I tutaj masz te znaki zapytania rozwiane.
Ale skoro dalej obstajesz przy teorii spiskowej, to wytłumacz mi, co spowodowało te ślady, które zaznaczyłem na zielono. Wystarczy mi tylko, jak skupisz się na tym zakreśleniu po lewej
Jak też ten dziwny, poziomy ślad na którym oderwała się ściana aż do zbrojenia, mająca akurat tyle długości ile skrzydło boeinga od silnika po koniuszek powstał?
I wyjaśnienie białych częsci metalowych z resztkami czerwonych liter obok uszkodzonego Pentagonu...Nawet kolorystryka taka sama jak Boeinga linii lotniczych...
Przepraszam bardzo, to nie jest wyjaśnienie.
I w żadnym razie nie wyjaśnia tej litery C w tle:
A także totalnie kłóci się z tymi świadkami, którzy widzieli wyraźnie samolot pasażerski.
No i Tomahawk (widoczny na zdjęciu) nie przebije się przez kilkanaście ścian już po wybuchu. Więc ta teoria z Tomahawkiem odpada.
Teraz prosiłbym o zapoznanie sięz pewnymi textami. Będzie ich dużo i wszystkie po angielsku. Może znajdzie się ktoś, kto je prawidłowo przetłumaczy i użyje do dyskusji, ponieważ mój poziom angielskiego pozwala na zrozumienie tekstu z łatwością, ale przy tłumaczeniu staję się dość...nieporadny)
"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Tylko że zaraz wyjdzie, że to z pewnością podstawiony agent był (agentofobia
)
"Although each of the four terrorist incidents involving aircraft on September 11 is being subjected to vociferous challenges, the official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics. The catalyst for most of the Pentagon-attack sleuths can be traced back to the incendiary propaganda of French author and radical socialist Thierry Meyssan, president of the virulently anti-American and pro-Communist French think tank Reseau Voltaire." To przy okazji mówi troszkę o autorze TS, francuzie
Meyssanie
""When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder the plane fuselage is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
Teraz co do "niemożliwego lotu":
"Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida: "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports."
"George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
"General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses including many people I know personally who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?"
Świadkowie:
"Father Stephen McGraw had taken a wrong turn on his way to Arlington National Cemetery the morning of September 11, 2001. After taking the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, Fr. McGraw found himself mired in traffic, stewing impatiently over being late for a planned graveside service. Suddenly the priest heard a deafening roar as a large aircraft passed directly over the roof of his car. "It looked like a plane coming in for a landing I mean, in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight," recalled Fr. McGraw.
The priest "looked out just as the plane clipped an overhead sign and then toppled a light pole, injuring a taxi driver a few feet away,
"I saw it crash into the building," testifies the priest. "There was an explosion and a loud noise, and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows.... I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. I remember hearing a gasp or scream from one of the other cars near me. Almost a collective gasp, it seemed."
"Moments later, the plane struck the Pentagon, killing all 64 of its passengers and crew. The crash took the lives of another 125 people on the ground. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It�s just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalled."
"Around 9:30 a.m., Probst left the trailer and (as paraphrased in an ASCE report) "began walking to the Modular Office Compound located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon" for a 10 o'clock meeting. Approaching the heliport, he looked over and saw "a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him." Understandably, Probst "hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator" that provided backup power to a portion of the Pentagon. He saw the right engine take out "the chain-link fence and posts surrounding the generator." The left engine, he said, "struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building."
"Though many people saw an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon, no one is quoted as having seen a military plane launch a missile and there is no indication that one was fired either from land or sea-based launch systems. The assertion that a missile damaged the Pentagon is based solely on the fact that the explosion and resulting damage at the Pentagon have some similarities with those caused by cruise missile warheads."
Teraz przejdźmy do analizy Loose Change 2nd. a tak właściwie kilku zdań i stwierdzeń, jakie tam padły (cytaty będą z filmu, wyjaśnienie poniżej nich):
Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport that were tracking Flight 77. All thought that it was a military plane.
Wyraźnie sugeruje się nam, że kontrolerzy lotu sądzili że to samolot wosjkowy.
Pełna wypowiedź brzmi:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
To jest niebezpieczne, ale
możliweWhy is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?
Jest pełno szczątków kadłuba, silnika, kół szczątków ludzkich i podwozia.
Co do telefonów komórkowych:
Wypowiedź świadka lotu 1989 który miał miejsce również 11 września.
"Yet look at this testimony from a flight 1989 passenger, which was corroborated by the pilot, other passengers, and air traffic control:
"...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin
since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight"
"Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”
From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added."
"Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work?
From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
Note particularly the point that “some older phones” may work at twice the altitude of newer digital systems. Were any of those in use on 9/11? We don’t know, but it’s worth considering before you suggest the calls were “impossible”."
"An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies."
"Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events.
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls."
"The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan.
The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators."
"
Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.) Despite government regulation, or perhaps because of it, chatting above the clouds on a cell phone has proved irresistible for some. I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door.
A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone."
"People have been communicating wirelessly from the main cabin since there have been wireless devices (never mind those overpriced satellite phones). A few years ago, I reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was looking the other way while air travelers were firing up their personal digital assistants (PDAs) in-flight and checking e-mail.
I have personally used a cell phone on a plane, and I have flown next to people who have used their cell phones, particularly when they are over a populated area or flying at a lower altitude. What is new is that the FAA appears ready to sanction equipment designed to send and receive wireless signals onboard."
"I sat next to a woman who answered her cell phone at 30,000 feet, just above Mt Adams, on my way to Seattle"
"People were using them during the whole flight. They would get constantly cut off and have to re-connect as we went over areas that didn't have service."
"Yes cell phones will work on planes, my dad who is an airline pilot actually had a guy arrested because he was using his cell phone at altitude and he would not listen to the crew to put it away."
"I was flying in a 757 somewhere in the 35,000 feet or thereabouts altitude when the cell phone in the briefcase of the passenger next to me started to ring. He quickly opened the briefcase and took off the battery then sheepishly looked around to see if a FA had heard it. He told me that he was using it in the terminal and forgot to turn it off."
Czyżby kolejny mit hoaxu się chylił ku upadkowi?Tak właściwie, dla każdego zachwycającego się "Loose Change":
http://www.loosechan...hangeGuide.htmlI parę kolejnych fotek na koniec:
(najnowszy model wojskowej rakiety - pozostawia na miejscu uderzenia podwozie samolotu dla zmylenia wroga)
I to tyle na razie, męczące jest udowadnianie wciąż tej samej oczywistej rzeczy.
A najgorsze jest to, że wciąż nie ma wyjaśnienia co do pary kwestii.
1. Jakim cudem obiekt mniejszy od Boeinga wyłamał latarnie na takiej szerokości, na jakiej by nie był w stanie?
2. Jaka rakieta wybiła taką dziurę takiego kształtu, przebiła się przez kilkanaście ścian i zrobiła dziurkę na końcu?
3. Co sprawiło, że po lewej stronie (na tych zdjęciach które podałem i które najlepiej pokazują miejsce uderzenia) zostało odsłonięte zbrojenie?
4. Jakim cudem GH/rakieta/bomba/cokolwiek innego niż skrzydło Boeinga zrobiło takie uszkodzenia?
5. Skąd się wzięły w Pentagonie szczątki ludzi które zostały pozytywnie zidentyfikowane?
6. Jak rakieta ma się do zeznać świadków wyraźnie widzących boeinga?To są pytania na które nikt od TS nie potrafi odpowiedzieć bez popadania w paranoję.
Na razie robię sobie wolne od 9/11 chyba
