er is geen sluitend bewijs voor die conspiracy. Ik kan ook allemaal lulverhaaltjes op internet gaan zetten en dan "onderbouwen" met allerlei quasi wetenschappelijke of intellectuele "bewijsmateriaal" Het zijn dan merendeel mensen met een geringe wetenschappelijke kennis en logische denkvermogen en en een honger hebben naar een conspiracy die hierin geloven.

Waarom dat laatste zinnetje over Sinterklaas? Waar slaat dat nou op? Dat is weer een typisch antwoord van iemand die zwak staat in de discussie.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 01:38 schreef MDF het volgende:

[..]

In mijn ogen zijn de mensen die in de officiële versie geloven een kudde schapen, wiens vermogen tekort schiet om inconsistenties waar te nemen.

Er is ook een grote groep mensen die het liefst in sprookjes geloven en denken dat de boze heksen een verzinsel zijn.

WAKKER WORDEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 01:42 schreef MUUS het volgende:

[..]

De mensen die die officiele dingen geloven zijn schapen.
De mensen die andere dingen geloven zijn paranoïde, doorgeslagen idioten.
De mensen die afwegen en geen keuze maken, zijn besluiteloze sufferds.

Zo, hebben we dat weer gehad en dan kunnen we nu misschien normaal praten met elkaar? Dat geschreeuw is nergens voor nodig. Iedereen mag denken wat hij wil. .

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 02:35 schreef MDF het volgende:

[..]

Mensen die de officiële theorie aanhangen, komen hier alleen maar om te bashen.

De enige info van hun zijde hebben we al tot in den treuren via de reguliere media mogen aanhoren.

Alleen een idioot kan na het zien van Loose Change, the power of nightmares, confronting the evidence, enz.... nog zeggen dat het 19 kapers met stanleymesjes waren.

Met dat soort schapen ga ik niet in discussie.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 11:02 schreef Hallulama het volgende:

[..]

Schade, ja, die is lastig, maar het schijnt dat er in de geschiedenis van de mensheid slechts 3 wolkenkrabbers zijn ingestort door een brand, WTC1, WTC2 en WTC7.

Wat de schade betreft, daarover discussiëren de diverse experts nog immer.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 11:26 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
en die vloog een stuk langzamer zegt ie...
omg , man ga even naar www.chat ofzo , daar zit jou intelligenie niveau
kthx doei tong poh

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 11:33 schreef tong_poh het volgende:

[..]

Leg eens uit! En waarom begin je te schelden zonder een discussie aan te gaan. Dat getuigt naar mijn mening niet naar enig vorm van intelligentie.

Weet jij uberhaupt wat een B25 is? Hoe snel denk je dat die vliegen? En dan moet je er ook nog eens over nadenken, dat de B25 ook nog niet snel vloog vanwege de mist en omdat hij niet aan het vliegen was om zoveel mogelijk schade te leveren aan een gebouw.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 11:30 schreef Chewie het volgende:

[..]

Deze reactie getuigd van een hoog intelligentieniveau

Baaj wat doe jij hier eigenlijk nog? Discusieren doe je niet want dat is niet aan ons (schapen) niet besteed en je reakties lijken alleen nog maar te bestaan uit dit soort beledigingen en gebash.

Typisch gevalletje van 'wie de schoen past trekke hem aan'

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 12:14 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

waar zie jijj schelden?

snelheid heeft met het gewicht van een vliegtuig niet zoveel verschil in schade
of het nu 400 kmph tegen een gebouw aan ketst
of met 100 kmph

de gebouwen in de 2e wereldoorlog waren trouwens ook niet zo sterk gebouwd als in deze tijd

dus als je gaat vergelijken , man get a life

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 13:06 schreef -Beestje- het volgende:

[..]

dus de impact van een b25 is te vergelijken met een ongeveer 10 keer zoveel wegende en sneller vliegende 767?

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 13:11 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

deze schaap snapt het woord vergelijking dus ook al niet blijkbaar

B25 > 1940 gebouwtje , zonder protectie

boeing > 2000+ gebouwtje , met protectie door het hele gebouw heen

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 13:28 schreef Enyalius het volgende:
heb nooit begrepen waarom het iemand boeit dat ze neergehaald zijn. ze zijn weg so what

maar kan iemand dat es uitleggen waarom dit 9/11 gebeuren zo interesant en "belangrijk" is?

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 12:14 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

en zelf als het alleen het vliegtuig was geweest dat het deed , hoe kunnen mensen dan in de openning het staal vasthouden wat (om het te laten instorten > hitte , officiele versie , zonder de handen kapot te fikken

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 02:35 schreef MDF het volgende:

[..]

Mensen die de officiële theorie aanhangen, komen hier alleen maar om te bashen.

De enige info van hun zijde hebben we al tot in den treuren via de reguliere media mogen aanhoren.

Alleen een idioot kan na het zien van Loose Change, the power of nightmares, confronting the evidence, enz.... nog zeggen dat het 19 kapers met stanleymesjes waren.

Met dat soort schapen ga ik niet in discussie.

quote:

The audio presented here is a recording of the firefighter's tapes on September 11th that have been released publically. A lot of the portions of the tapes have been classified. This portion lasts an hour and thirteen minutes, we have highlighted the interesting parts below with full transcripts. According to the Port Authority, this recording covers approximately 8:45 to 9:58 AM Eastern./quote]

[quote[9:25 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four Scott. What, what floor are you on?"

Ladder 15 Irons: "Forty-eight right now."

Ladder 15: "Alright, we're coming up behind you."
Now skip another six minutes to 45:52 and listen:
9:31 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Battalion Seven, you want me to relay?"

Ladder 15: "Yeah, Steve tell Chief Palmer they got reports that there's more planes in the area, we may have to back down here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Ten-four."

"Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Steve. Seven to Seven Alpha."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof."

"Fifteen Roof."

Ladder 15: "We got reports of another incoming plane. We may have to take cover. Stay in the stairwell."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof. That plane's ours. I repeat. It's ours. What floor are you on, Scotty?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifty-four."

Ladder 15: "Alright. Keep making your way up. We're behind you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

The officers then describe where they are headed, where they believe the fires to be...
Now skip to 54:02...
9:37 a.m.
Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Tommy, listen carefully. I'm sending all the injured down to you on 40. You're going to have to get'em down to the elevator. There's about 10 to 15 people coming down to you."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Okay."

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Ten civilians coming down. Fifteen to OV."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Got that, I'm on 40 right now, Lieu."

9:39 a.m.

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Alright Tommy, when you take people down to the lobby, try to get an EMS crew back."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Definitely."
Now skip to 57:20...
9:43 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what's your progress?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Sixty-three, Battalion."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."

Battaltion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go ahead Battaltion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I couldn't find a bank to bring you up any highter. I'm on the 40th floor, what can I do for you?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "We're going to have to hoof it. I'm on 69 now, but we need a higher bank, kay."

Battalion Nine Chief: "What stairway you in Orio?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "The center of the building, boy, boy."

"Tac One to Tac One Alpha."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15 Roof, what floor?"

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I'm going to try and get a couple of CFRD engines on the 40th floor so send any victims down here, I'll start up a staging area."

Battalion Seven Chief: "...find a fireman service elevator close to 40, if we get some more cars in that bank, we'll be alright."
Now skip to 01:02:40. This is where the fires are discovered and described as "two isolated pockets"
9:48 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."

Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."

9:49 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 OV. Fifteen to 15 OV.

"Fifteen OV."

Ladder 15: "Tommy, have you made it back down to the lobbby yet?"

Ladder 15 OV: "The elevator's screwed up."

Ladder 15: "You can't move it?"

Ladder 15 OV: "I don't want to get stuck in the shaft."

9:50 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Alright Tommy. It's imperative that you go down to the lobby command post and get some people up to 40. We got injured people up here on 70. If you make it to the lobby command post see if they can somehow get elevators past the 40th floor. We got people injured all the way up here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Battaltion Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Go Steve."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Yeah Chief, I'm on 55, I got to rest. I'll try to get up there as soon as possible."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four."


9:50 a.m.
"Anybody see the highway one car? Highway one car we need it for an escort to the hospital for a fireman."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

"15 Irons."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof and Irons."

Battalion Six Chief: "Battalion Six to command post."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."


9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha for Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "South tower, Steve, south tower, tell them...Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

"Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifteen Roof to 15. We're on 71. We're coming right up."
Now skip to 01:11:22...
9:57 a.m.
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Operations Tower One to floor above Battalion Nine."

Battalion Nine Chief: "Battalion Nine to command post."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."

Ladder 15 OV: "Fifteen OV to Fifteen."

Ladder 15: "Go ahead Fifteen OV, Battalion Seven Operations Tower One."

Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to get a difference elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Radio lobby command with that Tower One."

9:58 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

(END OF TAPE)
These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

quote:

One-Time GOP Insider Claims He Has Sept. 11 ‘Smoking Gun’

Architect of GOP Resurgence Says Boeing 737, not 767, Struck South WTC Tower


By Greg Szymanski

A former Republican Party insider turned Bush basher thinks he has stumbled across what may be the “smoking gun,” proving the U.S. government’s official story about the WTC attacks is an “unequivocal lie.”

Karl Schwarz of Little Rock, Ark., who several years ago began exposing corruption amongst the neo-conservative movement in a book entitled A One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, now has set his sights on proving government complicity in 9-11.

For years, the successful business entrepreneur and conservative Republican, once asked by the RNC to run against Bill Clinton for Arkansas governor, has been using his inside political and business clout to expose corruption among the neo-cons in the Bush administration.

He strayed away from the Bush agenda two years after being one of the lead orchestrators in the Republican Party takeover of Congress during the Clinton administration.

“I designed the strategy that took the House and Senate from Clinton,” recalls Schwarz, also a strong supporter and strategist for President George H. W. Bush. “I designed that takeover two years before I realized the Republican ‘Contract with America’ was actually a ‘Contract on America.’ ”

After his political reawakening, Schwarz began blasting the neo-cons where it hurt most—in their pocketbooks—coming forward with evidence regarding oil deals and government involvement with the Taliban and Pakistan.

In his book and his ongoing seven-part series of articles entitled “Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble,” he provides inside information about countless financial scams, essentially revealing that the Bush motive behind the Middle East invasion was more about oil profits than the war on terrorism.

Saying the neo-cons within the government are destroying America for their own corporate-global benefits, Schwarz doesn’t mince words and is calling for the impeachment of Bush, as well as removal of any member of Congress who aids and abets the corrupt powers.

Now, moving away from financial corruption, he has turned his attention to the 9-11 truth movement, saying he has found a piece of obscure video footage that shows that the government lied about what type of plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

Schwarz admits he had a “whole lot” of luck when running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion.

Contained in the film unrelated to 9-11, is a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower.

“We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service,” said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. “We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.

“This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.”

Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.

“Not even two CFM56’s could get a 767 off the ground,” added Schwartz.
Besides 9-11, Schwartz said three major areas that need to be thoroughly investigated regarding the Bush administration’s present policies include:

• Administration ties with Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bridas Corp. Schwarz claims a high-ranking Bridas executive is one of his main sources, implicating the Bush administration with corruption involving the Taliban and the Afghan invasion.

• Information implicating 9-11 commission members with direct and indirect financial benefits due to the Bush policies in the Middle East.

“Whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds, Karen Kwiatkowski and others whom I cannot disclose without jeopardizing their safety, including many members of the armed services, have acted as my main sources,” said Schwarz.

Asked how he would describe himself, since many critics may consider him a disgruntled Republican, he said:

“I am conservative, fiscally responsible, an ecumenical Christian and an American patriot who clearly understands fascism and clearly sees this is exactly what is going on within the Bush administration.

“To answer my critics, they can say whatever. However, those who read my book will clearly see that the main problem now facing America has been caused and amplified by the last three presidential administrations, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.”


Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

quote:

The original choice of (Boeing 737-100) powerplant was the Pratt & Whitney
JT8D-1, but before the first order had been finalised the JT8D-7 was used
for commonality with the 727.

The sole powerplant for all 737's after the -200 is the CFM-56.

quote:

Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's


The above graphic from FEMA's report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 2 Although a 767 has a slightly wider body than a 707, its overall size, weight, and fuel capacity are very similar to a 767-200 -- the type of jet that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were.

property Boeing 707-340
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2
length 152.92 ft
cruise speed 607 mph

property Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 395,000 lbs
empty weight 179,080 lbs
wingspan 156.08 ft
wing area 3050 ft^2
length 159.17 ft
cruise speed 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Like all Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers were Over-Engineered


One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the remaining columns.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack. 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

1. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached]
2. Chapter 2: WTC 1 and WTC 2, WTC Building Performance Study,
3. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 [cached]

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 12:14 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

waar zie jijj schelden?
[quote]

omg, man ga even naar www.chat ofzo, daar zit jou intelligentie niveau. Ik vind dat anders best wel gescheld. Omdat ik lijnrecht tegenover je sta, noem je mij dom. Dat doe jij in elke discussie. Ik kan ook zeggen dat ik jou 1 van de domste mensen op aarde bent, maar dat bewijs je zelf al dag in dag uit op deze forum
[quote]
snelheid heeft met het gewicht van een vliegtuig niet zoveel verschil in schade
of het nu 400 kmph tegen een gebouw aan ketst
of met 100 kmph

de gebouwen in de 2e wereldoorlog waren trouwens ook niet zo sterk gebouwd als in deze tijd

quote:

dus als je gaat vergelijken , man get a life
je lijkt wel zon figuur dat om te bewijzen dat een kaugombal hard is , een steen op de grond kapot gooit en zegt de kaugombal ketst uit elkaar dus is ie hard

quote:

ik geef je een goeie tip , neem Objectieve argumenten right to the point
wat wil je nou zeggen , dat er geen conspiracy was omdat een 2e ww vliegtuig een gebouw niet liet instorten omdat ie niet hard vloog en omdat een vliegtuig indeze tijd wel hard vloog om dat gebouw in te laten storten?

waar haal je de vergelijking vandaan , echt dit gaat mij even de pet te boven hoor :S

quote:

en dan nog dat je zegt dat hij niet zo vloog om zoveel mogelijk schade te leveren aan eht gebouw
man hoe willen een groepje berkaberkaallahjehad figuren die zwaar kneus waren in hun vliegbrevet halen , een vllegtuig nu precies zo laten vliegen dat het zoveel mogelijk schade levert , die bocht was zowat onmogelijk ,zeggen echte piloten , met zo weinig ervaring.

quote:

je zegt ook dat het tevel werk kost om die explosieven te plaatsen , nou mag je mij vertellen dan hoe ze het voor elkaar krijgen om het toe te geven , wat door meerdere personen is gedaan. dat er wel degelijk orders zijn geweest om het gebouw op te blazen.

quote:

wist je dat :

- opnamen die de wereld rondgingen van dansende en zingende moslims , van mensen waren die nog geeneens wisten dat er een *aanslag* was gebeurt , maar op een trouwfeest waren?
- er juist wel in new york naast het wtc zowat , israelieten stonden te juigen , WEL om de zogenaamde aanslag?
- de opnamen waarin osama het toegeeft behoorlijk duidelijk nep zjin
- osama ook een brief heeft gestuurd waarin hij het ontkent (waarom eerst bekennen en dan ontkennen als de wereld het al zou weten? )
- hij in het ziekenhuis bezocht is NA de aanslagen door amerikaanse diensten
- al zarqawi allang dood was door een bom drop aanslag op zijn huis.
- de meeste namen op de lijst van terroristen die het vliegtuig kaapten , in het verre oosten gewoon rondliepen lang na de aanslagen
- er diverse waarschuwingen waren gegeven door anderre landen dat er wat op komst was ( ?) en dit gewon genegeerd werd , maw america wist het maar de defensie niet , vreemd?

quote:

en zo honderden voorbeelden meer
en dan zit meneer hier te zingen over een B25 tegen een 1940 gebouw aan
en dat te vergelijken met een vliegtuig tegen een wtctje
en daar trekt meneer de conclusie mee dat het vliegtuig de torens heeft laten instorten dus niks conspiracy.....
ondanks het toegegeven.
en de notes heirboven
en zelf als het alleen het vliegtuig was geweest dat het deed , hoe kunnen mensen dan in de openning het staal vasthouden wat (om het te laten instorten > hitte , officiele versie , zonder de handen kapot te fikken
staat op de opnamen tong poh , de officiele zelfs.

en zelfs als het DAN nog het allen vliegtuig was geweest (wat nu al duidelijk niet zo is) , dan nam het nog niet alle anderre BEWIJZEN weg dat het een inside job was

k klaar?
mooi
-

quote:

Court Denies Access To
Firefighter's 911 WTC Opinions
From John Kaminski <skylax@comcast.net>
From Sallie <sallie8001@peoplepc.com>
1-19-4


Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters' opinions & recommendations - only their expressions of feelings can be released !

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004

Dick,

Alex Jones <http://www.infowars.com>www.infowars.com now on radio is playing clips of Silverstein owner of WTC while on TV with WT7, said "Pull the building" which means bring it down, and even said there would be a terrible loss of life. This is when the Bldg 7 collapsed. It was also in a documentary on PBS in Sept. 2001.

Then Dan Rather comes on and says it looks like "well placed dynamite." The only reason the firefighters went in the building is because they knew a building like (concrete and steel) that has been safe, and some hotels have been on fire for days. They reported the fires were out.

Why was FEMA arresting people 2 days later with just little film cameras? 9-11 was the biggest hoax ever! They have just classified documents from Pearl Harbor. I can't find the "Operation Northwood's Document" anywhere on the Net even in the Way Back Machine, which was a WTC scenario...hummm. Any one having it please send it to me. I prefer the Adobe version with a copy of the document.

They won't even give us access to the tapes, probably because the bombs going off can be heard in the background. The firefighters were told by the FBI not to mention it, that it was a matter of National Security. Many were taken to Bellevue, need I say more. I told everyone, there was a mini-nuke set off and a short 14 day radiation life. The planes were only a diversion, perhaps unmanned in order to make those impossible maneuvers to hit the WTC, and no debris was found at the Pentagon. Seismographs went off the charts when the planes hit the WTC, and those building imploded. FEMA was there the night before and the media was ready. Tom Brokaw stayed over and was in a business suit the BRIGHT AND EARLY the next morning!

Those firemen do not just have a cough, but Cancer from the radiation, and many of them will lose their lives. I hope every family member orders an autopsy. But if they really want to cover it up, they will just say COPD a generic diagnosis, covering all their bases.

----- Original Message -----

From: <mailto:silver@nwinfo.net>Dick Eastman
To: <mailto:Quigs_Fight@yahoogroups.com>Quigs Fight
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:51 AM
Subject: Court's decision denying access to firefighters' opinions & recommendations -- only their expressions of feelings can be released!!!!!

Soula Culver forwards an item from <mailto:911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net>911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net

Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phonecalls made to 911 on that day. Before the records of the oral histories are released to the press, all mention of the opinions and
recommendations of those interviewed will be deleted first, so the press will only get the interviewees' "personal expressions of feelings". In other words, if a firefighter who was interviewed said, "I heard what sounded like explosions and I think it was bombs that took down those towers, it was all so horrible", the press will merely get the portion that says: "it was all so horrible". Additionally, transcripts of tapes of the calls that people made to 911 on that day will not be released at all because the Court said they would invade the privacy of the surviving families - even though surviving family members indicated to the Court that they waived such rights to privacy. There is one higher court in New York that this decision could be appealed to, the Court of Appeals, but I have seen no reports on whether the New York Times plans on appealing it. These same records will not even make it to the 9-11 Commission without deletions. From what I remember, the deal the Commission made with NYC is that the corrupt Commissioners will be able to view the records in NYC in their entirety but only be able to take back redacted portions and without names of people interviewed, etc., and of course we can't count on the Commission to release to the public even the redacted portions of records they receive. -- Angie

http://www.courts.state.n(...)/2004/2004_00091.htm

Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Dept.
2004 NYSlipOp 00091
Decided on January 8, 2004
Appellate Division, First Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in
the Official Reports.

Decided on January 8, 2004
Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.
2662


[*1]

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in
the printed Official Reports.
In re The New York Times Company, et al.,
Petitioners-Respondents-Appellants,

v

City of New York Fire Department, Respondent-Appellant-Respondent,
Catherine T. Regenhard, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors-
Respondents-Appellants.

David E. McCraw
John Hogrogian
Norman Siegel

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which, in an article 78 proceeding brought by a newspaper and a journalist against the New York City Fire Department challenging respondent Fire Department's denial of petitioners' Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for transcripts of interviews that
respondent conducted of its employees (oral histories) concerning their activities at the World Trade Center on September ll, 2001 (9/11), and for audio tapes and transcripts of 911 calls made on 9/11, (1) denied the motion of nine family members of persons who died on 9/11 for leave to intervene as petitioners (Family Members), and (2) directed disclosure of
the oral histories albeit redacted to delete the employees' personal expressions of feelings, opinions and recommendations, and (3) directed disclosure of the 911 tapes and transcripts albeit redacted to delete the opinions and recommendations of respondent's employees, and further redacted to delete the words of 911 callers other than those related to the Family Members, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to intervene, and to direct disclosure of respondent's employees' personal expressions of feeling contained in the oral histories, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion to intervene should not have been denied simply because the Family Members did not file FOIL requests and therefore are not "person[s] denied access to a record in an appeal determination" under Public Officers ? 89(4)(b). Certainly, the Family Members are interested persons under CPLR 7802(d) to the extent respondent denied disclosure on the basis of the privacy rights of close family relatives of 9/11 victims. Moreover, although the IAS court purported merely to grant the Family Members permission to appear as amici curiae, it effectively accorded them party status by granting them substantive relief in the form of enforcing their desire to waive any right of privacy that respondent was asserting on their behalf. We also note that petitioners support intervention, and that respondent's briefs on appeal do not address the issue.

The IAS court correctly held that the material respondent provided to the federal government as relevant to its criminal investigation and prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui should be disclosed, even if it constituted records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Public Officers Law ? 87(2)(e) (see John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp., 493 US
146), since respondent did not meet its burden of showing that such disclosure would in fact interfere [*2]with the Moussaoui prosecution or deny him a fair trial. However, substantial portions of those documents should be redacted as falling within FOIL's exception for intra-agency materials (Public Officers Law ? 87[2][g]), namely, the portions of the
oral histories containing the opinions and recommendations of those interviewed, and the portions of the 911 tapes containing the opinions and recommendations of the dispatchers and other of respondent's personnel. Such opinions and recommendations are to be distinguished from factual material, which respondent concedes must be disclosed.

Not falling within the intra-agency exception are the personal expressions of feelings contained in the oral histories, and we accordingly modify to direct disclosure of such expressions. That such expressions do not fit within any of the four exceptions to the intra-agency exemption does not by itself establish that such expressions are intra-agency material. Nor
do such expressions, or the words of respondent's personnel in the 911 tapes, fall within FOIL's personal privacy exemption (Public Officers Law ? 87[2][b], ? 89[2][b][iv]). However, concerning the tapes, the IAS court correctly held that the personal privacy exemption does apply to the words of the callers. Disclosure of the highly personal expressions of persons
who were facing imminent death, expressing fear and panic, would be hurtful to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities who is a survivor of someone who made a 911 call before dying (see Matter of Empire Realty Corp. v New York State Div. of Lottery, 230 AD2d 270, 273). The anguish of these relatives, as well as the callers who survived the attack, outweighs the public interest in disclosure of these words, which would shed little light on public issues.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 8, 2004

CLERK

quote:

Geen enkel piloot die ik ken, vindt iets wat er gebeurd is tijdens de aanslagen unusual.

quote:

Op maandag 13 juni 2005 15:47 schreef merlin693 het volgende:
tong_poh schreef
[..]

Bron ? want zo doe jij precies hetzelfe waar je andere (conspiracy theorie gelovers ) van beticht .

zo kan ik zeggen dat ik er meerdere heb gehoord die het zeer ongeloofwaardig vinden...maar dat zou jij ook niet als bewijs aannemen...toch ?

quote:

Ik heb geen officiele persrapport gezien waar ze het toegeven. Het enige wat ik heb gehoord is pull it. Zover ik weet was er voor de instorting nog een team in het gebouw. Pull it, kan betekenen dat iemand realiseert dat het gebouw gevaarlijk aan het worden is en dat de mensen eruit moeten. Pull it as in pull the team.

quote:

By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." -New York Times (11/29/01)

quote:

Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."