NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nearly perfect cutout? Not even close.
    exit2.jpg

    It didn't go through "two rings". Meaning, the plane/debris didn't penetrate the outer brick wall of ring E, then penetrate the opposite outer brick wall of ring E, then pass through a courtyard/open area between rings E and D, then penetrate the outer brick wall of ring D, then penetrate the opposite outer brick wall of ring D, then pass through a courtyard/open area between rings D and C, then penetrate the outer brick wall of ring C, and then create the final exit hole in the opposite outer brick wall of ring C.

    The area between the outer wall of ring E where the impact occurred to the outer wall of ring C where the exit hole was, was all contiguous interior office space. There were two floors of office space between rings E-D and D-C.

    The plane debris penetrated the outer brick wall of ring E, passed through the interior office space, then exited out through the brick wall of ring C. It passed through only 2 exterior brick walls.
    Sidecut.jpg
     
    Adam Fitzgerald likes this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep.

    Only? And a few columns along the way that should have shredded the alleged plane before the "slurry" created that nearly perfect cut out.

    Are you trying to convince me not to question the large plane theory Gamo? I don't think it's working.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I couldn't care less what you think at this point. Just making sure people know the facts compared to your misinformation that's all.

    Simple isn't?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your responses to my posts over the years show otherwise.

    And I'm making sure people know the facts compared to your misinformation and that of other OCT defenders/apologists, which is ALWAYS in defense of the OCT and NEVER in question of it.

    What would be simpler for you is to just provide the links to the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports whenever anyone questions the OCT. I'm sure you have those handy at all times.
     
  5. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    And not one of them have ever debated anyone on the side that the plane impacted the building. Not one. In fact CIT could never debate anyone regarding their position of a fly over and thats because no eyewitness will ever back their laughable claims of one.
     
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,525
    Likes Received:
    2,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Debate? What's to debate? Any debate ended with the 911 Commission report. "We found no evidence" repeated 60 times makes it very clear the official theory is invalid. Its own commission found no evidence to support it.

    The FDR for AA77 was bogus.

    The only question remaining is who the actual perpetrators were.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    63
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is complete garbage and it's already been explained why.

    Explain how the following "no evidence" sentence invalidates the "official theory".
    noevidence.PNG
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it "garbage" and where was it explained why?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't explain it at all nor does it make the statement "complete garbage".

    Neither does that. There are at least 60 claims (I believe there are 63?) in the 9/11 Commission Report of "we found no evidence". Even if there is some merit to the ones you pointed out (4 of them - 7% to be generous), what about the rest (93%)? You haven't come close to showing why it's "garbage" or pointed to anything that explains it.

    Furthermore "we found no evidence" is a negative (and absolutely invalid) claim, not a positive one such as "we found evidence" followed by the actual evidence. That's not how legitimate investigations are conducted. The 9/11 Commission also failed to actually look for evidence in many situations. You can't find evidence if you don't look for it. Example:

    25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I added one more fact in support of the "we found no evidence" claim invalidating the 9/11 Commission Report. The fact below is the equivalent of "we found no evidence" and it negates 2 chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report.

    17. Page 146 of the 9/11 Commission Report contains a full disclaimer of Chapters 5 and 7 (see #12, #13 and #16). This is effectively an admission by the 9/11 Commission Report that two key chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report are totally unreliable (and therefore deceptions meant to be promoted as fact).
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,525
    Likes Received:
    2,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On 1 August 2004, after reading the Commission Report, Senator Mark Dayton said NORAD lied. Senator Dayton bothered to follow and analyze the various time lines presented by NORAD. His conclusion was that NORAD lied, and that in his opinion perjury charges were in order.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tell you waht Bobby.

    Here are the first five instances of the 63 total instances of the words "no evidence" appearing in the report. You tell me which of the first five "no evidence" instances invalidates the "official theory".[/QUOTE]

    instance1.PNG

    instance2.PNG

    instance3.PNG

    instance4.PNG

    instance5.PNG
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 9/11 Commission Report invalidates itself in many different ways and it is the heart of the official 9/11 narrative. I already explained to you how multiple statements of "no evidence" invalidates the 9/11 Commission Report in general. What is your objective/purpose in defending every single aspect, from the most trivial to the most significant, of the official 9/11 narrative and questioning none of it nearly 24/7?

    Why can't you answer my question?

     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What an absolutely absurd claim. I just went through the report and checked out all references to this. Not one single one of them show nefarious activity. They simply catalog items that have been documented that have no supporting evidence.

    This blanket approach is just more of your nonsensical conclusions.

    Why don't YOU list say 5 that you think are significant and explain why!?
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I started answering your question Bobby.

    Let's start from the beginning. Below is Eleuthera's statement:
    I said it was a garbage claim.

    You asked me why and to explain.

    I linked you to a few explanations and you said those didn't explain anything.

    So now I am going to the actual report and citing each of the "no evidence" instances therein. If Eleuthera's statement ISN'T garbage and is valid, you should be able to show me which of the 63 "no evidence" instances in the report invalidate the "official theory" and why. So I posted the first five instances above to start with. So of those 5, which, if any, invalidates the "official theory" and why?

    Was it the one that states that there is no evidence that the Herndon Command Center "get messages to airborne aircraft..." as requested by the FAA controllers at Boston Center? Or was it the one where no evidence was found that a hijacker was able to use a flight jump seat? Or maybe the the fact that they found "no evidence" that the hijackers having firearms as someone reported?

    So again, the statement that the 63 "no evidence" instances invalidate the "official theory" is what I am saying is garbage. So far that is proving to be true. So do any of the first five invalidate the "official theory"? If you think so, explain why.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
    Shinebox likes this.
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just in case you forgot, the "garbage" statement I made was about Eleuthera claiming that the 63 "no evidence" statements invalidate the "official theory". if you're going to challenge something I said, make sure you stay on the same topic and quit moving the goalposts. If you don't have a rebuttal to my statement, just say so, and move along.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I went through the entire report and found nothing but nefarious activity from the title to the last word. It is what Sen. Max Cleland, Patty Casazza and many others said it is and much worse because it is the pretext used for committing war crimes that have caused the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and other human rights atrocities that still goes on to this day.


    1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
    2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
    3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
    4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
    5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
    6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
    7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
    8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).

    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
    10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
    11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
    12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
    15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
    16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
    17. Page 146 of the 9/11 Commission Report contains a full disclaimer of Chapters 5 and 7 (see #12, #13 and #16). This is effectively an admission by the 9/11 Commission Report that two key chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report are totally unreliable (and therefore deceptions meant to be promoted as fact).
    18. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
    19. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
    20. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
    21. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
    22. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
    23. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
    24. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
    25. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    26. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
    27. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
    28. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
    29. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
    30. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why do you consistently fail to follow the flow of responses!? The flow in this case being how the words "no evidence" invalidate it. Spare us your wall of blue text spam!

    I refer you to a response already given to you - try to keep up.

     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Quit taking my statements out of context and twisting them to your own meaning. I explained what I meant by "back to the beginning'. It was in regards to Eleuthera Statement that I called garbage and you asked me to explain. Now you want to play games.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    delete
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is it about post #136 you didn't understand?
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suggest you practice what you preach. See post #144, it's self-explanatory.
     

Share This Page