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

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How in **** am I supposed to "accept" an engineering study you don't have a clue what it is and you won't/can't source? You make no sense.

    I haven't pulled any "stunt" and I show up a hell of a lot more than "maybe every 6 months". And once again, 9/11 is not about me.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    but you are making a claim that something else happened while plenty of evidence shows that a 757 hit the Pentagon knocking poles down on it's way in ... the burden of proof now lies with you ...

    are you a lawyer Bob or do you just play one on the internet? ...
     
  3. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,611
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's incorrect as to the Pentagon, I am not making any claims about what happened at the Pentagon. I have no clue what really happened. The only claims I've made are fully supported. That there was no legitimate forensic investigation into the Pentagon incident and therefore the story is suspect.

    There is no conclusive evidence as to what knocked down those poles, much less a 757 (see my fully supported claim above).

    This is false as well, the BOP as to 9/11 is always on the US government. If I make a claim as to what did not happen, then the BOP is on me but I can't make any claims as to what actually happened, I wasn't there nor did I investigate.

    I'm no lawyer but I've studied the Constitution, civil rights law (including case law) and legal opinions more than most non-attorneys. I've also studied the Federal and State Rules of Civil Procedure and written and filed many legal briefs. I also authored a popular legal software system back in the day. So I know enough to be dangerous.
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    .
    disregarding all the hogwash and opinion, you would lose in a court of law ... preponderance of evidence vs conspiracy theory ...
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's about time you sourced it. I read it before but I'll look into it again. Regardless, it doesn't change anything about NIST's fraud.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Sorry to clue you but that would never be a legal case, it doesn't work that way. BTW, almost all courtroom cases include both (evidence and conspiracy theory) when there is a conspiracy in question. And often the conspiracy theory is supported by the evidence.
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,611
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That Perdue study is not actually the one I was discussing, but to SYTFU, you got a study shown to you that confirms heat from the fire caused the collapse. And it accepts the airplane crash into the North Tower. I saw that crash on a video as well as the last crash into the South Tower on TV plus it is shown on video many times.

    Perhaps it was the FEMA study I first looked at. It was on PBS as a program I believe.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok I went through the paper once again. In the first place, the paper is no more than a theory. In the second place the paper does not go beyond the collapse initiation theory. In other words it doesn't take into consideration why and how the tower "collapsed" in its entirety in an accelerating near (2/3) free fall fashion or why and how some of its massive steel parts were ejected and found at a distance of approximately 600 feet, some embedded into adjacent buildings. It also doesn't take any eyewitness statements/claims into account especially the molten steel and other claims of hearing, seeing, feeling and being injured by explosions. In other words, the paper is an extremely limited theory that incorporates the discredited Bažant/Zhou theory as well as FEMA and NIST claims. So the paper is not a 9/11 fact as requested by this thread topic.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with that is that NIST superseded FEMA and PBS is not an official investigation. PBS also broadcast "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out".

    [video=youtube;1l-8PFk8j5I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I[/video]

    Bottom line is that none of these "studies" (except the incomplete FEMA investigation) were official investigations and therefore not the problem.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,611
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Live well and be happy.

    I do not accept some of your claims.

    But just be happy.

    i know I plan to.

    In a roundabout way, so far, no proof of explosives has been shown. I know of no scientific study that supports the explosive theory.

    Wikipedia source
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks but that has nothing to do with this discussion, it's irrelevant. Many of the claims I post here are not mine, many are verifiable and have been verified and some are (usually expert) opinions. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, it doesn't make them go away.

    There's no proof of many OCT claims but you bought it all as fact. NIST never investigated for explosives by their own admission, so it's impossible to come up with proof when it's never been forensically investigated. There are well over 100 documented eyewitness accounts of hearing, seeing, feeling and being injured by explosions. All 3 sentences are 9/11 facts.

    Then you don't know very much. There are several expert scientific studies that support the explosive theory. I posted one of these just recently.

    Sorry but that Wiki source just parrots the official "investigations" for the most part, it is not an independent investigation and certainly not official in itself.
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Go ahead and try it but notice that the "masses" that my model supports are not connected at the edges and I do not claim that they are analogous to floors in the Twin Towers. It is a PHYSICS demonstration. But if your "floors" do not go all of the way around your core and the core is not at least 50% of the width of the structure then do not bother.

    Notice that Mick's model does not satisfy those criteria but he still claims to be modeling the building. :roflol:

    psik
     
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Says this:

    Their stupid simulation contradicts the real data that the NIST collected on the south tower impact. The south tower deflected 15 inches horizontally due to the aircraft impact. But Purdue's so called simulation does not move. Purdue eliminated the Conservation of Momentum.

    psik
     
  15. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What most “researchers” and 9/11 kooks like our friends here never say is that “explosions” can take place outside the presence of explosives. Put some chili into a sealed Tupperware container and put it in the microwave for 5 mins or so. See what happens? Did the Chili change formula into an explosive? No. As for sending items out from the Twin Towers, such ejections actually support a non-controlled explosion. When you have a beam whose upward load has been removed by….something like a gigantic airplane on one side, when the fall happens, a see-saw effect takes place except it’s not attached to the fulcrum in the middle.

    Anyway…
     
  16. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only another sort of total BS claimed by people who won't believe the truth!

    if there were explosives inside the Pentagon installed, why is no flood of debris of the building spread outside on the meadow in front?
    And anyone who is now telling that it was outside placed can be ignored as troll ... because this area is wide visible and there was nothing.

    And about the old BS claiming and blabbering with the cam at the gate and that no other cam did record the plane is in meantime so boring and shows clearly the evidence that Truthers are not willing to accept facts they don't like!
    Again and only 1 time more: No security cam on planet earth in 2001 was able to film the plane, because the plane was far too fast for this out of technical fact with the FRAPS such cameras have + the small area they monitored - point and over and out!
    Accept this pure undeniable fact simply or believe any further BS and blabbering about further ... but don't try to sell this BS blabbering as truth please!
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,576
    Likes Received:
    2,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect sir, on this matter of the attacks of 9/11, you are as far removed from the truth as is possible. To find the truth, one must seek it actively. Fatuously believing the statements of well known liars like those in the US Department of Defense is NOT seeking the truth in any way.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know about “researchers” and "9/11 kooks", whoever those may be but I can easily say explosions can absolutely happen without explosives. The above is the mantra of most rabid OCT defenders. But often the same ones believe that on 9/11 not one explosion possibly happened as a result of explosives when explosives are specifically designed to cause explosions while everything else is not. So while other things might explode under certain circumstances, explosives will definitely cause explosions every time unless the mechanism is defective.

    It's the same mentality with the many eyewitness claims of molten steel. Some OCT defenders insist all those claims are really about seeing molten aluminum even though there is not one single eyewitness that I know of who claims he/she saw molten aluminum. And there's one eyewitness who claims to have seen "the melting of girders on 9/11" and I believe most people are aware that girders are made of steel, not aluminum.

    Explosions cause lateral ejections of multi-ton objects at high velocities a hell of a lot more often than gravitational (downward) collapses ever will.
     
  19. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all respect Sir,

    People who are blinded by their conspiracy wishful thinking to see and accept pure facts which are comparable to fact that 1+1=2 are in my opinion far from any sort of truth!
    I never defended the US government in any sort or point and I also clearly wrote here in this forum that I don't exclude conspiracy issues in general. I clearly wrote that the backing for Vietnam War was a conspiracy issue! I clearly wrote that I have still today doubts about the assassination of JFK that only one man did with this rifle, backed by fact that I was a sniper too and so can speak about as specialist to this topic!

    BUT!!!
    There was so much Bullcrap claimed by the Truthers on one side, that it makes the complete issue of 9/11 = conspiracy a ridiculous claim. There was until now not even a single evidence given that it was any sort of conspiracy! Any logic and all the circumstances here with this show clearly that the Bush administration had not even a spark of interest with a war against terror, because their focus was only Iraq and Saddam ... Al Qaida played for this administration same sort of importance as gang wars of Bloods, Crisps and whatever scum!

    With all respect Sir,
    Until now was not a single working alternative named which hit the Pentagon instead the Boing 757! More as that, because this is impossible die to pure facts, it was suddenly the BS claimed that it was a bomb which is even proofed to be nonsense by the pictures of the Truthers they take to back their other claims ... or is there any fitting debris field fitting for a bomb explosion on the meadow in front?

    It was the Truther movement which started to tell the BS of "Fire in WTC was not hot enough to melt steal". No one else claimed that the steal bars have to molten to cause the collapse, only the Truther told this nonsense! Yes, it was for sure not hot enough for it, but more as hot enough to weal the steal to be soft like copper! Even this was not only proven with an experiment, but being pure fact and common knowledge of steal industry in the world too, the Truthers ignore this fact and deny it what makes them only to be a pack of clowns!

    It was the Truthers movement which came with Termite explosive, even when every specialist of this business knows that this would be a bad choice to use. It was this movement which claimed with a half book of investigation report that traces of termite were found and that there was no other reason given which can cause these traces. I'm no chemistry specialist for sure, but I read this large report and only one point in it was enough to see that this is only smart looking BS blabbering: Because traces of Brome were found, the connection to Termite is only possible because nothing else can cause the contamination with Brome. Ehm ... yes ... but what is again the content of any Anti Rust color please with which the thousands of steal bars are in general painted and give them the red brown color? Brome!

    With all respect Sir,
    from the Pro-Conspiracy side came here only BS and nothing else ... sometimes not directly visible and well packed and hidden, but at least only BS and nothing what can only be at minimum taken as evidence!
    And that the officials made many errors and did not release everything and so on is not OK of course, but no proof for anything!



    P.S.
    And this government and administration or hidden society or whatever behind as Truthers tell, was here so smart with this conspiracy act of 9/11 ... but failed to thoroughly incompetent 2 years later with conspiracy to back Iraqi Freedom? Come on...
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And this is why you fail miserably.

    The Newton Law you are trying use as proof that the towers couldn't have collapsed the way they did due to gravity does not care about individual characteristics of each "object" in question. You fail to understand this. That Law does not care about the strength of individual components making up each "object". That Law does not care about the individual connections used within each object. That Law does not care about the makeup of each structural subsystem of each "object". Why? Because you cannot account for those items in the terms and variables used by the particular law.

    You kind of had it right in the beginning of your quest when you made the claim that your "paper loops and washers" model DID NOT REPRESENT the composition/structure makeup of the towers. You then threw out the challenge for someone to make a model that supported itself, and could have the smaller, upper section dropped upon the larger, lower section and have the structure as a whole completely destroyed. When someone did that, you cried foul and changed the experiment to try and hide the fact that you were completely wrong in your understanding. You changed the terms of the experiment by saying that SOME of the components needed to match the twin towers structure in order to be a relevant model.

    Total BS and you know it!

    To further my point that you have no clue what you are doing and understand nothing, I'll use the example drawings I posted previously.

    Example 1 containing two "objects". An upper and a lower "object". The lower object is comprised of multiple individual components and their connections.

    EXAMPLE 1
    [​IMG]

    How do you apply Newton's Law to the above complex structure? The same why you do psikey. You use a simplistic representation so that the law can be used. See Example 2 below:

    EXAMPLE 2
    [​IMG]

    I can also use example 2 to be representative of 100 ton solid concrete block and a 500 ton solid concrete block. Get it yet? See the problem with how you apply Newton's Laws to complex objects? See how and why we get different results? You think it's OK to simplify the upper and lower sections of the towers into simple blocks to prove your misunderstood application of Newton's Laws, but then change your terms to using complex blocks with multiple characteristics when someone proves you wrong.

    The bottom line is you can't use Newton's laws to determine how two "objects", comprised of multiple components, will react when each "object" collides with each other. You want a granular explanation to be provided by Laws that weren't designed to provide conclusions regarding granular destruction!

    Just admit you are wrong and move forward.

    Again. A simple exercise for you to prove that you understand or don't understand. Make a simple drawing using the terms and variables in Newton's Laws that represents your "paper loops and washers" model. Then show me where in that drawing it will make a difference if you specify that the floors go around the core, certain components were damaged, and how those specifics change the numbers/conclusion you derive using those Laws.
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,611
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This has evidence of the airplane appearing to be landing into the building.

    http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,611
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would you accept an explosion theory and reject the airplane crash?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No evidence huh?

    How about William LaGasse's account that follows? You know who he is right? Let me guess. He's lying? The government got to him?

    From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
    To: Dick Eastman

    Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
    attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
    struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed
    almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC
    and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the
    annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building
    were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a
    heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
    with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same
    time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect
    no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already
    in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle
    would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington
    National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
    of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft
    until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the
    assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
    it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
    of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall,
    which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or
    flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low
    forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be
    extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27
    blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however
    see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
    flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a
    few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point
    that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were
    there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
    entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
    right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
    fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
    collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
    engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
    inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
    that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
    morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at
    least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't
    there claim. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
    search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
    lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
    has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
    that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
    curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
    quelling misconceptions.


    - - - Updated - - -

    The light poles that were struck match the wingspan of a 757. Yeah, that's not evidence at all.
     
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So one of us is stupid or lying.

    Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

    That has to do with the strength of the components. The components must be strong enough to support the static load. I tested the structure to be as weak as possible to hold the weight and then did the drop test.

    psik
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I accept the explosion theory because among an overwhelming amount of other hard evidence (albeit perhaps circumstantial), it's a fact that there are well over 100 documented eyewitness claims of seeing, hearing, feeling (as in being thrown by) and being injured by explosions.

    But where did you get that I reject the airplane crash? I saw on video one plane crashing into one tower and another crashing into the second tower so although there are suspicious anomalies with those events, it's impossible for me to deny that planes crashed into the twin towers unless proven otherwise. As to the Pentagon and Shanksville, there is no video that shows planes crashing and all we have is the OCT account. The problem with the OCT account is that it's not only incomplete but whatever was published is full of lies, contradictions, obfuscations, deceptions, etc. and totally unreliable and therefore worthless trash. So anything and everything regarding the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes that comes from the OCT is not to be accepted as fact and those who buy into it without question are extremely gullible IMO.
     

Share This Page