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. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well surely you know what more qualified people say.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another contradiction. He claims he lets other "more qualified people" tell him what to decide (because he is physics challenged) yet those "more qualified people" have determined long ago (and more recently in scientific detail) that fires alone did not globally destroy the 3 towers (or at least WTC7) on 9/11 but I haven't read one single post from him addressing that issue. And that critical issue contradicts the heart of the OCT, which he claims he believes. And this is symptomatic of millions of OCT believers, he is just one example of such mentality.
     
  3. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you an engineer?
     
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not. Why do you ask?
     
  5. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Neither am i. So my opinion is meaningless in this regard...who cares about opinions from people who have zero or little to no experience in a certain subject. Thats why i allow other, more qualified individuals, from both sides of the spectrum to speak on this issue of how the towers collapsed. I co-host a podcast i have just created called The Darkened Hour. We just interviewed David Chandler, and had him explain what happened at the WTC on September 11th. Even thou i hold no opinion on the matter, Richard Cox and myself gave Chandler his hour to explain what happened, without debate. In other words we asked what happened, and he gave his synopsis. I dont deal with endless banter, or pointless debate of winner/loser. Soon we will have on engineers who dont believe in CD......but you know what, we will let the listeners decide on what to believe or know. That my friend is called actual unbiased discussion and actual research. I dont have any worldview to be persuaded on, i look at the evidence, tangible actual evidence....and follow where it leads. It may not lead to much, or maybe it will lead to a larger conspiracy......but you go where it leads you. Most people from the "truth movement" and those who are ardent "debunkers" don't know how. Thats why im friends with David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, these are the actual truthers of the 9/11 Truth Movement......and they have been labeled "shills", "agents" and other disingenuous names and even tried to destroy their character all because they know American Airlines Flight 77 crashed in to the Pentagon, where in which Wayne Coste did a brilliant 5 hour presentation showing this. But frauds like Barbara Honegger, CIT Team and Craig McKee have insulted Chandler, Coste etc in doing so. I dont debate, discussion anything with "no planers" "No hijackers"....these people are not researchers.

    David Chandler Preamble: https://adamfitzgerald.podbean.com/e/david-chandler-preamble/

    David Chandler Interview: https://adamfitzgerald.podbean.com/e/david-chandler/
     
    chris155au likes this.
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm going to quote the post in the order relevant to my response. I'm sure you'll be reading it despite your pretense. Either way, I'm not worried about you or your opinions and certainly do have my own personal opinions to post.

    Note I only heard the first 30 minutes of the David Chandler interview (2nd link) but I will listen to the rest at another time. I find the above very interesting and I highly recommend those who have any interest to listen to the above.

    That's almost like saying I'm not very bright and I have learned nothing from experts so I'll let them do the thinking for me. This is not very intellectual and it begs the question why do any research at all? Yes experts know what they're talking about with respect to the subject matter but everyone learns from experts and if one has any intellectual capacity, one can always formulate an opinion based on a learning experience. I read opinions from all sorts of posters regardless of intellectual level, you never know what you can learn or use no matter what position they take on a subject. I do avoid trolls though.

    Wonderful, but then you should be able to use your own brains to be able to arrive at some logical, sensible conclusion, not just lay down and take a neutral approach. In the interview with David Chandler you listened to, in the first half hour Chandler explains the tower "collapse" in the most elementary way possible so any fool should be able to understand it. Tell me you learned absolutely nothing.

    What does that mean? I doubt it means they don't believe there's such a thing as CD so it must mean they don't believe the 3 towers were destroyed via CD. And that's fine, please bring these "engineers" on. I personally would love to hear their take on it. Bazant doesn't believe the towers were CD'd either but his analysis 2 days after the fact was so full of layman errors it was as if it was done by someone who took Physics 101 while asleep for most of the semester and failed the course. NIST was full of engineers and they scammed the world with their phony "most probable collapse initiation hypothesis" for WTC7 and their admitted failure to investigate the "collapse" of the twin towers. Just declaring it was "inevitable" is as phony as it gets.

    That's great and I agree 100%. So you were a "listener" too and you ducked, didn't you?

    Well then maybe something should have rubbed off on you. There is no such thing as "actual truthers", either one wants the truth or one doesn't, there is no in between. These people are experts in their respective disciplines and they are vocal about their 9/11 research, period.

    What are you talking about? The only ones trying to "destroy their character" are rabid OCT defenders. They don't really know if AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, Coste and Chandler created a video hypothesizing that a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon and that it may have been AA77. But the only way anyone could possibly know for sure if it was AA77 is to match the PHYSICAL debris allegedly found at the Pentagon crash site with the documented logs via serial numbers. That has never been done or there is no evidence that it was ever done.

    How so? Merely because their hypotheses are in conflict? In your world maybe Chandler, Coste, etc. insulted them for having a different opinion. You make no sense, you're just taking sides based on nothing more than your personal opinions of who is a "fraud" and who's not. You claim you don't even understand basic physics by your own admission so how do you know Chandler and Coste are not frauds?

    Since you've shown you're no researcher yourself because you decline to formulate your own opinion using your admitted physics ignorance as an excuse, you have no standing to decide who is and who isn't a researcher. IMO they're all researchers whether you agree with them or not.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you were on a jury, isn't it possible that you would be listening to experts? Would you not have to form an opinion in order to find the defendant guilty or not guilty?

    CD?

    Doesn't it lead absolutely nowhere for you? Given that you have said that because you're not an expert you don't have an opinion.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  8. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Im a geo-political researcher. I dont deal with physics. I dont need CD (controlled demolition) in order to prove there was a conspiracy involving 9/11, i already know there was. Its as simple as this.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that were true you would understand the significance of the OCT vs reality.

    You have no choice but to deal with it, it exists whether you want to acknowledge it or ignore it, physics is reality, not dealing with it is fantasy, it affects every part of your life.

    That's good news, 9/11 was a conspiracy no matter what else anyone believes about 9/11, the OCT or reality. Whether you "need" CD or not is irrelevant, what happened to the 3 towers on 9/11 happened with or without what you "need".
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While we await expert review, analysis and comments (peer review) of Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft report that scientifically proves that the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 is severely defective and the resulting hypothesis is impossible, yet another scientific/mathematical analysis of the collapse of the North Tower has been presented that also requires expert review, analysis and comments.

    New Paper on WTC ‘Collapses’ Adds to Literature Refuting Progressive Collapse Theory

    Few people know that the official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction relies entirely on just four journal papers. All four papers were coauthored by Northwestern University engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant, and all four were published in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics between 2002 and 2011 (Bažant submitted the first paper a mere two days after 9/11). 1 2 3 4

    This may come as a surprise to many people, since one would assume that the government itself fully investigated the Twin Towers’ destruction and offered a complete theory explaining these catastrophic building failures. But that assumption is wide of the mark.

    As it happens, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) limited the scope of its investigation to “the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse.” Stunningly, NIST admitted that it conducted “little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” and that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” 5 6

    In other words, the government did not explain how the tops of the Twin Towers were able to crush through the enormous steel structures below them “essentially in free fall.”7 The only analysis ever produced in support of this notion was by Bažant and his various coauthors.

    This past September, the most recent paper refuting Bažant’s theory was presented by German mathematician and physicist Ansgar Schneider at the annual congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) in New York City. Schneider’s paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe,” can now be found in the conference proceedings and is also available for free on arXiv, the e-print server of the Cornell University Library.8

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.10801.pdf

    Complementing earlier research, Schneider’s paper offers a new and unique approach to falsifying Bažant’s theory. Previous papers showed that Bažant hugely underestimated the ability of WTC 1’s lower section to resist the fall of the upper section and pointed out that there would have been a large, observable deceleration of the upper section’s downward movement — which there was not — if it had impacted the intact lower section. 9 10 11

    Schneider’s approach is to assume that Bažant’s mathematical model of a progressive collapse is valid. Then, by plugging into the model the actual data related to the fall of the upper section, he calculates the upward resistance provided by the lower section.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Schneider finds that, from 4.6 seconds until 7.7 seconds into the collapse, the computed upward resistance of the lower section is so great that the collapse would have been arrested if the upward resistance were consistent throughout the vertical length of the building.

    Yet Schneider also finds that the upward resistance during the first 4.6 seconds and after 7.7 seconds is almost as low as one-tenth of the possible average upward resistance over the vertical length of the building — specifically, 66 meganewtons versus 500 meganewtons. This finding is consistent with David Chandler’s estimate that, based on the upper section accelerating constantly at 64% of free fall for the first four seconds of the collapse, “close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated.”12

    Schneider thus arrives at the question: What mechanism so dramatically reduced the resistance of the building structure at the beginning and the end of the collapse? The obvious answer, in light of all of the evidence ignored by NIST but known to the public for many years, is that explosives and incendiaries were used to destroy the structure.

    Regrettably, Schneider was not allowed to give his presentation at the 2019 IABSE Congress in the format he would have hoped. In August, he was denied entry to the United States because his two previous trips to Iran to teach courses and speak at math conferences made him ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program available to most Europeans — and then he was denied a normal visa, despite having an invitation from IABSE.

    Unable to attend the conference in person, Schneider recorded a 15-minute presentation that the organizers kindly played at his session. A revised version of that presentation is available below.



    Schneider and AE911Truth are grateful to the many people who donated so that he could register for the 2019 IABSE Congress, which enabled him to present this important paper and have it published in the conference proceedings.

    (click the link below for references)

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/604...terature-refuting-progressive-collapse-theory
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI, the deadline for the pubic comment period for Dr. Leroy Hulsey's draft paper on WTC7 ended yesterday. According to Roland Angle who claims to have read the comments, he believes that the Hulsey study will stand unchallenged. It does not mean however that no one can ever challenge it past the deadline, that is open ended indefinitely. What it does mean is that once Dr. Hulsey publishes the final report, it will be the de facto scientific/industry wide accepted standard hypothesis for the destruction of WTC7 on 9/11 unless and until proven otherwise. And it will completely invalidate the official NIST report on the "collapse" of WTC7, as well as the Weidlinger and ARUP studies.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what that means is that it will be entered into evidence in multiple 9/11 lawsuits. Which also means the Defendants would have to challenge the findings of Hulsey’s study in order to mount any kind of serious defense in those respective lawsuits.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  13. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    May I join your discussion? I have only just found this Forum.

    9/11 is a subject that really raised my interest when I found out about WTC 7 and like many that saw that for the first time, the similarity between that collapse and a controlled demolition was at least highly suspicious as the whole official story of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was based around impact by aircraft, structural damage and fires ...... and these were missing from the WTC 7 scenario.

    This may already have been covered previously and if so I apologise. But going back to the Twin Towers, whilst the controlled demolition theory can never be proved as all the evidence was destroyed, the evidence already exists that says without any doubt at all that WTC 1 was definitely NOT brought down through fires weakening columns to the point of failure.

    I watched the following video and noted something I had not noticed before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys

    At 00.22 there is camera ‘shake’. It is not violent and lasts for maybe ½ second. Immediately after this ‘shake’ the smoke pouring from the tower significantly increases in volume . At 00.33/34 the Mast drops followed almost immediately by the top section of the building above the impact zone. From the ‘shake’ to the start of the collapse was 11-12 seconds and in that time there was no visible movement of the top section.

    Was the ‘shake’ someone bumping the camera or slamming the office door ..... or was it the seismic signature of an explosion? Impossible to say but then I checked a second video of the same incident from a different vantage point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlR

    The same ‘shake’ occurred at 00.16 and the collapse at around 00.29. So the ‘shake’ and the collapse initiation were virtually identical from both cameras, the small difference can be attributed to slightly differing speeds of each camera.

    This confirms that the only source of the ‘shake’ was a seismic ground wave. Two cameras, two locations ..... identical time lines!

    This does not say what caused the seismic ground wave but, to ignore the immediate clouds of more smoke erupting immediately after the ‘shake’ as being a result of whatever it was that caused it, would be rather naive and to deny the relationship between the ‘shake’ and when the building starts to collapse some 10-12 secs. later, would be incredible.

    Until the collapse, the building did not move, at least to the observer, which means that there were no failing columns causing the collapse! If it had been the columns that caused the collapse the structure would have moved first both vertically and laterally, due to a gravitational progressive collapse! (Newton) That did not happen ........ that is, until 3-4 secs. after the collapse starts, when the Mast and the structure began a rotation toward the south side which was the face with the most fires and the line of least resistance.

    The collapse preceded the tilt of WTC 1, so collapsing columns for whatever reason, were as a result of the collapse NOT the cause of the collapse and using the norm that identical incidents usually have the same cause ....... neither did it cause the collapse of WTC 2 and you could logically and plausibly apply the same reasoning to WTC 7.

    What caused the ‘shake’ will forever be a mystery but a guess at it being Thermate/explosives would not be far out?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While incontrovertible physical proof of a controlled demolition is unattainable at the present, controlled demolition is still provable via deductive reasoning. Having said that, there is however a mountain of circumstantial physical, video, eyewitness, scientific and other evidence that points directly to controlled demolition.

    1. It is virtually impossible that planes, damage, fire, earthquake, other catastrophe, a poorly planned and/or executed controlled demolition or any combination can cause the unimpeded global and total collapse at near free fall or free fall through the structure of a steel frame high rise, never mind 3 of these on the same day. It has never been accomplished naturally, by experiment or by computer simulation.

    2. A well planned and executed controlled demolition can and has caused the unimpeded total collapse at near free fall and free fall of several structures, including steel frame high rises. That is documented history.

    3. #1 above is the least likely cause (perhaps near infinitely unlikely) and #2 is the most likely cause (perhaps nearly 100%).

    4. Given the above, and given that there is no other known possibility, this leaves only one known possibility, controlled demolition.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, welcome to the discussion.

    The camera shake you notice may possibly be caused by the same massive explosions reported in the basement levels by Willy Rodriguez who worked there. And nearby seismographs recorded the same.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  16. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Quote: Bob

    "While incontrovertible physical proof of a controlled demolition is unattainable at the present, controlled demolition is still provable via deductive reasoning. Having said that, there is however a mountain of circumstantial physical, video, eyewitness, scientific and other evidence that points directly to controlled demolition."

    Deductive reasoning is OK if you can stick within the confines of the Universal Laws of Physics. Most of those that oppose any idea that the WTC collapse scenario’s could possibly be a controlled demolition usually start the argument as to how it would be too difficult to rig the building and throw in all the aspects they believe prevent it. Their problem is always that, whilst a controlled demolition would be difficult to implement …… the official line is impossible because it does not comply with Newton’s Laws of Motion ….. but they never consider that in their argument.

    All that can be proved now is what could not be the cause of the collapse, not what DID cause the collapse because that is speculative. An explanation based on probability though ….. would say CD was the most probable cause!

    Quote: Eleuthera

    "The camera shake you notice may possibly be caused by the same massive explosions reported in the basement levels by Willy Rodriguez who worked there. And nearby seismographs recorded the same."

    You are probably correct but unfortunately that would not be considered a verifiable fact. The two videos jointly simply show that the event was irrefutably seismic not a local occurrence and no more than that.

    The actual video itself IS factual evidence and from that it is possible to create a time line. The time line shows that when you then apply Newton the NIST explanation is not valid as the initiation of the collapse came before the effect that Newton describes as a gravitational progressive collapse, when the apparently weakened columns gave way 3-4 seconds after the collapse had started.

    It makes the idea that Hulsey’s report will no doubt explain for WTC 7 valid also for WTC 1 and 2. That is simply that if you follow Newton, a Gravitational Progressive Collapse as the NIST report and Bazant describes, cannot result in what we all clearly saw ……… a Gravitational Global Collapse! It is truly physically impossible ….. without intervention.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you stick within the confines of deductive reasoning and/or physics, it's not just OK, it is exactly what both say it is unless and until proven otherwise.

    Their arguments are a non sequitur. Unless and until they can prove otherwise, science and logic always prevail (see the multiple scientific studies that have invalidated NIST's conclusions). Any failure to consider physics in such an argument is not a valid argument.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NIST scammers still scamming us reinforcing their nonsensical (non-)explanation that releasing all their data would "jeopardize public safety". This garbage is in response to multiple recent demands that they release all their data and/or explain in detail how in the world releasing it would "jeopardize public safety".

    36. Why did NIST withhold from public release limited and specific input and results files for certain collapse models used in the WTC 7 study? (added 11/20/19)

    This information was exempt from public disclosure under Section 7d of the National Construction Safety Team Act because it was determined by the Director of NIST that release of the files might jeopardize public safety. The withheld information contains detailed connection models that have been validated against actual events, and therefore, provide tools that could be used to predict the collapse of a building. The information contained in the withheld files is sufficiently detailed that it might be used to develop plans to destroy other, similarly constructed, buildings.

    In Michael Quick v. United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Civil Action No. 09-02064 (CKK) U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, Apr. 7, 2011, the court upheld NIST’s finding to withhold this information.


    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Don't you all feel so much safer now that NIST isn't going to reveal to "terrorists" how ordinary fires could cause the "progressive" collapse of steel frame towers at free fall?
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    UAF Final Report to Be Published in Early 2020, Kicking Off Year of Intensive Outreach

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to announce that the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks computer modeling study on World Trade Center Building 7 will be published early next year.

    The draft report of the UAF Building 7 study was released on September 3, 2019, initiating a two-month public comment period that ended on November 15.

    In the weeks since the end of the public comment period, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, the study’s lead researcher, has reviewed several dozen comments submitted by members of the public as well as the evaluations performed by independent technical reviewers. He and his team are now preparing the final report, taking into account the valuable input received. (1)


    The release of the final report early next year will kick off an intensive period of outreach as we expand our efforts to share the UAF study with engineering organizations and universities around the world and with elected officials in Washington, D.C. — through Project Due Diligence presentations, mailings, letter writing, meetings with congressional offices, and more. At the same time, we will continue working to raise public awareness through our upcoming Building 7 documentary and other initiatives.

    We will also take the UAF final report directly to NIST by filing a formal Request for Correction under the Information Quality Act, pressuring NIST to correct key aspects of its Building 7 investigation that are now proven to be false and to have materially affected its findings. (2)


    We look forward to working with our partners and with thousands of concerned citizens to bring this groundbreaking study — and the truth about Building 7 and the Twin Towers — to the engineering and building professions, our elected officials, and the public in 2020.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/631...y-2020-kicking-off-year-of-intensive-outreach

    (1) This seemingly implies that there were no significant challenges by anyone during the peer review process and therefore Hulsey's study stands.

    (2) I'm guessing NIST will simply ignore Hulsey's study and/or maintain their position that they stand by their work despite the overwhelming evidence that their probable collapse initiation hypothesis has NO VALID SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019
    Kokomojojo and Eleuthera like this.
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, until Gage sues them and they are forced to show their cards in court, and you can bet anything shown will be kept behind the iron curtain.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately I doubt they can be sued. On paper there can be a grand jury investigation that could determine if the NIST engineers can be charged with intentionally violating federal law (see posts #19 and #61 in this thread), however the reality is that it will never happen. NIST is always going to be protected by the US government. They've spent $trillions on the phony war on terror under pretext of 9/11, they certainly don't want anyone to know the OCT is one of the biggest scams in history.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has already and recently been demonstrated that the federal Judiciary and Department of Justice ignore law suits brought. The Lawyer's Committee petition sits gathering dust.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not exactly.

    On the Road to 9/11 Justice: A Year-End Update from the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry

    The following is a comprehensive update from Mick Harrison, litigation director of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, of the organization’s ongoing legal initiatives, including the Grand Jury Investigation Project and the FBI 9/11 Review Commission Lawsuit. Having partnered with the Lawyers’ Committee on these projects, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are grateful for the expertise, creativity, and perseverance they have brought to the pursuit of 9/11 Justice. We also thank the many dedicated activists and donors who have made these endeavors possible over the past year.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/629...e-from-the-lawyers-committee-for-9-11-inquiry

    No one is giving up. All of us activists have been at this for almost 2 decades now and it doesn't look like anyone is going to raise the white flag any time soon. In my case, I will continue to expose these murderous criminals wherever and whenever I can as long as I'm still breathing.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed Bob, and thanks for your strong effort.

    While nobody is giving up, the leviathan government is not giving up either, with great assistance from the mainstream media, and will continue to suppress the truth at every opportunity.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and of course the feds are doing what the feds do, which could get vely vely interesting.

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...efore-seeking-dismissal-for-lack-of-standing/
     

Share This Page