De grote 9/11 topic

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

tut tut ik had het over een rechtzaak jij begint over een parlementair onderzoek ... waar blijven de leiders van de truthmovement om dit op te starten? zoals Jim Garrison deed

Jim Garrison:

Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison (November 20, 1921 – October 21, 1992) — who changed his first name to Jim in the early 1960s — was the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana from 1962 to 1973. A member of the Democratic Party, he is best known for his investigations into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison

Garrison remains a controversial figure. Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources.

Moest hij nog leven zou hij zeker bij lawyersfor911truth staan... maar toch kunnen "*Procureurtjes" de staat of staatsinstellingen niet verklagen. Daarbij ze zouden "bepaalde bewijsstukken" toch nooit te zien krijgen...

*Die mogen alleen stoute burgers ambeteren.

en als ze de CIA ambeteren krijgen ze problemen:

Later career
In 1973, Garrison was tried for accepting bribes to protect illegal pinball machine operations. Pershing Gervais, Garrison's former chief investigator, testified that Garrison had received approximately $3,000 every two months for nine years from the dealers. Garrison, acting as his own defense attorney, called the allegations baseless, alleging they were concocted as part U.S. government sought to destroy him because of his efforts to implicate the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. The jury found Garrison not guilty. It has been rumored[who?] that Gervais admitted to concocting the charges.[10]

In the same year, Garrison was defeated for reelection as district attorney by Harry Connick, Sr. On April 15, 1978, Garrison won a special election over a Republican candidate, Thomas F. Jordan, for a state Circuit Court of Appeals judgeship, a position that he held until his death.[11]

Daarom dat bij de moord op JF Kennedy énkel een Parlementaire Commissie iets kan ondernemen/onderzoeken (voor de publieke opinie te sussen)... en dan nog...; of het Congres kan beslissen dat de geheime docs 400.000 p.. of wat ervan overblijft in 2017 vrijgegeven worden of 54 jaar na de onopgeloste moord op een President...

Wat zou dat voor de geheime 9/11-papers zijn... Yep die zaten in WTC 7... burned...

http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Petition
The following legal scholars, judges and attorneys demand an end to the 9/11 cover-up, a new, full and unbiased investigation, and punishment of all guilty parties:

Roy H. Andes.

Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Montana.
Brae Antcliffe.

Barrister, Sydney, Australia.
Thomas Ashton.

Barrister, Melbourne, Australia.
James Edyrn Baker.

Attorney, Washington. Former member of the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association.
Kathleen Margaret Brown.

Attorney, Illinois.

Dennis Cunningham.

Attorney, New York.
Thomas M. Diggins.

Attorney, South Dakota.
Curtis Doebbler.

Professor of Law at An-Najah National University, Visiting Professor, Webster University, Geneva, Switzerland, former Visiting Professor at University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, former Research Fellow of the Hague Academy of International Law.
Constance Fogal.

Former leader, Canadian Action Party. Attorney, Vancouver, Canada.

Stephen Fournier.

Attorney, Connecticut. Former Lecturer in Law, University of Connecticut School of Law Criminal Clinic.

Frank Haddleton
Attorney, Vermont (also licensed to practice in Massachusetts).
Lieutenant Colonel Said Huber.

Attorney and Clerk of the Military Supreme Court of Switzerland.
Joseph J. Huprich.

Attorney, California.
Ferdinando Imposimato.

Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy. Former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy. Presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and ultimate assassination of President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, other political assassinations and kidnapping cases and several cases against the Mafia. Former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. Former legal consultant to the United Nations regarding institution of laws to control drug trafficking.

Richard Terence Jeroloman
Attorney (retired), New York.
Barry J.C. Kissin.

Attorney, Maryland.
Maggie Kohls.
Attorney, Illinois.
Bruce Leichty
Attorney, California.
Joseph A. Lopisi
Attorney, Massachusetts.
Douglas Mackenzie.

Attorney, California.
Brian McEvoy.

Attorney, New Hampshire.
Dennis P. McMahon.

Attorney, New York and admitted in Massachusetts.
David G. Mills.

Attorney, Tennessee and Texas.
Robert Moore.

Attorney.
Christopher Pollmann.

Professor of Law, Université Paul Verlaine - Metz, France. Visiting Fellow, Harvard Law School (2001-02)

Ron Rattner.

Attorney (retired), California. Former Chairman of the Board, California Institute of Integral Studies
Simeon A. Sahaydachny.

Attorney in New York State. Formerly Senior Legal Officer on staff of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL, Vienna, Austria, 1987 to 1996). During this period, served as secretary of various inter-governmental committees of UN General Assembly and authored working drafts of model laws, international conventions and legal guides relating to international commercial transactions adopted by Commission and recommended by UN General Assembly for use. Senior Fellow, International Law Institute (Washington).
Michael L. Shoen.

Attorney, Arizona (active) and Washington (inactive). Former deputy prosecuting attorney, Washington.
Hal Sisson.

Attorney (retired), Victoria, Canada.
Gary Wenkle Smith.

Attorney, California.
Nicholas Soter.

Attorney, California.
J. Michael Springmann.

J. Michael Springmann was a diplomat in the State Department's Foreign Service, with postings to Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in Washington, D.C. He was the head of the U.S. consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia . The published author of several articles on national security themes, Mr. Springmann is now an attorney in private practice in the Washington, D.C.area.
Earl Staelin

Trial lawyer. Former Instructor in Law, University of Toledo College of Law.
William Veale.
Bill Veale is a former instructor of Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, with an 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career.
Terrence A. Valko.
Attorney, Pennsylvania. Former instructor, Pennsylvania State University.
Andreas Von Bülow.
Andreas Von Bülow is the former Assistant German Defense Minister (the number two German defense position), former Minister of Research and Technology, and a former member of the German Parliament. He is a practicing attorney in Germany.
Paul Warburton.

Advocate, England.
William A. Watson.

Attorney, Ohio.
Burns H. Weston.

Professor Weston is the Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Founding Director and Senior Scholar, Center for Human Rights, The University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law.

Open Letter
The following is an open letter from two of our members. Please distribute it widely, to lawyers everywhere.


Dear Counsel,

As an attorney, you know how important the Constitution and the rule of law is. We've just suffered through years of attack on the system of laws and justice in which we practice.

Many lawyers are concerned about presidential signing statements, spying on American citizens, torture, and other challenges to American law and international conventions... As attorneys, we are not swayed quite so much as some people by ungrounded emotions. We have expertise in analyzing competing claims, weighing conflicting evidence, and reaching logical decisions about what really happened. Moreover, as lawyers, we know that people sometimes cover up and attempt to hide incompetence, recklessness, or crime.

We have all heard people say that "everything changed on 9/11", as if that were an excuse to disregard the Constitution as a "quaint", outdated document. Not many American attorneys believe that.

In fact, many high-powered attorneys have questioned the Bush administration's explanation for 9/11 itself, including why the Bush administration allowed the hijacked planes to inflict so much damage on 9/11. By way of example only, the following lawyers have publicly questioned the Bush administration's explanation for 9/11, or believe there might have been a whitewash and a cover-up:

•J. Michael Springmann, head of the U.S. consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who witnessed first-hand CIA agents insisting that terrorists be let into the U.S., even though their paperwork was wholly inadequate
•John Loftus, Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services
•J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner, former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
•Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, a leading practitioner and advocate of international law, responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
•Burns H. Weston, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Founding Director and Senior Scholar, Center for Human Rights, The University of Iowa, Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law
•Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University
•Mark Conrad, assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations
•Horst Ehmke, former Minister of Justice of West Germany. Professor of law, University of Freiburg;
•Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy. Former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy. Presided over numerous terrorism-related cases
The lawyers listed above, and many other legal scholars, have looked at the evidence and determined that a new, unbiased 9/11 investigation is needed.

We invite you to go to www.L911T.com, the website for Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and look for yourself.

Signed,

Burns Weston
Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Founding Director and Senior Scholar, Center for Human Rights, The University of Iowa, Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law

William Veale
Former instructor of Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Aha, heeft Jim Garrison dan de staat USA aangeklaagd of tenminste de CIA ?
Hoe was de aanklacht ? LOL een rechtertje die het US-Government aanklaagt, dat gaat toch niet man man. Wetgevende macht <> Rechterlijke macht : snappy ????

neen jij snapt het niet, wie zegt dat de CIA of de staat er iets mee te maken had... Jim Garrison heeft onderzoek gedaan naar de omstandigheden van de moord op JFK

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

WOW, wat een aanklacht ! hij heeft een burgerpersoontje opgepakt ( pas later 5 jaar na Shaw´s dood - was er toch een bewijs dat Shaw wat met de CIA te doen had... Dus een samenzwering LH Oswald en Clay Shaw, WOW ! http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gar...egen_Clay_Shaw )

het enigste dat Garrison wou bewijzen was dat LJO niet alleen handelde en dat er mogelijk een link was met shaw en via shaw met de cia, maar Shaw werd vrijgesproken

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

En waarom haalt ge dan Jim Garrison erbij ?
En wat weet gij nu van het aantal "medeplichtigen" ? Mss waren het er wel minder als bij JF Kennedy.

omdat jij die senaatscommissie aanhaalde als eerste rechtzaak ivm JFK en dit dus helemaal niet waar was!
nog minder dan 10 tal personen (als het er al zoveel waren)

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Even de cijfers van het eerste (pruts) Report Warren (doet me aan het 9/11 commission prutsreport van maar 585 blz denken...):
850 blz, 600 getuigen, 3000 bewijsstukken enz...


Maar dat is nog niet alles, het nog geheime rapport JFK zou 400.000 bladzijden bevatten:

daar heb je gelijk in het Warren rapport was pruts maar wat bedoel je eigenlijk dat ook deze commissie in de samenzwering zat?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Overtuigd...
En Oswald heeft uit eigen beweging JF Kennedy vermoord. Sure.


Opgepakt ja, maar dat schreef ik NIET.
Ik bedoelde dat hij al gezocht werd na enkele minuten...:

bewijs dat maar eens zwart op wit zou ik zeggen of laat deze leugens achterwege

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

En zeggen dat advocaat (O.M.) Jim Garrison zelf voor een "conspiracist" uitgemaakt werd door "collega" Gerald Posner ...

ja, Jim Garrison maakte zelfs misbruik van het rechtssysteem volgens Anthony Summers...

ja en ? Garrison had een gegronde reden om te denken dat LHO niet alleen handelde maar om dit te vergelijken met 9/11 hoe belachelijk ben je dan bezig...

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

neen jij snapt het niet, wie zegt dat de CIA of de staat er iets mee te maken had... Jim Garrison heeft onderzoek gedaan naar de omstandigheden van de moord op JFK
het enigste dat Garrison wou bewijzen was dat LJO niet alleen handelde en dat er mogelijk een link was met shaw en via shaw met de cia, maar Shaw werd vrijgesproken

Klopt het was een rechtszaak tegen een burger op dat moment.
Bij 9/11 zijn er ook rechtszaken tegen burgers...
maar niet tegen de conspiracy van bepaalde personen of burgers die banden hadden met FBI, CIA, NORAD of Bush Administration. Eerder omgekeerd rechtszaken tegen Whistleblowers...

omdat jij die senaatscommissie aanhaalde als eerste rechtzaak ivm JFK en dit dus helemaal niet waar was!

Omdat enkel de senaatscommissie voor rechtvaardigheid kan zorgen in een zaak waar de CIA of andere staatsinstelling in betrokken is.

daar heb je gelijk in het Warren rapport was pruts maar wat bedoel je eigenlijk dat ook deze commissie in de samenzwering zat?

Waarom bleef het Warren rapport halsstarrig weigeren andere pistes te volgen ?

ja en ? Garrison had een gegronde reden om te denken dat LHO niet alleen handelde maar om dit te vergelijken met 9/11 hoe belachelijk ben je dan bezig.

Hoe BELACHELIJK ben jij want jij haalde Garrison erbij.

JIJ vindt 9 jaar lang voordat er een gerechterlijk onderzoek komt ?

Snap je nu nog altijd niet dat men eventueel medeplichtige personen van instellingen die door de staat beschermd worden niet kan aanklagen als de staatsinstelling dat niet zelf doet ?
vb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...litary_Justice

[Micele]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiy...eature=related

9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced

16. März 2007
That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national security, let us speak no more of her.

That, when commenting on Edmond's case, Daniel Ellsberg remarked that Ashcroft could go to prison for his part in a cover-up, suggests Ellsberg is giving comfort to the terrorists, and could, if he doesn't wise up, find himself declared an enemy combatant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apz60ugBRx4

9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI WHISTLEBLOWER GAGGED BY JUSTICE DPT.!!

7. August 2007
That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national security, let us speak no more of her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58

The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part I

7. Mai 2007
Part I
Dr. Graham, Chief Judiciary for Clinton Impeachment David Schippers, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer & Able Danger, FBI Operative Randy Glass,

Part II
FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh & P-Tech

enzzz....

Before the 9/11 Commission, however, there was a 9/11 investigation conducted. An unprecedented joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees, completed in December 2002, long before the 9/11 Commission convened, is much more forthcoming about the failure of the government bureaucracy, and makes an interesting counterpoint to the 9/11 Commission report. Available only in heavily redacted form, not many people are even aware of its existence.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

But the Joint Inquiry report is much more forthcoming about the failure of the complicated, inefficient, mammoth, malfunctioning bureaucracy. For example: “From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.”

No idea terrorists would fly planes into buildings, my ass. I suggest everyone spend today reading the Joint Inquiry report to get another perspective on the story the 9/11 Commission didn’t really want to tell.

NSWBC provided a list of 13 whistleblowers who were prepared to testify before the 9/11 Commission because they had relevant knowledge, but were “turned away, ignored or censored.” Reading through the list gives some idea of what we didn’t find out from the 9/11 Commission and how much of a disservice it did to us.

http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20D...%20Experts.pdf

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies. — National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (PDF)

It’s clear now to anyone paying the least bit of attention that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were completely preventable, but not by the U.S. government as it was then — and still is now. A government which took its whistleblowers seriously, investigated their complaints with alacrity, and acted with speed, could have foiled this particular plot.

I fear that this government, which has done nothing more than rearrange the bureaucratic deck chairs and needlessly inconvenience millions of people to give Americans a false sense of security, will likewise ignore the warning signs of the next terrorist plot.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eti1777

NIST zegt;

Lees eens het rapport in zijn volledige context, in plaats van te zoeken naar schijnbare tegenstellingen! tip ,Staal zet uit ook bij 250 graden al .

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

enzzz....

Before the 9/11 Commission, however, there was a 9/11 investigation conducted. An unprecedented joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees, completed in December 2002, long before the 9/11 Commission convened, is much more forthcoming about the failure of the government bureaucracy, and makes an interesting counterpoint to the 9/11 Commission report. Available only in heavily redacted form, not many people are even aware of its existence.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

But the Joint Inquiry report is much more forthcoming about the failure of the complicated, inefficient, mammoth, malfunctioning bureaucracy. For example: “From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.”

No idea terrorists would fly planes into buildings, my ass. I suggest everyone spend today reading the Joint Inquiry report to get another perspective on the story the 9/11 Commission didn’t really want to tell.

NSWBC provided a list of 13 whistleblowers who were prepared to testify before the 9/11 Commission because they had relevant knowledge, but were “turned away, ignored or censored.” Reading through the list gives some idea of what we didn’t find out from the 9/11 Commission and how much of a disservice it did to us.

http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20D...%20Experts.pdf

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies. — National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (PDF)

It’s clear now to anyone paying the least bit of attention that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were completely preventable, but not by the U.S. government as it was then — and still is now. A government which took its whistleblowers seriously, investigated their complaints with alacrity, and acted with speed, could have foiled this particular plot.

I fear that this government, which has done nothing more than rearrange the bureaucratic deck chairs and needlessly inconvenience millions of people to give Americans a false sense of security, will likewise ignore the warning signs of the next terrorist plot.

Dit gaat over hoe men omging met de waarschuwingen , en laat juist zien dat 9/11 geen inside job was .

die waarschuwingen waren er echt , of ontkend u dat ook ? waar gingen die waarschuwingen eigenlijk over ?

En natuurlijk wist men direct wie de schuldigen waren. Namelijk de genen die al jaren lang riepen dat ze de VS te grazen wilden nemen en al enkele andere aanslagen op hen hadden gepleegd.

[Micele]

@ atmosphere, moest ge het gemist hebben...

Bekijk bericht 2 August 2010, 00:20
Dit bericht is verborgen omdat atmosphere op jouw negeerlijst staat.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Terwijl daar geen misverstand over kan bestaan. Wanneer u dat niet kunt toegeven , houd de discussie voor mij op omdat die dan zinloos is.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Eindelijk, gelieve mijn posten dan ook niet meer te quoten, of zonder te quoten op mijn posts in te gaan. Amen.

Ik zal hetzelfde doen.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Dit gaat over hoe men omging met de waarschuwingen , en laat juist zien dat 9/11 geen inside job was .

die waarschuwingen waren er echt , of ontkend u dat ook ? waar gingen die waarschuwingen eigenlijk over ?

En natuurlijk wist men direct wie de schuldigen waren. Namelijk de genen die al jaren lang riepen dat ze de VS te grazen wilden nemen en al enkele andere aanslagen op hen hadden gepleegd.

yep!

[Micele]

http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

Mission

The NSA/CSS core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information.


The Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
Executive Order 12333, originally issued 4 December 1981, delineates the NSA/CSS roles and responsibilities. In part, the Director, NSA/Chief, CSS is charged to:

•Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions;
•Act as the National Manager for National Security Systems as established in law and policy, and in this capacity be responsible to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director, National Intelligence;
•Prescribe security regulations covering operating practices, including the transmission, handling, and distribution of signals intelligence and communications security material within and among the elements under control of the Director of the National Security Agency, and exercise the necessary supervisory control to ensure compliance with the regulations.

EO 12333 was amended on 31 July 2008 in order to:

•Align EO12333 with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;
•Implement additional recommendations of the 9/11 and WMD Commissions;
•Further integrate the Intelligence Community and clarify and strengthen the role of the DNI as the head of the Community;
•Maintain or strengthen privacy and civil liberties protections.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vi...ues/index.html

CIA Vision, Mission & Values

Vision
One Agency. One Community. An Agency unmatched in its core capabilities, functioning as one team, fully integrated into the Intelligence Community.

Mission
We are the nation’s first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go. We carry out our mission by:

•Collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.

•Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests.

•Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.

Core Values
•Service. We put Country first and Agency before self. Quiet patriotism is our hallmark. We are dedicated to the mission, and we pride ourselves on our extraordinary responsiveness to the needs of our customers.

•Integrity. We uphold the highest standards of conduct. We seek and speak the truth—to our colleagues and to our customers. We honor those Agency officers who have come before us and we honor the colleagues with whom we work today.

•Excellence. We hold ourselves—and each other—to the highest standards. We embrace personal accountability. We reflect on our performance and learn from that reflection.

http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus.htm

Our mission is to help protect you, your communities, and your businesses from the most dangerous threats facing our nation—from international and domestic terrorists to spies on U.S. soil…from cyber villains to corrupt government officials…from mobsters to violent gangs…from child predators to serial killers. Learn more here about our work with law enforcement and intelligence partners across the country and around the globe.

http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States.

http://www.eads.ang.af.mil/main/welcome.asp

Mission

Provides air sovereignty and executes counter-air operations over the eastern United States. Directs the employment of 178 sensors, 8 fighter alert locations, AWACS aircraft, a Battle Control Center (BCC), and joint air defense artillery assets to defend one million square miles, 16 major cities, and adjacent seas. Supports NORAD's Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment, NORTHCOM Homeland Defense Mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAF#Mission

Mission

According to the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 502), which created the USAF:

In general the United States Air Force shall include aviation forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war.
§8062 of Title 10 US Code defines the purpose of the USAF[8] as:

to preserve the peace and security, and provide for the defense, of the United States, the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States;
to support national policy;
to implement national objectives;
to overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.
The stated mission of the USAF today is to "fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace".[9]

http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...eet.asp?id=160

Air National Guard

Mission

The Air National Guard has both a federal and state mission. The dual mission, a provision of the U. S. Constitution, results in each guardsman holding membership in the National Guard of his or her state and in the National Guard of the United States.

Federal Mission

The Air National Guard's federal mission is to maintain well-trained, well-equipped units available for prompt mobilization during war and provide assistance during national emergencies (such as natural disasters or civil disturbances). During peacetime, the combat-ready units and support units are assigned to most Air Force major commands to carry out missions compatible with training, mobilization readiness, humanitarian and contingency operations such as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Air National Guard units may be activated in a number of ways as prescribed by public law. Most of the laws may be found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

The Air National Guard provides almost half of the Air Force's tactical airlift support, combat communications functions, aeromedical evacuations and aerial refueling. In addition, the Air National Guard has total responsibility for air defense of the entire United States.

State Mission

When Air National Guard units are not mobilized or under federal control, they report to the governor of their respective state, territory (Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands) or the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard. Each of the 54 National Guard organizations is supervised by the adjutant general of the state or territory. Under state law, the Air National Guard provides protection of life, property and preserves peace, order and public safety. These missions are accomplished through emergency relief support during natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and forest fires; search and rescue operations; support to civil defense authorities; maintenance of vital public services and counterdrug operations.

Engagements

Cold War
*Korean War
*Vietnam War
*Grenada War
First Persian Gulf War
Kosovo War
War on Terror
*Afghan War
*Second Persian Gulf War

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/heritage.asp

...
...

https://employees.faa.gov/org/linebu...about/mission/

Mission:
Provide a safe, efficient, responsive air transportation system that serves the nation and supports the global aviation community.

Vision:
We continue to improve the safety and efficiency of flight
We are responsive to our customers
We are accountable to the public

Values:
Safety is our passion. We're world leaders in aerospace safety.
Quality is our trademark. We serve our country, our customers, and each other.
Integrity is our character. We do the right thing, even if no one is looking.
People are our strength. We treat each other as we want to be treated.

[atmosphere]

Wat wil u nu eigenlijk zeggen met al die quotes ?

Wel zo handig om dat erbij te vermelden, denkt u niet ?

[InfiniteLoveIsAll]

Dixie, Atmosphere, wat zeg je hier van?

'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks

Military personnel responsible for defending U.S. airspace had false tracks displayed on their radar screens throughout the entire duration of the 9/11 attacks, as part of the simulation for a training exercise being conducted that day. Technicians at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) were still receiving the simulated radar information around the time the third attack, on the Pentagon, took place. Those at NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, were still receiving it several minutes after United Airlines Flight 93 apparently crashed in rural Pennsylvania.

No one has investigated why false tracks continued being injected onto NORAD radar screens long after the U.S. military was alerted to the real-world crisis taking place that morning. And yet we surely need to know more about these simulated "inputs" and what effect they had on the military's ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

NEADS TECHNICIANS TOLD TO TURN OFF 'SIM SWITCHES'
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings. And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." [1] Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.) [2]

This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York." Forty-eight minutes had passed since the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred, and 31 minutes since the second tower was hit and it became obvious that the U.S. was under attack. It was only three minutes after Richmond gave his instruction, at 9:37 a.m., that the Pentagon was struck in the third successful attack that morning. [3]

Why were NEADS radar scopes displaying simulated information for so long during the real-world crisis, when it appears the technicians could have removed that information at the flick of a switch? Surely any false tracks could have hindered the ability of NEADS personnel to effectively respond to the attacks, so should have been terminated at the first sign of an actual emergency.

And yet this inexplicable behavior was not an exception. A similar thing happened at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado, where it appears that false radar tracks were being displayed for even longer than at NEADS.

NORAD OPERATIONS CENTER ASKS FOR 'EXERCISE INPUTS' TO BE STOPPED
At 10:12 a.m., an officer at the NORAD operations center, "Captain Taylor," called NEADS and spoke to Captain Brian Nagel, the chief of live exercises there. After introducing himself, Taylor said, "What we need you to do right now is to terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain." Nagel gave Taylor an extension number and asked him to call it to get the exercise inputs stopped. Taylor replied, "I'll do that." [4] "Inputs," according to an article in Vanity Fair, are simulated scenarios that are put into play by a simulations team during training exercises. [5]

Taylor was presumably referring specifically to false tracks that had been transmitted onto radar screens at the CMOC, where more than 50 members of the battle staff had been participating in the exercise conducted that morning. [6] Indeed, the Toronto Star reported, "Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject'" was "purged from the screens" at the CMOC in response to the news of the real-world attacks. (However, the report indicated, apparently incorrectly, that the false tracks appearing on CMOC screens were terminated earlier on, at some time shortly before 9:03 a.m., when the second WTC tower was hit.) [7]

If simulated material was still being displayed on CMOC radar screens at 10:12 a.m., this would be astonishing. By that time, 95 minutes had passed since--according to the 9/11 Commission--the military was first alerted to the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11, and more than an hour had passed since the second plane hit the WTC. Flight 93 had apparently crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania minutes earlier, and so the 9/11 attacks were already over. [8]

Why did it take so long for someone at the CMOC to call NEADS and ask it to "terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain?" Surely any simulated information should have been stopped as soon as NORAD learned of the real-world crisis taking place that morning.

The operations center was certainly in a valuable position to assist in the response to the terrorist attacks, so the intrusion of false tracks on its radar screens would presumably have considerably impaired the emergency response capabilities of the military. Airman magazine described the CMOC as the "nerve center of NORAD," and its troops as "the eyes and ears of North America ... nothing escapes their unsleeping watch." [9] According to the Toronto Star, "Whether it's a simulation or a real-world event, the role of the center is to fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and crystalline snapshot." [10] NORAD has stated that the center collected data "from a worldwide system of satellites, radars, and other sensors, and processes that information on sophisticated computer systems to support critical NORAD and U.S. Space Command missions."

The CMOC provided "warning of ballistic missile or air attacks against North America, assists the air sovereignty mission for the United States and Canada, and, if necessary, is the focal point for air defense operations to counter enemy bombers or cruise missiles." The Battle Management Center there provided "command and control for the air surveillance and air defense network for North America." In 1994, for example, it monitored over 700 "unknown" radar tracks that entered North American airspace. [11]

meer

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Wat wil u nu eigenlijk zeggen met al die quotes ?

Is mij ook niet erg duidelijk.

Wel zo handig om dat erbij te vermelden, denkt u niet ?

Inderdaad, maar hij laat het afweten...

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door InfiniteLoveIsAll

Dixie, Atmosphere, wat zeg je hier van?



meer

Kan er weinig over zeggen , daarvoor is meer informatie nodig .

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door InfiniteLoveIsAll

Dixie, Atmosphere, wat zeg je hier van?

meer

Dat heb ik al een hele tijd geleden aan hun uitgelegd, toen die War Games ter sprake kwam. Nu doen ze alsof hun neuzen bloeden.

Yep, daar was het ongeveer.. rond october november december... 2009 :
via google: http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...ostcount=13058 post van 11 November 2009, 12:06 over 84 Rades en de radarcoverage door de ARSR4-radars.

Aangezien ik van deze ganse materie - bewegende synthetic video´s (software-blipjes) worden via militair-netwerk op de radarscopes gesimuleerd - grondige kennis heb als radartechnicus.

Alle radars zijn namelijk via netwerk met elkaar verbonden, en vanuit het CMOC kan men het radarbeeld van eender welke radar in de USA op een (groter) scherm presenteren.

Natuurlijk kunnen die false tracks:

- ofwel individueel door het omleggen van een bepaald schakelaartje per scope uitgeschakeld worden.

- ofwel wat natuurlijk héél logisch is wordt het centraal afgezet vanaf de hoofdserver waar de wargame-simulatie primair opgestart wordt.

Dat moet in de CMOC geweest zijn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain
Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC).

If simulated material was still being displayed on CMOC radar screens at 10:12 a.m., this would be astonishing. By that time, 95 minutes had passed since--according to the 9/11 Commission--the military was first alerted to the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11, and more than an hour had passed since the second plane hit the WTC. Flight 93 had apparently crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania minutes earlier, and so the 9/11 attacks were already over. [8]

Why did it take so long for someone at the CMOC to call NEADS and ask it to "terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain?" Surely any simulated information should have been stopped as soon as NORAD learned of the real-world crisis taking place that morning.

NEADS Notified was om 8 h 37 tot 10 h 12 of idd 95 minuten...
en dan nog, volgens de timeline konden militairen voor hun scopes het wegvallen van secundary data (additional info) van de transponder van AA11 ook opmerken om 8 h 21 of wie weet zelfs vroeger... Volgens 84 RADES: At approximately 08:20 ET, the aircraft’s beacon transponder is turned OFF eliminating mode 3A code reports of 1443 as well as the aircraft’s mode C height reporting.

8:21 Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off, but the plane remains on radar screens as a blip without additional information. (Prior to the 9/11 Commission's report, news organizations reported this time as 8:13 or immediately thereafter.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_ti....80.93_8:58_am

Want een blip mét additional information waarvan het laatste plots van het scherm verdwijnt is opvallend. Enkele luchtverkeersleiders (militaire en burger) kunnen het mss overzien maar niet alle tegelijk op alle radarscopes waarvan de radars AA11 konden detecteren binnen reikwijdte, en dat waren er heel wat.
Van de modernste 3-Dimensionele ARSR4 radars -reikwijdte 460 km- waren het al minstens 2 radars gebruikt door FAA en USAF -dus 4 controlrooms - en elke ops-center..., tower of bunker heeft meerdere scopes ´per radarroom´.

13 Sep 01
MEMORANDUM FOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI)
FROM: 84 RADES/CC
7976 Aspen Ave
Hill AFB UT 84056-5846

SUBJECT: Radar Data Analysis of East Coast Terrorist Activities, 11 September 2001 (World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pittsburgh PA).

Table 1 Mishap Outline
World Trade Center A/C #1 American Airlines (AA) – 11 Boeing 767 08:46 ET
Location Type USAF FAA
- Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH
- North Truro MA ARSR-4 J-53 QEA

3.1 WTC Aircraft One (AA 11). The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage of the AA Boeing 767 aircraft that impacted with the World Trade Center (WTC) at 08:46 Eastern Time (ET). Primary search-only data is available for the entire flight. Radar target reports begin shortly after takeoff at 08:10 ET. Radar data shows AA 11 climbing to flight altitude west of
Boston Logan International Airport. At approximately 08:20 ET, the aircraft’s beacon transponder is turned OFF eliminating mode 3A code reports of 1443 as well as the aircraft’s mode C height reporting. The remainder of the flight information comes from search-only radar returns that include 3-D height. At 08:37 ET, AA 11 deviates from its original flight route and turns towards New York City.
http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505

En daarbij ze hoeven het zelfs niet eens te zien want er gaat een warning of alarm gaat af bij de "verantwoordelijke" luchtverkeersleiders moest het vliegtuig in zijn detectie-coverage transponder-off gaan.

4. What happens when transponders fail in flight?

At jet speeds, the specter of mid-air collision makes every second of response time is vital. Automatic alarms on every radar screen within range would have alerted FAA controllers – as well as NORAD and NEADS battle staffs sharing the same scopes – that something was seriously wrong onboard Fl 11.

Lees het eens van een ervaren luchtverkeersleider wat hij ervan denkt:
http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

En deze site heeft ook heelwat uitgepluisd over NORAD tijdens 9/11:
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

En NORAD moet niet zo geheimzinnig doen over gekaapte vliegtuigen die in wolkenkrabbers gaan vliegen, die scenario´s hebben ze voldoende getraind...:

Vlam alles erop, toch geen kat hier die dat begrijpend leest...

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-2...n-headquarters

NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper--The UN Headquarters
Submitted by Shoestring on Tue, 07/27/2010 - 9:40am military exercisesNORAD
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) held a major training exercise in October 2000 that included the scenario of a person stealing a large jet plane, which they planned to crash into the United Nations headquarters building--a 39-story high-rise in New York, just a few miles away from the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a NORAD exercise in June that year included one scenario in which a plane was hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the White House, and another in which a transcontinental flight was hijacked with the intention of crashing the plane into the Statue of Liberty, only a short distance from where the WTC stood.

The existence of these exercise scenarios was revealed in August 2004 by General Richard Myers, at that time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) asked, "Did NORAD"-- the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace--"conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?" In response, Myers outlined "five exercise hijack events" that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all "included a suicide crash into a high-value target." [1] Yet the details of these chilling scenarios, which were like premonitions of the attacks on New York and Washington that lay ahead, failed to receive the public attention they deserved.

OCTOBER 2000 SCENARIO: STOLEN PLANE TARGETS UN BUILDING
The scenario that included an attempt to crash a plane into the UN headquarters was practiced for twice--on October 16 and October 23, 2000--as part of an exercise called Vigilant Guardian. This annual exercise was conducted by NORAD, and all of the organization, including its headquarters and its three air defense sectors in the continental United States, participated. [2]

The scenario practiced for on October 16 was that, "Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a suicide attack into the United Nations building in New York City." The October 23 scenario, according to Myers's summary, was almost identical. It was based around "weapons of mass destruction directed at the United Nations," and in it, "an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and plans a suicide attack on the United Nations building in New York City." [3] (At the time of this exercise, Federal Express was flying mostly the MD-11 and the DC-10, both large jet aircraft. Presumably one of those planes was the type considered in the scenarios. [4])

The next Vigilant Guardian--for the year 2001--was actually being conducted at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. [5] One can only imagine what NORAD personnel must have thought when the real-world events of September 11 so closely resembled a scenario they had encountered in the previous instance of that day's exercise--a suicide pilot trying to crash a large jet plane into a New York skyscraper.

JUNE 2000 SCENARIOS: HIJACKERS PLAN TO CRASH PLANES INTO WHITE HOUSE AND STATUE OF LIBERTY
On June 5, 2000, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) was conducting an exercise called Falcon Indian, in which its three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part. [6] Two scenarios were practiced for that day in which hijackers planned to crash an aircraft into a well-known, "high-value" target in New York or Washington.

One scenario involved a Learjet being hijacked, and "maintaining tight formation with [a] Canadair airliner, loaded with explosives," according to Myers's summary. (It is unclear from that summary whether it was the Learjet or the Canadair plane that had explosives on board.) The hijackers "planned to crash" the Learjet "into the White House." In the other scenario, a "Communist Party faction" hijacked an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The hijackers had "high explosives on board," and intended "to crash into the Statue of Liberty." [7]

NOVEMBER 1999 SCENARIO: TERRORISTS PLAN TO CRASH HIJACKED PLANE INTO UN BUILDING
The fifth scenario Myers described was from an earlier Falcon Indian, held in November 1999. Again, NORAD's three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part in the CONR exercise. And, again, the exercise included a scenario based around the hijacking of a transcontinental aircraft flying from the western to the eastern United States. In the simulation, a China Airlines plane bound from Los Angeles to JFK International Airport in New York was "hijacked east of Colorado Springs by five terrorists." If the plane was not intercepted by the U.S. military, the hijackers intended "to crash into [the] United Nations building." [8]

OTHER PRE-9/11 PLANE-INTO-BUILDING SCENARIOS
Just a few months before Richard Myers revealed the existence of these five exercise scenarios, USA Today and CNN reported that NORAD had conducted exercises in the years before 9/11 that simulated hijackers crashing aircraft into buildings in the United States. Some of the scenarios that had been practiced for were described. It is unclear whether any of them correspond with the five later outlined by Myers, although, from what has been reported, it appears they were separate scenarios, additional to those in Myers's list.

USA Today reported that "in the two years before the September 11 attacks," NORAD conducted exercises simulating "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." In one exercise, "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center." Another exercise involved fighter jets performing "a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States." These two scenarios were included in "regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises," according to NORAD, and the planes in the simulations were coming from a foreign country, rather than from within the U.S. [9]

CNN reported, "Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of [a] training exercise scenario." That scenario involved the airliner "being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad." The exercise "was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the [NORAD] headquarters." The identity of the building hit by the aircraft was classified, but military officials said that it "would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon." [10]

How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks? And considering that the existence of these plane-into-building training scenarios has largely gone unreported, might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD--or other U.S. military organizations--that we do not yet know of? A new investigation into 9/11 is clearly urgently required. And the role of these training scenarios is one of many aspects of the attacks that must be thoroughly examined.

NOTES
[1] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., August 17, 2004.
[2] Ibid.; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[3] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[4] Greg Schneider, "FedEx to Buy 10 Airbus Super-Jumbo Jets." Washington Post, January 17, 2001.
[5] William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 545.
[6] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 362.
[7] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[10] Barbara Starr, "NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building." CNN, April 19, 2004.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Wat wil u nu eigenlijk zeggen met al die quotes ?

Wel zo handig om dat erbij te vermelden, denkt u niet ?

gewoon wat flooden niet op letten...

[eti1777]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Lees eens het rapport in zijn volledige context, in plaats van te zoeken naar schijnbare tegenstellingen! tip ,Staal zet uit ook bij 250 graden al .

Bedoel je dat de branden het staal hebben doen uitzetten zonder die te verzwakken?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

de cores zijn naar verwachting ook niet verzwakt door brand.

[atmosphere]

Het is allemaal weer eens verschrikkelijk suggestief en selectief die quotes. Vanuit een grenzeloos vertrouwen in de procedures en oefeningen van de US military en luchtverkeersleiding.

De praktijk is nagenoeg altijd anders dan de oefeningen en garanderen niets !

Voor het eerste gekaapte toestel geldt simpelweg dat de response time te kort was , zelfs al waren bestaande procedures op de juiste manier gehanteerd.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eti1777

Bedoel je dat de branden het staal hebben doen uitzetten zonder die te verzwakken?

Het staal zal ook wel iets verzwakken bij 250 graden.

Maar het NIST rapport komt in de eind conclusie helemaal niet uit op de verhitting van core collumns als oorzaak van de instorting.


Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

De praktijk is nagenoeg altijd anders dan de oefeningen en garanderen niets !

[atmosphere]

Daar valt inderdaad weinig tegenin te brengen.