[9/11] Meningen en argumenten (deel 13)

quote:

Op maandag 13 november 2006 19:01 schreef pietje77 het volgende:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deceit
er is veel meer hoor, zal het wel eens zoeken.
Verder is het alleen in jouw hoofd weerlegd hoor.
Of misschien bedoel je de psy-ops of trojan horses die verspreid zijn door de U.S. , dan heb je idd gelijk.
De bewust verspreide onzin, zoals hologrammen bv. is weerlegd door logisch verstand.
NIST/fema en 9-11 commission zijn gewoon nog triester dan de "warren commission"

L'histoire ce repete (of zijn historische wijsheden/feiten oftopic?)

quote:

The reason that not one single JN-25 decrypt made prior to Pearl Harbor has ever been found or declassified is not due to any insidious cover-up . . . it is due quite simply to the fact that no such decrypt ever existed. It simply was not within the realm of our combined cryptologic capability to produce a usable decrypt at that particular juncture.

quote:

Conspiracy theorists repeatedly point to the fact that Roosevelt 'desperately' wanted the United States to intervene in the war against Germany. This is undoubtedly true, if perhaps over-dramatically phrased, but a basic understanding of the political situation of 1941 precludes this as good evidence that Roosevelt 'allowed' the Pearl Harbor attack. No attack by Japan was a guarantee the US would declare war on Germany. American public anger would be directed at Japan, not Germany, in the case of a Japanese attack. The Tripartite Pact alliance between Germany and Japan called for one to aid the other in case of attack, and so Japan could not reasonably claim that America had attacked Japan in the event of a Japanese attack on the US. In addition, Germany had been at war with the U.K. since 1939, and with the U.S.S.R. since June of 1941 without Japanese assistance. There was a serious if low-level naval war going on in the Atlantic between Germany and the US Navy in the summer of 1941, in any case. Nevertheless, it was only Hitler's, unforced by treaty, declaration of war several days after the Pearl Harbor attack that brought the US into the European war.

quote:

Another piece of supposed circumstantial evidence is that US aircraft carriers were out of port at the time of the attack. This has been alleged by some as evidence of advance knowledge of the attack: the carriers were supposedly away so as to save them (the most valuable ships) from the attack. In fact, the two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver fighters to Wake and Midway Islands. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the Japanese Navy, lightly escorted. At the time of the attack, the Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl Harbor, heading back to Pearl Harbor. In fact, the Enterprise was scheduled to be back on December 6th, but was delayed by weather. A rescheduling had the Enterprise's estimated time of arrival as 7:00, almost an hour before the attack, but the ship was also unable to make this schedule. Furthermore, at the time, aircraft carriers were classified as scouting elements of the fleet, not capital ships; the most important vessels in naval planning even as late as Pearl Harbor were battleships. As the only large warships available in the fleet, carriers became the Navy's capital ships during the gap between Pearl Harbor and the return of the battleships to duty in early 1943.

quote:

One of the main considerations making an attack against Pearl Harbor unimaginable was the depth of Pearl Harbor — generally less than 40 feet. Depths of less than 150 feet had been (in the USN and others) widely believed insufficient for torpedo attack; at the time, torpedoes dropped from planes dove deeply before attaining running depth and in water that was not deep enough (like Pearl Harbor) would contact the bottom, detonating or embedding themselves in harbor mud. The British had proved that torpedoes, modified for shallow water, could be effective in their attack on the Regia Marina at Taranto on November 11, 1940 (Battle of Taranto). The US Navy discussed this new development as can be seen in a July 1941 memo, but as Taranto was about 75 feet deep and Pearl less than 40, it was not considered that the British attack method was relevant to an attack at Pearl Harbor. The RN (Royal Navy) had used Swordfish torpedo planes (fabric-covered biplanes), and their slow speed was part of the reason the Taranto attack succeeded. The IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) no longer had any planes like them, thus other methods were required. The Japanese independently developed shallow water torpedo modifications ("Thunder Fish") during the planning and training for the attack in 1941. Wooden fins had been added to the tail and roll "flippers" kept the torpedo upright once in the water. The fins kept the torpedo's nose level in the air and broke off when they hit the water. The level flight of the torpedoes helped keep them from diving too deeply and embedding themselves in the mud (but, despite these modifications, several torpedoes did indeed dive to the bottom and several remain unaccounted for). This very simple modification of the Japanese torpedoes was not anticipated by the USN, and Admiral Bloch (commander of the 14th Naval District at Pearl) never pushed to install torpedo nets at Pearl. Due to the shallow anchorage (which even today must be constantly dredged to allow sufficient depth for the passage of capital ships), the installation of torpedo nets would have severely restricted the mobility of vessels entering, leaving and maneuvering in the harbor.

quote:

Op maandag 13 november 2006 19:33 schreef pietje77 het volgende:
hulde hulde hulde !! *buigt voor de absolute waarheid*

propaganda moet een zwartwit filmpje zijn dus dit is zeker geen propaganda, ook al sluit het , zoals gewoonlijk, 100% aan bij de mening van het grootste propaganda orgaan ter wereld..

ik zal de rest ook wel eens zoeken, al geven de reacties wel aan dat ze het regerings gospel weer gezien hebben.....

ignorance is bliss

quote:

Op maandag 13 november 2006 21:35 schreef pietje77 het volgende:
Wombcat:
Op wikipedia komt propaganda voor ja.
De generalisatie die jij er van maakt klopt niks van.

Verder kun je zodra je bv unauthorized biography Bush leest of 9-11 synthetic terror - made in the USA leest wat verder kijken dan je neus lang is of het jaar dat je geboren bent en door uitgebreid geinformeerd te zijn propaganda eruit pikken ja, zolang het maar binnen "mijn" gebieden valt.

JFK II en aansluitend "Who killed John ONeill" (R.I.P.) kijken is eigenlijk heel globaal ook al voldoende om door de propaganda heen te prikken. (al is er uiteraard veel meer , teveel zelfs, waar ze keer op keer dezelfde werkwijze hanteren.

bv. WTC 1993 = 100% inside job. (wat zich daarvoor en daarna afspeelt ook weer natuurlijk maar daar komt aardig wat van aan bod)

Veel meer info. heeft een normaal mens niet nodig, maar het is er wel hoor !