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

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

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct! :thumbsup:
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The above is confusing. It's a simple concept, the burden of proof always rests on the claimant, this is also true in law. When one states a claim, it's not up to anyone to prove the claim is untrue. The US government claims AA77, a 757, knocked down light poles. So it's the US government's claim and therefore the US government's burden to prove the claim is true.
     
  3. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No ... they don't claim only the official story, but they gave evidences too about. Everyone saw the planes crashing into WTC and it was recorded by film too. At pentagon not, but if you take a closer look on all the discussion here, let me give you 1 single of many examples about how ridiculous this all is:

    it was so often told that there were no rest, debris etc. of plane visible on any image in the first. Then they got bashed with a bunch on images showing parts of the plane on the meadow etc.
    Then they start to claim that these things were laid out later after it. Well ... there is for example a complete landing gear of a Boing 757 which weights whatever of tons (2 tons?) visible. Any image existing which shows the tuck delivering only this heavy item alone and dumping in correct position to the impact area ... I mean right after so many people and News TV filmed the area constantly? Did anyone at all report to have seen such tricks delivering the things?

    So ... who has to give proof now and who is only claiming?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. You just accept the US government's claim as fact on faith, despite the overwhelming history of government lies. IMO, that's the epitome of gullibility. I (but not just me) demand physical proof (it's not just about the poles) not only because I know the US government's history of pathological lying but because I know that there exists physical evidence (by the government's own claim) that hasn't been forensically investigated/identified. If the serial numbers from the recovered parts match the log containing all the parts' serial numbers for AA77, then it stands to reason that AA77 was most likely the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and most likely the one that knocked down those poles. It's still not 100% proof because there is no video evidence to support it but it's a hell of a lot closer than just making faith based claims. The point is that a forensic identification is standard protocol and in this case a very doable part of the investigation that was not done. This is true for all 4 alleged 9/11 planes.

    All over the place. For example, the manner the 3 towers were globally destroyed as captured on video, the molten steel, the "meteorite", the corroded steel, the recovered parts serial numbers, etc. That physical evidence is not accounted for in the OCT and some of it could not possibly have been the result of the events claimed by the OCT. Or if any of it is possible, the burden of proof for such a possibility rests with the US government.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of that comprises a comprehensive forensic criminal investigation and conclusive proof. If one was conducted that proved the physical evidence, there would not be such immense controversy about the OCT. Instead we have huge holes, lies, destruction of evidence, coverups, fake investigations and many other issues that all point to a massive fraud.

    The US government as already well explained.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,904
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is NOT what I said.

    I said that the components of his model were not damaged in the collapse. Therefore none of his kinetic energy was expended DOING DAMAGE. That is why it does not slow down and can collapse completely.

    If you concentrated on understanding the physics then you wold not spend time rationalizing your debating points.

    psik
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roll:

    So all I have to do is construct a model similar to yours and have the "supports" of the "floors" break during collapse and you'll satisfied?

    Sweet...
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I take it you can't answer the post above eh? Tells me quite a bit...
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am trying to comprehend why the Government experts hired are wrong, but the conspiracy theory non experts are correct.

    Government people went at this asking, the rest made claims then only selected that which they think backs them up, leaving out many many facts.

    They actually deny flight 77 crashed into the pentagon despite eyewitnesses seeing it take place.

    They ignore an airplane, though heavy, is still a tube of thin aluminum that upon impact is destroyed at a fairly fast rate.

    They do not mention the construction of the twin towers made them about 95 percent air. That they did stand up to the two impacts of the airplanes but heat brought then down and the form of construction accounts for the manner of the fall.

    Their theory comes with so many questions that they admit yet when we reply as to the why and how, we discover that 95 percent of our post is dismissed and they claim that was all that was worth talking of. Not that my earlier post vanished, but as the left keeps mentioning, we need context.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I studied the engineering report on the two towers falling quickly, I noted probably the best of all reasons is that each floor had clips attaching the floor to the interior and exterior of the walls. As the heat softened the steel, it no longer had structural integrity and we have seen what happens to a stiff piece of spaghetti upon warm wetting. It does not break, but it rapidly bends. The clips being the weak points are a lot easier to break than simply bend on the way down. The design works when there is no massive supply of fuel burning with the attendant huge amount of heat. It is pointed out the fire was not as hot as it would be were it oxygen fed. But that much fuel burning created massive amounts of heat. Bending steel can't support upper floors.

    Then the pile driver principle kicks in. The upper floors become a huge hammer that as it falls, the clips keep breaking off.

    These two buildings in short were the only two of the same structure on Earth. The assassins got lucky is all.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because they use contradictory arguments and thinking. They choose to believe evidence that supports their thinking, but invalidate evidence that does not. Take Eleuthera's recent posts for example.

    So a REPORTER made mention of this virtually intact facade and Eleuthera takes it as gospel yet says:

    ...and...

     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,904
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In a plan as elaborate as this one planted witnesses would be a part of it. There were also witnesses who said they'd seen a smaller craft.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    This is consistent with the scenario of there having been a mixture of real and planted witnesses.

    There were also witnesses who said they'd seen a large plane flying on the other side of the Pentagon after the supposed crash.

    National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 5/8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YPp4TYs7es
    (7:25 time mark)

    This continues into part 6.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4


    Have you pro-official version posters watched this,...

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
    (1:55:25 time mark)

    ...or this?
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=april+gallop+pentagon
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt that you're "trying to comprehend", all your posts indicate otherwise. But the "Government experts" are wrong and have been proven wrong technically and forensically by experts because they didn't conduct any legitimate investigation.

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

    That's an incorrect statement, the US government published many unsupported claims due to the fact that they did not conduct any legitimate investigation into 9/11. Many others formulated alternative theories as a result because the US government claims were not only unsupported but a massive amount of evidence/documents were covered up under false pretenses.

    That's false no one actually saw AA77 that they could conclusively identify as AA77. They may have seen an airplane but no eyewitness had the capability to identify it as AA77.

    Whether they "mention it" or not is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that the 3 towers could not possibly have been globally destroyed in the manner seen on video as claimed by the OCT.

    That's your unsupported theory, it's not fact.

    The focus is on the OCT because the burden of proof rests with the US government. It is the government's unsupported theory that comes with many questions. Other theories are not as relevant as the US government's because they are not official and they have no significant consequence. The OCT does however, have critical life and death consequences and is used as pretext for the US government's murderous agenda.
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the problem as this poster sees it of what this poster aka Bob0627 is up to.

    He asks questions. No problem with asking them.

    But with no motive of malice, studies of the falling buildings were completed.

    As with such total disasters where the evidence was the remains of buildings that were 95 percent air, for the investigative teams their studies and conclusions never will please 100 percent of the public at large.

    Those attacking my comments do so by attacking me as a person, one who posts. They want to make it personal.

    Me vs them

    My discussion has tried to stick to only evidence. Namely airplanes, buildings, fuel and fire and remains of humans.

    Not them as posters.

    This is the way it has ended since perhaps 2003 when the first engineering reports came forth. I read them in that era.

    Google is a fine search engine, but when you need particular reports that are currently 13 years old, it is best if one recalls who did the report. I find that my recall at 78 is pretty good yet not perfect.

    I don't wish to waste my day scouring the internet for those particular reports that were there to answer how such buildings could collapse so quickly. Many assumed that would be impossible. At that time, I do not recall any nutty theories that explosives were carried into the buildings. That is absolutely crazy.

    Why?

    First, one can be forgiven for not knowing the buildings had security forces and a lot of hi tech equipment to observe them. A former high official of the FBI was the man in charge of security and he of all people recalled the first bombs planted in the lower part of the building. We know what that bomb attempt did to the building. It did not bring them down. To accept that bombs brought down any buildings is to accept magic.

    We know of building demolitions. We know they spend weeks of preparation on the largest of them.

    Anyway, even Occam says the simple answer is most likely correct.

    We know airplanes vanished.

    Strangely enough, each had Arabs of Muslim faith on board. This is proven looking at manifests. Rental cars were left behind as more evidence. DNA tests were fortunately made at the Pentagon and the passengers, but 1, identified. We know who the unidentified was so in that way, we know all of them.

    Here is what is so crazy even when one wishes to accept Bob.

    His theory includes not two towers in NY City, but has explosives hauled into Building 7, but also the Pentagon is a fraud plus a crash in PA. If he is correct, all are frauds.

    And he really believes that.

    Amazing.

    It finally hit me yesterday who profits most from his theory.

    He blames just Government and in fact totally excludes from blame any of the passengers. Most particularly Arabs. Then specifically Muslims.

    It strikes me as an Arab / Muslim plot of some sort.
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Every airliner is made of Aluminum or graphite materials. I am speaking of the tube that carries passengers plus the wings, and rudder. As a Pilot myself, and having flown a variety of them, it is clear airplanes are created to carry humans.

    To do so effectively, they have thin aluminum shells, known as fuselages.

    It is very rare indeed to have an airplane crash into any building. The majority crash at airports or in open territory.

    So rare was the crash into those huge buildings, at the time, it revived the talk of a WW2 crash into the empire state building.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

    The Empire State building is a rather normal skyscraper. The twin towers were extremely unique. I am not yet clear on building 7 in that I am not certain if it was like the twin towers or more a relative to the empire state building.

    I get more more certain we encounter on forums, what I shall henceforth call Muslim apologists.

    I think they do not want Muslims blamed. They never mention what passengers in the airplanes did. They ignore the frantic phone calls of said passengers. They ignore the calls the Arabs made that the FAA picked up and recorded.

    They want a thin aluminum tube airplane to do damage to the Pentagon on a much grander scale than happened. Destroying a rather big bit of the building is just not good enough. A tube is supposed to knock down a much larger part of the building though only made of thin aluminum.

    Amazing.
     
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why did Building 7 collapse. New video some have not seen.
    [video=youtube;uFJa9WUy5QI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI[/video]
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First, it would be a plot like no other to do this in New York City, VA where the Pentagon is and in PA.

    Second, having been to the gate of the Pentagon, I have a clear idea of what happened, though I was not a witness.

    I have landed and taken off from Reagan as well as Dulles. I know that it can be possible for a curious airline pilot or a private jet pilot to wheel around to get a glance at the Pentagon that day shortly past the crash. I would want to look were i departing Reagan that day.

    Ask who gains from these walleyed theory discussions?

    Do the lost passengers gain? Their family members?

    Who gains are Arabs. Arab Muslims precisely. They do not want you to accept they brought down any airplanes.
    Magic brought them down.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,904
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's really no substance in that post.

    Check out the other info I posted on pages 1 and 2 of this thread and tell us what you think.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/482175-pentagon-9-11-a.html
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have long believed that FDR engineered Pearl Harbor. I have met much derision over this belief.

    The day of Deceit book really got me to thinking as I think. i have visited Pearl Harbor several times. I discovered from internet sources that 185 ships were in the harbor that fatal day.

    I am open to correction for those who have also been there, but the days I was there, i am not clear there were a dozens ships in the harbor.

    We know FDR blockaded Japan. We conclude Japan was extremely unhappy since they then bombed Pearl Harbor.

    We also know of the 8 point plan done by Cmdr. McCollom (sp?) that was handed to FDR. It called for causing war with Japan.

    But though the conspiracy nuts do not all claim no airplane hit the pentagon, they waste time trying to detail the flight path.

    Factually the flight 77 did crash into the pentagon. There can be no dispute unless you are living in the world of nutters.

    DNA evidence taken from remains of passengers was located in the building. No passenger would volunteer to have their DNA carried onto that site. Family members are recorded saying they have the autopsy reports. Who can forget the well known Barbara Olsen who was on TV shows fairly often who died on flight 77? It mocks her death to claim she was not on that airplane as it crashed into the Pentagon. It mocks all passengers and crews to tell lies that they did not die inside the crash on 911 into the Pentagon.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,296
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is so incredibly full of dung. I'll omit the irrelevant as usual.

    I'm not "up to" anything. I'm just posting in this forum just like you.

    The 9/11 Commission and the NIST were not commissioned to do "studies", they were funded by Congress to conduct investigations. Neither of these were legitimate or complete by any stretch. The evidence that they were incomplete come directly from the Bush administration, 9/11 Commissioners, the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST spokesmen and the NIST reports, among others.

    That's correct but air does not comprise the totality of the "evidence", there is an enormous amount of evidence that required a thorough forensic investigation, not just air.

    I personally have no interest in making it personal despite your hypocrisy (mentioning me in your post makes your post personal). Having said that, it's YOU posting, YOU making claims and YOU responding to me, therefore it is YOUR posts and YOU own them.

    The problem with that is that you are not the source of any 9/11 evidence and you are limited by what evidence there is that is publicly available and what evidence you choose selectively from what is available.

    Unfortunately, you already claimed there's an engineering report that you don't remember the name of, can't recall who did it and can't source. What's "pretty good" about that?

    Then don't try to use reports you can't source to support your posts or your claims, that's silly and unconvincing.

    There's very good reason for that. There's no precedent and it can't be reproduced, it doesn't follow known principles of physics and it can't be proven by experiment or computer modeling. In fact, there are two known office fire experiments (Cardington and Broadgate) that resulted in no collapse at all, contradicting the possibility.

    Neither do I.

    Exactly. It is well known and proven that controlled demolitions, when planned and executed properly, will globally demolish buildings just like what happened to the 3 towers on 9/11.

    Who is we? What airplanes vanished?

    It's not conclusive proof that Muslim terrorists did actually fly planes into buildings on 9/11.

    "We" only know what we've been told and rental cars being left behind with "evidence" is suspicious of planted "evidence", especially given all the other suspect actions by the US government following 9/11.

    No one needs to "accept" me. I had nothing to do with 9/11. The facts speak for themselves. Those are to be accepted or not, not you and not me.

    I don't have any such theory, you're making **** up. The fraud is none of the above unless they're proven to be frauds, the fraud is the fake investigations

    What's much more amazing is your undying faith based belief that the US government's partial story is fact and that you have not one single significant question about it.

    See above, I don't have any theory you made up.

    Of course, for the reasons given above and all the other conclusive facts about the government's "investigation". The US government is 100% responsible for that.

    None of the above have anything to do with actions/non-actions by the US government with regard to 9/11.

    So you're a conspiracy theorist then. Sorry but I'm not Arab and I have no plot. I'm an elderly American with a large family and friends and I'm concerned that because 9/11 was never legitimately investigated, it will adversely affect my children, their children and the rest of the planet in general. And it already does. Unlike you, I don't trust a pathological lying entity with a dangerous agenda to be telling the truth about 9/11, especially since there is an enormous amount of evidence that conclusively proves they're LYING.
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We both are elderly Bob.

    But when I have replied to you, lo these many times, you attack ME. Naturally I shall reply to you by name when you keep this up against ME.

    I do accept the engineers study.

    You do not.

    I personally do not care.

    I think you may be the same dude that shows up maybe every 6 months and pulls the same stunt.
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,904
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what they tell us but there are plausible scenarios that would explain it. One is put forward here at the 43:45 time mark.

    Painful Deceptions 911 Documentary by Eric Hufschmid Full Version
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jXfm2y5Ifw


    There is a scenario that would explain that too.

    9/11: Ted & Barbara Olson / Fake Victim Mysteries
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YarIJ_xfkts

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22875
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,701
    Likes Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The parking lot video frames provided by the pentagon, the only video provided by the pentagon, even though it was months or years after the event, shows what appears to be a flying object that struck the building. However, that flying object is far too small to be a 757. Now, some people believe whatever they are told, but I don't. Maybe that is what separates you and me.

    What caused the explosions, what brought down the building in that location, what destroyed the records being examined by the congressional auditors, and what killed most of those auditors and others, were explosions planted by somebody inside an organization expertly familiar with explosives.

    The damage was caused not by a crashing airliner, but by explosives. That is why so many military personnel who survived the attack reported the odor of cordite as they escaped the building.

    I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but it appears I'm much more familiar with the details than you are there in Germany.
     
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,701
    Likes Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is the evidence against a 757 striking the pentagon:::THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM THAT A 757 STRUCK THE BUILDING. I hate to use all caps, but how much more simple can it be? Is English your primary language, or do we have a translation issue with you?

    The evidence that contradicts the theory that AA77 struck the building is overwhelming. For example, the FDR handed over by the government was not assigned to AA77. There is no evidence that AA77 was present there. All the people present at the Citgo station are on record saying an airliner of some sort made a low pass IN THE WRONG LOCATION for the story to have been true.
     

Share This Page