21 October, 2009

911 truth -- German TV broadcast on 10 Sept 2003

WDR the third channel, millions of viewers.... not bad for its time.

Leyendecker is a paid CIA flute of the "mighty wurlitzer"... but still. My boyfriend translated it for me (my german is a disaster) .. it was my first exposure to the "TOWERS WERE DYNAMITED" -idea. At the time I found Wisnewski to exaggerate, but now I know he was spot-on.

(Since 2003 Wisnewski has written bullshit-books, he is obviously in need of money, he published about "Moonlanding never happened" crap and much more. He, like most, is full of dangerous half-knowledge)


AUTOMATICALLY TRANSLATED:

In the following a commentated, excerpt-wise excursion by the transmission (wording of the transmission in italic):


Start of the transmission, which promises, to bring with scientifically founded contributions and controversies a studio discussion between prominent opponents and proponents of the conspiracy theories light in the darkness.
Helmut Rehmsen is the moderator, whose role consists of it, the “experts” against Gerhard Wisnewski, which author of the book “operation 9/11 - attack on the globe” and the television documentation “file reference 11,9. unresolved” to bring in position and if it must be, the argumentation of Gerhard Wisnewski to stop.
While the whole transmission sits the journalist Gerhard Wisnewski Hans Leyendecker of “renowned” “South German newspaper” opposite, for which it makes clear equal to beginning wes spirit child he actual that he on line is, by noticing “spirit-rich”:

“11 September was, as he was.”
After this statement it makes clear by its face expression, which stops still another one moment, how we have to estimate the expression.
That is Gerhard Wisnewski, which is confronted here with a supremacy of “experts” and preparatory bringing in, in whom again a multiplicity from experts so called to word come.

First the moderator asks it whether it actually believes that of the searches - in such a way it presses itself out, although there is nobody to look for the official representation of the alleged Hijackern more - still which live.

Gerhard Wisnewski: “Quite consider that I possible, because: there are at all no positive proofs that these humans went on board the machines. There are no photos, which show her with the Boarding of one of these death machines. There is no ground personnel, which confirms that they went on board. And in the long run - which actually the last kriminalistische proof actual it did not become also in the crash places identified.”

The moderator asks then Hans Leyendecker of the “South German newspaper”, how it explains itself that amateur pilots could steer large “passenger airlines so terribly surely into their goal.”

Hans Leyendecker makes itself the answer simple:

“By asking specialists. The specialists say: it goes. If one takes itself time and training has, then it can do that.”

Here excerpts follow from a contribution over the pilot qualification of the authors Matthias Franck and Jürgen shrub field (wording of the transmission italically):

Note: The pictures suggest, without a word is spoken, the desired connection. It is visualized, who steered these airplanes.

Speaker: “Murder weapon Boeing. As the suicide pilots Mohammed Atta could…
… and Marwan Al Shehhi the World Trade Center so precisely approach, and Hani Hanjour the Pentagon meet? Difficult flight maneuvers, which presuppose aeronautical being able. The three men possessed flight licenses only for in and twin-engine small aircrafts. Is this qualification sufficient, in order to fly also large jets? “
Note: First man which gives an answer, is a Cessna pilot. Does he however actually express himself to the question whether flight licenses are sufficient for in and twin-engine small aircrafts for a large jet?

Gunter Hartung, Cessna pilot: “… Flies as such is very simple…”
Speaker: “We ask the former formula 1 world champion Niki Lauda, an experienced Boeing 767-Piloten.”

Note: Niki Lauda is asked. But according to which it is asked. Is the statement that a flight simulator is like an airplane, the answer on the question posed?

Niki Lauda: “A flight simulator is as like an airplane. If I want to loose-fly on a building, the simulator is perfect equipment for it… if a log programmed actual which normally the case actual then can I that at the simulator practice, then white I exact, where the World Trade Center is, and fly simply on view there. Since I much do not program custom at all, custom only look and fly.”

Speaker: “In the flight management system the destination is programmed. How could the assassins outwit this system? Relatively simply. With a handle the new course can be transferred to the autopilot.”

Note: “With a handle the new course can be transferred to the autopilot.” Thus: it is everything completely simply, as it were - with a handle. But we continue to hear a piece in this contribution then: “Only airports can be programmed and approached by autopilot, not however individual buildings… Large aeronautical experience requires and complicated manual control.” What now? Now the authors Matthias Franck and Jürgen shrub field put auf's cross.
Speaker: “Substantial more complicated is a flight maneuver into a flat building like the Pentagon, which was met only scarcely over the ground. In a simulator such a maneuver cannot be practiced. As however the terrorists created that?”

Markus Kirschneck, pilot combination cockpit: “During the flight maneuver in the Pentagon it acts around one of the most difficult flight maneuvers to accomplish those at all with so an airliner is.”
Speaker: “Only airports can be programmed and approached by autopilot, not however individual buildings, like the relatively low Pentagon. Large aeronautical experience requires and complicated manual control.”

Note: Aha, only airports can be programmed. Evenly we had heard some more different one nevertheless. It was the speech of it that the new goal with a handle could be programmed. But neither the Pentagon nor the World Trade Center were airports. And by the way: “Expert” withers directly in the following discussion the opposite will maintain.

Niki Lauda: “A goal at the ground, there I must practice already correctly at the simulator… one can too early impact or too late.”
Speaker: “However the Pentagon was met. Where had Hani Hanjour learned its aeronautical being able? That remains further open.”

Note: No, nothing remains open. Directly “expert” Hans Günter withered one comes and vacates all doubts out with statements, which still none did not express and for any sources is revealed.

Again over the pictures a connection between the attacks and the alleged Hijackern is suggested here. And the authors of the film contribution ask “where Hani Hanjour its aeronautical being able had learned?” and it subordinates with the fact that it was in the machine and steered it, instead of asking for the proofs (it so far does not give) for the complicity of the alleged Hijacker.

Discussion over the contribution over the pilot qualification including Hans Günter withered one, which as aviation-oh-reasonable is tituliert (wording from the transmission italically):

Note: Hans Günter Welke's role exists to state among other things therein, what does not maintain anybody otherwise: that the alleged Hijacker, which steered the machines in World Trade Center and Pentagon acquired a professional pilot license.

Literally he says on the question whether the extremely requirementful flight maneuvers were feasible of the “terrorists”:

“I think. If we decrease/go back on the training, actual admits us of the terrorists - then they also began first of all completely normally training like all other pilots. They acquired a private pilot license in Florida, contained afterwards a professional pilot license, the one intensive training in different subjects such as aerodynamics, navigation, air traffic control.”

For the private pilot license 40 is to prove for the professional pilot license 250 flying hours. And again stresses it, which states otherwise none:

“We have here as can be prove pilot, those the professional pilot license attained.”

Note: The speech again and again is also in this transmission of the amateur status of the alleged Hijacker. And now Mr. withered comes and lands an astonishing coup, by appointing her professional pilots. Now everything is clear!

Responded on the situation at the Pentagon, Mr. withered expresses:

“It was certainly a difficult maneuver. The airplane was taken over after approximately a half hour, taken over by force - accompanying with the murder of pilots. The airplane was steered point, i.e. in the direction, programmed on a new Way (way) - where the Pentagon was. The good weather favoured a punctual recognizing.”

Note: Gerhard Wisnewski is received on these statements seized from air concerning the training of the alleged Hijacker. But its expression that the statements are not at all provable, nearly it goes down regarding the word gush of the intervening moderator.

It is exorbitant: in the short expressions of Mr. withered are equivalent three astonishing statements:

1. The Pentagon was programmed as a goal (we had however above belong that is not possible).

2. The pilots of the machine of flight AA77 were murdered of the Hijackern, which are to have been allegedly on board, (an amazing, completely new statement).

3. The Hijacker, which is to have been allegedly on board, acquired a professional pilot license (likewise an amazing, completely new statement). For which for a type of aircraft he does not say for safety's sake. Was of flight licenses only for in and twin-engine small aircrafts above the speech, not of passport greed airplanes of the type Boeing 757 or 767.

Mr. withered is obviously a “expert” completely special art. he knows itself not only in his area as aviation-oh-reasonable out. It transfers its Expertentum also on ranges outside of its knowledge range and does, as if it would have issued personally the alleged Hijackern the professional pilot license and as if it would have participated in the Pentagon machine and would have observed, how the pilots were killed of the alleged Hijackern.

Contribution over the attack on the Pentagon of Martin Rosenberg (wording of the transmission italically):

Speaker: “The Pentagon on 11 September: To recognize not, what is hit here. Come does the damage of an airplane - or of a rocket?”
Speaker: “Professor Mete Sozen of the Purdue University in Indiana can answer this question today clearly. With a team of architects it was few days after the attack in the Pentagon, the building exactly examined and each individual rubble part checked. It builds the picture up of the damage to the front like a puzzle. It reconstructs it with photos, which developed, before the front collapsed. Piece by piece the outlines of the impact hole develop.”

Note: , Like the line is to be seen interesting itself as of spirit hand developed - alternating in a photo of the front front shortly after the impact and in a model of the building. Comes out a form, which corresponds in for instance the cross section of an airplane. Whether this form is derived actually from, which is to be recognized as damage of the building front in the photos, does not let itself reconstruct. But nevertheless: it is a nice animation.
Speaker: “The result, transfer in a model. To the comparison a model true to scale Boeing 757. The airplane is larger than the hole.”

Note: Where are the castings of the bearing areas in the fronts? Such castings HAVING to be there, because with the impact of an airplane with the nose on a hard obstacle fold the wings not to the rear, but if, then forward! Because while the trunk is retarded by the impact with the nose, the bearing areas still move on. Who played already times as a child with a model airplane, the miseryful picture knows, if up-crashed and the bearing areas forward solve themselves the thing with the nose.
Professor Mete Sozen: “Over it many people puzzle, but the answer is very simple: The mass of the fuel damaged the building. This mass is concentrated in the wings, close at the trunk. At the ends of the wings is not much mass. When the airplane hit, with which of 900 km/h, this mass the basic columns has enormous speed to pierce. But at the ends the columns were stronger than the wings. That is so simple.”

Note: With 900 km/h the airplane is to be broken open. Thus it is located in the manuscript of the transmission. In the transmission in German translation of 850 hm/h one speaks. The English-language original expression of Professor Mete Sozen is acoustically overlaid of the German translation, so that it is not understandable. From where does this value come? The data of the flight writer are not admit (either it was destroyed, not discoverable or under catch). Thus it cannot concern at the value of 900 and/or 850 km/h only a speculation, under any circumstances around a secured value, as of Professor Mete Sozen and the authors of the contribution are suggested here. On the sides of his institute on a speed of 800 ft/sec one counts ( www.cs.purdue.edu). That corresponds to approx. 870 km/h. The “mirror” to 8.9.2003 Professor Mete the Sozen had likewise endeavored and in this connection 850 km/h had called. But all these values are unrealistically high for aircraft movements at ground level. That will result also still from the following discussion.

Who however is this man, who is to have examined the Pentagon with a group of architects? In a biography of the University OF Notre Dame, Indiana ( www.nd.edu) we read over Professor Mete Sozen: “As at engineering consultant, he has worked on various projects with… the US Army Corps OF Engineers, Foreign Buildings Office OF the department OF State,…” I.e.: it participates in projects “US of the Army Corps OF Engeneers”, works thus on behalf Pentagon.

And in whose order Professor Mete Sozen went to 11.9.2001 into the Pentagon to that? In a publication “Mc of the Graw Hill Companies” of 27.1.2003 ( www.construction.com) we read in one with “Study on 9/11 Pentagon Attack” called articles: “The six person study team OF experts in structural, fire and forensic engineering…” And we experience there also, who director/conductor of the group was: “… team leader Paul F. Mlakar, A technical director with the Army Corps OF Engineers.” To of Paul F. Mlakar of the “U.S. Army Corps OF Engineers” led 6-köpfigen “Pentagon DATA Collection team” belonged according to ASCE (American Society OF civil Engeneers) in detail ( www.asce.org):
  • Paul F. Mlakar, Lead U.S. Army Corps OF Engineers, Expert in blow resistant Design
  • Mete Sozen, Expert into concrete and concrete structures
  • Donald Dusenberry, Expert in blow effects and structural Design
  • James R. Harris, Expert in structural engineering and concrete Design and construction
  • Gerald Haynes, Expert into fire protection
  • Long fan, Expert into concrete structural and fire engineering
At this group from a team of architects to speak, might pass the reality. One are clear: Professor Mete Sozen is exactly the correct, if the aspect Pentagon is to be transported. It as a neutral observer to present, is a conscious deception of the spectators.
Speaker: “If airplane parts with large speed against a wall hit, do not remain for much. American researchers already placed that behind in the eighties.”

Note: But it is to be seen, where the rubble parts are hurled with the impact on a hard obstacle to a large part: back. But we will see alike: that is with the Pentagon surprisingly different.
Speaker: “However which happens inside the building: ”
Speaker: “From the computations Sozens develops an exact physical model. It simulates, which work forces here and like each individual column deforms.”
Professor Mete Sozen: “Which we see, are clearly the consequences Boeing 757. The damage, which we see, and our computations fit. There nothing puzzling is to.”

Note: Simulation - finished by the way exact to the first anniversary 11 September - shows the effect of the network of columns on the airplane. It is, as if the building would not have an external wall. Those does not seem to play any role, although she was substantially stabilized nevertheless straight in the context of the renovation work in the met building segment in the last weeks.

The “mirror” had written in its on-line offer 10.4.2002: “That the building under the impact collapsed not directly, explains the Pentagon from its particularly firm building structure: Only few days before the attack were locked attachment work on the 24 centimeters thick natural stone external wall, with those the entire front front with a grid network work from steel girders strengthened are…” And this with steel girders stabilized front front is not to have had effect on the airplane? The airplane is to have penetrated the external front almost intact, have disappeared thus inside the building and have only cut there and crush of the columns? That borders on a physical miracle.

But like that it is explained why before the building (nearly) no rubble parts are to be seen. But no! The “mirror” had nevertheless written 10.4.2002: “Remaining remained relatively small pieces of rubble particularly before the building…” Particularly before the building? But over such contradictions the contribution passes easily.
Speaker: “Rolls in an avalanche from debris, scrap iron and the remnants of the mechanism Boeing by the Pentagon. 100 meters straight through resounds, which interconnect the three outside building rings in the ground floor.

Note: It might correspond to the facts that the three rings were connected in the lower range. An air opinion shows the inside of the third building ring durchschlagene in three places. In the inner courts between first and second and/or second and third building ring no damage is to be seen. That is because of that the two lower projectiles from first to the third building ring continuous are. As architecture is constituted inside the building under it, is not visible. Whether there are walls nevertheless or only, by the air opinions not clarified the columns shown in simulation here.

But there are pictures of the outline Pentagon, which at least partly release the view on the internal building structures. On the second admission for example one sees clear into the range between first and second building ring. The photographs originate from website Pentagon ( renovation.pentagon.mil) you are in worked on form shown, in particular the second picture are a cutout, which was strongly brightened up here - otherwise one would see only a black hole. The upper picture comes of 18.9.2001, the middle of 23.9.2001, the lower of 8.11.2001:

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/Phoenix/DSCN2346_web.jpg

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/Phoenix/crashsite_20010923_facade3_web.jpg

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/Phoenix/crashsite_20011108_demofromaedrive_web.jpg

On a side of the WDR Internet offer Martin Rosenberg describes the impact of the flying object and the internal structure of the building more exactly ( www.wdr.de). Of “Achitekten” it describes the realizations of the group there as follows:

“After it the airplane flew horizontal scarcely over the ground in an angle from 42° to the front to the building. The right wing touched a Diesel generator of 30 meters before the building and thereby was partly destroyed. The airplane rolled on the left side, so that the right wing rose up easily upward and against the intermediate cover between ground floor and first upper floor hit. The left engine touched few meters before the impact the ground and thereby was torn off. The nose of the airplane was almost crushed with the impact. Only small parts reflected and were back-spun. The largest mass was however in the Treibstofftanks concentrated: in the wings near the trunk. This clenched mass spun with so high speed against the front that the wall was completely broken through on width of approximately 27 meters. From airplane rubble, debris and 14 tons kerosene developed a destructive avalanche, which rolled 95 meters far by the building. The Pentagon consists of five concentric building rings, which are however only in the upper floors from each other separated. The two lower floors are continuous. On aerial photographs develops the impression, which Boeing would have three building rings - and therefore also six walls - to pierce. In reality the airplane rubble crossed however only one about 65 meters broad resounds. They were essentially stopped of the basic columns.”

The pictures occupy the opposite. In all pictures an intermediate cover is to be seen, against which a Boeing 757 must have hit. Because it would have been a Boeing 757, must not have been their fuselage upper surface with not folded up chassis of at least six meters over the ground, with the maintained easy inclination still more highly. A floor is however not much higher than four meters (five floors have an overall height of 23 meters). In the film contribution is clear at the external facade a kind cross section of the airplane drawn in - completely to up into the range of the first floor. And in the lower picture of the outline Pentagon one sees even partition walls. The statement that only to columns to a large (possibly even zweigeschossigen) resounds the flying object stopped, is definitely wrong thereby. Everything that does not fit into the considerations, is away-operated: the hardened external wall, the cover between ground floor and first floor as well as the partition walls.

In the film contribution Martin Rosenberg speaks only of the continuous ground floor, on the Internet site is it two projectiles, which continuous are. And it leads equivalent three different data for the depth of the allegedly existing resounds on: in the film contribution there is 100 meters, in the text on the WDR Internet side ( www.wdr.de) in a place of 65 and in another place 95 meters. From this we are to probably select ourselves the fitting.

The photographs and the air opinions with the damages, visible analyzed here, in three different places on the inside of the third building ring, where objects must have withdrawn again, are not brought up for discussion for safety's sake in the television contribution of Martin Rosenberg.

Speaker: “Remaining remain only large piles of scrap iron - so strongly it crushes that individual rubble parts can be hardly still assigned.”
Speaker: “Which the scientists computed, cover themselves with the observations of the eye-witnesses, those the impact of the airplane from the motorway saw.”

Steve Riskus (eye-witness): “The airplane was so close that I did not have a doubt, which it was. Completely clearly a large traffic machine, as, I could recognize 757 the blue and red strips by the side well. I saw the logo at the tail: the two ‚ A' with the eagle between them. I never doubted, what it was.”

Note: Steve Riskus drove in the car on the motorway along Pentagon and photographed immediately after the impact. On its website ( criticalthrash.com), where it the pictures presents, writes it: “I took thesis pictures seconds after the flat hit the Pentagon. I which traveling on route 27 towards 395 when the flat crossed my path from the right about 100ft in front OF ME and crashed into the Pentagon.” Accepted its car had actually a position that it could observe the extremely low flying object into approx. 30 meters distance before itself by the windshield, and assumed he could pursue the flying object over a distance of 200 meters (which with 30 meters distance already much is), would have he for his observations at a speed of the flying object of 800 km/h less than one second time had.
Vin Narayanan (eye-witness): “The airplane was so close - if I would have confessed on my car, would have I high-jump and it to touch to be able. American Airlines - tail was good to see. The shutters had not down-pulled, the windows were black, it were completely dark.”

Note: Vin Narayanan is a reporter of the newspaper “USA Today”. That is geflissentlich suppressed here. It wants to have recognized in the extreme shortness of the time that the shutters had not down-pulled. This man must have a superhuman apprehension. It and Steve Riskus are two arbitrarily picked out voices - of more than 30 eye-witnesses, who give completely different data - up to the statement over noises as of a military jet.

Speaker: “A rocket in the Pentagon? In it today also most conspiracy theoreticians do not believe any longer.”

Discussion over the contribution over the attack on the Pentagon including Hans Günter withered one and Wolfgang Wohlers by the Aachener Institut for lightweight construction technology:

There is only few sentences, which Gerhard Wisnewski can answer to the amount shown. In the contribution much one do not address. In addition the fact belongs that measured contrary to the impact into the World Trade Center no seismic vibrations its. Whereupon the moderator knows to answer. The conditions could be different. On Wisnewskis statement that a speed is unrealistic of 850 km/h at ground level, reacts Mr. withered. It confesses that the speed must have been lower 150 to 200 km/h.
But Wolfgang Wohlers knows to relate. It answers the leading questions moderator as desired. For dividing into small parts the speed of the airplane is not so substantial “”. And it calls simulation accomplished by Professor Mete Sozen approximately plausible. Finally they would work on its Institut with the same simulation software. Before the surprised spectators into brooding to come to be able and before Gerhard Wisnewski could have said some more uncomfortable, leads the moderator over on the next topic. Gerhard Wisnewski does not come any longer to word. The clients can be content with the achievement of the moderator.

Preliminary talks to the contribution “which happened in Shanksville?” by Martin Rosenberg and Konrad Ege (wording of the transmission italically):

Moderator: “The same doubts as around the attack on the Pentagon, those climb around the machine, which did not achieve its planned goal, fell in Pennsylvania in the place Shanksville…”
Moderator: “At the ground visibly only one crater and Gerd Wisnewski have in its book here on the envelope. It asks the question, believes you that in this hole a complete Boeing 757 disappeared? No? Then you have together with the author of this book already much. Mr. Wisnewski, now is not a faith question, which leaves her to doubt that in this crater the flight United Airlines 93 disappeared.”

Note: The moderator subordinately with the word “faith question”, Gerhard Wisnewski would only believe in a certain operational sequence of the events. Non--faith of the “official” representation is, i.e. around switching on on and not around switching the thinking apparatus off in the text on the back of its book however around.
Gerhard Wisnewski: “, I say once again, it give for the official version at all no proofs, also not in the case Shanksville. Separates the official version is the unproven conspiracy theory. We see here for example at this crater at all no airplane parts. It gives to today no authentic photo of an airplane part at this crater. There were there much too few corpse parts for so a crash. Over it I with experts, with forensic pathologists talked. Even machines, which fall from ten, eleven thousand meters, there see it still large plotting hurry, bearing area parts. Thus that a machine dissolves completely in air or in the mud, without they present also only one particle that would be indeed a very unusual accident.”

Moderator: “We want to look at ourselves more exactly and we become, believe I, also particle to see. And also in Shanksville it gave to hardly trust eye-witnesses, admittedly eye-witness, those first their eyes wanted.”

Contribution “which happened in Shanksville?” by Martin Rosenberg and Konrad Ege (wording of the transmission italically):

Speaker: “Terry Butler works in Stoystown, few kilometers north of Shanksville. Which he saw on 11 September, he cannot forget no more.”

Terry Butler (eye-witness): “I heard an airplane. Then I turned, and there was it.”

Question: “And which has it made?”

Terry Butler (eye-witness): “It flew over there there, quite straight, then it went somewhat highly, and then it made a right curve, and then it came down. And that is the latter, which I saw.”

Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: After this O-clay/tone the witness saw thus, like the airplane “down came”. Whether he saw the impact, is uncertain thereafter. The witness states also nothing in this O-clay/tone over the KIND of the airplane. Only the film comment stated, the witness could have recognized a large silver passenger jet.

Note: One of the authors of this contribution, Konrad Ege, writes in an article in “Friday” of 19.9.2003: “Jeff Phillips [that further down to word comes], about 30, works at the autoutilization Stoystown car Wreckers in the proximity of the crash place. Its colleague Terry Butler took at that time straight apart on the autocemetery of the company a passenger car. It saw very low flying close by a passenger airline, tells Terry today. “It came over this hill, flew about parallel to the reason, ascended a little, then it is so to the right bent”. And field of vision disappeared from Butlers. Then it has loud “booms” heard, smoke ascended.” Here it is thus clearly described that Terry Butler did not observe by any means the crash of the airplane. He heard only, after the airplane from its field of vision had disappeared, a loud noise. Whether between the airplane on a and the noise as well as the smoke on the other side the relationship insists, is thus not to be derived from it.

By the way Konrad Ege induces itself in “Friday” on the traces of “panorama” and moves “links” into the proximity from “right” views to 11 September. “Critics, who are actually to be arranged rather left, operate this sport to look [for explanations] exactly the same as critics from completely right. Right conspiracy theories lead fast to “the Jews”,” write it. Perhaps it expresses itself more with restraint thereby, but nevertheless: it operates the same business as “panorama”.


Speaker: “Its perspective in the model: It could recognize a large silver passenger jet.”

Note: In the animation is to be seen such a thing like an airplane, head over falls and then a smoke mushroom caused in the sky.
Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: On it a further witness is presented directly, who is not in particular presented. Also he does not state anything over the kind of the airplane, which he wants to have seen.

Speaker: “To another witness was still closer.”

A nameless witness (CBS news, 11.9.2001): “I heard an airplane, sounded it completely normally. It flew exactly over me, and then I have seen, like it with the nose first directly into the ground am rammed.”

Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: As we know today, it acts with the nameless witness around Lee Purbaugh, which, as several newspapers reported, is “the only person, who saw the last seconds of flight 93”, when he fell on the former open mining area. Of this “only person” thus very much hangs off possibly hangs the entire crash of flight 93 only on this humans?

According to Pittsburgh post office Gazette of 12.9.01 worked Purbaugh at the company Rollock Inc. in direct neighbourhood of the crash place. To the fact it is remarkable that Purbaugh had only begun there on the day before and today no more does not work at the company. Remarkable it is also that Purbaugh was exactly like the photographer, who presented an alleged rubble part of Boeing at the Pentagon several years with the Navy. That thus a central witness, who represents the official crash theory, with which Navy have to do or had.

In the film contribution also that a row SAW COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AIRPLANE of witnesses, AS a BOEING 757 among other things also the former Navy man Lee Purbaugh is concealed. Contrary to the other witnesses however Lee Purbaugh maintained Daily Mirror opposite that it can have acted with „ the white jet " not possibly over a military jet. There would not be these „ principal witnesses " for the Pentagon version, the eye-witness picture would out-look as follows. No eye-witness speaks of a passenger jet, let alone of Boeing or a unit OD airline jet. Most witnesses speak white jet of one „ ", some of it say, they would have seen this flying object before and after the explosion at the place happenings.

Due to these two testimonies - Butler/Purbaugh - now the WDR provides a journalistically most doubtful animation and suggests with the fact to the spectators that the official version protects „ " is. The animation shows, how a large Boeing bores itself and divides into the ground.

Now an animation is arbitrarily producible and in approximately as meaningful as a Donald ducking cartoon. Perhaps to some extent reliably would be it, if it would be based on flight writer data, but that is not here anywhere maintained. It is also improbable, because there are held the flight writer data under catch to today no final investigation over the case Shanksville and.

How unreal the animation is in reality, one can see from the fact that the airplane divides itself in the case of the impact into Cornflakes (see screen sequence further below), without burning or explode thereby. Should the machine have had at all no Sprit thereby? That is impossible. On the contrary the so-called impact fire belongs to each catastrophic crash - one recognizes it by the remarkable large fire scar on the ground. Such a fire scar does not give it in Shanksville. On the other side such a machine must explode or burn in the case of a such impact however compellingly.

The special proofs (photo, flight writer data etc.) for a crash Boeing 757 are missing thus, whereby a witness like quoted the above, who wants to have seen the impact, it becomes not more reliable.
Speaker: “Minutes after the impact are a row of witnesses locally. They want to help, but all are completely surprised of what they see.”
Jeff Phillips (salvage aide): “Came as we to the point of impact, we only once searched. We were over twenty people and the rescue squad and the fire-brigade, and we regarded and asked all: where are the people, where the airplane is? Everything that there was, were small pieces. The largest, which we found on the ground, was times so large straight [a plate-large hand movement makes]. We searched and us asked: Where is the remainder of the airplane?”
Speaker: “Only as itself the aides the impact crater more near regard, realize to you: the airplane is in the ground. Destroyed into thousands of smallest parts. It cut itself on width of 25, perhaps 30 meters into the ground.”

Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: Also here again the same. Which the eye-witness Jeff Phillips describes impressively - where are the people, where is again related the airplane - in the comment. One, which looked at itself the crater exactly, was e.g. Wallace Miller, Leichenbeschauer in Somerset County: “He which stunned RK how small the tuxedo more crater looked, he says, “like someone took A scrap truck, dug A 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.” Miller says, “I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were NO bodies there. ” “(Bible network news, 26.6.2002)

Too German: „ he was astonished, how small the smoking crater looked, said he, “as if someone would have taken, a three meter deep hole to scrap iron vices would have dug and the whole garbage would have in-tilted.” Miller says, “after 20 minutes stopped I being Leichenbeschauer because no corpses were there. ” “

Fact is that up to the arrival FBI humans could not imagine that a large passenger plane had fallen here.
Note: With this admission it might concern the point of impact seen from air.
Richard Lohr (disaster control): “This field was in former times times an open mining surface and before a few years was filled up. The ground was thus soft, nothing that there since hundreds of years would have been. And this soft ground swallowed the airplane. The largest part is in the crater.”

Note: Richard Lohr is “director OF the department OF Emergency services in Somerset, Pa.”. It is responsible thereby for the disaster control also in the area Shanksville. Its people were after the crash locally and there also with the FBI and other authorities co-operated, write Konrad Ege in “Friday” of 19.9.2003. In April 2002 Richard Lohr became Officials international of the “Association OF Public Safety Communications Inc.” for its achievements to 11.9.2001 honoured. In particular regarding co-operation with the FBI the question about the neutrality of its statements arises.



Speaker: “The airplane falls with large speed nearly perpendicularly into the soft ground. It is destroyed with the impact. The mass of the airplane presses the rubble with large Kraft into the ground.

Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: One can call this comment unfortunately only sad joke. First times it acts with the description of the expiration around pure fantasy. There is no flight writer data and no final report the flight accident investigation authority NTSB, which would support this description. Secondly the text contradicts itself within two sentences. First the airplane is to be destroyed with the impact „ ", then „ the mass " of this airplane obviously any longer not existing presses „ the rubble with large Kraft into the ground ".

Note: Which flies in the animation everything by air and zuguterletzt itself in the proximity of the point of impact distributed, is considerable. But the animation does not have the task, which begriffsstutzigen spectators before eyes leads, how the airplane in the earth disappears? Fortunately so an animation is volatile. Most spectators will so fast not have noticed, how the contribution entangles itself here into contradictions.
Speaker: “And such small rubble parts get the rescue squad still week later containerweise from the ground. All parts, those to the missed Boeing of United Airlines belong.”

Richard Lohr (disaster control): “The more deeply they dug, the larger parts of the airplane found them. The center of the airplane had bored itself into a depth of eleven meter.”

Note of Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski: After the eye-witnesses HAD NOT SEEN an airplane rubble, such rubble parts emerge only in the moment in the narrations FBI, as no more independent witnesses were left to the crash place. These FBI narrations arouse the impression, it act around testimonies, that are however not the case. That is valid for the engines likewise, as for larger rubble parts and the alleged flight writer and Voicerecorder, from which other place one the speech is. If the turbines had been found real, they would have had to be photographed. That is compelling practice during a flight accident investigation. The engines are an important piece of evidence and are normally in detail examined. In addition also the complete dismantling belongs including documentation of this procedure, because finally one wants to know, in which operating condition the engine was in the case of the impact - where is this documentation with the associated photos?

Note: The reversibility of the physical procedures is remarkable: on the one hand the mass presses “the rubble with large Kraft into the ground”, on the other hand one the “mass” hurries the smaller rubble parts in front and pulls these with their attraction behind itself ago.
Speaker: “Lighter pieces of rubble distributed themselves by the explosion in a periphery of several hundred meters. Rumors form. How far did the rubble fly? The rumors spread and receive further food, because on day after the crash the FBI explains to the reporters, one further remainders of the airplane discovered,…”
Speaker: “… three kilometers removes in the Indian Lake. From the lake the investigators fish only light material, like paper and nylon remainders. The wind blew it there.”
Speaker: “Individual paper shreds are found even in new Baltimore. Removes nearly 13 kilometers. Since then the history of an enormous rubble field is told with Shanksville and feeds daydream-calibrates speculations.”

Discussion over the contribution “which happened in Shanksville?” by Martin Rosenberg and Konrad Ege (wording of the transmission italically):

Moderator: “However this history is obviously wrong. A firing in air or an explosion can one according to situation of the things probably exclude, otherwise more than paper and rubble parts would have had to be distributed on a larger surface.”

Note: The moderator is consistent. Even he obviously cannot bear the free spaces, which the contribution still lets. Therefore he sees it as his task, which “speculations”, to which in the contribution still area is given to order stop. It may not bear open questions. Those could lead to forbidden answers.

Moderator: “Mr. Wisnewski, which is noticeable to me, also here again witnesses come to word in the contribution to the Pentagon and. Why do they conceal these witnesses in your book?”
Gerhard Wisnewski: “We did not conceal the witnesses at all. Thus, for example with the Pentagon I enumerated witnesses by paragraphs and also pointed out that these testimonies are extremely contradictory. They must consider, if we have nowadays a bank robbery, and they have twenty witnesses, then they will report afterwards of ten different automarks…” [Moderator falls Gerhard Wisnewski in the word]

Moderator: “If however someone says, I sees a horizontal tail unit, there has I the emblem of American Airlines draufgesehen, that is already very concrete.”

Gerhard Wisnewski: “Therefore likes, which I wanted would gladly still continue, to me, if one moves oneself on special proofs, if testimonies are uncertain - also I did that into my book, i.e., I have to look for tried for flight writer data, for the cockpit Voicerecorder. The special proofs all until today and it to find secretly held, I said it, no identifiable rubble part. They cannot show me a part in a photo, where one can say: Okay, that is of Boeing 757 - those are the special proofs.”

Moderator: “We saw straight many rubble parts.”

Gerhard Wisnewski: “However you cannot say whether they of 757 are.”
Moderator: “The question is, Mr. withered, you is also flight accident researchers. If I may endeavor you in this characteristic times. Can an airplane fall more or less like a stone of the sky and then into a deep crater purely, so that the rubble disappears really completely in the ground?”

Note of Gerhard Wisnewski: The statement, he is a flight accident researcher, relates Mr. withered immediately and supports my demand after evidence.

Hans Günter withered one (right in the picture): “I concern myself naturally more with the human efficiency or limited efficiency with flight accidents in computers and flight simulators with complex situations. And one must have also indeed exact photographs, exact evidence, in order to be able to make a respectable evaluation. Which I to say can is, photos, which I saw from Shanksville, which were taken up out partial of large distance, resemble for example to those of a flight accident, there which in Zurich took place some years ago, where a twin-engine propeller-driven aircraft from approximately three thousand meters, two thousand meters approximately, fell and more or less ungespitzt in the wobbling condition in a ground, in a soft ground is broken open, and one similarly few parts found. Nevertheless I can meet over it no exact statements, because simply the material is missing to me to it.”
Moderator: “Resembling ground we had also rekultiviert, former open mining area only degrees again, Mr. Wohlers, also to them the same question. Can a Boeing do into ten, eleven, twelve meters deep crater disappears?”

Wolfgang Wohlers: “, I think already. If one leads oneself evenly the ground condition before eyes. We have to do it with sand, which knows like everyone from own experience, first of all to be compressed can. One can squeeze it together a little, then he becomes harder, so that he opposes then to the airplane a larger resistance and then ensures that the airplane is divided into small rubble.”
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, October 21, 2009

2 Comments:

Blogger u2r2h said...

Historic 9/11 Debate with Bigard, Laurent, Kassovitz and Harrit on French TV
Éric Laurent | French Debate | Jean-Marie Bigard | Mathieu Kassovitz | Niels Harrit

French TV France 2's "L'objet du scandale" with Guillaume Durand will air a historic debate over the official version of the 9/11 events

On one side: 4 people with the hard task to defend the official version. On the other side, Jean-Marie Bigard, Mathieu Kassovitz, Éric Laurent and special guest Niels Harrit will tell France and the world why they don't support the official theory and why they find it disturbing.

Wednesday the 28th of Octobre 2009 between 22h15 to 00h20 French Time.


Translation of re-broadcast

I am very much in favour of a subtitled version (or even a simultaneous translation). I might be able to post a link to a recording on the same night, and will announce it here.

For your information, a similar format broadcast was aired in Germany in 2003 (story here), . I suspect the debate will be much more even-handed on french TV, not least because it happens 6 years later.

Wed Oct 21, 11:03:00 pm UTC  
Blogger Daniel Edd Bland III said...

Want to wake America up to the truth regarding 9/11? Here’s how…….

http://blandyland.com/?p=388

Please leave a comment voicing your support for this idea. It is a very small price to pay considering everything that has happened in our world based on the tragic events of that fateful September morning.

Thanks,

Daniel Edd Bland III
http://www.BlandyLand.com

Thu Oct 22, 12:39:00 am UTC  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites