De grote 9/11 topic

[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?

Poging 18

[Zeikstraal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Poging 18

Ge weet wel beter, ge word gewoon straal genegeerd, oelewapper

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Infowarrior

Het heeft lang genoeg geduurt, jij gaat op negeer! Doeg!

Vreemd . ik heb geen enkel woord aan u persoonlijk gericht .

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Svennies

Vertel mij dan waar het net anders zal gaan,een amerikaans gangsterke dat ter dood veroordeeld wordt omdat hij op de uitkijk staat bij een bankoverval waar zijn kompanen enkele mensen afknallen,of een Moussaiou en een khalid Sjeikh Mohamed wiens zogezegde betrokkenheid bijna 3000v directe slachtoffers opleverden,en nog enkele tienduizenden op latere termijn gezien de hoeveelheid asbeststof die er tijdens de instortingen is vrijgekomen...

Wat is volgens u dan de oorzaak van het niet geven van de doodstraf aan Moussaiou en een khalid Sjeikh Mohamed ??

Ik denk omdat het geen binnenlandse aangelegenheid betreft , ze hebben rekening te houden met internationale verdragen en afspraken .

Uw logica vat ik écht niet gezien U al onze aangegedragen feiten wat betreft de radar en luchtverdediging zomaar verwerpt...

Is er ooit ergens beweert dat het allemaal de schuld was van de radarmensen dan ?

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Svennies

Straf, héél straf....

En dat is gebaseerd op

1: gebakken lucht...

2: uw duim....

3: uw bankrekening...

Men is dus helemaal niet op zoek naar de schuldigen ? die gevangenissen , verhoren en martelingen bestaan helemaal niet ?

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Is er ooit ergens beweert dat het allemaal de schuld was van de radarmensen dan ?

NORAD Stand-Down

The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.
In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.

Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.

Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Zelfs als NORAD met 8:40 waarschijnlijk (3-9 minuten) liegt, dan nog hadden ze de 2 laatste vliegtuigen kunnen scramblen.

Op basis van mijn langjarige beroepservaring klopt dit.

NEGEER maar voor de zoveelste keer.

'The Boston Globe'
Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page A1

"Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks"
by Glen Johnson, Globe Staff
Mitchell Zuckoff and Matthew Brelis of the Globe staff contributed to this report.


WASHINGTON - Two armed fighter jets that were supposed to protect New York streaked away from their base on Cape Cod as Tuesday's airline hijackings unfolded, but arrived too late to foil the attacks.

There were contradictory accounts last night about whether they were close to nearing the World Trade Center before its second tower was struck - or sat silent on the ground until after the Pentagon was in flames.

A spokesman for NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, which is charged with protecting US airspace, said the fighters were not scrambled or more than an hour after the first hijacking was reported, by which time the three buildings were struck and a fourth hijacked plane was over Pennsylvania on a course toward Washington.

Yet the CBS Evening News reported last night that two supersonic F-15s were scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base early in the sequence of hijackings, but were able to fly only to within 70 miles of New York City before the second of two hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers.

The network also broadcast a flight timetable showing that the Otis fighters did not reach New York until it was too late. The NORAD spokesman would not comment on the network report. He said the two F-15s on alert at Otis were not immediately ordered into the sky because a Cold War approach to air defense - protecting US borders from incoming military aircraft - did not anticipate the terrorist threat posed by hijackers commandeering domestic, civilian aircraft.

That approach will be reviewed in light of Tuesday's events, which killed 266 people aboard four hijacked aircraft, as well as thousands more in and around the collapsed buildings.

"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

"This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly," Snyder said.

Former senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Korean War veteran and national security expert, said it would have been "very unrealistic" to expect the military to have interceded successfully on Tuesday.

"This country is not on a wartime footing," Rudman said. "We don't have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the '70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all."

Otis offers something close to that posture, however. Its 102d Fighter Wing is equipped with 18 F-15 Eagles, twin-engine, supersonic, air-to-air combat aircraft. They are flown by 32 pilots who are part of a 1,100-person unit.

A Web site for the Cape Cod Air Show, which features aircraft from the unit, describes its duty this way: "Specifically, our mission is to protect the Northeast United States from armed attack from another nation, terrorist attack, and activities such as smuggling, illicit drug activity, and illegal immigration."

The planes, which can fly at more than twice the speed of sound, patrol a 500 000-square-mile area extending from the Canadian border south to Washington. That gives it responsibility for protecting Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, the Web site says.

To complete that mission, the unit has two armed and fueled aircraft ready to fly around the clock, each day of the year, a unit spokeswoman said. Each plane is staffed with a pilot and a crew chief to get them off the ground. Other planes in the squadron fly four to six training sorties a day, said Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Quenneville, the unit's spokeswoman. All are under the command of NORAD, which is charged with airspace warning and control for North America.

Quenneville refused to say if or when any airplanes were launched Tuesday, citing operational security. "Every tasking that NORAD has given us, we have responded appropriately and professionally and adequately," she said.

According to CBS News, the Federal Aviation Administration alerted air defense units to the hijackings at 8:38 a.m. Tuesday, less than 10 minutes before the first tower was struck. Otis received its order to scramble its alert aircraft at 8:44 a.m., the network reported, and the planes took off at 8:56 a.m. They were still 70 miles away from New York when the second tower was struck at 9:03 a.m.

CBS also reported that at 9:30 a.m., minutes before the Pentagon was struck, three F-16 fighters were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia and sent to Washington. However, they did not arrive until 10 a.m., about 20 minutes too late.

But Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, had a different version. He said the command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles, slammed into the first World Trade Center tower at 8:45 a.m. Tuesday.

Never before had a hijacked airliner been steered into a skyscraper, Snyder noted, in trying to explain the lack of immediate response.

The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:40 a.m., during which time the second trade center tower was struck by United Air Lines Flight 175, which also originated in Boston and was destined for Los Angeles.

By that time, military authorities realized the scope of the attack, Snyder said, and finally ordered the jets aloft.

The delay in scrambling fighters was confirmed by Air Force General Richard B. Myers, a four-star officer who has been nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: "We're pretty good if the threat is coming from outside; we're not so good if it's coming from the inside."

Amid Tuesday's frenzy, during which a fourth aircraft crashed in a field near Pittsburgh and government officials chased erroneous reports of a fifth crash in Kentucky and several more unaccounted airliners, Myers did cite one success.

He said one inbound international flight was broadcasting a hijacking code from a radio beacon, but "before it got to Alaska, we had fighter aircraft on it." The plane eventually landed at a remote base in Canada and the warning was deemed a false alert.

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.

(c) 2001 The Boston Globe Reposted For Fair Use Only

[Micele]

vervolg:

The delay in scrambling fighters was confirmed by Air Force General Richard B. Myers, a four-star officer who has been nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: "We're pretty good if the threat is coming from outside; we're not so good if it's coming from the inside."

En toch oefenen ze regelmatig om gekaapte vliegtuigen te onderscheppen, ook inside-inside vluchten, van de 23 gesimuleerde oefeningen sinds 25 okt 98 tel ik er 6 inside-inside tot 10 sept 2001, of meer als 1 op 4 was inside-inside.

Officiele NORAD-documenten !:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/N...Hijack-Summary

2 dagen voor 9/11 trainden ze nog... doel New-York...

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/0...ting-new-york/
Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York

Dit was de laatste inside-inside 2 juni 2001 !


.... ]

6/2/2001 |Suicide Mission | Private Aircraft |Inside - Inside | scenario fruition is " up to Blue Forces " .....

[Micele]

vervolg in verband met dat NORAD document:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...howtopic=14480

June 14, 2009Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York
Filed under: Complete 911 Timeline, Document Collection — kevinfenton @ 7:19 am
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/0...ting-new-york/

The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

The undated document, entitled “NORAD EXERCISES Hijack Summary,” was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the National Archives at the start of the year. It was found there, and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd, by History Commons contributor paxvector, in the files of the commission’s Team 8, which focused on the failed emergency response on the day of the attacks. The summary appears to have been drafted by one of the commission’s staffers, possibly Miles Kara, based on documents submitted by NORAD.


An excerpt from page 4 of the NORAD EXERCISES document.

In the September 9 scenario, the fictitious terrorists’ goal seems to have been to kill New Yorkers with the rain of debris following the plane’s explosion. However, in the exercise, the military intercepted the plane and forced it away from the city. When the terrorists realized they were not near New York, they blew the plane up “over land near the divert location,” leaving no survivors. The military unit most involved in this scenario was NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), which also played a key role in the air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, two days later.

Numerous Hijacks Listed

Three days earlier, on September 6, NORAD simulated two hijackings as part of the same exercise, which was called “Vigilant Guardian.” In one scenario, a fictitious terrorist organization called Mum Hykro hijacked a Boeing 747 from Tokyo to the US and made a “threat of harm to passengers and possibly large population within US or Canada.” The terrorists intended to “rain terror from the skies onto a major US city unless the US declares withdrawal from Asian conflict.” The plane is listed as being bound for Anchorage, Alaska, although the hijackers changed course for Vancouver in Canada, and then for San Francisco, California. Liaising with the FAA, NORAD provided “covert shadowing” of the hijacked plane.

In a second hijack scenario on the same day, ten members of another fictitious terrorist group, called Lin Po, hijacked another 747 to Anchorage, this time out of Seoul, South Korea. The hijackers were armed, their weapons having been smuggled onto the plane by ground crews before takeoff. They also had gas containers that could be detonated. Two of the plane’s passengers were killed, and the CIA and NSA warned that the group had the means to pull off an attack with chemical and biological weapons. In response, NORAD’s commander in chief ordered fighters from the Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR) to intercept and shadow the hijacked plane, and get into “position to shoot down aircraft.”


An excerpt from page 3 of the NORAD EXERCISES document.

Another scenario included in the Vigilant Guardian exercise was run the day before 9/11, although this followed the more traditional scenario of Cubans hijacking a flight from Havana and demanding to be taken to New York for political asylum in the US. This scenario involved the participation of NORAD’s Southeast Air Defense Sector (SEADS), and the plane eventually landed at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia.

The document lists hijack exercises going back to 1998, several of which had involved internal flights, originating in the US. For example, a January 1999 exercise included the simulated takeover of a Miami to Oklahoma City flight and the hijacking of a San Diego to Anchorage flight the next day.

At the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004, the panel’s chairman Tom Kean famously said that the main reason the 9/11 attacks were not prevented was that there had been a “failure of imagination.” However, the hijack simulation planners were really quite imaginative and in several of the scenarios the hijackers had WMD actually on board the aircraft. For example, in a September 1999 exercise, hijackers on a 747 bound from Hong Kong to Canada had sarin gas on board, and threatened to blow up the plane. An exercise the following month included the simulation of a terrorist group hijacking a plane with American and Canadian citizens on board. The plane was bound from France to Canada, and the terrorist group was said to have the “will and means to strike North America with WMD.” Communications with the plane were lost following the hijacking, but the crew overpowered the terrorists and regained control of the plane at the last second.

An exercise in October 1998 included terrorists hijacking a 747 with the intent of committing a “suicide run into [a] metropolitan area of” San Francisco. And an October 2000 exercise included the simulated hijacking of a plane bound from London to Cairo. The scenario was that “100 religious fanatics will take over the aircraft,” but the “aircraft will land at JFK [airport in New York] without incident and [the] FBI will escort [the] hijackers.”

Perhaps the most imaginative scenario, part of a June 2001 exercise, had a Colombian cartel making a deal with a Haitian AIDS victim to carry out a suicide attack with a private aircraft against a SEADS command and control node. Alerted by the FBI, the military had to “work to keep aircraft from impacting SEADS.” The document ominously states that the “scenario fruition” was “up to Blue Forces,” meaning the group playing the US defenders in the exercise.


Another excerpt from Page 3 of the NORAD EXERCISES document.

Hijacking Exercise on Day of 9/11

Although it is not listed in the document, there was also a simulated plane hijacking scheduled to take place in the Northeast US on the day of 9/11, and its timing overlapped with the real-world events. According to Vanity Fair, “The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.”

When NEADS was informed of the first real-world hijacking, members of its staff initially assumed this was part of the exercise. For example, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley, the leader of the ID section, told the other members of her team: “We have a hijack going on. Get your checklists. The exercise is on.” Major Kevin Nasypany, the mission crew commander, actually said out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.” Like the numerous hijacking scenarios described in the “NORAD EXERCISES” document, there was no mention of this simulated hijacking scheduled for the morning of September 11 in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Clearly, further investigation is required to verify the extraordinary details revealed in the “NORAD EXERCISES” document, and in particular find out what else the September 2001 Vigilant Guardian exercise involved. The fact that this exercise included simulations of terrorists hijacking aircraft, and that New York City was central to some of its scenarios, should be a major concern.

[My comments]

- Turning an exercise into a real-world event is a known, prior-used and clever way to run a false-flag operation.

- More proof the 9/11 Omission was only a cover-up.

- More information that what we were 'officially' told was partial, misleading, and in effect knowingly NOT the whole truth known by the officials/government/military/intelligence agencies/etc.

[My country was overthrown at least twice - 11/22/63 and 9/11/01 and I didn't even get a lousy T-shirt]

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Jun 19 2009, 07:31 AM

[Svennies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Men is dus helemaal niet op zoek naar de schuldigen ? die gevangenissen , verhoren en martelingen bestaan helemaal niet ?

Hoezo, kent U het verhaal van de 31 jarige syriër A.G. niet...

Die volgens de VS zo staatsgevaarlijke taliban terrorist die 7 jaar in guantanamo bay heeft opgesloten gezeten én dit nadat hijzelf daarvoor al anderhalf jaar opgesloten gezeten in een talibangevangenis waar ze hem verdachten een amerikaanse spion te zijn....

Gelukkig heeft de amerikaanse rechter Richard Léon een einde aan deze camaderie gemaakt...

God alléén weet hoeveel zulke A.G. 's zich nog onschuldig achter de muren van datzelfde guantanamo bay gevangencomplex bevinden...

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenl...vaarlijk.dhtml

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Svennies

Hoezo, kent U het verhaal van de 31 jarige syriër A.G. niet...

Die volgens de VS zo staatsgevaarlijke taliban terrorist die 7 jaar in guantanamo bay heeft opgesloten gezeten én dit nadat hijzelf daarvoor al anderhalf jaar opgesloten gezeten in een talibangevangenis waar ze hem verdachten een amerikaanse spion te zijn....

Gelukkig heeft de amerikaanse rechter Richard Léon een einde aan deze camaderie gemaakt...

God alléén weet hoeveel zulke A.G. 's zich nog onschuldig achter de muren van datzelfde guantanamo bay gevangencomplex bevinden...

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenl...vaarlijk.dhtml

dat er onschuldigen zitten is uiteraard erg ... en wat met de schuldigen?

[Svennies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Wat is volgens u dan de oorzaak van het niet geven van de doodstraf aan Moussaiou en een khalid Sjeikh Mohamed ??

Khalid sjeikh zijn zaak moet nog ten gronde worden behandeld voor de rechtbank...
Maar wat Moussaoui betreft,vindt U het normaal dat een persoon mét frans paspoort waarop vermeldt staat dat hij in frankrijk is geboren ,en er héél zijn leven heeft gewoond allesbehalve in staat is om in het frans te kunnen converseren...
Vindt U het normaal dat een iemand die een terroristische aanslag helpt organiseren er alléén maar vanaf komt met levenslang,daar waar de wetten in verband met zowel massamoorden als terroristische acties in datzelfde land
steevast met de doodstraf worden bezegeld én uitgevoerd....

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Ik denk omdat het geen binnenlandse aangelegenheid betreft , ze hebben rekening te houden met internationale verdragen en afspraken .

Géén binnenlandse aangelegenheid mijn beste,op wiens grondgebied zijn die "aanslagen" gebeurd...Waar is mijnheer dan wél opgepakt...En voor welke rechtbank is hij ook alweer verschenen...

Op grond van welke wetten dacht U dat buitenlandse criminelen die opgepakt zijn voor misdaden die begaan zijn op ons grondgebied zullen veroordeeld worden...

Geen kei in strafwettelijk recht zeker,aangezien eenieder is ondergeschikt aan de wetten en geplogendheden van het land waarin hij zich bevindt,en die bij geval van misdaad zal veroordeeld worden naar die wetten die het land op dat gebied voorschrijven....

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Is er ooit ergens beweert dat het allemaal de schuld was van de radarmensen dan ?

Wat een slap gelul is dit ook alweer.....
De feiten spreken voor zich......

[Svennies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

dat er onschuldigen zitten is uiteraard erg ... en wat met de schuldigen?

Hoevéél schuldigen ,én hoevéél onschuldigen mijn beste....

Wéét U het.....en gelooft U het nog dat de VS zegt dat er allemaal schuldigen blijken te zitten...Ze kunnen nét zo goed allemaal onschuldig zijn....

Het is niet omdat big brother het zegt dat het zo is....

[Akufen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97aPu_DIB3s

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zeikstraal

Ge weet wel beter, ge word gewoon straal genegeerd, oelewapper

Blijkbaar niet é muts.
Genegeerd omdat ze gewoon geen antwoord weten op de vraag.
Dit is hilarisch en maakt ze bij elke poging die ze negeren belachelijker.

Believer of geen believer, het is een gegronde vraag en ze weten er het antwoord gewoon niet op. Ze beweren de bewijzen te hebben en dus automatich hebben ze ook de waarheid, waarom dan nog een nieuw onderzoek om hetzelfde te bereiken?

Bij deze poging 19

[atmosphere]

Men wil alleen maar bepaalde vragen stellen(we are just asking questions) , zeggen ze op het ene moment ,en een paar seconden later vliegen de conclusies over wie de daders zijn rond je oren.
Daarbij is het ook zo vreemd dat ze om nieuw onderzoek gaan vragen bij de gene die ze juist beschuldigen en totaal niet geloven .


Overigens is ook nooit duidelijk wat men dan precies opnieuw onderzocht wil zien.

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Overigens is ook nooit duidelijk wat men dan precies opnieuw onderzocht wil zien.

Ook is niet duidelijk wie dat onderzoek dan moet voeren.

Is er iemand buiten de truther movement die truthers vertrouwen?
Het lijkt me zeer twijfelachtig.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Svennies

Khalid sjeikh zijn zaak moet nog ten gronde worden behandeld voor de rechtbank...
Maar wat Moussaoui betreft,vindt U het normaal dat een persoon mét frans paspoort waarop vermeldt staat dat hij in frankrijk is geboren ,en er héél zijn leven heeft gewoond allesbehalve in staat is om in het frans te kunnen converseren...
Vindt U het normaal dat een iemand die een terroristische aanslag helpt organiseren er alléén maar vanaf komt met levenslang,daar waar de wetten in verband met zowel massamoorden als terroristische acties in datzelfde land
steevast met de doodstraf worden bezegeld én uitgevoerd....

U ontwijkt mijn vraag , geef eens aan waarom dat volgens u het geval is ? Waarom heeft Moussaoui de doodstraf niet gekregen ?

Géén binnenlandse aangelegenheid mijn beste,op wiens grondgebied zijn die "aanslagen" gebeurd...Waar is mijnheer dan wél opgepakt...En voor welke rechtbank is hij ook alweer verschenen...

In een rechtbank in een staat van de VS waar de doodstraf is afgeschaft !

Wat een slap gelul is dit ook alweer.....
De feiten spreken voor zich......

Het is aan u de taak een geloofwaardige onderbouwing voor die beweringen te geven . Voor alsnog wordt uw theorie door de overgrote meerderheid van mensen met verstand van zake verworpen .
Dus vraag je eens af wie er nu eigenlijk slap lult

[Zeikstraal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Ook is niet duidelijk wie dat onderzoek dan moet voeren.

Is er iemand buiten de truther movement die truthers vertrouwen?
Het lijkt me zeer twijfelachtig.

Wat zijn thruthers? Jij vuile non-truther

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Zeikstraal

Wat zijn thruthers? Jij vuile non-truther

Vooral mensen die veel schelden op dit forum.

[Zeikstraal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

Blijkbaar niet é muts.
Genegeerd omdat ze gewoon geen antwoord weten op de vraag.
Dit is hilarisch en maakt ze bij elke poging die ze negeren belachelijker.

Believer of geen believer, het is een gegronde vraag en ze weten er het antwoord gewoon niet op. Ze beweren de bewijzen te hebben en dus automatich hebben ze ook de waarheid, waarom dan nog een nieuw onderzoek om hetzelfde te bereiken?

Bij deze poging 19

Er is nooit een onderzoek geweest, de meesten werden gesaboteerd, clearence afgeven, gag orders, de keel over. Media die moest zwijgen in tijden van oorlog. Belangenvermenging. Hou toch je kop over bewijzen en waarheid.

Volgens uw gedachtengang is idd een onderzoek niet meer nodig, met het vingerke wijzen is voldoende -> Osama, Alquada, Sadam. Allemaal dikke vette leugens. Als gij in leugens wilt leven, is dat uw keus.

Voor de 20ste keer