NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

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

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob-waffle. You just do not know how to debate without your passive aggression pouring out more crass observations.

    False.

    No, you are spamming already posted and responded to items.

    A pathetic and inaccurate claim. It is not a falsehood to claim an aircraft hit the Pentagon when we have witnesses, dead body DNA and plane parts.


    This is the absurd gentleman who claims he was doing walking through walls experiments? In all his years as what? He was never a crash investigator and I'm fairly sure he would not have attended a crash where the objective was to obliterate the plane in an enclosed space.

    How come you never respond to that MAJOR point? Anyone would think you constantly avoided things.

    Post 2 does it for me.

    Your opinion on his videos are noted and dismissed.

    I am amazed that you transpose the label aimed at "truth seeker" and apply it to people like Hulsey on my behalf. I await his final report and conclusions and the findings of any committee as a result.

    Here is some light reading for you:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw9v/nist_versus_dr_leroy_hulsey_911_megathread/

    Just don't. Don't dare associate your forum posting behaviour as a so called "truth seeker" and apply it on my behalf to this guy!

    Bob-waffle. Tin can analogy that you were wrong about on about 3 different points and a video that you have nothing but hot air as rebuttal. Just because I don't share your rather disturbing obsession about this or developed some pre-conceived and un-wavering conclusions, does not mean I am not interested. The labels you refer to have been acquired through continual denial of evidence and points that go against the fixated conspiracy.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you've never read my posts on the subject of debate. I have consistently stated that I don't join discussion forums to debate. A debate is a game of sorts with an expected winner and an expected loser. If you want to play games there are many game sites available for your entertainment pleasure. I join discussion forums strictly to discuss and my primary focus of discussion is 9/11. So whether you believe I know or don't know how to debate is irrelevant, I just don't engage in debates, period.

    What's pathetic is your failure to understand that he is not making any claims about whether an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. Get a dictionary and a grammar school teacher to explain to you what Col. Nelson is talking about within the context of what I quoted.


    Non sequitur. He has the credentials and background to know what he's talking about. You don't even have the background or the credentials or even the understanding to criticize his expertise and what he writes.

    I just did even though it's really an absurd non sequitur (as explained).

    You don't need to think about it, I admit I avoid useless garbage posts.

    I agree, it's just your level. Then again you never did study any of the other posts in the thread that you believe do not agree with your mentality.

    That goes without saying, you've been dismissing facts and expertise in lieu of tin cans, old videos that disclaim their own claims and trolls who have been banned from this forum.

    What on earth for? What's wrong with tin cans?

    Finally some really good reading material that I have never come across before. I truly appreciate that link. There are some excellent and very intelligent posts on both sides of the discussion, some are even well sourced. I read several of them and will get to the rest when I get a chance.

    So did anything he lectured on sink in for you? I'm guessing you still never bothered to review the video not that you would understand much of it.

    I already told you I prefer pancakes to waffles.

    I know those labels are your best and most favorite argument. Toss them out liberally with every post and that settles the discussion for you. The intelligence and maturity is impressive. And those tin cans, they explain everything about WTC7. I going to buy a can of beans today, eat the contents, maybe blow out some hot air afterward and step on the empty can to absorb all the available knowledge about WTC7 in the process.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bob0627 and Eleuthera like this.
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    48
    let's just get to your first "expert", Barry Zwicker ...

    the Wayne Coste vids prove no internal explosion could have caused the damage to the Pentagon ...

    oh wait, you haven't watched those videos have you Scott? ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But Shiner, there must be "as-builts" for the Pentagon that no one knows anything about that might reveal something else altogether for what really happened.

    One the problems I have (among many) in accepting the large plane impact theory is the nearly perfect round hole at the entrance to ring C. Coste videos or not, it makes no sense to me that any alleged airplane impact through 2 rings could have caused such a nearly perfect cut out by the time the debris reached ring C.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    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.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    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.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    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?
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,616
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    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.
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    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
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it "garbage" and where was it explained why?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    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.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    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).
     
  18. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,616
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    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.
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    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
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    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

Share This Page