911 Theories.....Are there any facts?

Discussion in '9/11' started by 911Defender, Oct 30, 2016.

  1. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am new to this forum. But I'm here because of the continued new evidence which strongly shows that the 911 Commission was in the least inept, possibly with deliberate attempt, to alter the facts of the 911 event.....One needs only to view the report as submitted and test it's validity to understand that it is at best incomplete and misdirecting the truth with falsely constructed models and ignoring 100's of eye witness testimonies, police, firefighters, news reporters, etc.

    I believe a new investigation needs to start with the actual report...Enter real investigative facts, evidence, and eye witness accounts, the actual builders of the towers engineers should be subpoenaed with the original architectural blueprints and specs, employees of each company that had rented properties involved in buildings 1, 2, and 7 testimony. Video experts of all known sources and request the private sector to devulge what private video they may have.....In other words conduct a real investigation, not a cover up.

    The best to date argument is here......from 911Truth.org.

    https://youtu.be/Mf1ewgbq4fY

    "Published on Oct 6, 2016
    JUSTICE IN FOCUS HIGHLIGHTS:

    Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys on September 11, 2016

    Today, we invite you to watch Dr. Leroy Hulsey present the preliminary findings of his WTC 7 computer modeling study to the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. Dr. Hulsey is a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the chair of UAF’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

    When asked by the panel of attorneys, “On a scale of 1 to 100, how probable do you think it is that this building could have collapsed simply because of the fire?” Dr. Hulsey stated categorically, “Zero.” Asked if he would flunk one of his Ph.D. students for turning in the kind of analysis that NIST did, he replied emphatically, “Yes.”

    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

    Decide for yourself if the most grievous attack on US soil doesn't deserve an investigation......keep in mind that the Commission on 911 was not an investigation......it did not meet the criteria of one as defined by an investigation.....It did not investigate the steel, the crime site, the videos, the military, the airports, the witnesses, but instead produced a bogus model of how the buildings collapsed, an event that has never happened in the history of skyscrapers anywhere else on the planet. Many skyscrapers have caught on fire, never to fall.....mainly because they are designed not to. The commission was comprised of politicians of the current administration.......This is how wikipedia defines the commission....

    The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

    Chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, the commission consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans. The commission was created by Congressional legislation, with the bill signed into law by President George W. Bush.

    The commission's final report was lengthy and based on extensive interviews and testimony. Its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that if these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.

    After the publication of its final report, the commission closed on August 21, 2004. The commission's website was shut down, but has been archived.[1]

    Now there is a lot of misinformation there.....what they don't say is that any engineers were involved. It doesn't talk about the hundreds of witnesses whose testimonies were not taken. It places the blame on the FBI and CIA for not informing the administration, when there are congressional hearings on the subject on CSPAN that prove the opposite......Condeleezza Rice was grilled by congress about her role in passing the information to the Bush Administration....The day of 911, the Pentagon was in a practice simulation terrorist attack based on knowledge of a planed attack on the US by airstrike. This is all on video tape of congressional hearings...So why all the misdirection, why all the deception?

    A good question, with a frightening answer...if you call a lie the truth long enough, people will believe it....Hence Donald Trumps a few votes away from being president. Apparently calling for truth long enough doesn't afford the same effect.

    Finally, Dr. Leroy Hulsey has no bias, no axe to grind....he's an educator, a life long educator who has been a witness on some of the most dramatic cases of structural damage in the US...He was honored to look into the Building 7 issue for Truthfor911.org.....his findings, I believe are signal enough to get the populous to stand up and demand a new, a first real, investigation of 911.

    PS...I posted a similar comment on a political blog for 911, one I won't name here and was banned by the administrator, who also left a personal comment about my state of mind. I can only hope real patriots of this country do not lose patience, do not lose the energy to stand up for their 1st Amendment rights and do not become intimidated by those who would rather rule than debate.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Welcome to the forum.

    The evidence is not new, it's been there and known for years. The 9/11 Commission was not just inept, it was a fraud. 25% of the footnotes supporting the 9/11 Commission came from "confessions" extracted from detainees who were mercilessly tortured. Key "information" came from a detainee who signed a "confession" he wasn't allowed to read. The Commission wasn't allowed to interrogate any of these detainees, so the "confessions" were related to the Commission by 3rd parties. Phillip Zelikow, a Bush crony, wrote the outline to the 9/11 Commission Report before the Commission even got started. He also edited the final version of the Commission Report. Eyewitnesses were coached by "government minders", which was of course blatant obstruction.

    I agree and much more. But there never was a legitimate official investigation into 9/11 in the first place. Any legitimate investigation would be the first.

    That's only one scientific study that proves WTC7 did not collapse from thermal expansion due to fire, contradicting the NIST Final Report on WTC7. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence fully documented that exposes the NIST Report(s) and theory peddled as fact as frauds. There's an entire thread on that subject:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    It includes Hulsey's research.

    Some believe it has already been investigated and defend the results of these frauds.

    There are a few discussion forums that ban and/or ridicule posters who disagree with the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). Pretty sick, isn't it?
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  3. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Any new investigation that would go after controlled demolition or no plane theories is a waste of time, money, and effort. Conspiracy nonsense.

    The only new investigation I would support would be a re-examination of the CIA role in trying to recruit al Qaeda informants inside the US, and a decent investigation into George Tenet to see if he deliberately stopped information getting to the White House and FBI.

    Unfortunately the actual information people should have been pushing forward, stated above, has been drowned by bollocks of controlled demolition and 'no planes', so now the public want nothing to do with it.

    Congrats, you've helped the CIA get away with it. Well done to you.
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Start watching this at the 7:20 time mark.

    provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A


    Real 9/11 truthers believe that planes did hit the towers. The no-plane theory was probably thought up by some public-relations agency which had been hired by the government to try to control the damage. They are trying to make the truther movement look silly by associating wacky theories with the real proof that the government was behind it such as the proof of controlled demolition.

    Start watching this at the 2:40:20 time mark.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo


    The above videos pretty much show the positions of real truthers. There's no mention of the no-plane theory in either video.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An unbiased scientific forensic criminal investigation into 9/11 does not start with any preconceived or any other theory, unlike both the 9/11 Commission and NIST. It would use all the standard universally accepted investigative protocols that should be used for such investigations. For example, the NFPA protocol that NIST helped create as one standard and publishes and of course, the scientific method. None of these were used by either the 9/11 Commission or NIST. These were not legitimate investigations, they were political frauds.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=458597&page=12&p=1066529856#post1066529856
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  6. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its nice to hear some level headed responses, free of bias and incrimination.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Have you ever heard of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy?

    no-plane theories have been embedded in truher mantra for years; you yourself have argued no planer theories on here several times when you try to tell everyone no plane hit the Pentagon, or no plane crashed in PA. Somehow your no-planer arguments are safe but anyone who holds a no-planer argument to do with the twin towers is a paid shill and provocateur?

    Talk about Cognitive dissonance
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think it's pretty clear that I was referring to the towers when I said the no-plane theory was a PR scam. I was not referring to the Pentagon. It's pretty clear that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=13&p=1066776319#post1066776319

    ...and it's pretty clear that planes hit the towers.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planes+hitting+twin+towers

    Real truthers think that unmanned remote-controlled planes hit the towers. They don't think the planes we saw were holograms. People who say that the planes that hit the towers were holograms are infiltrators who are trying to make truthers look silly.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  9. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Sorry scott, there is so such thing as a 'real' truther; every truther believes something slightly different, all of which has precisely just as much evidence supporting it as the rest; zero.
     
  10. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes, that's correct. Glad to have you on board. The next step is waking up to the fact ALL 9/11 theories are PR scams.

    This is a very cultish mindset for a group of people who claim not to be "sheeple".

    There are no "infiltrators", because there is no conspiracy to protect. It's been 15 years. If you were really a danger to a government conspiracy to kill 3,000 people, you can bet "infiltrators" would do more than spread strange theories on the Internet.

    -Hey boss, this Gage guy and his AE911Truth org is really giving us grief. You want we give im a couple a cement shoes and take him for a swim?

    -Na, na, too messy.

    -Well we could take away his non profit status and shut him down with tax evasion charges.

    -Na, na, I gotta better idea: send out the Troll Squad and flood the Web with kooky theories like aliens did 9/11. That will shut him down

    -Um, if you say so boss....
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn't quite word it that way. I would rather say that the proof that elements within the US government were complicit in the 9/11 attacks via stand down and coverup is conclusive and that there is an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence (more than enough for a grand jury) that those elements may also have had an active hand in the 9/11 attacks.
     
  13. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18


    Have you contacted Richard Gage yet? I know you're exited to have him show up and put to rest any questions about his theories. Because, surely he doesn't just talk to people who pay him to speak.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481633
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,226
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good post 911Defender, and welcome to the forum.

    In defense of the commission members, keep in mind that the 2 main members are on record stating they were set up to fail, or words to that effect.

    It should have been named the Zelikow Commission, for that Neocon oversaw the workings of the commission, and made sure that the guilty parties were protected, and that any "findings" would support the official White House narrative.

    Many members knew and commented that they were being misled.

    So, you're right that it was a sham, but the fault does not lie with the members, but rather with the White House clowns who fought any sort of an investigation for 2 years.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are at fault too. Given their position(s) they didn't do enough to protest the scam they participated in. Some were proud of their work.
     
  16. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you are part of the deception, you are equally at fault.....like the driver for the bank robbery.......All these people need to be indicted.
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,226
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect that is much easier to say than to do, had you been in that position. It is true that in a time of universal deception speaking the truth is a radical act. A radical act that may or may not be punished by TPTB.

    As the head of a commission being manipulated by political forces and overseen by an operative like Zelikow, how much more can you do than go public saying the commission was set up to fail? Really, how much more can one man do? Shoot Zelikow?

    I think Max Cleland resigned in disgust, so his protest was registered. But did his resignation change anything? No.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Max Cleland did what they all should have done, it was their duty to do so. They all KNOWINGLY participated in a blatant fraud, even after Max Cleland resigned knowing why he resigned. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not giving anyone a pass who knowingly participated in the 9/11 deception/coverup. If they all did what Max Cleland did, it would have had a much greater impact, especially if they all resigned in protest in the early phases of the Commission.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes. I'm aware of this.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/424682-israel-involved-planning-9-11-attacks.html

    The part of the US government that was involved was probably pretty big though; I don't think any high level politician has said it was an inside job. The proof has been on the internet for years and they're not morons. The press is also going along with it.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,306
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's difficult to speculate who exactly was directly involved. We do know who was responsible for the stand down though, the 3 highest positions had to be, those I named as the minimum number for the inside job. There is no way around that.

    You'd be surprised at the (low) level of intelligence of some of these politicians. But you're right many are not morons, they just go along with the program for fear of their careers, same with many scientists.

    The press was bought and paid for long ago. I'm sure there are many intelligent mainstream journalists who remain silent for the same reason. Geraldo Rivera (not an example of a MSM journalist) came around.
     
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Maybe you should make certain of SOME facts before worrying about any theories.

    There are a lot of skyscrapers around the world and they must all hold themselves up against gravity. 50 buildings over 1,000 ft tall have been completed since 9/11. The Empire State Building had its 70th anniversary in 2001. This is not cutting edge physics.

    So suppose you had a 100 story building and for the sake of discussion assume that each level weighed 1,000 tons. That would mean the first level had to be strong enough to support 99,000 tons. The second level 98,000 tons, etc. So the 90th level would only have to hold 10,000 tons. So is it believable that every level had the same amount of steel and therefore the same weight?

    So no matter what the Truth of 9/11 is, isn't it peculiar that experts do not discuss the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the Twin Towers and how tho top of the north tower could supposedly destroy the portion below that should have been stronger and heavier all of the way down?

    They did not have electronic computers to simulate the design of the Empire State Building before 1931.

    psik
     
  22. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You are up your knees in BS if you start where you describe.

    It's true, it was a demolition, but none like the world has ever seen and it sure as hell cannot be proven in the social spaces we have.

    You end up with unsupportable nonsense like this.



    What can be proven is that the twin towers core structure has been misrepresented to everyone.

    The ONLY information which can be absolutely trusted is photographic evidence from 9/11 where the towers are coming apart before the cameras.

    The supposed steel framed core is NEVER seen. What is seen is the true core structure that existed . A concrete rectangular tubular core.

    My site is compiled facts. Start with the link top left in the navigation box. The FEMA DECEPTION.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

    Before any posts text attempting to deny this. Find an image from 9/11 that shows the REQUIRED structural elements of a steel framed core. DIAGONAL BRACES and gusset plates. If you do not know what those are do not attempt to argue.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
  24. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you're being facetious right? ...
     
  25. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Ten years and you still have not posted an image of a steel framed core in the core area from 9/11.

    Because the the steel framed core did not exist, and you have no facts.
     

Share This Page