De grote 9/11 topic

[illwill]

EN NOGMAALS want blijkbaar kan geen enkele believer hierop antwoorden. Wat heeft een nieuw onderzoek voor nut terwijl je nu al niet naar het gerecht gaat met al de harde bewijzen die je al hebt?

Grappig hoe hij ontweken word.

[Zeikstraal]

Online chats led to Texas terror suspect's arrest

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09...est/index.html

Internet is dangerous.

Terror
Terror
War On Terror

This message will selfdestruct in 1 year when service is been taking down

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Begin November weten we meer:

http://nyccan.org/




http://nyccan.org/NYC_CAN_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW.pdf

Dat heeft met inside job niets te maken !!

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Waarop baseren die onderzoeken zich?

Zeker niet altijd op gegevens van NIST en FEMA , want daar wou je waarschijnlijk naar toe.

[atmosphere]

En zo heeft de truth movement hun poll gemanipuleerd !

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:...&hl=nl&ct=clnk

[Zeikstraal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

En zo heeft de truth movement hun poll gemanipuleerd !

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:...&hl=nl&ct=clnk

En zo hebben de inside jobbers de comissie gemanipuleerd, belogen en bedrogen

[Zeikstraal]

[Zeikstraal]

[Zeikstraal]

Thruth will prevail

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

En zo heeft de truth movement hun poll gemanipuleerd !

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:...&hl=nl&ct=clnk

Elk jaar zijn er polls over 9/11, over heel de wereld blijkbaar; allemaal gemanipuleerd...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

World opinion polls

A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.[1]

The summary of the poll noted that "Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education are only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda." Steven Kull, director of WorldOpinionPoll.org, commented "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information."[2] Of those who said the United States was the perpetrator, Kull says many believe it was an attempt to justify an impending U.S. invasion of Iraq.[3]

Wereldgemiddelde gelooft - ondanks US-propaganda - in (grafisch):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:91...ep2008_pie.png

Enkel de USA-polls:

United States
Zogby polls

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organisations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"
Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

[edit] Newsweek Magazine polls
The Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"
September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.
[edit] New York Times / CBS News polls
The first 9/11 poll carried out by the New York Times and CBS News was conducted in May 2002. The same 9/11 related question was asked again in April 2004 and October 2006. The 2002 and 2006 polls were apparently published for the first time not by CBS or the NYTimes, but by polling researcher AngusReid.com The 2004 NY/Times CBS poll is available at NYTimes.com (Question 77).

The 2004 poll was conducted by telephone with 1024 adults nationwide in the US, with a 3% margin of error.[8] The 2006 poll was conducted by telephone on 983 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a 4% margin of error.[9] One of the questions was the following:

"When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.
3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.
New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question:

"Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"[10]
April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.
[edit] Scripps Howard polls
A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true.

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"[12]
"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".
77% "unlikely"
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"[13]
"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".
80% "not likely"
6% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"[14]
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question[15]

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"
[edit] Other United States polls
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view." [16]

A poll reported in the Washington Post in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was probably personally involved in the attacks.[17]

In May 2007 the New York Post published results of a Pew Research Center poll of more than 1,000 American Muslims. It found that 40 percent agreed that "Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks," while 28 percent disagreed. Of the 28 percent that disagreed, a quarter (7 percent) believe that the US government is responsible.[18]

In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"[19]

[straddle]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zeikstraal

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zeikstraal

En zo hebben de inside jobbers de comissie gemanipuleerd, belogen en bedrogen

Ik dacht dat juist de commissie leden zelf de inside jobbers waren.

In werkelijk alles zie jij een inside job of zodra iemand vraagtekens zet bij beplaalde zaken rond 9/11 is het gelijk een inside job believer.

commissie leden klagen nu over informatie die ze niet gehad zouden hebben, conclusie "inside job" andere mogelijkheden bestaan kennelijk niet .

[Zeikstraal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

commissie leden klagen nu over informatie die ze niet gehad zouden hebben, conclusie "inside job" andere mogelijkheden bestaan kennelijk niet .

Blij dat je het inziet

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Zeker niet altijd op gegevens van NIST en FEMA , want daar wou je waarschijnlijk naar toe.

Natuurlijk wou ik daar naartoe, want niemand buiten NIST heeft ooit de relevante data mogen inkijken, alle onderzoeken baseren zich bijgevolg op NIST.

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Natuurlijk wou ik daar naartoe, want niemand buiten NIST heeft ooit de relevante data mogen inkijken, alle onderzoeken baseren zich bijgevolg op NIST.

Universiteit van Edinburgh : http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216

Bespreking door Arup, met commentaren op NIST-aanpak : http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

Simulaties van de impact door Purdue University : http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Svennies

Het gaat hem erom dat het héle systeem is ontworpen op snelle en laagvliegende raketten te kunnen onderscheppen én te vernietigen....

En datzelfde systeem slaagt er zogezegd niet in om trage hoogvliegende verkeersvliegtuigen te tracken én te volgen...(pentagon)....

Iedere militaire luchtmasbasis heeft buiten zijn fighters nog volautomatische
raketafweerbatterijen van het type long range surface to air missiles tot zijn beschikking....

Waardoor het pentagon onder de verdedigingsparaplu van de kortsbijzijnde militaire basissen valt...

Het Pentagon had geen raket luchtafweer !!

Waarom niet ??

The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.

Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft.* Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overrule them came to naught.

The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts."
*The Pentagon is only about 4,000 feet from, and almost directly in line with, one of the runways at Ronald Reagan International Airport.


Hij suggereert dit,nochtans wordt élk vliegtuig door het militair systeem automatisch tot foe bestempeld bij het ontbreken van een transpondersignaal...[/quote]

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Universiteit van Edinburgh : http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216

Bespreking door Arup, met commentaren op NIST-aanpak : http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

Simulaties van de impact door Purdue University : http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

Bedankt voor de documenten, maar je begrijpt toch het verschil tussen een analyse en de data waarop die analyse zich baseert?

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

EN NOGMAALS want blijkbaar kan geen enkele believer hierop antwoorden. Wat heeft een nieuw onderzoek voor nut terwijl je nu al niet naar het gerecht gaat met al de harde bewijzen die je al hebt?

Ne moeilijke e

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets.

Hier de Early Warning / Air-defense - map van USA:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aews-map.gif

... waar de meeste radarsites en luchtafweer staat ligt de dichtbevolkte Oostkust: Boston...,.. NY-C,... Washington DC met het Pentagon... ik denk dat er zo´n vijftal sites zijn waarvan de Early-Warning-Radars het luchtruim erboven konden afspeuren en navenant "beschermen", stonden die JSS-radars en andere types allemaal af ?

Maarja ik zie het al USA heeft een vd beste luchtafweersystemen van de wereld, maar alle systemen stonden niet aan... tja, kan hé :
the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem...

Vooral tegen vijandelijke vliegtuigen:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/radar.htm

The backbone of strategic air defense sensor segment is the Joint Surveillance System (JSS). Within the JSS, the FAA/Air Force Radar Replacement (FARR) program replaces current radars with new air route surveillance radars (ARSR), specifically the ARSR-4. Other sensor systems tying into the strategic air defense network are the North Warning System (NWS) with AN/FPS-117 long range radars and AN/FPS-124 short range, unattended radars; the Iceland Air Defense System (IADS) with AN/FPS-117 long range radars; the Caribbean Basin Radar Network (CBRN) with AN/TPS-70 and AN/FPS-67 long range radars; the Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) and Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar (ROTHR) systems; and the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) with short range radars. Since 1992, reductions in the operations and maintenance tempo of the North Warning System radars along Alaska’s northern coast and across Canada’s Arctic have reduced costs by about 50%.

All of the sensor, fusion, control, and combat systems work together to provide CINCNORAD and his commanders with the capability to defend North American airspace from threat, regardless of alert levels. The sensor systems augment one another to some degree to provide varying levels of geographic, altitude, and range coverage. The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) augments both the sensors and the Region/Sector Operations Control Centers (R/SOCC) in providing a highly flexible command and control platform for long range detection and engagement of airborne threats. Sensor data from all available sources is fed to command, fusion, or intelligence centers where it is processed and correlated with available flight planning data from several US and other government sources. Applicable data is then displayed to allow operational commanders to make decisions as to level of response required, if any, from monitoring to neutralizing or destroying the target. Ground based systems are usually fixed although some are technically mobile. AWACS is used based on need and availability. In addition to long range detection, it is used to provide higher confidence level identification and monitoring of ambiguous threats. It can also be used as a gap filler in case of problems with primary systems.

Vooral tegen vijandelijke missiles (zeer lange afstand):
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/hotline.html

http://www.peterson.af.mil/library/f...t.asp?id=10506
PAVE PAWS FAQS

The Pave Phased Array Warning System is an Air Force Radar system designed to guard North America against sea-launched and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Ligt het Pentagon echt buiten Noord-Amerika ?

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Bedankt voor de documenten, maar je begrijpt toch het verschil tussen een analyse en de data waarop die analyse zich baseert?

Uiteraard. En waarom zou die data enkel via NIST of FEMA te krijgen zijn?

Je kan die als onderzoeksinstelling toch opvragen bij de Port Authority of NY of eventueel bij Leslie Robertson and Associates of evetueel bij het architectenbureau...?

Of bedoel jij nu bepaalde andere data? Welke dan?