9/11 Van (pseudo-)scepticus tot believer???

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:31 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
Geen idee over welke roddels en fantasieen jij het hebt.
Maar deze vragen lijken me legitiem.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/IntroductionToS911T.html

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:31 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
Oogggetuigen (waaronder brandweermensen/politie) die verklaren explosies te hebben gehoord, niks daarvan staat in het officiele rapport.

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 23:14 schreef zoalshetis het volgende:
waarom zouden amerikanen zichzelf vernietigen voor een (toen) toch al overmachtige staat? denk je werkelijk dat bush mensen in dienst heeft die hun leven geven voor het afzetten van een diktator in irak, voor olie?

waarom kunnen 'believers' niet gewoon leven met het feit dat er een gruwelijke aanslag gepleegd is? elvis is echt dood, écht!

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:13 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

Stel dat dit wel bewezen wordt (volgens mij is het dat al (temp. grnd zero, snelheid instorten maar dit terzijde), waarom zou de FEMA dan zoiets verzwijgen? Zij zouden dit zeker opgemerkt moeten hebben n.a.v. onderzoek aan het staal.
Je hebt dan i.i.g. aanknopinspunten voor verder onderzoek, want dat het officiele rapport n hoop zaken in niet bespreekt lijkt me overduidelijk en onnacceptabel.

quote:

Op zondag 19 maart 2006 22:38 schreef One_of_the_few het volgende:

[..]

Dat we daar door Bush en ook Balkenende belazerd zijn is redelijk duidelijk. Dat dezelfde propaganda/reclame nu inzake iran wordt gebruikt ook. Maar is dat een reden om aan te nemen dat 9-11 een inside job was??

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 13:08 schreef klez het volgende:

[..]

Loose change is oplichterij. Vinden zelfs gelovigen.
http://911research.wtc7.n(...)nes.html#loosechange

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 maart 2006 00:14 schreef ABCXYZ het volgende:
Klez, waarom negeer je mij? Kom je er niet uit? De manier waarop je op Resonancer zijn post reageerd is geen manier van discussieren.

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:07 schreef klez het volgende:
Ik zie ook nog geen reden om dat te geloven. De incompetentie van de CIA was voor 9-11 al berucht aan het worden. En het verschijnsel dat lagere echelons zulke prangende informatie niet naar boven toe doorspelen is een bekend fenomeen. Of dat onderdelen in het raderwerk juist het belang van bepaalde informatie niet zien, ook een standaard fout.
Die geenszins hoeven te betekenen dat het hier een complot met Amerikaanse betrokkenheid betreft.
Ga er overigens vanuit dat de doodstraf zonder een spoortje twijfel voltrokken zal worden voor Amerikaanse betrokkenen.
Nog een reden waarom bewuste Amerikaanse betrokkenheid zeer onwaarschijnlijk is in mijn ogen.

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 21:17 schreef klez het volgende:
Ik hoop dat je niet bedoelt dat men serieus in moet gaan op alle roddels en fantasieen die op de conspiracy sites te vinden zijn. Dat zou de geloofwaardigheid van de FEMA pas echt ondermijnen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 maart 2006 08:17 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:
Ach er is veel meer geld uitgegeven aan het onderzoek naar de blowjob van Clinton dan aan het onderzoek van 911 ...

Wat zei je over geloofwaardigheid ?

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 maart 2006 08:31 schreef natte-flamoes het volgende:
Je lult maar wat als je zegt dat er meer geld is uitgegeven aan het onderzoek van die blowjob. Je weet dat helemaal niet. Meteen gebruik je die opmerking wel om een waardeoordeel uit te spreken? Rare bedoeling.

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 19:42 schreef ABCXYZ het volgende:
Klez, wat vindt jij van het verhaal van William Rodriguez? http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Press%20ReleaseRod.htm
Is zeker een leugenaar of een geestesziek persoon met waanideeën die eigenlijk in een inrichting thuis hoort? Hij was er ook bij in Amsterdam toen Jimmy Walters langskwam. www.reopen911.nl Daar was jij natuurlijk niet bij? Net zoals dat de reguliere media dat soort dingen dood (blijven) zwijgen. Alsof dat doodzwijgen van de media niet op zich al een overduidelijk complot is ...
"He has commenced, as Plaintiff, a federal court lawsuit against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others alleging that they and others were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed, in order to exploit a “New Pearl Harbor” to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. "

quote:

September 2000: Het project voor de nieuwe Amerikaanse eeuw (PNAC); een groep neo-conservatieven met leden zoals Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush en Paul Wolfowitz lanceerden hun verslag genaamd “heropbouw van de Amerikaanse defensie”, waarin ze verklaren dat: “het proces van transformatie, ook al brengt het revolutionaire wijzigingen, waarschijnlijk lang zal duren tenzij een catastrofale gebeurtenis plaatsvind, zoals een nieuwe Pearl Harbor.”

Kan je tellen? 1 + 1? Maar dit is natuurlijk maar 1 feit en zo zijn er honderden. Ben nog steeds bezig met m'n eigen feiten-artikel, hoop het deze week af te hebben.

quote:

A think tank called the Project for the New American Century, headed by people like Dick Cheney, revealed the thinking behind 9.11. www.911truth.org puts it like this:

"The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527220940331

Our take...

Plenty of people share this interpretation of the quote. Here’s a couple of other takes on it.

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.
http://www.americanfreepr(...)_pearl_harbored.html

The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and "regime changes".
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html

So the first quote tells us it was all about toppling Saddam and reordering the Middle East, the second claims it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, and the third says it’s about justifying war and regime changes. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

Now, it’s certainly true that Bush has continued to fund it, and with significant budget increases immediately post 9/11, but who says he wouldn’t have done so anyway? The reality is that the attacks themselves only give ammunition to hjs critics. And some of them had it immediately:

Some elected officials got the message. Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi(...)9/05/INGQ58FN831.DTL

So how did 9/11 make Levin look wrong, and the Bush administration right?

Back to the PNAC, where there's still the "Pearl Harbor" aspect. What did they mean by that? We can get an indication from the one other sentence in the document that uses the phrase.

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be "toppled immediately". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Not much demand for his removal there. Look around the web and you'll find other outlandish claims, like the PNAC document wanted there to be war with Syria. True? Nope, there's only one mention of Syria, here:

"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad".

And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist.

Now, we’re not saying that the PNAC didn’t see 9/11 as presenting some opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did). It did deliver increased military spending, of course, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They’re after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. After the Pearl Harbor quote, for instance, the document reminds us it recommended a decision to “suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production”, and mentioned that the “Joint Strike Fighter... seems an unwise investment”. Yet as we write, 4 years on, neither issue is resolved:

Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier - the CVN 21 - which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007.
http://www.mercurynews.co(...)olitics/13079279.htm

Where we do think people really oversell this quote is in portaying it as some spookily accurate piece of foreknowledge, that the “New Pearl Harbour” was to justify regime change, war in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. That really is a step too far, as you’ll find out if you download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and read if for yourself.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

quote:

Now, how is Rodriguez going to hear the explosion? He's a long way below, but plainly something like this is going to reach him through the air. The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html) at 20 degrees, which means it'll travel 1,124 feet in a second. That's actually a reasonable approximation of Rodriguez distance from the impact site, actually, so we'll live with it for now.

Except, to clarify, that's just sound through the air. Sound travels through steel more than 17 times faster, 13,332 mph (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html), which means the impact sound (and related physical effects as the building flexes) could reach someone 1,124 feet away in under 0.06 of a second.

The 9/11 Commission reported another consequence of the explosion.

A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-302.html

This could provide a third source of sound and physical manifestations of an explosion, following immediately after the other two. Others say that the fireball couldn’t have caused such effects that far down, but there is some supporting evidence. Consider this from a worker below Rodriguez:

...the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and “sit tight” until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled...
http://st12.startlogic.co(...)round_explosions.htm

quote:

We're not quite sure what the suggestion is here. Why would a bomb in the basement be required to go off as the plane hit? What's the point? It wasn't aimed to demolish the building, presumably. It increased the risk of detection, required more effort in planting and hiding it, careful timing, and yet (if there were bombs elsewhere in the building) would achieve nothing at all.

quote:

It's important to note that we don't have the answers here.

quote:

Op maandag 20 maart 2006 23:24 schreef klez het volgende:

[..]

Inderdaad. Het motief is zeer twijfelachtig, de "bewijzen" boterzacht. Geen rechter zou hier een zaak van durven maken. Vandaar dat dàt ook nog niet gebeurd is natuurlijk.

quote:

Op dinsdag 21 maart 2006 10:25 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:

Maar ze zijn wel eerlijk :
[..]