Pardalis a écrit :Trinity a écrit :C'est plus qu'une opinion... je dirais qu'il s'agit d'une conviction
Une conviction c'est encore moins fiable et plus dangereux.
(comme les tiennes)
Vous avez lu les liens? Six semaines passent tellement vite...
Puisque fait cette déclaration et qu'elle est publique. A mon avis, il doit être assez certain de son affaire pour faire une telle sortie.
Il peut avoir d'autres motivations aussi. S'il est si convaincu, pourquoi n'écrit-il pas son analyse, pourquoi ne propose-t-il pas de nous montrer ce qu'il sait, d'élaborer et de nous montrer les faits, au lieu d'un article de deux paragraphes qui ne disent et pouvent strictement rien?
et si on commencait.
tu as poster ces deux liens ... alors débutons
http://tinyurl.com/ksnb9
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudont ... nesses.htm
de ton premier j'ai tiré les 5 premiers témoignages. POst précédent.
dis moi si tu es d'accord ou non.
pour ce lien;
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pent ... ncesummary
là j'espère que tu n'est pas sérieux... j'espère sincèrement que tu ne te base pas sur ce fichier exel pour croire au crash du 757.
car un fichier exel si tu veux je peu t'en faire un aussi.
ca prend le nom du témoin et la citation.
Du premier lien que tu as fournis, j'en ai recencé moins de 12... du a certaine ambiguité ou interprétation de langage... je monterais à 17 volontier.
je dis que je peut fournir autant de témoignage qui stipule que l'avion était plus petit (les 185 témoignages). Je sais les témoins qui disent comme tu penses sont bon et tous les autres ont été brainwashé... mais ça c'est ton problème n'est-ce pas ?
Pour ce qui est de Nelson... moi ça me suffit;
Full Statement by George Nelson, Colonel, U.S. Air Force (retired) at a press conference in Alexandria, VA, 3/13/2006,
I'm George Nelson. I served four years of enlisted service and 30 additional years as a commissioned officer in the Air Force.
Please, let me begin by saying, that I get no pleasure or personal satisfaction whatsoever from speaking out in opposition to the US government's official conclusions, and the 911 Commission's official report, of the tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001.
I'm a trained aircraft accident investigator. I completed the University of Southern California's accident investigation course in 1989. I was an aircraft maintenance manager throughout my military career and was assigned additional duties as a member of accident investigations for the Air Force.
In every case of an aircraft loss, an accident investigation was always conducted and a report was issued through command channels, and it made no difference if the loss was due to an obvious accident or if it had been shot down by enemy fire. An investigation was always conducted, and a report was always filed, even if the plane was under 5,000 feet of water and not recoverable.
In the case of all four reported aircraft losses on 9-11, each one was reported to have been carrying commercial passengers aboard scheduled commercial airliners. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States, including foreign airlines, which transit through our airports in commercial operations. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9-11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous-- investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred.
Especially in the cases of such horrendous loss of life, collection of physical evidence would have been paramount in determining the precise causes of each loss. Scientific and reasoned deductions are permitted only after an exhaustive search and analysis of physical evidence has been completed.
Hundreds of parts from each of those four aircraft are critical for safety of flight, and as such, must be meticulously controlled by only one-of-a-kind, dedicated, serial numbers. These parts are required by FAA regulations to be tracked and removed and replaced at a designated number of flying hours or a number of actual cycles. Just like the toughness of black boxes, these components are virtually indestructible and relatively easy to find among the crash wreckage.
Each of the aircraft would have two engines that are nine feet in diameter, and would have had many of the critical, serialized parts installed. Several sets of massive landing gears would have been easy to find and identify, and each of these parts would have been linked to one, and only one aircraft in the world.
The aircraft parts from the two World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and the hole in the ground at Shanksville, Pennsylvania would have disclosed the specific identity of each aircraft, and those parts did not "vaporize" as some Pentagon spokespersons have reported.
The parts may have since "vaporized" but not during the reported crashes. The well-known "Black Boxes" were reported to have been found, but were immediately confiscated and seem to have since, disappeared.
Independent news photographers and investigators at Shanksville, Pennsylvania were kept far away from the reported aircraft crash site by security cordons and guards. The public could only view the crash site by an aerial photo. The photo shows an impact area only 20 feet long by 10 feet wide, and the photo shows no sign of crash wreckage inside the small area. Most small fighter planes create larger holes than that, and again, no aircraft accident report has been made public. This only serves to heighten the public's growing skepticism of the 911 Commission report.
And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building.
If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes.
In the interest of time, I'm going to relate just one more piece of key evidence. The aircraft that was reported in the government's official story to have crashed into the south tower was United Airlines, Flight 175 carrying 65 passengers, including the crew and five highjackers. One of the television news cameras captured the Boeing 767, just as it was banking into a left turn, seconds before striking the building. Underneath the fuselage, installed across the starboard aircraft wing root, is a visible, large piece of equipment that most viewers have called a "Pod".
Many have speculated what purpose the "Pod" might have served on a passenger carrying, scheduled airliner, but such speculation is pointless at the present time. The fact is, that such extraneous equipment would have never have been installed on a Part 121, scheduled airliner in the first place. Every piece of equipment proposed for use on an aircraft after its production must be issued a Supplemental Type Certificate by the FAA prior to installation. No record of an STC was found that would authorize such external equipment to be used on a Part 121, Boeing 767 airliner. This leads to a more disturbing speculation, that the airplane seen hitting the south tower was not UAL flight 175, but a plane that had been substituted for flight 175.
"The National Transportation Safety Board decides which of three organizations will take the lead role in Part 121 accident investigations. Sometimes the NTSB will assume the lead, and in some cases they will assign lead responsibility to the FAA, but most always if criminal foul play is suspected, the lead role will be assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the technical assistance of both the FAA and NTSB.
"It's fair to say, in this case that the NTSB suspected criminal foul play on 9-11, so which agency had primary responsibility for the investigations and required reporting? Where are the reports? Where is the physical evidence to back up those reports?
"Does anyone recall TWA Flight 800 that was bound from the US to Paris about four years ago? The FBI was assigned the lead role, suggesting that foul play was suspected, and the FBI gave almost daily reports on the evening news channels, but ultimately the FBI's conclusion was, that a spark in one of the internal fuel tanks caused the fatal explosion. At least we all knew in that case, there was an investigation conducted, such as it was.
"I could go on and on with the many weaknesses in the 9-11 Commission's report, but there's little reason to belabor the details, so I'd like to offer just two or three websites where anyone who's the least bit interested can find most every weakness in the 9-11 Commission report. In these few minutes we've just begun to scratch the surface.
"For further information, we suggest you research the following websites for yourself, but there are many more credible sources available. Check out---
http://www.st911.org;
http://www.physics911.net or
http://www.wingtv.net/.
"I'm frequently asked by people hearing me speak about9-11, "Why in the world are you speaking out about this tragedy? Doesn't it worry you?" I answer the same way every time I'm asked----- "Because I'm a man with a conscience.
"You can see by my age that I must have grandchildren, and I do. I'm about to turn this country that I deeply love, over to my children and my grandchildren. And as I look around, I don't like what I see happening to it.
Denis
