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

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

  1. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dennis Cimino received the FDR data about 5 years after he requested it under FOIA. He is an expert in the field, and among other things was a Navy Combat Systems Specialist.

    The FDR data he received was contrived and bogus. Those who created the fake evidence forgot to assign it to a specific airframe. There were other glaring errors revealing it to be bogus, just like the rest of the silly damn story.
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea why the planners used the light poles. Just more theater, I suppose. What's interesting is that the alignment of the downed poles does not agree with the path flown by AA77 according to the official story. Can't have their cake and eat it to. If the airliner did it, it could not possibly have struck the building where it supposedly did.

    My theory is that something struck the building, either a smaller drone aircraft or a missile, as shown in the parking lot video frames provided by the pentagon. If so, I suppose it is possible that the small drone or missile might have taken down the poles. Otherwise, they were simply staged, and part of the reason the FBI quickly confiscated so many surveillance camera footage from nearby civilian facilities including hotels.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Have you seen this info?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0

    National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 6/8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4
    (5:00 time mark)
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

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

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

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

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plenty of controversy regarding the FDRs and those pesky serial numbers in general:

    Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

    9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

    "Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed inventory control serial numbers."

    http://911blogger.com/node/14081

    But the bottom line is no serial number match for any of the recovered airplane parts for any of the 4 claimed 9/11 airliners and the usual coverup.
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh really?

    I was not aware that Newton's Laws needed proving.

    psik
     
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So they risked everything in the interest of theater? Really? Are you sure you want to go with that lame an answer?

    And the cab? And the driver? Are you chalking that up to theater as well?

    The path of the poles and the trajectory of AA77 in the 9/11 Commission Report fit hand-in-glove.

    http://s118.photobucket.com/user/operatorkos/media/hole.jpg.html


    Then how do you account for the DNA. You’re already expanding the conspiracy theory to include people to down the light poles and stage them. (we haven’t even talked about the generator on fire yet, the cab driver, and the cab who were also hit by AA77). And you did so in the name of “theater”? I can only wait fiendishly to see what comic relief will be provided when you tell us the reason the passenger’s DNA, bodies, and special effects were found at the Pentagon.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please refresh my memory on just who it was who "conducted" the DNA analysis. LOL

    I gave up believing known liars decades ago.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or if it was really done, where did the DNA really come from? In other words, the documented chain of custody which is standard with every forensic criminal investigation. There is not one official "investigation" that qualifies as a forensic criminal investigation (which would include forensic autopsies) and therefore not one thing about the OCT that's reliable and trustworthy. Everything has to be accepted on faith and as noted OCT defenders bought it all without one single question asked.
     
  11. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28

    DMORT based in Delaware most likely seeing as how it’s a military installation. I’m not sure. So now we have the guys staging the light poles, the guys staging the cab on the freeway (remember,you’re saying it didn’t get hit by the light poles that morning so it’s your allegation—not mine), the cab driver who are “in on it”. On top of that, now you’re insinuating that those who are responsible for DNA analysis were “in on it” too?

    I guess we can now bring in the flaming generator near the Pentagon with the weird airplane engine shaped nugget taken out of it’s ending where AA77 hit it. Care to speculate how that was knocked off of it’s standard (toward the Pentagon) and was set on fire?
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of all the things I posted, this is you respond to?

    :roflol:

    Let's clarify this for you.

    You are TRYING to use Newton's Laws to prove something that they were not created for. You are trying to prove that the Twin Towers (both being structures comprised of a multitude of components) COULD NOT have completely collapsed due to gravity and are INCORRECTLY APPLYING Newton's Laws to your "paper loops and washers" model to try and make your point.

    Newton's Laws "don't care" about structural design, strength of materials, strength of connections, or the number of components making up whatever "objects" you are applying Newton's Laws to. You turn both the Twin Tower's upper and lower sections into SINGLE, SIMPLY ENTITIES, hence your "percentage of the total structure" you use for each section. You do this so you can "fit" them into Newton's Laws. Then you try and prove your point by showing how Newton's Laws applied to your stupid model prove your claim about the towers. Then when I try and do the same thing you are doing, NOW the granular characteristics of the structure in question all of a sudden make a difference.

    I have proven your understanding of how you try to apply Newton's Laws to a complex structure as being incorrect. Which is why you consistently avoid answering questions.

    The bottom line is, you can't use Newton's Laws to show/predict how complex objects will deform, come apart, collapse, etc. I proved this with a simple model that can be used for ANY TWO simplified objects. I asked you to draw a model for you "paper loops and washer model" using the variables/terms in Newton's Laws and you balked at it. Why did you balk at it? Because you know that if you DID draw a representative model, you would find out that your drawing could be applied to ANY physical model having two "objects" of the same mass. I could use any materials or structural design for each "object" as Newton's Laws don't care about those characteristics.

    That's why your declaration previously about my two models being of different material strength is so hilarious! If you knew what you were talking about, you would have realized, as I have been trying to explain to you, that your objection doesn't matter one bit. Show all of us here where your "material strength" objection to my previous model can be applied to any of the following of Newton's Laws so you can prove your point:
    http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dynamics/newtonapplications/terms.html
    Newton's Three Laws
    First Law: If F = 0 then a = 0 and v = constant
    Second Law: F = ma
    Third Law: F [SUB]AB[/SUB] = - F [SUB]BA[/SUB]

    So psikey. State which term or variable in the formulas above we can incorporate the strength of each individual component making up each object. How about the strength of each individual connection that binds each component to one another? Which term or variable would that be?

    You have failed miserably thus far.

    :wink:
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you're thinking is that whomever planned the Pentagon part of this grand and complicated conspiracy forgot to make sure that the added theatrics of faked downed light poles matched the flight path data they also faked?!

    :roflol:
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To further prove my point in my post above.

    Here is a diagram representing your physical "paper loops and washer" model in terms that fit Newton's Laws. I used your 1.7 oz for each washer reference.
    [​IMG]

    My question to you is this. How does one use Newton's Laws and the above model to determine how much of each object is "destroyed" and that the "upper section's" decent would have stopped?
     
  15. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Small potatoes….now the operatives who planted the lights, planted the cab, the cab driver, those who now set the generator on fire…the guys who faked the DNA evidence; Any of them could blow the lid off the conspiracy at any time so you have to pay hush money forever to everyone of them.

    The last time I was a paid operative during the Kennedy Assassination, I kept jacking my price up every month so Lyndon and the boys in Washington had to keep paying my outrageous demands.

    What else were they going to do????

    Pissed me off that Lou, Vic, and Mr. Big (we didn’t know his real name) kept asking LBJ for $1 more than I got every month.
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't know the difference between "allegation" and "theory", but when one is attempting to defend an impossible story, I certainly understand why you would post that way.

    No sir, I don't trust a word the pentagon or the CIA utters. The biggest reason for that is I'm old enough to remember The Pentagon Papers and what they revealed.

    They revealed that the military strategy and tactics of deception and diversion are valid and being practiced by the DoD on a regular basis. What happened on 9/11 was a false flag operation involving much deception.

    So by all means sir, you go ahead and believe those in the pentagon. I'll pass, thanks just the same. Believe them if you will, but don't expect any "argument" you might offer based on statements from the pentagon to be compelling or persuasive.

    The pentagon was struck to end the congressional audit regarding the missing $2.3 trillion, and the strike was successful in that regard. Most likely the work of Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco regarding Yama(*)(*)(*)(*)a Gold and the Black Eagle Fund were very close to the truth.
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, not really. As I've already mentioned, it is possible that the small "aircraft" shown in the frames from the parking lot video was the one that took down the light poles.

    I know you would rather talk about absurdities than about legitimate theories.
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    was that small aircraft zig zagging on it's way in? ... and let's just ignore the over 100 witnesses of a large American Airlines aircraft ... they must have been the people blowing up light poles and planting debris ... talk about absurdities? ... you must be a troll ...
     
  19. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you did some "reading" in the description underneath my video you would see:

    It has only been there for 6 years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo&t=2s

    That is the result of testing not calculations from Newton's Laws. It is one of those Strength of Materials things.

    I did not put it in the description but the dropped mass would have to be raised a little over 20 feet to crush all of the loops. Are Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy part of Newtons Laws?

    psik
     
  20. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I need not worry about persuading anyone As a matter of record, the burden of convincing others is on you.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You keep stating that your model proves that the Twin Towers could not have completely collapsed from gravity. That a smaller, upper section cannot destroy a larger, lower section. Most important, you make the statement that your model does not represent the towers construction or makeup.

    You then challenged people to make a similar model and make it completely collapse.

    Why are you all of a sudden putting "structural" stipulations onto models people have created or want to create? Why does someone's model have to have "floors" going all the way around the core if the model does not need to match the "structure" of the towers? It's a generic structure to prove physics right?
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,529
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't really care what others think. I have no interest in "convincing" anybody of anything.

    Those curious souls with an open mind already understand they've been deceived, at least for the most part.

    Those incurious and gullible souls who still believe the official story will never change most likely. Cognitive dissonance is very hard to overcome in many cases.

    As Soren Kierkegaard noted, there are 2 ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what IS true.

    The official story is a damn lie, and neither you nor the government can prove any element of that story.
     
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Provide a link to where I said my model "PROVES" something.

    I said it is a "physics demonstration". I have said we need to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Do you think my model has the same mass distribution of the north tower? Does my model have a core like the north tower?

    You are debating against a delusion in your head, your stereotype of a "Truther". That is why you do not really pay attention to what I actually say. What is the matter, don't you know what a Joule is?

    You have no comprehension of what my standards of PROOF are! :roll:

    My point is that the NIST has come nowhere near my standards. Their not even specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers is PROOF of that.

    psik
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST has come nowhere near any universally accepted investigative or scientific standard, period, not even NIST's own fire investigation standard that they publish and expect all fire investigations to comply with. And that's an irrefutable proven 9/11 fact.
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What is "sudden" about it? If you watch a video about the design of the WTC the huge open floor area is one of the things people make a Big Deal about. So anything claiming to be a WTC model should have that characteristic. I have repeated that I am doing a "Physics Demonstration" not modeling the WTC. I wish I had done it before 2010 but I kept thinking in terms of modeling the building and knew I could not do it. But I have not seen anyone else do an adequate job yet.

    The only way I have thought of would be with a big 3-D printer and produce each level 2 ft by 2 ft by 1.5 inches. But then each level would have to be weighted to have the same mass distribution as the WTC. Since I have never seen that data I do not see how anyone could accomplish it.

    psik
     

Share This Page