The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 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. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is a bright and shining lie, still being told today. At least in management levels, the media is so telling the bright and shining lie.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah, if you close your eyes, there are none.

    If YOU don't see any quotes then it must be to YOU.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  3. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can provide no evidence it is a lie.

    You never even read it and can quote no part which is a lie.

    It is you attempting the defense of a bright shining lie called 911 conspiracy theories
     
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You finally provided quotes but none that you can prove are inaccuracies.

    You are still falling massively short
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You wish it were but it is supported by evidence and you can offer none to refute it.

    You have never even TRIED to offer evidence
     
  6. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    All kinds of evidence presented, to conclusively indicate 9/11 was controlled demolition of the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7...but you either cannot read, or refuse to read it, but keep parrotting the same old denials...over and over.....how much is the government paying you to keep in your denial mode?
     
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong you nor anyone has ever offered or presented any evidence of any kind to be read.

    .
     
  8. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe a shrink could help you deal with reality, and the evidence presented to you, that clearly points to 9/11 events to be staged by members of the USA government, as an inside job...give it a try, your denials are very shallow, and indicative of someone who needs help...lots of help.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One more time you are simply repeating an outright bald faced lie.

    I am denying nothing BUT YOU ARE.

    You nor anyone on any of these threads has posted the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence.

    You are lying outright to claim they have AND YOU KNOW IT
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect 'common sense' is anathema to you, but consider that Kean and Hamilton both said the commission they chaired was "set up to fail".

    And you claim the report is 100% bulletproof.

    Why should I believe you when you make such crazy claims?
     
  11. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Because both commissioners signed off on the final product thus endorsing it’s findings.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Criticism of the 9/11 Commission - Wikipedia

    Wikipedia is not the most reliable and ultimate source of facts and information but it is mainstream and noteworthy. The following are excerpts:

    Criticism of the 9/11 Commission includes a variety of criticisms of the 9/11 Commission, the United States congressional commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks in 2001 and chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. Because the investigation was politically sensitive, many participants have been criticized during the process. Leading critics include members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and the Jersey Girls, who according to the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth, were instrumental in overcoming government resistance to establishing the 9/11 Commission.

    The 9/11 Commission members were appointed by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, which led to the criticism that the Commission was not independent. The Commission stated in its report that their "aim has not been to assign individual blame", a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics. In addition, some members of victims' families have claimed that the Commission had a conflict of interest.

    Conflicts of interest
    Members of the 9/11 Commission, as well as its executive director Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Philip Shenon, a New York Times reporter, in a book released in February 2008 entitled "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation" claims that Zelikow had closer ties with the White House than he publicly disclosed and that he tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration’s responsibility and furthering its anti-Iraq agenda. According to the book, Zelikow had at least four private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, and appears to have had many frequent telephone conversations with people in the White House.

    Resistance to investigation
    Commission chairmen Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of making a conscious decision to impede the commission’s inquiry after the agency received a memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel's former executive director. Zelikow prepared this memorandum after former commission members reviewed thousands of classified documents following the disclosure that the CIA in November 2005 destroyed videotapes documenting the interrogations of two al-Qaeda operatives. The review concluded that the commission made repeated and detailed requests to the agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of al-Qaeda and that the commission was told by a top CIA official that the agency had "produced or made available for review" everything that had been requested. The memorandum concluded that "further investigation is needed" to determine whether the CIA's withholding of the tapes from the commission violated federal law.

    Unreliable evidence
    Interrogation under torture
    In January 2008, NBC News released an investigative report on the 9/11 Commission's use of information acquired by torture of detainees.[10] Current and former senior U.S. intelligence officials said that the operatives cited by the Commission were subjected to the harshest of the CIA’s methods, the "enhanced interrogation techniques", subsequently determined to be torture by US, UN and EU authorities. According to the NBC analysis, more than one quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives who were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques.


    9/11 Commission staffers say they "guessed" but did not know for certain that harsh techniques had been used, and they were concerned that the techniques had affected the operatives’ credibility. At least four of the operatives whose interrogation was used in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being "tortured."


    Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he was "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."[10]


    NBC News quoted Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, as saying that the Commission relied heavily on the information derived from the interrogations, but remained skeptical of it. Zelikow admits that "quite a bit, if not most" of its information on the official 9/11 story "did come from the interrogations."[10]

    Limited scope
    In April 2002, Bush said that the investigation into 9/11 should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence.[12] But by September, the White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families,[13] and thus President Bush finally agreed to the creation of an "independent" 9/11 commission. But many 9/11 victims' families believed that the scope of the investigation by the commission did not go far enough in investigating the US government's failures because the commission was not to investigate intelligence failures.[14]


    The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, consisting of former FBI, NSA and other federal intelligence experts, claim the 9/11 Commission report was fundamentally flawed because the Commission refused to hear, ignored, or censored testimony about the many pre–September 11 warnings given to the FBI and US intelligence agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11 regarding the 9/11 plot.[15]

    "Set up" to fail
    The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."[8]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This of course is fallacious. While it's true that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission "signed off" on the 9/11 Commission Report because they were compelled to by an unreasonable deadline and unreasonable funding to continue, it was neither the "final product" (by their own admissions) nor did they endorse its findings (also by their own admissions). See examples below.

    "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right" - 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton

    Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton co-authored a book called "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" well after the 9/11 Commission Report was published. The book contains the following quote: "So there were all kinds of reasons we were set up to fail".

    The above is only a small sample of evidence contradicting the claim that the co-chairs endorsed the findings of the 9/11 Commission as published in the 9/11 Commission Report.
     
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never made any such claims so stop lying about me
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which is any evidenced of lies or fallacies in the report which is something you have yet to provide.

    Criticism does not mean it is false or a lie
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tremendous insight into how the report was just a cover-up of the truth was provided by the way they handled Willy Rodriguez. Taking his testimony behind closed doors, and then failing to include any reference to his testimony in the final report clearly demonstrates that suppression of truth and facts is what the commission was all about.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only was Rodriguez testimony omitted but he provided the names of several eyewitnesses who could corroborate his testimony and not one was ever interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Norman Minetta's and Sibel Edmonds' testimonies were also omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. An educated guess is that this was the work of Philip Zelikow who controlled just about everything under direction from the Bush administration, including the final edit of the report.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that is a long debunked false hood.

    Rodriguez DID give testimony to the 911 commission.

    He was only peeved that he was not quoted in the final report
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another article on the 9/11 Commission and admissions by the co-chairs:

    Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

    What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

    The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

    --- skip ---
    The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the co-chairs themselves:

     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are criticizing details which have nothing whatsoever about facts which you willfully ignore.

    You have yet to provide the slightest evidence that they lied
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excerpts from the following New York Times article authored by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton:

    Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

    MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

    The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

    There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

    ---skip---
    As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

    But yet most of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on torture testimony according to Philip Zelikow. And despite the above, the 9/11 Commission, which of course includes the co-chairs and authors of this article, signed off on the 9/11 Commission Report. Thanks usda-whoever-you-really-are, you posted that fact first. I said posters such as yourself often serve my agenda.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Senator Max Cleland was the only insider to recognize the SCAM early on and did the only honorable thing he could, resign and expose the SCAM for what it was. The rest of the spineless 9/11 Commission members went along with the SCAM and only got vocal about the SCAM well after the damage was done ... to try to cover their spineless asses of course and make a few $$$$bucks from their books in the process.

    https://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307276635
    https://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack-ebook/dp/B002RSF8D2
     
  24. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It’s Thursday and there are still zero quotes from the 9/11 Commission Report listing any major inaccuracies.
     
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have posted many statements by many people who criticize the report.

    Criticism is perfectly normal and acceptable for anything and anyone including a government report. However CRITICISM is somewhat ambiguous and flexible and it can mean many different things.

    Bobo seems to think that any criticism by anyone who was connected to the commission is proof of lies and falsehoods. It seems many of them were criticizing such thing as not having a clear picture of the money trail and so on. But no one connected to the commission has claimed it was all lies or mostly lies or deliberately lied in any way. None of them have claimed it was a coverup or act of fiction or even that it was a theory.

    Yes there are details which have received criticism and which some are not 100% satisfied with but once again this is not evidence of any twoofers claim of a coverup or conspiracies.

    The conclusions of the report are still sound and backed by evidence and nothing any twoofer has said can refute them.

    Bobo STILL has yet to quote one innacuracy and no one has presented any evidence to challenge the report
     

Share This Page