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. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's evidence that the distance between the light poles match the wingspan of a 757, nothing more. It is NOT conclusive evidence that a 757 knocked down those light poles and certainly not that it was AA77.
     
  2. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not simply admit that though they never proved to you
    , for some odd reasons you want to accept those as if fact?

    But of course there is proof the flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. DNA from passengers and crew were collected from the Pentagon site. I hope you believe in real science.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This site is loaded with engineering studies, papers and letters written by experts:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/journal-of-911-studies-index-of-articles/

    So what is it about one engineering study you're trying to peddle but disregard others? Is it because one tries to support the OCT while the others contradict it? If you like engineering studies about the WTC towers, you should be reading all of them, not just the select one or two you're trying to peddle. This is a narrow minded as it gets.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is that there are well over 100 documented eyewitness claims, that's irrefutable. What the claims are is not fact and I never said they were, they are all just eyewitness claims, albeit people have been convicted on far less eyewitness claims. You asked me why I accept the explosions THEORY and I answered you, perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

    It's exactly what I posted, you bought the OCT claim that DNA from passengers and crew were collected AT the Pentagon despite the fact that the OCT is filled with lies. And you believe this is real science. I don't, so please don't push the OCT nonsense on me, like I said, it's a worthless piece of trash.

    1. There is no known verifiable chain of custody for that DNA evidence. Something required by most standard criminal investigations and certainly forensic science.

    2. If flight 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon, the serial numbers on the recovered debris would match the log of the parts for the plane designated as AA77. There is no question about that. There is no evidence that such a match exists, not even for the allegedly recovered RFD and FOIA requests for that data were categorically denied. Anyone with minimal intelligence and reasonable human curiosity would NOT just take the US government's claims on faith, they would ask why such a simple task required by NTSB plane crash protocol was not done and why the **** would they try to cover this up.

    You ask no questions about any the OCT claims but you question everyone and everything that might contradict it. Ask yourself why you do that. Or don't, I personally don't give a flying **** about you, to me these are just discussion issues based on minimal common sense.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here's a clue. It isn't me.

    For the love of God.

    Draw a diagram represented by the terms and variables in whichever of Newton's Laws you are applying to your physical model. Do you understand this concept or no? In order to apply any of Newton's Laws to your model, you have to simplify said model into "ideas" or "terms" to be used by said Law. What is so hard to understand here?

    You have a model made up of numerous washers, numerous paper loops, and a wooden center dowel. You are trying to prove a point by applying Newton's Laws to your model to explain a result. How do turn your model into the "terms" or "variables" used in the specific Law you are talking about?

    Let's see if you can do this. For Newton's Third Law, turn your physical "paper loops and washers" model into the terms/variables used by this Law. Go find the formula that you want to use and then represent your model with those variables used. Then come back to me and tell me which variable represents "the strength of an individual component".

    Here, I'll help you. Below is a formula in regards to your "equal and opposite reaction" statement above, taken from here: http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/dynamics/newtonsthreelaws/section3.rhtml

    F[SUB]AB[/SUB] = - F[SUB]BA[/SUB]

    Now, turn your "paper loops and washers" model into representations of "F" and "[SUB]AB[/SUB]" so you can apply that formula to your model and we can come to a result. Can you do that or no?
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not want you to answer questions. I have had plenty from you.

    But you said this.

    Thanks.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you do have a reading comprehension problem. I have no clue what questions you don't want me to answer but if you ask one I'll try to accommodate if the question is reasonable and if I can answer it.

    I'm so sorry I overwhelmed you. I understand your confusion.

    I certainly did, good catch. And?

    I'm not sure for what but you're welcome.

    As an aside, did you get a chance to review the site I gave you the link to that contains several engineering studies? I know you like those so I was trying to be helpful.
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reading comprehension, remember you saying that?

     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you trying to say I built a model that defies Newton's Laws? That would be a good trick.

    I built a model and described it and I have had people report to me that they duplicated it. I am not here to jump through whatever hoops you designate. You will just come up with more excuses.

    You can BELIEVE in whatever idiotic models you want that obviously do not sustain any damage and have "floors" and a "core" that are a joke. You can also make diagrams where your falling mass do not match the impacted structure below and pretend that means something.

    The paper loops in my dropped mass were damaged just like the paper loops in my stationary mass. Action and reaction.

    psik
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I take it that's a no. I didn't think so, I was right in the first place.

    Remember me saying that?

    It's ok, the OCT is all there is for you about 9/11 so we have nothing more to discuss and you don't need to worry about me answering any of your questions.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will hate myself for falling for the explosive story, so offer this.

    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is asking you to fall for anything, you already fell for the OCT. I gave you a link because you claim you read engineering studies, use it or don't, it's totally up to you to research the material. I don't care.

    I haven't asked you to offer me anything. If you're trying to convince me that I should buy the OCT you're wasting your time.

    Thanks for the quote from the above link. This sentence says it all:

    "As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs"

    This is as narrow minded as it gets. What the author is saying is keep your mind closed, just listen to what I have to say. If the geniuses of the world would never engage in speculative thinking, we would still be in the Stone Age. Speculative thinking is the source of many ideas. Narrow minded thinking (for example) is accepting claims from authority on faith without question. But that's your issue not mine.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Time for the only correct questions?
    Who took those explosives in? When did they do it? And do you blame Arabs? Do you blame Muslims?
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that mean "the only correct questions"? So you're saying all other questions are incorrect? If anyone asks a question other than the ones you posted, it's "incorrect"?

    Why on earth are you asking me the above questions? Do you believe I had anything to do with 9/11 or have some kind of intimate knowledge no one else has and therefore I know the answers?

    Are you asking me if I'm a racist? Do you believe all Arabs and/or all Muslims should be blamed for 9/11? Are you aware that some Arabs are not Muslim and some Muslims are not Arab?

    These are the "only correct questions" according to you? Sorry but I'm not as narrow minded as you. I have thousands of questions about 9/11. And for each answer (if I ever get one), there are probably a thousand other questions that can be asked based on the answer.
     
  15. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A good listing of things and facts about. :thumbsup:

    But I will quote now some of the points in your link and give the reactions of Truthers about to show the stupidity behind their claimed conspiracy here:


    Truthers tell that this is irrelevant, because source is government and so easy to make fakes about!
    Sure Â… and how many people have then to be involved for it? Too much, aside that this canÂ’t be faked too


    Truthers tell that this is irrelevant, because source is government and so easy to make fakes about!
    Sure Â… and how many people have then to be involved for it? Too much and same as above!



    Truthers told so long BS of no Black Boxes were not found = evidence for conspiracy that they now tell these Boxes are fakes! But the problem is that the officials never told that no Black Boxes were found Â… it was a pure claim of Truthers which ran to become a believed truth by othersÂ…


    Truthers tell that this is irrelevant and not comparable to Pentagon issue. Reasoned with what? Ehm Â… well Â… nothing and only blabbering!
    Also another special accident in the past of an Israeli 747 freight plane in Amsterdam on October 4, 1992 is very interesting for many things. Here the freight plane crashed into a big apartment block after engine no 3 broke off and damaged the wing to heavy.


    Truthers tell that this is irrelevant, because source is government and so easy to make fakes about!
    Sure Â… and how many people have then to be involved for it? Too much!


    This is a very important point and fact and it tells books about when Truthers deny this, ignore this and hide this fact in their claims about this point! At least it is so often told that many other commercial pilots say that it was not possible for the Hijackers to do etc. Aside that many other commercial pilots day it was possible, the fact that the hijacker had a license is taken off from their claims!


    Very important point too, because on first hand Truthers told there were no debris parts of the Boing 757 Â… and then, when they were bashed with pictures showing them, they claim that they were arranged later Â… lol! Was any big truck recorded by all the media monitoring the place after crash, which dumped a several tons heavy landing gear on the meadow Â… or was were the debris parts still laying hours on meadow before issue happened?



    Same as above with Truthers reaction as usual Â… ignoring, disputing and claiming worst BS against!


    And I can go further here in details … aside the core question of “if no plane, what then”. One of many points is for example the claim that impact area is too small for the plane. Here one real idiots showed an exit hole in the inner ring and told that impact hole … rofl … but other were a little bit smarter and show always only the front side of the building after it collapsed to back their claim. Well… unfortunately are images existing which show the area before collapse and here it is like a finger print of a plane and the dimensions fit 1:1 for those of a Boing 757!

    Bad luck guys Â…
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,492
    Likes Received:
    12,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, this reminds me of the story told by those who initially claimed Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire. I served my time in the US military Gamolan. I know how official lies are told. Mr. Lagasse is really a gas! LOL
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You definitely have reading comprehension issues.

    What I am trying to get you to understand is your APPLICATION of Newton's Laws to certain scenarios/models to try and determine a certain outcome is completely wrong. Netwon's Laws are not designed to give accurate FEA level results for complex structures. You are taking two complex structures, the upper and lower sections of the twin towers, simplifying each them into single block entities so you can use Newton's Laws to prove a point. THAT IS WRONG.

    What you're doing is exactly like engineers at a car manufacturer using Newton's Laws to predict, determine, and then refine crumple zones of an automobile. Can't be done. Newton's Laws do not afford you that type of granularity.

    And you fail yet again. If you truly believe what you are saying, then draw a diagram of your model and then show me where the type of structure, strength of materials, and strength of connections can be added into any of Newton's Laws to get more accurate results.

    So what? Your upper section and lower section are defined as MASS for the purposes of Newton's Laws. Can you use Newton's Laws to determine how many paper loops will be damaged? Can you use Newton's Laws to tell me how much of each loop was damaged. No you can not. Matching a structure in regards to Newton's Laws is pointless. Matching the mass of each "object" is what matters.

    What about this scenario psikey. This will prove you have no clue. What if I wanted to determine the results of a car smashing into a house at 50 mph. According to you and your understanding of Newton's Laws, all I need to be concerned with is the mass of the house versus the mass of the car and the speed. That's exactly what you're trying to prove with your idiotic model. The reason you won't draw a diagram of your model in relation to Newton's Law is because you know you be shown to be majorly wrong in your application of it and how you are using the results.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know about you but the guy sounds to me like he's desperately trying to convince people. Case in point:

    "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"


    That's way too much detail for someone who witnessed a plane crash into a building.
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,492
    Likes Received:
    12,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. The account also reminds me of the account told by the guy with the Harley shirt to the news cameras in Manhattan that day.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    You're trying to prove Newton's Laws with your "paper loops and washers" model. So do it. I gave you three formulas above. Show me which of those formulas can be applied to your model and how it is done. Which of those formulas can accurately predict how many of the paper loops will be damaged? Show me where in those formulas you can determine that the washers will not be damaged, but the paper loops will. Show me which formula has variables for using strength of materials, strength of connections, or where I can account for different structural makeup.

    You have some major comprehension issues that you need to figure out.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Link to this evidence? Or are you just guessing?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a guess, it's true until proven otherwise. If the US government refuses a FOIA request for the FDR's serial number match to the log for AA77 in order to conclusively prove it was AA77's FDR, then it wasn't assigned to AA77 until proven otherwise. No claim can be deemed true unless proven to be true, if not then it's just an unsupported claim (just like all NIST claims).
     
  23. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Please explain the downed traffic light poles. What knocked them down if not AA77?

    And if you state that they are staged, please explain why someone would add that to their list of things to do on that morning up to and including a cab that got hit supposedly by one of the light poles.
     
  24. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't call them truthers.

    Let's deal with the explosives theory they have of the buildings dropping during explosions, yet timed, I suppose perfectly with airplane crashes.

    I question their knowledge of explosives. I question their knowledge where to get such explosives. I question their claims said explosives were allowed in the buildings. I question their knowledge of how one goes about dropping those buildings using explosives. More relevantly than me questioning them, they ought to know enough to make a good case to begin with.

    For a very odd reason, it is as if they want bombs to have done it over the airplane crashes did it, theory to rule out.

    I don't care what dropped any buildings. I don't have a reason not to want it to be due to explosives. But keep in mind that a WTC had been bombed earlier on and had not fallen. Also,once that bomb was exploded, the tower complex installed a system designed to protect the buildings from such bombs.

    A man that was killed that day in the towers was hired from the FBI and he was extremely alert for all AQ activity. His mission was to protect the buildings there. If explosives would have been the cause, his guys would have put a fast end to that plan.

    Can you imagine being a worker inside any of the targets, and watching men cart explosives into your office? Would you call security?

    They cook up ideas but do not solve simple problems amounting to logistics of how something like that would happen.

    The terrorists knew airplanes was the best way to essentially bomb those buildings. And of course that worked.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,014
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're a relatively new poster in this section so I was waiting for 1 significant question about the OCT from you. I have thousands, so far I haven't read 1 from you. Would I be correct to say you have none? Just curious.
     

Share This Page