explosieven gevonden in puin WTC-torens

[Knipp]

De cirkel is rond denk ik.

[Bristow]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

ZEER SCHERP OPGEMERKT.
En weet je wat. ELKE trade op Wall Street is traceerbeer. (dit geloof je toch wel hoop ik, met de huidige technologie.)
Dus, ALS we nu eens die files nemen en naar de personen op zoek gaan die die verantwoordelijk zijn voor die trades....... dan hebben we de daders én hun opdrachtgevers. Niet?
Wel, dat zal moeilijk want die files werden namelijk bewaard in BUILDING 7!!!!!

Backups ?

Belastingsparadijzen ?
Anonieme rekeningen in de Cayman Eilanden ?
Ketens van NV's van de Bahama's tot Liechtenstein ?

Nooit van gehoord, blijkbaar.

Waarom moeten wij bij onze bank nu elk een fotokopie van onze identiteitskaart binnenbrengen? Onder andere om de traceerbaarheid van verdachte transacties te verbeteren.

Het is geen probleem van technologie, het is een probleem van bankwetgeving.

[Knipp]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

gebouw 6 stond tussen
1 en 7.

en hoe hoog is gebouw 6 ?

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bristow

Backups ?

Belastingsparadijzen ?
Anonieme rekeningen in de Cayman Eilanden ?
Ketens van NV's van de Bahama's tot Liechtenstein ?

Nooit van gehoord, blijkbaar.

Waarom moeten wij bij onze bank nu elk een fotokopie van onze identiteitskaart binnenbrengen? Onder andere om de traceerbaarheid van verdachte transacties te verbeteren.

Het is geen probleem van technologie, het is een probleem van bankwetgeving.

Almaar goed, gelet op de manier dat er in de US wordt gestemd weten we hoever het met de technologie staat

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Knipp

en hoe hoog is gebouw 6 ?

Ik ken de exacte hoogte niet meer uit het hoofd.
schatting? 3 a 4 keer keiner dan gebouw 7
In ieder geval, het kleinste van alle 7 als ik me goed herinner.
Plus dat ook nog de ruimte tussen gebouw 6 en 7 een stuk groter is dan tussen 1 en 6.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Ik ken de exacte hoogte niet meer uit het hoofd.
schatting? 3 a 4 keer keiner dan gebouw 7
In ieder geval, het kleinste van alle 7 als ik me goed herinner.
Plus dat ook nog de ruimte tussen gebouw 6 en 7 een stuk groter is dan tussen 1 en 6.

7 is een stuk hoger dan 6, zie foto:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bi..._si_01-clo.gbi

[Knipp]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

7 is een stuk hoger dan 6, zie foto:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bi..._si_01-clo.gbi

dus de brokken van 1 en 2 vliegen over 6 tot tegen 7 ?

[Bristow]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

Almaar goed, gelet op de manier dat er in de US wordt gestemd weten we hoever het met de technologie staat

En het verband is ????????

[/\|cazar]

[font=Arial][size=5]Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man [/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2]by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005 [/size][/font][font=Arial][size=-2][/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2]2/07/05: 911Research publishes Version 1 of this critique
2/09/05: Popular Mechanics publishes online edition of article
2/10/05: 911Review.com publishes critique of online edition [/size][/font][font=sans-serif]

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

-->The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

"The Lies Are Out There"

[size=-1]James Meigs, appointed editor of Popular Mechanics in May 2004, trashes skeptics of the official story of 9/11/01 as irresponsible disgracers of the memories of victims, apart from "we as a society." [/size]

This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:

We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.

Meigs throws a series of insults at the "conspiracy theorists," saying they ignore the facts and engage in "elaborate, shadowy theorizing," and concludes his diatribe by saying:

[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.

Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating "this country" with its corrupt leaders, Meig's piece attempts to legitimate PM's "investigation." It reads:

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.

Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.

"9/11: DEBUNKING the MYTHS"



The main article consists of six two-page spreads, each devoted to a topic. Spanning these spreads are a series of sixteen "poisonous claims," which the article purports to refute, while it implicitly identifies them as the beliefs of all in the "growing army" of "conspiracy theorists." The two-page spreads, beginning on page 70, are as follows:

• Introduction
• THE PLANES
• THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
• THE WORLD TRADE CENTER (continued)
• THE PENTAGON
• FLIGHT 93

Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders). However, the sixteen "most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists" which it attacks are mostly specious claims, many of which were probably invented to discredit skepticism of the official story in the first place. The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims.

Thus the main approach of the article is to set up and attack a straw man of claims that it pretends represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement. The list includes many of the same claims that are debunked on the companion to this site, 911review.com. The article gives no hint of the questions raised by the evidence in this site, nor any sense of the issues raised by the broader 9/11 truth movement.

Before proceeding to its 16 points, the article's introduction levels more insults at the skeptics -- "extremists", some of whose theories are "byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate." It begins by asking you to type "World Trade Center conspiracy" into Google.com, and claims that "More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published" -- an incredible claim. (Of these supposed 3000 titles, we recommend only a few, listed here.)

The sixteen "claims" attacked by the article are described here under the headings taken from the article, which indicate either the claim, the counter-claim, or a broader issue.

1. [size=+1]THE PLANES[/size]
   
2. Where's The Pod
   [size=-1]This image, which appears in the article, is found (with the same red oval) on a <A href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#addendumC">pod-debunking page of QuestionsQuestions.net, yet the article contains no mention of the site. [/size]The pod-plane idea has been used for over a year to discredit skepticism of the official story. It's not surprising that the article gives it top billing. See ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane. The article mentions the site LetsRoll911.org and the video In Plane Site, implying they are representative of the skeptics. Of course it makes no reference to skeptics' sites debunking these productions and the pod-plane idea they feature, such as this page on OilEmpire.us, or this page on QuestionsQuestions.net.
3. No Stand-Down Order
   Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission's timeline (without sourcing the Commission's Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD's account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD's radar coverage:

   It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.

   This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were planned for the day of 9/11/01. See Multiple War Games on 9/11/01 Helped to Disable Air Defense.
4. Intercepts Not Routine
   This section quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us:

   It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.

   It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact':

   In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.

   This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!

   From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

   It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.
5. Flight 175's Windows
   That the South Tower plane had no windows is one of several ludicrous claims made by the In Plane Site video, and, like the pod-planes claim, is dismissed by the simplest analysis. See The Windowless Plane.
   
   [size=+1]THE WORLD TRADE CENTER[/size]
6. Widespread Damage
   The article's lead point in the World Trade Center topic is an obscure idea that explosives in the basements of the towers damaged the lobbies at about the time the planes hit. With only sparse evidence to support it, this contention is only mentioned by a few researchers. Indeed it is entirely distinct -- in both the support that exists for it, and the support that it provides for "conspiracy theories" -- from the contention that explosives brought down the towers (56 and 102 minutes after the plane crashes).
7. Puffs Of Dust
   [size=-1]The article features this image of the South Tower's collapse, taken about 2.5 seconds after the top started to plunge. It was taken by <A href="http://gulnarasamoilova.com/">Gulnara Samoilova, who risked her life to take the photograph from a vantage point that would be engulfed by thick toxic dust in under 20 seconds. [/size]Here the article cites this quote from an advertisement for the book Painful Questions:

   The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.

   By titling this section "Puffs Of Dust," rather than "explosions of concrete," and by showing only a collapse photograph from early in the South Tower's destruction, the article minimizes the explosiveness of the event, but nonetheless goes to lengths to explain these "puffs." It quotes NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder saying "When you have a significant portion of of a floor collapsing it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window" without explaining where the concrete dust came from, or even attempting to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives.
   
   The article mentions none of the other features of the collapses that indicate controlled demolition, such as:
   • The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
   • The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
   • The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
   • The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
   • The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.
   • The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
   • The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
   • Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
8. "Melted Steel"
   The article implies that skeptics' criticism of the official account that fires weakened the towers' structures is based on the erroneous assumption that the official story requires that the fires melted the steel.
   
   In fact the fire-melts-steel claim was first introduced by apologists for the official story on the day of the attack, by no less than a structural engineer. The more sophisticated column failure and truss failure theories, advanced in subsequent days and weeks, are the subject of detailed analysis and debunking here.
9. Seismic Spikes
   The idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses of the towers is the subject of the page, ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded Collapses. Unfortunately a number of web sites seized upon this idea without critically evaluating it. The article takes advantage of this red-herring by pointing out that PrisonPlanet.com and WhatReallyHappened.com support it, while ignoring the much larger bodies of valid evidence of demolition that these sites present.
10. WTC 7 Collapse
    Here the article cites 911review.org, a site that promotes discrediting ideas but purports to speak for the 9/11 skeptics' community. The article simply repeats the site's claim that "the video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to fire, but rather a controlled demolition," without directing the reader to where they can see videos, such as on WTC7.net. The article makes no mention of the facts that skeptics most often cite as evidence that the collapse was a controlled demolition:
    • The building collapsed with precisely vertical fashion.
    • The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall.
    • The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble.
    The article lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7:

    What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.

    Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse. The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel frame buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
    
    [size=+1]THE PENTAGON[/size]
    
11. Big Plane, Small Holes
    Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of <A href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html">my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole.
12. Intact Windows
    Here the article misrepresents an argument by skeptics of the official account of Flight 77's crash by stating that the issue is intact windows "near the impact area," when the skeptics point to unbroken windows in the trajectory of portions of the Boeing 757.
    
    PM uses this part to backhandedly promote the Pentagon Strike flash animation, which appears to serve the same function as this article: discrediting skepticism by associating it with sloppy research and easily disproven ideas.
13. Flight 77 Debris
    Here the article drops a URL for Pentagon Strike a second time, in case the reader missed the first one. The lack of aircraft debris following the Pentagon crash has been noted by many people as suspicious, but it is not surprising, considering the nature of the crash. See ERROR: Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris
    
    [size=+1]FLIGHT 93[/size]
14. The White Jet
    Here the article counters the idea that a small white jet reported by eyewitnesses had anything to do with the crash by relating a detailed account by the aviation director of the company that owned the business jet, David Newell. According to Newell, the co-pilot of the jet, Yates Gladwell, was contacted by FAA's Cleveland Center to investigate the crash immediately after it happened. According to PM:

    Gladwell confirmed the account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

15. Roving Engine
    <A href="http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html">The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. The article takes on this issue by first citing an article on Rense.com that makes the unsubstantiated claim that "the main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site." It then argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far "when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more." This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down, such as the following:
    • He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.
    • It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes.
    • He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone."
16. Indian Lake
    The article devotes this point to the confetti seen over Indian Lake, which is about two miles from the main crash site. It explains that this distance is "easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the blast."
17. F-16 Pilot
    In the final point, the article takes on the allegation by retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre that the pilot who shot down Flight 93 was Major Rick Gibney. The article states that Gibney was flying an F-16 that day, but it was not on an intercept mission; rather it was to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State's Emergency Management Office, and fly him from Montana to Albany, NY.
    
    PM delivers its closing ad hominem attack on skeptics in the voice of Ed Jacoby:

    I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.

"9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED"

Having slain the conspiracy theory army's poison-spewing 16-headed dragon of 9/11 LIES -- PM Popular Mechanics</em> -->declares the enemy vanquished, titling its final section "9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED." On page 128, PM reveals its suit of armor -- a list of over 70 "experts" that it found "particularly helpful." The titles and names on this page are supposed to back the many assertions the article makes in the main section, but the article gives no indication of what experts or reports back up many of its key assertions.

[/font]

[Gun]

eerst ff lezen

[Bristow]

@ /\|cazar

Als ik het goed begrijp, beweert Hoffman dat sommige patent onware beweringen die door de "alternatieven" worden gemaakt eigenlijk ook een complot zijn, bedoeld om de 9/11 skeptici in diskrediet te brengen.

Onverifieerbaar, natuurlijk.

Met complot boven complot wordt het wel heel plezant.

Maar goed, welke zijn dan wel de beweringen van de skeptici?

Hoe zit hun verhal (of verhalen) in elkaar?

Steeds opnieuw dezelfde vraag.

En het antwoord is meestal nog meer zand in de ogen.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bristow

@ /\|cazar

Als ik het goed begrijp, beweert Hoffman dat sommige patent onware beweringen die door de "alternatieven" worden gemaakt eigenlijk ook een complot zijn, bedoeld om de 9/11 skeptici in diskrediet te brengen.

Onverifieerbaar, natuurlijk.

Met complot boven complot wordt het wel heel plezant.

Maar goed, welke zijn dan wel de beweringen van de skeptici?

Hoe zit hun verhal (of verhalen) in elkaar?

Steeds opnieuw dezelfde vraag.

En het antwoord is meestal nog meer zand in de ogen.

Weet je, beweert ook veel zonder het aan tonen.
Zoals bvb dat er in de pers genoeg is verschenen dat de officiële theorie correct is.
Je suggeert ook dat geen van mijn beweringen in de pers zijn verschenen, terwijl in de eerste dagen na 9/11 er wel degelijk een HOOP vraagtekens zijn geplaatst bij het verhaal van de regering. Maar bon, jij en Knipp zijn nieuw, dus ik span me nog één keer in en probeer een “korte” samenvatting te brengen van enkele van de DUIZENDEN persberichten uit meer dan 10 verschillende landen die in mijn bezit zijn. 9/11 is een puzzel met duizenden stukjes.
Hieruit een klink-klaar verhaal distilleren is quasi onmogelijk.
Maar ik wil jullie even aantonen dat je geen consiracytheorieën moet geloven om te merken dat met de officiële story hèèl wat mis is, én dat de pers daar wel degelijk over heeft bericht.
Dat is, tot de oorlog in Afghanistan. Daarna verstomde de kritiek.

Een kort overzicht van de: onwaarschijnlijkheden in hun verhaal, de toevalligheden, de contradicties, de leugens, het wijzigen van hun oorspronkele versie, ........
De bronnen zijn telkens vermeld en verifiëerbaar.
De oorspronkelijk Engelse commentaar bij de artikels heb ik laten staan.


As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program. Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him “our dean of electronic warfare.” [AP, 9/25/01] Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [AP, 9/25/01] Raytheon's El Segundo's Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. [ISR Journal, 3/02] Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01] Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01 (B), Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01] A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections. For instance, William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, “You just learn not to ask questions.”[Chicago Tribune, 9/16/01]

Toeval? Ok. Strike one.
Of moest er voor gezorgd worden dat tot op vandaag de meeste lemmings(jullie) nog steeds niets afweten van wat nu juist allemaal de mogelijkheden van dat systeem zijn?
Of dat vandaag door vele lemmings zelfs het betsaan van dergelijk systeem wordt ontekend?
Want d�*�*r zijn ze in ieder geval in geslaagd! Kijk de postings van de lemmings er maar op na.

The Miami Herald reports, “Forty-five minutes. That's how long American Airlines Flight 77 meandered through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan abandoned, its radar beacon silent… Who was watching in those 45 minutes? ‘That's a question that more and more people are going to ask,’ said one controller in Miami. ‘What the hell went on here? Was anyone doing anything about it? Just as a national defense thing, how are they able to fly around and no one go after them?’ ” [Miami Herald 9/14/01] In the year since this article and a similar one in the Village Voice [Village Voice, 9/13/01], there has been only one other US article questioning slow fighter response times, and that article noted the strange lack of articles on the topic. [Slate, 1/16/02] However, some 9/11 victims' relatives continue to raise the issue.

Noteer dat op 14 sept.Norad nog steeds verzwijgt waaròm er niet is ingegrepen.
De officiële theorie is tot dan toe nog steeds dat Norad geen fighters in de lucht heeft gestuurd!!! Zie je, het is zeer belangrijk de datums van verklaringen te memoriseren.
Da’s juist het moeilijke aan de puzzel. Er verschijn hier een artikel, dan daar, dan twee maanden later opnieuw een artikeltje wat eigenlijk te maken heeft met twee andere.
Maar als je ze gaat sorteren per incident en je plaatst ze in de juiste chronologie, wordt het klaar en duidelijk dat van de officiële theorie gewoonweg NIETS klopt.

Some gruesome remains are discovered in the WTC ruins. Investigators find a pair of severed hands bound together with plastic handcuffs on a nearby building. They are believed to have belonged to a stewardess. [Newsday, 9/15/01] There are reports of whole rows of seats with passengers in them being found, as well as much of the cockpit of one of the planes, complete with the body of one of the hijackers, and the body of another stewardess, whose hands were tied with wire. [Ananova 9/13/01; New York Times 9/15/01 (D)] Yet, contradicting the claim that a hijacker's body was found, only in February 2003 are the remains of two hijackers identified (see Late February 2003). While all these bodies and plane parts are supposedly found, not one of the four black boxes for these two airplanes are ever found. A National Transportation Safety Board spokesman says: “It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders.” [CBS, 2/23/02] The black boxes are considered “nearly indestructible,” are placed in the safest parts of the aircraft, and are designed to survive impacts much greater than the WTC impact. They can withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour, and can withstand an impact of an incredible 3,400 G's. [ABC News, 9/17/01]

Ze vinden zogezegd lichamen van de kapers, een paspoort van de kapers, maar de 2 zwarte dozen........? ONVINDBAAR?
Toeval? Ok Strike 2.

The two “black boxes” for Flight 77 are found. [PBS Newshour, 9/14/01]

De nabestaanden van de pasagiers van vlucht 77 willen graag weten wat er gebeurd is aan boord. Vlucht 77 is namelijk diegene die een tijdlang van de radar is verdwenen om daarna in het Pentagon te crashen.
En wat doet Muller? Hij blijft 6 maanden doof.

FBI Director Mueller will later say that the boxes provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained “nothing useful.” [CBS 2/23/02]
Tot op vandaag is er betwisting over w�*t het Pentagon heeft geraakt.
Maar de voice recorder bevatte dus “nothing useful”.
Overigens een mooi voorbeeld van hoe nabestaanden, journalisten, enz..met een kluitje in het riet worden gestuurd.

Media wordt ingezet om de lemmings te misleiden.

The Director of the Air National Guard explains why jets failed to scramble towards the hijacked aircraft for so long. He says that before 1997, 100 bases defended the US, but since then the number was reduced to seven, with only two fighter planes at each base defending the entire country from external threats. [Dallas Morning News 9/16/01] However, numerous air force bases on the East Coast alone, including bases in Westfield, Massachusetts, Syracuse, New York, Hartford, Connecticut and Andrews, Virginia, claim they have battle ready fighters on alert 24 hours a day. All of these bases were better positioned to respond to the hijacker airplanes than the bases ultimately chosen. Some of these bases have websites that get changed after 9/11, erasing claims that they have battle-ready fighters on alert (for instance, see the [DCANG Home Page before and after the change]). In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart's plane went off course, fighters were scrambled from four different bases (none of the official seven) and reached his plane in under 10 minutes. [ABC News, 10/25/99] There are numerous other examples of fighter scramblings since 1997 that seem to contradict the “only seven bases” story.

Het eerste duidelijk BEWIJS van een leugen!!!
Hier krijgen we dus (pas nadat de pers zich uitdrukkelijk vragen heeft gesteld over het niet ingrijpen van Norad) de eerste officiële versie over waarom Norad niet heeft ingegrepen.

Mayo Shattuck III resigns, effective immediately, as head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutschebank. No reason is given. Some speculate later this could have to do with the role of Deutschebank in the pre-9/11 purchase of put options. Deutschebank is also one of the four banks most used by the bin Laden family. [New York Times, 9/15/01, Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01]

Toeval? Ok. Strike 3

Mueller opnieuw in aktie.
Liegen en zich van de domme houden.

FBI Director Mueller describes reports that several of the hijackers had received flight training in the US as “news, quite obviously,”adding: “If we had understood that to be the case, we would have—perhaps one could have averted this.” It is later discovered that contrary to Mueller's claims, the FBI had interviewed various flight school staffs about Middle Eastern terrorists on numerous occasions, from 1996 until a few weeks before 9/11 (see 1996 (D), May 18, 1998, September 1999 (E), September 2000 (B), July 10, 2001, August 23, 2001 (E)). [Washington Post, 9/23/01, Boston Globe, 9/18/01] Three days later he says, “There were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”[Department of Justice transcript, 9/17/01] Slate magazine later contrasts this with numerous other contradictory statements and articles, and awards Mueller the “Whopper of the Week.” [Slate 5/17/02]

CBS News announces a new revelation: “contrary to early reports, US Air Force jets did get into the air on Tuesday while the attacks were under way.” The first fighters got airborne toward New York City at 8:52 a.m. [CBS, 9/14/01] A day earlier, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers in Congressional testimony stated that the first fighters got airborne only after the Pentagon was hit. [General Myers' Senate confirmation hearing 9/13/01] NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed no fighters were scrambled anywhere until the Pentagon was hit. [Boston Globe 9/15/01] Four days later, the official NORAD timeline is changed to include this new discovery. [NORAD, 9/18/01] New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani later testifies before the 9/11 Commission that he found out from the White House at about 9:58 a.m. that the first fighters weren't launched toward New York City until twelve minutes earlier - 9:46 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 5/19/04] If this is true, it would mean no fighters were launched anywhere until after the Pentagon was hit.
A series of articles suggest that at least seven of the 9/11 hijackers trained in US military bases. [New York Times, 9/15/01 (E), Newsweek, 9/15/01] Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida as their permanent address on their driver's licenses. [Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/01]. Hamza Alghamdi was also connected to the Pensacola base. [Washington Post, 9/16/01] A defense official confirms that Saeed Alghamdi is a former Saudi fighter pilot who attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01, Gannett News Service, 9/17/01] Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio, Texas. [Gannett News Service, 9/17/01] A defense official confirms Atta is a former Saudi fighter pilot who graduated from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. [Los Angeles Times 9/15/01; Washington Post 9/16/01] The media drops the story after the Air Force makes a not-very-definitive statement, saying that while the names are similar, “we are probably not talking about the same people.” [Washington Post, 9/16/01]

Maar wie waren die 7 dan?
Ach da’s niet belangrijk meer. Tegen 16 sept. hadden de lemmings immers op tv minstens 50 keer de ruines van het WTC gezien, vergezeld van het hoofd van bin Laden.
Conclusie. Eerst deze zeven van de lijst halen, want Mueller zegt zelf dat we niet over dezelfden praten.
Later duiken dan nog eens, (laat het er nu 4 of 7 zijn) kapers levend op.
Valse paspoorten was toen de uitleg.
Alles goed en wel maar hun oorspronkelijke lijstje van 19 begint wel kort te worden.
In het beste geval houden we er 19 – 11 = 8 over.
Wie zijn dan die andere 11?????? Als je de Aaanslag van de Eeuw onderzoekt en je beschuldigd 19 personen van de moord op 3000 onschuldige burgers, dan mag je toch op z’n minst veronderstellen dat je de identiteit van deze beschuldigden kent???????

Confirming earlier reports [Reuters, 9/13/01 (D)], bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In a statement to Al Jazeera, he states, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” [CNN, 9/17/01 (C)]

Niet Al Jazeera dus. CNN en Reuters. Zitten die nu ook al in het kamp van de conspyratisten??
Of gaan jullie eindelijk eens aannemen dat bin Laden uitdrukkelijk heeft afstand genomen van de aanslag. En waarom zou hij dat doen indien hij wèl verantwoordelijk was?
Hij heeft voordien steeds z’n aanslagen opgeëist. Nu onkent hij.
Indien jullie blijven geloven dat het filmpje van de CIA authentiek is, en tegelijkertijd wel durven suggereren dat het Silverstein filmpje een vervalsing is.... So be it.
Wie is nu de idioot? Hij die een filmpje geloofd met een quote die door niemand publiekelijk wordt ontekent, of hij die een CIA fimpje geloofd met een kwiet die in de verste verte niet op bin Laden lijkt en dat in alle delen van de wereld is geklasseerd als fake????

President Bush says, “Never (in) anybody's thought processes … about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets… never.”[NATO, 9/16/01]

Ook Rice komt zulke onzin op tv verspreiden.?
Vraag is, waarom liegen ze hier??
In een andere statement zegt hij zelfs, "ook niet in de gedachten van de vorige Administration. "

A month later, Paul Pillar, the former deputy director of the CIA's counter-terrorist center, says, “The idea of commandeering an aircraft and crashing it into the ground and causing high casualties, sure we've thought of it.” [Los Angeles Times 10/14/01

Eenmaal de Commissie z’n rapport klaar had zou eindelijk bewezen worden dat de woorden van Bush pure leugens waren. Al van in ‘96 werd in talloze CIA en FBI memo’s en zelfs in publieke documenten verwezen naar plannen om met vliegtuigen in
gebouwen te vliegen. En dat bij meerdere aangelegeheden hierop was voorzien door Air Security.(Tweemaal Olympische Spelen, Congres van de Democraten, Congres van de Republikeinen, e.a.) Maar ja, toe waren we al aug. 2004.
En denk iemand dat in het huidige sfeertje in de VS een journalist mag/kan/durft vragen aan Bush; “ Heey, waarom heb je daarover gelogen destijds?”
In your dreams, baby! Kijk maar eens naar het filmpje “Arrogante Bush” op een van m’n topics. Als je hoort hoe die AP-journalist in mekaar kruipt, begrijp je misschien wat ik bedoel.


Zorgen dat de sceam niet wordt ondekt!

A report suggests: “Federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon. A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring.” [Gertz File, 9/21/01] In a later report, an employee at a gas station across the street from the Pentagon that services only military personnel says the gas station's security cameras should have recorded the moment of impact. However, he says, “I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/01] A later release of five tiny and grainy images of the crash from a Pentagon security camera shows the government's claim that no security cameras captured the crash was untrue.

Eerst is de officiële story dat hun camera’s niet werkten. Later plaatsten ze op hun website dan weer wel beelden die ze zogezegd hebben uit een veiligheidscamera.
Wat was er trouwens met de veiligheidscamera’s aan de hand op 9/11 all over the US??????
Die van het Pentagon werkten niet, die op de WTC Torens werkten niet. In Boston Logan Airport waren er die dag ook geen..........
En de beelden van de camera’s die wèl werkten zijn in RECORD-tempo geconfisqeerd en classified!!

Mijn zogezegd “verzonnen” verhaaltje over de dood van verschillende leden van het bedrijf Raytheon.

As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program (see 1998 (D) and August 2001). Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him “our dean of electronic warfare.” [AP, 9/25/01] Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [AP, 9/25/01] Raytheon's El Segundo's Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. [ISR Journal, 3/02] Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01] Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01 (B), Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01] A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections. For instance, William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, “You just learn not to ask questions.”[Chicago Tribune, 9/16/01]

Toeval? Ok. Strike 4
Of moest ervoor gezorgd worden dat de lemmings anno 2004 nog steeds geen idee zouden hebben over wat nu juist mogelijk is met het Global Hawk System?
Of zelfs onwetend van het bestaan ervan.
Want d�*�*r zijn ze echt wel goed in geslaagd! Sla de posts van onze lemmings op de vele topics er maar op na.

Nog een stukje “bewijsmateriaal” voor JULLIE versie.

The text of a handwritten, five-page document found in Atta's luggage is made public. [Observer 9/30/01 (C)] The next day, the Independent strongly questions if the note is genuine. It points out the “note suggests an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt” and is filled with “weird” comments that Muslims would never say, such as “the time of fun and waste is gone.” If the note “is genuine, then the [hijackers] believed in a very exclusive version of Islam—or were surprisingly unfamiliar with their religion.” [Independent, 9/29/01] Another copy of the document was discovered in a vehicle parked by a Flight 77 hijacker at Washington's Dulles airport. A third copy of essentially the same document was found in the wreckage of Flight 93. So the letter neatly ties most of the hijackers together. [CBS, 9/28/01] The Guardian says, “The finds are certainly very fortunate, though some might think them a little too fortunate.” [Guardian, 10/1/01] Interestingly, an FBI affidavit of the contents of Atta's baggage written on September 14 and released on October 4 completely fails to mention the how-to letter.

En eind september werden de plannen gesmeed om TEN OORLOG te trekken.
Vanaf toen konden ze ongestoord het gehele onderzoek naar 9/11 dwarsbommen, vertragen, enz...
Er werd af en toe nog wel eens iets gerapporteerd, ergens in de midpagina’s, maar gevolgen had dat niet. ’t Was oorlog. De media zat in Afghanistan.

En toen kan de echte Cover Up beginnen.
The Aftermath heet dat deel bij mij.
Het belangrijkste deel, doch om ook maar iets van de gehele 9/11-story te begrijpen moet je al teruggaan tot begin jaren ’80. Deel één, het pre 9/11 tijdperk.
Dan heb je de dag zelf. De kapingen , de crashes en de vernietiging van de Toren 1, 2 en 7.

Enfin, voor vannacht is’t genoeg geweest.

PS Ik sta altijd open voor commentaar op m’n posts, that is, indien het ernstige opmerkingen zijn van iemand die oprecht geinteresseerd is in wat er zich nu juist wel en niet heeft afgespeeld op 11 september 2001.
De “Jaja’s Elvis leeft nog” “Maanlanding is ook niet echt” “X-files” “David Copperfield” “Hoax-sites” “Smoor er nog maar eentje” ....en dergelijke opmerkingen ga ik vanaf nu negeren en beschouw ik dus ook niet als een ontkrachting van mijn stellingname regarding 9/11.

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Was jij niet diegen die nogal wat afwist van kansberekening??
Hier dan uw "opdracht".
Populatie: circa 280.000.000
Zelfmoordcijfer: weet ik zo direct niet voor de VS, maar als we ons gemiddelde nemen 3 per dag, dacht ik.
Gegeven: de 4 onderzoeksjournalisten waarvan sprake hebben volgens de officiële versie alle 4 zelfmoord gepleegd.
Nu, wat zij de odds wanneer 4 mensen met hetzelfde beroepdie alle 4 aan hetzelfde thema werkten, alle 4 zelfmoord plegen?

En hoe groot is de kans dat 16 wetenschappers die alle 16 aan hetzelfde onderzoek werken alle 16! overlijden in een tijdspanne van 6! maanden?
Sorry hoor maar ik weet ook iets af van kansberekening en iemand die hier het woord toeval nog in de mond durft nemen (o.a. de woordvoerder van het FBI) is een volslagen idioot.

Wel laat ons zeggen dat daar al een reukske aan zit, ...

Maar dat neemt nog niet weg, dat wie zou het moreel aankunnen van een paar duizend van zijn landgenoten op te blazen, en stel dat hij dacht dat het er veel minder zouden zijn, toch zo lang zijn bakkes kan houden ...

Zeker op een populatie van zoveel mededaders...

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bristow

Backups ?

Belastingsparadijzen ?
Anonieme rekeningen in de Cayman Eilanden ?
Ketens van NV's van de Bahama's tot Liechtenstein ?

Nooit van gehoord, blijkbaar.

Waarom moeten wij bij onze bank nu elk een fotokopie van onze identiteitskaart binnenbrengen? Onder andere om de traceerbaarheid van verdachte transacties te verbeteren.

Het is geen probleem van technologie, het is een probleem van bankwetgeving.

Inderdaad, backups van dergelijk belangrijke systemen worden altijd in minstens twee gebouwen bewaard, meestal een flink eind van elkaar.

Bij ons is dat ook zo, alles gaat de kluis in, en de maandbackups steken in een andere kluis in een ander gebouw, en als dat niet mogelijk is bij een van ons thuis...

Voor grote bedrijven worden die tapes zelf opgehaald door securitas en bewaard in een gebouw van Securitas. Ja ge moet dan voor elke restore securitas bellen, dien tape laten brengen dien tape uitlezen en hem terugsturen met een koerier van Securitas, maar als het om dergelijk belangrijke data gaat is dat peanuts vergeleken met het verlies dat kan geleid worden.

Bovendien zitten die dingen in kluizen die gedurend meer dan 2 uur aan temperaturen van meerdere honderden tot duizenden graden moeten blootstaan eer het binnenin tot een temperatuur van 40 a 50 graden zou komen, wat dan pas gevaarlijk begint te worden voor plastiek en flinterdunnen tapes, ...

Een kluis in brand steken om de inhoud te vernietigen is dus een heel slecht idee, ...

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Dat is dan weer allemaal wat de Amerikaanse regering zegt, en wat er in de mainstream media verschenen is ( en dat is ook wat de Amerikaanse regering zegt). Het is wel erg makkelijk zo om het officiële verhaal te "bewijzen".

Kijk, als het dan toch zo'n vergezocht complot is, dan moet het toch heel makkelijk zijn van alles daaromtrend te "debunken".

Wel verklaar dit dan eens:

[SIZE=3]Insider Trading[/SIZE]

A record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'

Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the
Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls,

So speculated Reuters, who went on to report that the insider traders must have known exact times that the planes were going to crash into the World Trade Center to profit in the hundreds of millions. The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1998 by executive director of the CIA Buzzy Krongard, Until 1997, Mr Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by Deutsche Bank.

His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

The stocks of companies with offices in the World Trade Center, such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co were also subject to
suspicious short-selling.

Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill¹s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.64



Wederom toeval zeker??

Bronnen:

German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals’ - Erik Kirschbaum – Reuters – December 16 2001 – available at
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/germ...rld_trade.html
‘Mystery of Terror Insider Dealers’ – Chris Blackhurst – London Independent – October 14 2001 – available at
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/myst...er_dealers.htm

Er waren toch bronnen dat binnen den FBI en de CIA men dacht dat er iets zou gebeuren, maar men niet zeker wist wat, ...

Dus waarom niet gewoon een tip, van hé jef de kans dat er vliegers naar beneden gaan donderen is groot, we weten alleen niet precies hoe en welke maatschappij, maar we zwijgen erover omdat we de mensen niet willen verontrusten, ...

En onze vriend Osama Bin Laden had ook veel centen, wie weet zijn er geen stromannen van hem beginnen spelen op de beurs, is dat een paar slimmerikken opgevallen en zijn die gewoon beginnen meespelen...

De beurs blijft voor een deel gokken en ik zou er niet stoem van staan dat er traders zijn die specialiseren in goed luisteren en goed lezen en dat er anderen zijn die meesters zijn in het doorzien van het spel van hun collega's,

[Bristow]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

...
Zoals bvb dat er in de pers genoeg is verschenen dat de officiële theorie correct is.
Je suggeert ook dat geen van mijn beweringen in de pers zijn verschenen, terwijl in de eerste dagen na 9/11 er wel degelijk een HOOP vraagtekens zijn geplaatst bij het verhaal van de regering. Maar bon, jij en Knipp zijn nieuw, dus ik span me nog één keer in en probeer een “korte” samenvatting te brengen van enkele van de DUIZENDEN persberichten uit meer dan 10 verschillende landen die in mijn bezit zijn. 9/11 is een puzzel met duizenden stukjes.
Hieruit een klink-klaar verhaal distilleren is quasi onmogelijk.

Dat er in de eerste dagen na 9/11 veel vragen werden gesteld is toch normaal. De vragen werden na verloop van tijd beantwoord.
Vele berichten van de eerste dagen bleken ook fout (de levende kapers, de 4000 Israëli's, Moussawi als 20ste kaper bijvoorbeeld).
Daar waar de regering zich met leugens probeerde in te dekken tegen het verwijt dat ze fouten had begaan werd ze door de gewone pers en de onderzoekscommissies ontmaskerd.
"Nieuw" ben ik misschien op dit forum, maar ik volg het dossier al sinds 9/11.

Ik heb deze morgen geen tijd meer om je tekst te lezen, ik zal het vanavond of morgen vroeg doen.

Een klink-klaar verhaal, dat is net wat nodig is. Een onderzoek levert een verhaal op, een versie van wat er gebeurd is.
Lijsten geven van "onwaarschijnlijkheden", waarvan sommige verzonnen, overdreven of statistiek onjuist zijn is niet mijn visie van onderzoek, en is vaak niet veel meer dan tendentieuze manipulatie van de werkelijkheid.

Maar ik moet nu om den broode weg.

[Bristow]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

En onze vriend Osama Bin Laden had ook veel centen, wie weet zijn er geen stromannen van hem beginnen spelen op de beurs, is dat een paar slimmerikken opgevallen en zijn die gewoon beginnen meespelen...

Dat probeerde ik ook te zeggen, maar het pakt niet.

Bovendien is het nog maar de vraag hoe significant de insider trading wel was.
Men zou de volumes moeten vergelijken met de volumes tijdens het hele jaar ervoor (bijvoorbeeld) om te kunnen zeggen of er iets aan de hand was of niet.

[Mark]

[size=2]Amusante discussie hier.

Vind wel dat de ontkenners nogal wat amateuristisch te werk gaan.

Al die witte flitsen rond gebouwen en vliegtuigen zijn een standaard effect van het video bewerkingsprogramma Pinnacle.

Menu toolbox, add video effects, lens flare en laat maar knallen.

[/size]

[Knipp]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mark

[size=2]Amusante discussie hier.

Vind wel dat de ontkenners nogal wat amateuristisch te werk gaan.


[/size]

what r u waiting for ?!
geef ook n keer je opinie over het beruchte silverstein filmpje ...

[Knipp]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

The new math:

"Examining the male U.S.suicide rate for recent years , we can extrapolate a conservative estimate of 17 male suicides per 100,000 people, or 0.017%. The odds of 4 specific, male biographers committing suicide would be the 4th power of 17/100000, or 8.3521 4.913 x 10^-17...roughly 1 chance 10,000,000,000,000,000. About as good a definition of impossible as you can get.

KANJERS van denkfouten hier.

Maar zelfs als je binnen dezelfde logica blijft is het makkelijk aan te tonen dat dit niks bewijst.

Hoeveel mensen worden door de CIA vermoord per honderdduizend ? Laat ons aannemen 1,7 of 0,0017% ,
een tiende dus van het aantal zelfmoorden.

Wat zijn nu 'the odds' voor vier moorden ?

Die 'odds' zijn nog 10x10x10x10 kleiner dan voor zelfmoord.
Vier cia moorden zijn dus tienduizend keer minder waarschijnlijk dan vier zelfmoorden 8)
En die waren al onmogelijk.

PS
als ik straks meer tijd heb kom ik terug op de KANJERS van denkfouten