Found 7376 related files. Current in page 1
The authors of this information and the accompanying materials have used their best efforts in preparing this course. The authors make no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this course. They disclaim any warranties (expressed or implied), merchantability, or fitness for any particular purpose. The authors shall in no event be held liable for any loss or other damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. This manual contains information protected under International Federal Copyright laws and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is strictly prohibited. We actively search for copyright infringement and you will be prosecuted. In any business or moneymaking venture, preparation and foreknowledge are the keys to success. Without this sort of insight, the attempt to make a profitable financial decision can only end in disaster and failure, regardless of your level of motivation and determination or the amount of money you plan to invest. In the stock market, this rule applies to the nth degree, as you are investing your own money in what could be considered a high risk wager, and you are playing with fire if you do not have at least general background knowledge of how it functions. Since having a background in any area is helpful in guiding you down a path in that particular region, the more solid your basis of investment knowledge is, the more likely you are to profit from any attempt to trade on the open market. In many ways, trading on the stock market can be compared to driving – you do not have to be an expert to get behind the wheel of a car, though you are expected to have some previous knowledge about basic traffic laws, including moving violations, safety regulations, and other legal vehicular infractions, which are learned through either specific study and coursework or even through some form of simple exposure (such as the years you have spent riding with your parents and others who have driven for years). You should be able to comprehend the basic tools used to navigate a car (where the break pedal is located versus the gas, and how to use the rearview mirror, for example), even if you have never touched a steering wheel.
This lab explores superheterodyne single and dual conversion receiver subsystems for analog and digital modulation. Two VHF (30–300 MHz) FM receivers are considered. The ﬁrst receiver employes a wideband (about 200 kHz) IF subsystem centered at 10.7 MHz, while the second employes a narrowband (about 10 kHz) IF subsystem centered at 455 kHz. The narrowband FM receiver also utilizes dual conversion, with the ﬁrst IF at 10.7 MHz and the second IF at 455 kHz. Both receivers have been constructed using readily available radio frequency integrated circuits (RFICs) from NXP semiconductor1 . The receivers are presently in prototype form, constructed on an RF breadboard. In the future the receivers will be fabricated using a custom PCB. The high sensitivity of these receivers allows the wideband receiver to easily tune in FM broadcast stations and the narrowband receiver to receive the Colorado Springs national weather service (NOAA) station, and lab broadcast frequency shift keyed (FSK) digital modulation. Wideband FM Receiver The block diagram for the wideband receiver is given in Figure 1. The low-noise ampliﬁer (LNA) is not implemented at this time, nor is the front-end bandpass ﬁlter (BPF). A short wire (clip lead) will serve as the antenna in the experiment. The receiver requires and external local oscillator... LO frequency is 160 MHz. With low-side tuning for the LO, this means that carrier frequencies up 160 + 10.7 = 170.7 MHz can down-converted. The doubler is a passive circuit from Minicircuits2 , which in simple terms acts as a full-wave rectiﬁer, which has a strong second harmonic component. The mixer output is processed with a multistage IF ampliﬁer, with the 10.7 MHz IF passband shaping formed using ceramic ﬁlters. The nominal bandwidth of each ﬁlter is 280 kHz. Note from the schematic of Figure 2, the ceramic ﬁlters are external to the NXP SA636 RFIC. The ﬁnal stage 10.7 MHz IF BPF SFE10.7 An RF receiver needs to have high gain in order process weak signals arriving from a transmitter located many miles away. High gain over a wide bandwidth is hard to manage from a stability standpoint. Sensitive radio receivers also need to be very selective, that is supply high gain over just a relatively narrow band of frequencies. For the case of an FM receiver the needed bandwidth...
Factsheet about 9/11 What happened on 11 September 2001? In the early morning of 11 September 2001, 19 hijackers took control of four airliners taking off from different airports in the US – Boston, Washington DC and Newark in New Jersey. View of the World Trade Center, New York, under attack on 11 September 2001 At 8.46am, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower. The third airliner, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon in Washington DC at 9.37am, and the final plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed en route to Washington after passengers on board had fought with the hijackers. It is thought that the hijackers were aiming to hit either the Capitol building in Washington or the White House. All US airports were quickly shut down and all aircraft on their way to the country were turned away. The search for survivors at the sites of the attacks began immediately, although with little hope of success. At 9.59am, the fire that had been started by the crash caused the South Tower of the World Trade Center to collapse; this was followed by the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28am. Nearly 3,000 people were killed – most of them instantly. These horrific events were witnessed on TV by millions of people around the world, who by now had realised that the USA was coming under massive terrorist attack. Find out more by visiting: www.911educationprogramme.co.uk The Pentagon, Washington DC, minutes after it had been attacked on 11 September 2001 Page 2 At 8.30pm, US President of the George W. Bush addressed the nation on television and said: “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.” After the broadcast, he met his advisers to review the day. They already had evidence that the attacks had been organised by Osama bin Laden – the leader of the extreme terrorist group Al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan. From his base in Afghanistan, bin Laden supported an increasing number of suicide missions against the USA during the 1990s. The attacks were planned with increasing care and attention to detail – and with a desire to capture the attention of the world. Osama bin Laden in 1997 Why did the attacks on the USA happen? In 2004, Osama bin Laden finally admitted that Al-Qaeda, an extremist terrorist organisation, had been responsible for organising the 9/11 attacks. This confirmed what the US Government had believed all along. For many years, Osama bin Laden had called on Muslims to attack US soldiers and citizens wherever they could. He saw the US as an arch enemy of Islam. His aim was to get the US military out of their bases in Saudi Arabia, where they had remained after the Gulf War in 1991. Saudi Arabia is home to Islam’s most holy sites in the cities of Mecca and Medina, and bin Laden felt that America’s presence there was an affront to all Muslims. He also strongly objected to America’s support for Israel, which he believed wrongly occupied lands that belonged to fellow Muslims....
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 nside the Four Flights 1 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 National Crisis Management 35. 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47. A Declaration of War 47 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63. 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71. From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— . . . in the Law Enforcement Community 73 . . . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 . . . and in the Intelligence Community 86. Page vi . . . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 . . . and in the White House 98 . . . and in the Congress 102. 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1. Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 Crisis: August 1998 115 Diplomacy 121 Covert Action 126 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5. AL QAEDA AIMS AT THE AMERICAN HOMELAND 145. Terrorist Entrepreneurs 145 The “Planes Operation” 153 The Hamburg Contingent 160 A Money Trail? 169 6. FROM THREAT TO THREAT 174. The Millennium Crisis 174 Post-Crisis Reflection: Agenda for 2000 182 The Attack on the USS Cole 190 Change and Continuity 198 The New Administration’s Approach 203 7. THE ATTACK LOOMS 215. First Arrivals in California 215 The 9/11 Pilots in the United States 223 Assembling the Teams 231 Final Strategies and Tactics 241 8. “THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED” 254. The Summer of Threat 254 Late Leads—Mihdhar, Moussaoui, and KSM 266 9. HEROISM AND HORROR 278. Preparedness as of September 11 278 September 11, 2001 285 Emergency Response at the Pentagon 311 Analysis 315. 10. WARTIME 325 10.1 Immediate Responses at Home 326 10.2 Planning for War 330 10.3 “Phase Two” and the Question of Iraq 334 11. FORESIGHT—AND HINDSIGHT 339. Imagination 339 Policy 348 Capabilities 350 Management 353 12. WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY 361. Reflecting on a Generational Challenge 361 Attack Terrorists and Their Organizations 365 Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism 374 Protect against and Prepare for Terrorist Attacks 383 13. HOW TO DO IT? A DIFFERENT WAY OF ORGANIZING THE GOVERNMENT 399. Unity of Effort across the Foreign-Domestic Divide 400 Unity of Effort in the Intelligence Community 407 Unity of Effort in Sharing Information 416 Unity of Effort in the Congress 419 Organizing America’s Defenses in the United States 423 Appendix A: Common Abbreviations 429 Appendix B:Table of Names 431 Appendix C: Commission Hearings 439 Notes 449
For a Criminal Investigation of the Events of September 11th, 2001 The worst single criminal act ever committed on US soil, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 have served as justiﬁcation for: US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; a new doctrine of preventive war; the USA PATRIOT Act and Department of Homeland Security; torture and indeﬁnite detention of “enemy combatants”; surveillance of citizens without a court warrant; and shifting trillions of dollars in public spending priorities. Surveys by Zogby and Scripps-Howard found that signiﬁcant proportions of US citizens believe their own government had “actionable foreknowledge” of the attacks and “consciously failed to act” (Zogby 2004), or even that elements of the state were involved in orchestrating the attacks. The widespread disbelief in the ofﬁcial story indicates a deep crisis of trust in government, one that only an exhaustive and fearless criminal investigation can address. We ﬁrmly believe there is probable cause for such an investigation. The case for investigation is based on three pillars: 1) evidence of cover-up and a lack of serious investigation after the fact; 2) evidence of misconduct on the day of 9/11 3) evidence of foreknowledge and preparation before September 11th. Undertaking a full-scale, truly independent investigation is imperative, not only because there must be justice for the victims, but also because of the role 9/11 has played in justifying policies of aggression supposedly justifed by 9/11 must be halted, and a shattered public trust must be repaired. The 9/11 Cover-up 1 • During their 2002 inquiry, the Congressional joint intelligence committees (who redacted 1/4 of their report) were scrutinized by an FBI counter-investigation, which invaded the Senate in search of an alleged leak. It was widely believed that the FBI investigation may have been intended to have a chilling effect on the conduct of the Congressional Joint Inquiry. • The Congressional investigation failed to pursue solid evidence of a money trail to the alleged hijackers from the US-allied Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI). The ISI chief was removed from his post when strong evidence of his connection to the plot surfaced in early October 2001, but no serious punitive action was taken against him. • Evidence was destroyed or withheld, including suppression of the discovery of black boxes from the two ﬂights at Ground Zero and the destruction of tapes made by the air trafﬁc controllers who handled the same ﬂights.2 • Whistleblowers such as FBI translator Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer of “Able Danger” were disciplined or ﬁred, even as FBI, CIA, and military ofﬁcials who were blamed for failures received promotions and medals. • The September 11th relatives who lobbied for the 9/11 Commission (after 14 months of White House resistance) submitted 400 questions that Commissioners accepted as a “roadmap.” 70 percent of the questions were fully ignored in The 9/11 Commission Report. Many of the relatives later declared the Report a whitewash.3 • 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned in late 2003, calling the panel a whitewash and saying, “Bush is scamming America.” There • Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director who oversaw the panel’s activities, refused to step down after the September 11th families called for his resignation due to grave conﬂicts of interest (close association with Condoleezza Rice, member of White House national security staff both before 9/11 and in 2002, member of Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board). • Rice may have committed perjury in her April 2004 Commission testimony that an August 2001 Presidential Daily Brieﬁng to Bush was only of “historical signiﬁcance,” when in fact it detailed current intelligence. • The 9/11 Commission Report claimed the ﬁnancial background of the attacks was unknown, but dismissed the question as being of “little practical signiﬁcance” (page 172). Since when doesn’t an investigation “follow the money”? • Large sections of the report are based on the confessions of “enemy combatants” such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as provided in the form of transcripts by the government. The 9/11 Commission staff was not allowed to see or interview any of these “enemy combatants.” • Over a period of several years, NORAD, FAA, White House and military ofﬁcials gave widely divergent and conﬂicting accounts of the air defense response to 9/11, but no one was ever held accountable for upholding falsehoods. The 9/11 Commission chairs later admitted they considered a criminal investigation of NORAD’s statements, but preferred instead to present a unanimous report. • The focus of the Commission will be on the future. We’re not interested in trying to assess blame. We do not consider that part of the Commission’s responsibility. – Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission vice-chairman.
On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack? OVERVIEW This paper is primarily concerned with the factual data surrounding the exact impact times of the two aircraft that hit WTC1 and WTC2. This is neither theory nor hypothesis, but a statement of publicized facts regarding the timing of the aircraft impacts. There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct. The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities. The problem is the data sets have different impact times. These times were given out years ago but at different times. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) gave its findings around the time of the event with what it thought were impact times based upon the seismic data recorded, while the 9/11 Commission published its impact times, based upon FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic, years later in its Final Report. The Commission no longer exists.
Developed markets account for a major share of the apheresis market, whereas emerging countries form the fastest growing markets. North America and Europe collectively contribute to more than 76.2% of the total apheresis market. Asian markets are expected to expand their share in the coming years due to increasing need of blood for transfusion & therapeutic apheresis due to a large population base in these countries.
CertMagic are pioneer in C2170-011 exam preparatory material. C2170-011 exam material was prepared especially from the exam point of view. We offer free test engine and PDF file demos to test our products before making the purchase. C2170-011 exam material, technical training manual and training questions are available on CertMagic.com
CertMagic are pioneer in C2170-006 exam preparatory material. C2170-006 exam material was prepared especially from the exam point of view. We offer free test engine and PDF file demos to test our products before making the purchase. C2170-006 exam material, technical training manual and training questions are available on CertMagic.com
CertMagic are pioneer in C2140-842 exam preparatory material. C2140-842 exam material was prepared especially from the exam point of view. We offer free test engine and PDF file demos to test our products before making the purchase. C2140-842 exam material, technical training manual and training questions are available on CertMagic.com