No-planers use the generator as "evidence"

Totovader

Game Warden
Totovader
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
3,321
Until recently, I had never heard anyone attempt to pass off the claim that the impact with the generator during the Pentagon attack would have caused the plane to somehow spiral or change trajectory to be something other than what was observed.

To conspiracists- it's not important enough to explain the generator- it's simply "evidence" if you make unsubstantiated claims which don't actually explain the observation of the generator damage- nor do they actually involve any calculations or explanations for the generator damage- it's just circular reasoning: the generator would have caused the plane to end up somewhere else, therefore the impact zone should be somewhere else and the generator is planted.

Recently, I saw Lyte try and speculate/claim this very same thing.

Are there any conspiracists out there that actually want to address the issue of the generator- and possibly attempt to support this claim?

(*cough* IzakDavid from YouTube *cough*)
 
It's like using flight 77's FDR, which was recovered from the Pentagon, to try to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Not the swiftest boats, these.
 
Bobert said:
GO GET EM LYTE!!!
GET EM TIGER!!!
Click to expand...
shoudlnt that be tigger?

tigger5B55D.jpg
 
Bobert said:
That is a good point but if I had put that Lyte would have whined to the mods again.
Lyte does not like me very much because I know him personally and point out truths that he tries to silence.
Intersting how many of my posts have been removed.
Click to expand...
It seems to be okay to accuse innocent people of murder, but we can't be rude to the accusers. I have a hard time with that, but those the rules here.
 
G'Day Totovader.

IzakDavid Is Here.

First of all, I'd like to say that I have been debating this subject on YouTube with Totovader for over a month now, with no responses other than latin Quotes, Ad-Hominem and where is your evidence, and when the evidence or information supplied supports my argument, they were deleted I was called anti semetic and blocked from his channel.

I will attempt to present my case.

I do not believe that a passenger filled Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Do I know what hit the Pentagon? NO, I can only speculate and theorise based on the information at hand. If I am wrong, I am able to accept that and admit that I was wrong, (unlike some).

The Generator issue was a branch of the original question, that has been used by Totovader to dodge the whole question that was asked to him.

I have sent numerous lots of information to Totovader, and his responses have been full of contradictions, name calling and lies.

When I sent him crash test video's of aircrafts impacting with stationary and solid objects, along with the crash data, he dismissed this by saying that:
"Crash Test Data is NOT comparable". When asked to support this claim of his, he started with the Anti semite comments and 'get back into your cage'
comments, showing his level of maturation.

That was my rant giving the background to this thread, I will now attempt to present my Theory.
Regards
IzakDavid
:cool:
 
IzakDavidxXx said:
IzakDavid Is Here.


I do not believe that a passenger filled Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Do I know what hit the Pentagon? NO, I can only speculate and theorise based on the information at hand. If I am wrong, I am able to accept that and admit that I was wrong, (unlike some).


That was my rant giving the background to this thread, I will now attempt to present my Theory.
Regards
IzakDavid
:cool:
Click to expand...


Just curious Izak, since you admittedly do not know, why do you believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. The answer may come out in the presentation of your theory, but I ask in case it does not.


Welcome aboard.
 
G'Day ya'll,
One must know the mass of the generator vs. that of the plane, at a
minimum, to answer that. No doubt it had to have some local effect (the
generator got shifted, which tells us a force was applied, and said force
must also have acted upon some part of the airplane). But, how and where
the generator contacted the plane would also be important. It may merely
have stripped off some of the aluminum body, or been hit only a grazing
blow, or had the collision energy dissipated in the plane via local
crushing of part of it, or any of a number of things that are impossible
to untangle without very careful analysis of what's left...if indeed the
subsequent fire, etc, did not destroy the evidence.
(An Answer from MADSCI)

www(dot)geocities(dot)com(forward slash)killtown(forward slash)flight77(forward slash)generator(dot)html
This site has the some great images from all angles of the Generator.

I believe that impact with the Generator would have caused massive damage to the engine or wings of the aircraft, causing the aircraft to either ignigte and explode before impacting the Pentagon ( as seen in air crash test footage), or tilt enough for the aircrafts opposite wing to hit the ground.

When the height of the generator is taken into account, and we factor in the damage markings, we tend to find some anomolies.
The damage is said to have come from the engine and flap track fairings.
When we look further there is a hole in the surrounding fence. This couldn't have been the landing gear because from all reports, the landing gear was up,
and it couldn't have been the engine because the damage markings don't match or line up, and the aircrafts wings would not have impacted the generator.

Also from PFT, shows the flight data not fitting in with the official story:

The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

1.The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

2.All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

3.The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

4.The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

5.If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

It may have been a small jet, accompanied by a missile or missiles.
This could explain the small jet on the security camera frames, and explain the blow out holes.

I once said that if a plane had struck the light posts, that the wings would be sheared off, or suffer massive damage.
I have since seen, on only one occasion, an aircraft crash, where an aircraft struck light poles and didn't suffer massive amounts of damage. That was in Chicago a few years ago.

If you want to see what it look like for a 757 to crash full speed into a concrete building, go to national geographics, air crash disasters- Amsterdam,
and do your own comparisons.
(Unless you are Totovader, who doesn't believe that you can compare aircraft crash data.)

Is what I said not Plausable?

I have more, but will let ya'll digest this first.

Peace.
 
Gravy said:
It's like using flight 77's FDR, which was recovered from the Pentagon, to try to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Not the swiftest boats, these.
Click to expand...
Is it possible, that if flight 77 didn't actually strike the Pentagon, someone may have taken the FDR from the aircraft after it had landed.

And as I previously stated, the flight data doesn't match the official version of events, it doesn't even have the flight striking the Pentagon.
So a flight box recorder was recovered from the crash site of the pentagon, and the information on it shows it flying above the Pentagon.

How do you explain that?
 
Solidworks flight 77 animation which shows right engine taking fence out and trailer body housing generator




Correct me if I am wrong but the generator trailer does not appear to be 300 feet tall either
 
Last edited:
TOTO- nor do they actually involve any calculations or explanations for the generator damage- it's just circular reasoning: the generator would have caused the plane to end up somewhere else, therefore the impact zone should be somewhere else and the generator is planted.

The Impact zone was never mentioned.
The Generator planted? Never mentioned.
All the Crash test footage and Data sent to Toto was deleted and dismissed, with the quote:
"Plane crash Data is not comparable"

So please Mr Toto, you invited me on to this website to have a mature discussion regarding my theories on 911, and specifically the Generator impact.
I will not allow you to lie, mis quote me or sidestep the questions this time, as you have done on the YouTube.

What was said in your introduction is full of half truths, but I expeced something like that from you.

What was originally said by myself to initiate this dicussion March 17th 2007 :

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's confession
I would love to hear your veiws on this subject.
I believe it to be all lies, a document to say case closed on lingering state sponsored terror campains, that conspiracy theorists are still questioning.
Please explain:
1. How he was responsible for the financing a second wave of attacks on buildings including the PLAZA bank. KSM was arrested in 2003, the Plaza Bank was founded in 2006.

2.KSM's claim that he ran the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is also highly suspect because it also conveniently sweeps under the carpet the fact that it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant and ordered the bombing to go ahead.

3.In addition, KSM was a known CIA asset in the eighties and was used as a go between during the CIA-funded Afghan "jihad" against the occupying Soviets.

It is well established that before his mysterious arrest as the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 plot, Mohammed was granted a visa to enter the US just six weeks before the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York.

Other questions that have arisen concerning the testimony revolve around KSM's Americanized use of the English language, including the term "A to Z," which many see as a form of slang that befits tabloid headlines more than it does the vernacular of radical Muslim extremists.

A CNN online poll shows that a massive 74% disbelieve all of the claims made by KSM and BBC respondents were equally cynical.

The Confession is all LIES.
I would love to see you attack ME in a video, disproving these claims, and why dont you try and do a video disproving my theory regarding the Generator and the Light poles, because you cant disprove the fact that damage to the aircraft would be massive.
(NO MENTION OF THE IMPACT ZONE????)

IzakDavid13

(ref:Infowars.com, daily telegraph, cnn, nbc, faux news.)

You hid behind the major body of the question and focused on the Generator impact, wich you still haven't given me a straight answer to.

So please no more lies, TOTO.

Peace.
 
Can you show me an example of something as large as a jet airliner traveling at 480 mph and bouncing off a 40 foot trailer and changing direction like a billard ball?
 
Good simulation, but, Where are the bodies?
In Most of the air crashes where the aircraft explodes, bodies of passengers are thrown hundreds of meters (yards for the US).
 
A W Smith said:
Can you show me an example of something as large as a jet airliner traveling at 480 mph and bouncing off a 40 foot trailer and changing direction like a billard ball?
Click to expand...
Can you show me an example of a jetliner hitting a concrete building and punching through it leaving exit "blow out holes in the rear of the building"

Can you show me any examples of an aircraft striking 5 light ploes, and a 10'000 lbs generator, but not deviate?

Of course you can't, thats like asking for a picture of the Tassie Tiger.

But I can give you the footage of other aircraft crash tests wich show the fragile nature of the Alumminium and carbon fibre body of the plane.

I can send you crash test data that shows you the effects of an impact, as we have described, but to get footage of an aircraft hiting a generator?
I'll have to look for that one, I know the FBI has a few tapes that could answer this question, but they've been confiscated, and possibly corrupted.

And the security footage?
If I commited a crime on 9/11 and the video evidence presented said 9/12,
would I be aquited?

I believe so.

What peice of specific evidence would you require to accept that my theory is valid or plausable?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom