Gå til innhold

Government bak 9/11?

b-real

Av b-real
i Oppslagstavlen

Anbefalte innlegg

captain_obvious

captain_obvious

Skrevet
Skrevet
Aha, så stål kan bli ødelagt av stoffer som tilsynelatende er svakere enn stål ved innblandingen av andre faktorer...

Krangler du mot deg sjøl nå eller?

 

Les igjen før du tøffen, så kanskje du får med deg noe - f.eks faktorer som fart og masse jeg - som i, et fly av alumium som veier adskillelige tonn som flyr i adskillig fart vil skape nok energi og moment til å ødelegge noen stålbjelker, noe Frank Aune tydeligvis er uenig i, fordi "aluminium kan ikke ødelegge stål".

Jeg leste bare det elendige intetsigende innlegget ditt jeg, og fant feil. Enten får du legge fra deg klovnekostymet og diskutere som en oppegående person, eller så får du ta det som kommer, tøffen.

Lenke til kommentar

Videoannonse

Videoannonse
Annonse
herzeleid

herzeleid

Skrevet
Skrevet
Vi vet begge at du brukte nærmere 5-10 sekunder. Spar oss... Enten får du bla litt i tråden og videoene der (et par ganske sjokkerende) og siden kan du uttale deg, ellers kan du gå å legge deg. At vi skal sitte her å bla gjennom den intetsigende intellektuelle masturberingen din er helt unødvendig sløsing med elektroner.

 

Høres fortsatt bare ut som en sint unge, gir deg ikke mye troverdighet i diskusjonen. Du "vet" åpenbart at jeg bare brukte 5-10 sekunder. Trenger kanskje ikke å forklare deg hvor mye du driter deg ut der? Ellers er vell innlegget dit her fult av drittslenging og frekkheter mot meg uten at du har klart å begrunne noe. Har nok lest mer i denne tråden en du ser ut til å tro og at du leker tøff når noen motsier deg er forsovet ganske patetisk.

Lenke til kommentar
IntelAmdAti

IntelAmdAti

Skrevet
Skrevet (endret)

9/11 er jo helt ekstremt, er ikke sjanse for at det kan ha vært al qaida som sto bak. Er bare å titte på hva som ble sendt på direktesendt TV.

 

Det som jeg linker til her er ganske nøye utvalgte filmer, de er nok ikke feilfrie men etter å ha trålt gjennom disse er det nærmest umulig å godta den offisielle forklaringen.

 

Filmklipp fra annet sikkerhetskamera av Pentagon 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg...feature=related

 

Professor Steven Jones om spor funnet av smeltet metall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A...feature=related

 

Flere klipp som viser kollaps av tårnene:

 

MIT Engineer Jeff King says WTC demolished:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

 

Denne kjøper jeg ikke:

Små biter med metall som kutter stålbjelker som smør?

 

Mye kluss med media den dagen, se tabbene og feilene gjort på direktesendingene som avslører alt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzCW197AqpM - Foxed out Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI...feature=related - Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTNuucgtuo - TV fakery evidence

- Hvorfor mangler fly nr. 2 her?

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo - Hvordan kunne vi la oss lure av dette?

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=huT0R4deLB0 - Se på 27 sekunder ut i filmen. Det er et "Live" klipp som loopes.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ&feature=related - Øyenvitne live på CNN, "It was a bomb, no second plane".

 

Talen som JFK betalte med livet for å holde:

 

Monolog om 9/11:

 

Truth vs disinformation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4NknXwb1Ug

Endret av Pycnopodia
Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet
Fysikkens lover gjelder ikke for konspirasjonsteoretikere.

Siden du er så jævlig god på fysikk så kan du kanskje forklare hvordan tårnene raste i nær fritt fall hastighet? Hvordan er det mulig at toppen av disse bygningene lander samtidig?

suspendedWTCtop2.gif

 

I samme slengen kan du prøve å belære folk som han fyren her eller denne. Hva med flere hundre fagfolk som stiller seg bak Richard Gage?

 

På side 305 i 911 Commission Report blir vi fortalt at WTC 2 kollapset på 10 sekunder.

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

Dette er fritt fall etter Newtons lover. Dere husker kanskje at strekning=vei*tid osv fra barneskolen.

 

Energi ble frigjort av massive horisontale utslynginger av enorme stålbjelker i tillegg til at alt glasset, betong og gips gikk i oppløsning. Mennesker også. Det blir funnet beinfragmenter den dag i dag på størrelse med erter.

 

Energien som behøves for å gjøre noe sånt er ufattelig mye mer enn den potensielle energien som hele tårnet hadde å gi.Kilde.

Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet

Noen av dere tenker sikkert "disse folka som tror på dette må være spik spenna gærne", ikke sant? Da skal dere vite at det er millioner der ute som har satt seg inn i saken og setter spørsmålstegn ved den offisielle versjonen. Piloter, fysikere, ingeniører, politikere, militærfolk osv...

 

Highly-Credible People Question 9/11

 

The following people question the government's version of 9/11, or the government's

openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

 

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

 

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)

said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

 

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said thatthe 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

 

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

 

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says"I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

 

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that"There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

 

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

 

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating:"It is a national scandal";"This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

 

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest".

 

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

 

CONGRESS

 

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

 

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

 

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that"we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

 

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich)hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11.

 

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11.

 

Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee)endorses a new 9/11 investigation.

 

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

 

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

 

MILITARY LEADERS

 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray)

said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

 

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

 

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

 

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

 

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11.

 

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

 

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski)finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious.

 

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

 

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine)questions the attack on the Pentagon.

 

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

 

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it. We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

 

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford)believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

 

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future....Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

 

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

 

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".

 

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility.

 

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

 

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

 

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

 

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

 

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [u.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

 

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).

 

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

 

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that

 

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

 

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

 

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

 

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).

 

SCIENTISTS

 

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

 

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there wouldbe a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

 

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was "very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters" (Richard F. Humenn), stated that "the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

 

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].''

 

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition.

 

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition .

 

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

 

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded.

 

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

 

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11.

 

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

 

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

 

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

 

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

 

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

 

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

 

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

 

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

 

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

 

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

 

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

 

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

 

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

 

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College.

 

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

 

LEGAL SCHOLARS

 

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 (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

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, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

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 (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

 

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; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.

 

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."

 

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

 

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

 

However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview).

 

Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also

 

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

 

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.

 

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

 

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

 

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

 

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

 

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

 

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

 

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

 

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

 

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

 

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

 

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

 

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford UniversityGraham Harris

 

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed PsychologistRonald Feintech

 

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

 

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

 

The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place.

 

Here are a few additional people to consider:

 

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

 

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

 

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide"? thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

 

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11.

 

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred".

 

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.

 

Oversikten ovenfor er tatt fra 911 Summary

Lenke til kommentar
captain_obvious

captain_obvious

Skrevet
Skrevet (endret)
God tid på deg du, Ballemannen? :) Det eneste jeg tok opp var påstanden til Frank Aune om at aluminium ikke kunne skade stålbjelker, noe jeg mener er en logisk feilslutning av samme art som "stål er sterkere enn is, derfor burde ikke Titanic ha sunket".

Når det gjaldt Titanic forliset så viste jo jeg til at det var svakheter i strukturen og stålet som gjorde at det gikk som det gikk. Om dette gikk deg forbi aner jeg ikke, fordi du valgte heller å komme med en kryptisk melding i et forsøk på å virke eplekjekk og overlegen meg som den "teite konspirasjonsteoretikeren som tror på alt", som det lå i kortene at du mente.

 

Ikke dermed sagt at en kollisjon i høy fart ikke kan ha skadet stålet, men du kan ikke bruke Titanic som sammenligning/argument for at TT skal ha blitt pulverisert og falle i frittfallhastighet pga av alu. TT hadde en ufattelig sterk stålkjerne og en nettingstruktur som var bygget for å kunne ta imot flere jetliners. Dette fordi lignende bygg ble truffet av et fly før, (B-25 i empire state building på 70tallet om jeg ikke husker feil). Istedet blir BEGGE tårnene pulverisert i fritt fall hastighet, og jaggu blir ikke en annen stålbygning ET BYGG BORTENFOR disse som tilfeldigvis rommet CIA kvarter og dokumenter fra Enron skandalen.

wtc_map.gif

Denne har ikke blitt forklart fra offisielt hold ENNÅ og Blekkulf-gjengen er travelt opptatt med å disse konspirasjonsteoretikerne og dementere samtlige innvendinger istedet for å joine folk som er ute etter 911truth. Jeg velger å tro noen er skyldig inntil det motsatte er bevist pga omstendighetene (som er at ingen beviser noe som helst selv om de burde) Selv trenger jeg ikke å tro på at WTC 1&2 var full av eksplosiver for å kreve en ny etterforskning, mer en nok andre spørsmål. Og jeg kommer ikke til å falle for fristelsen å hoppe over i sauebingen kun for å slippe å bli verbalt trakassert av "den intellektuelle eliten" som de liker å tro de er.

Endret av captain_obvious
Lenke til kommentar
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet
God tid på deg du, Ballemannen? :) Det eneste jeg tok opp var påstanden til Frank Aune om at aluminium ikke kunne skade stålbjelker, noe jeg mener er en logisk feilslutning av samme art som "stål er sterkere enn is, derfor burde ikke Titanic ha sunket".

God tid ja.... :dontgetit:

Jeg ble bare litt irritert når du sier at vi "konspirasjonsteoretikere" ikke respekterer fysikkens lover når det jo egentlig er motsatt.

En annen ting er at du misbruker ordet konspirasjon og konspirasjonsteori. Slå det opp i ordboka og finn ut at den offisielle versjonen er like fullt en konspirasjonsteori. Den er imidlertid så full av hull at det er flaut.

Lenke til kommentar
IntelAmdAti

IntelAmdAti

Skrevet
Skrevet

Ballemannen, Du har rett i at den offisielle forklaringen er en ganske vill og omstridt konspirasjonsteori.

 

Men sjekk ut dette:

1. Det første de vil prøve er å gjøre narr av deg, si du er lite intelligent og stemple deg som noe - paranoid idiot, konspirasjonsteoretiker eller noe annet. Poenget er å latterliggjøre deg for å gjøre deg sint.

- Hvis du lar deg irritere over dette eller gir tilbake med samme mynt har de oppnådd det de ville.

2. Etter dette vil de angripe bevisene og kildene dine, si at du ikke har beviser eller at de ikke er gyldige. De vil linke til nettsider som inneholder propaganda skreddersydd for å mislede, som Loose Change eller Screw Loose Change.

- Bare fortsett å greie ut om beviser, vis dem det de ikke vil at du skal vise. Ikke la deg avspore.

3. De vil si du er alene, dum, gal og at ingen vil høre på deg. Men du er ikke alene, folk flest er uvitende og kanskje dumme men stadig flere klarer å løsrive seg og faktisk sette spørsmålstegn ved propagandaen som vi bombarderes med daglig.

 

En 9/11-debunker har flertallet på sin side og alle er like uvitende og overlegne, men ikke la det avspore for det er flere som er åpne for sannheten.

 

captain_obvious, Det siste jeg så var at stålet som ble brukt i Titanic var av brukbar kvalitet, men boltene som holdt alt sammen var av dårlig kvalitet. Disse boltene kan ha forverret skaden.

Lenke til kommentar
  • 2 måneder senere...
Kubin

Kubin

Skrevet
Skrevet

To musikkvideoer,

 

The Free Bees : "911´s a lie" ( melodi : "Staying alive" parret med "Another brick in the wall" (*))

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...Pu2IoLIjAKj47By

 

Brian Stuart Fox : "9/11 Was An Inside Job" ( "Softheavy". Klikk "more" på høyre side for full tekst. )

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c...feature=related

 

 

 

(*) Pluss et ørlite parti som får deg til å tro det skal gå rett over i "Sledgehammer".

Lenke til kommentar
Ockham

Ockham

Skrevet
Skrevet
Ikke dermed sagt at en kollisjon i høy fart ikke kan ha skadet stålet, men du kan ikke bruke Titanic som sammenligning/argument for at TT skal ha blitt pulverisert og falle i frittfallhastighet pga av alu.

 

Det gjør jeg ikke. Det er en metafor som understreker Frank Aunes logiske feilslutning. Det er ingen grunn til aluminium ikke kan skade stål, på samme måte som det ikke er noen grunn til at is ikke kan skade stål. Det er utallelige andre faktorer utover det enkelte stoffets molekylære styrke som spiller inn.

 

TT hadde en ufattelig sterk stålkjerne og en nettingstruktur som var bygget for å kunne ta imot flere jetliners.

 

Mine kilder sier småfly, ikke jetliners. Det er en stor forskjell i både fart og masse mellom småfly av typen Cessna og en jetliner, ergo vil forskjellen i energi (produktet av fart og masse) være mye større. Hvis du har en kilde som konstaterer dette hadde det vært interessant å sett.

 

Dette fordi lignende bygg ble truffet av et fly før, (B-25 i empire state building på 70tallet om jeg ikke husker feil).

 

Vekt på B-25: Tom, 10 tonn - fulladet, 15 tonn

Maksfart: 442 km/t, marsjfart 370 km/t

 

Vekt på Boeing 767200ER: Tom, 82 tonn - fulladet 180 tonn

Maksfart: 913 km/t, marsjfart 851 km/t

 

Tar selvfølgelig høyde for variasjon i tallene her - vet ikke hvor mye bensin eller last det var i hverken av flyene i noen av hendelsene. Poenget er bare å illustrere forskjellen i kollisjonen, som uansett forhold er av betydelig grad.

 

Selv trenger jeg ikke å tro på at WTC 1&2 var full av eksplosiver for å kreve en ny etterforskning, mer en nok andre spørsmål. Og jeg kommer ikke til å falle for fristelsen å hoppe over i sauebingen kun for å slippe å bli verbalt trakassert av "den intellektuelle eliten" som de liker å tro de er.

 

Det er ingen grunn til at man ikke skal kunne komme til bunns og enighet i saken her. Forøvrig så ser jeg nok ikke på meg selv som et medlem av noen intellektuell elite, nei.

Lenke til kommentar
  • 3 uker senere...
Ballemannen

Ballemannen

Skrevet
Skrevet
TT hadde en ufattelig sterk stålkjerne og en nettingstruktur som var bygget for å kunne ta imot flere jetliners.

Mine kilder sier småfly, ikke jetliners. Det er en stor forskjell i både fart og masse mellom småfly av typen Cessna og en jetliner, ergo vil forskjellen i energi (produktet av fart og masse) være mye større. Hvis du har en kilde som konstaterer dette hadde det vært interessant å sett.

 

Vekt på B-25: Tom, 10 tonn - fulladet, 15 tonn

Maksfart: 442 km/t, marsjfart 370 km/t

 

Vekt på Boeing 767200ER: Tom, 82 tonn - fulladet 180 tonn

Maksfart: 913 km/t, marsjfart 851 km/t

 

Tar selvfølgelig høyde for variasjon i tallene her - vet ikke hvor mye bensin eller last det var i hverken av flyene i noen av hendelsene. Poenget er bare å illustrere forskjellen i kollisjonen, som uansett forhold er av betydelig grad.

WTC ble bygget med tanke på at det skulle stå imot flere evt treff fra det største flyet fra den tiden - et Boeing 707.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/wtc-towe...ng-707/36349228

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

 

Vingespennet til en Boeing 707 er 146 fot, lengde er 153 fot, 23000 gallons drivstoff, marsjfart 607 mph

Vingespennet til en Boeing 767 er 156 fot, lengde 159 fot, 23980 gallons drivstoff, marsjfart 530 mph

 

Disse flyene er altså ikke så ulike hva størrelse og fart angår, 767 litt tyngre og 707 litt hurtigere.

aircraftcomparison.gif

Dessuten er flyene som ble brukt mot WTC estimert til å inneholde bare ca 10000 gallons da de traff, altså ca 40% av kapasiteten til en 707.

I tillegg til dette igjen er vel bygninger, som alt annet, overdimensjonert. Så vidt jeg vet blir bygninger og broer bygget for å tåle ca 5 ganger forventet statisk belastning, og 3 ganger dynamisk belastning.

 

Her er Richard Gage, arkitekt med lang fartstid og mannen bak Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, i et kanadisk TV-intervju fra april i år der han legger fram sitt syn på saken. Anbefales!!

 

Her er en gammel dokumentar fra 1970 om arbeidene på WTC:

"Building The World Trade Center"

 

Se forøvrig også denne animasjonen om stålkjernen og strukturen i WTC, nydelig akkopagnert av Grieg :p

Lenke til kommentar
Uglemose

Uglemose

Skrevet
Skrevet

Noen utrdrag fra deklassifiserte dokumenter vedrørende "Operation Northwoods":

Samme opplegget.

 

Pages 10-11 of 15-page GWU file on Northwoods (page 7-8 of Joint Chiefs report):

 

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

 

A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:

 

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

 

A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

 

We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

 

Page 12 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 9 of Pentagon report):

 

Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. Reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

Page 13 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 10 of Pentagon report):

 

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

 

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

 

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

 

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

 

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501operationnorthwoods

 

 

"Operation Northwoods" deklassifiserte dokumenter, PDF fil: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430

Lenke til kommentar
Gjest
Dette emnet er stengt for flere svar.
Gå til emneliste

  • Hvem er aktive   0 medlemmer

    • Ingen innloggede medlemmer aktive
×
×
  • Opprett ny...