The 9/11 Commission Scam Exposed in all its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Feb 11, 2017.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread also needs to be bumped. There's an incredible amount of factual information here that requires constant exposure, especially for those who haven't studied them and are interested. If you haven't studied the evidence, you only know what you were told by the US government.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This article belongs in this thread:

    PRESS RELEASE: The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s Continuing Work at the 16th Anniversary

    On September 7, 2017

    NEW YORK, September 8, 2017 – With the approaching 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with the global war on terror still raging unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel continues its 7-year commitment “to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.”

    This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using its “best evidence” review model to analyse the official claims about 9/11. (The Panel has now reviewed 50 official claims and has found each to be a substantially flawed account.)

    The first Point, “The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims,” cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in “decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures,” including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs.

    The second 2017 Consensus Point, “The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim,” explores the question asked by a member of the press to 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: “If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars?” Ben-Veniste replied: “You know, that’s a heck of a question.” But it was a question that the 9/11 Commission never addressed.

    These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to justify America’s imperialist agenda in the Middle East, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands.

    Consensus panelist Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, has published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals and has given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center demolitions, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland.

    Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was interviewed on Progressive Spirit in August, 2017 about the extraordinary denial that continues to surround the events of 9/11. The title of her interview was “Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?

    Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published a recent article with an entirely new slant, “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie,” which re-awakens our sense of the horrific yet still-concealed nature of this world-changing deception.

    Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2900-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.

    Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has recently released his 11th scholarly book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, perhaps his best-selling title to date. David’s August 2017 interview with John Shuck may be heard here.

    The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who continue to make best-evidence research about 9/11 much more widely available through other languages.

    http://www.consensus911.org/
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ex-FBI agent says 9/11 Commission misled public about hijackers who attacked Pentagon
    By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org


    In a powerful sworn statement, the FBI agent who led a 400-member Los Angeles-based task force on the 9/11 attacks has accused the 9/11 Commission of making “incorrect” statements to the American public about his team’s investigative findings.


    The 9/11 Commission Report, published in July 2004, included statements that tended to absolve a pair of Saudis living in Southern California before the attacks of sinister involvement with two Saudi hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. The two were among five terrorists who seized control of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.


    But now-retired FBI agent Stephen K. Moore said in a declaration filed last week in federal court in New York City that the 9/11 Commission misstated his team’s findings.


    “Based on evidence we gathered during the course of our investigation, I concluded that diplomatic and intelligence personnel of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two 9/11 hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot. My colleagues in our investigation shared that conclusion,” Moore said in his statement filed on behalf of thousands of 9/11 survivors and the relatives of nearly 3,000 dead.

    Moore, an agent for nearly 25 years before his retirement in 2008, said he was put in charge of the Los Angeles task force investigating 9/11 – code-named PENTTBOM – within days of the attacks and continued through 2003. He described himself as a hands-on leader whose duties included regularly providing information “to FBI headquarters for Director [Robert] Mueller’s daily briefing to the President.”

    Moore’s declaration is part of a trove of new court documents filed as part of the sprawling, 14-year-old lawsuit that seeks to hold Saudi Arabia, its official charities and others accountable for the attacks. The Saudi government is seeking the complaint’s dismissal.

    Specifically, Moore took issue with the 9/11 Commission’s conclusory statements about Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi. Thumairy was a Saudi diplomat and Imam at Los Angeles’ King Fahad mosque with a reputation for extremist views. Bayoumi was a suspected Saudi agent in the U.S. on a student visa who FBI records say drew a salary from the kingdom for a job he never performed.

    Read the rest ...

    http://www.floridabulldog.org/2017/11/ex-fbi-agent-says-911-commission-misled-public/

    The 9/11 Commission lied, NIST lied, the FBI lied, the CIA lied, the FAA lied, the Pentagon lied, the White House lied, etc. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact documented on the historical record. Yet there are multiple posters who defend every single minutia of the official narrative 24/7 and question not one single thing. Most of these same posters ridicule other posters who don't believe the official narrative and derisively call them "conspiracy theorists", yet the official narrative itself is nothing more than an official conspiracy theory manufactured from a mountain of lies.

     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    still no scam exposed by a reputable journalist ... just internet cranks squawking about imaginary scenarios ...
     
    Charles Rice likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And? Many reputable people have analyzed and exposed the scam. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have exposed it. Is there anything in this list you can contradict with any supporting evidence?

    1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
    2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
    3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
    4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
    5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
    6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
    7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
    8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).
    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
    10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
    11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
    12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
    15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
    16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
    17. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
    18. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
    19. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
    20. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
    21. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
    22. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
    23. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
    24. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
    26. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
    27. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
    28. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
    29. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.


    What "internet cranks squawking about" what "imaginary scenarios" that has anything to do with the 9/11 Commission, their report and their own quotes are you talking about? Do you have anything real you want to discuss with respect to this thread?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As typical for you, you post irrelevant silliness and when it's exposed, you hide.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the Lawyer's Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, annotated by selections from the key 29 points I listed earlier in this thread. This will show that the Lawyer's Committee accounted for most if not all the many issues I listed within those 29 points.

    Background

    In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Congress initiated the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001″, also known as the “Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11”. It was comprised of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This was followed in January 2003 by the U.S. Government’s public investigation known as the 9/11 Commission. Their task was to fully investigate and explain what had occurred on 09/11/2001.

    Beginning almost immediately and persisting to the present, serious questions have been raised about both the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission’s version of events surrounding 9/11. There has been extensive media coverage of anomalies in the official account, destruction of evidence, obstruction, and even perjury. Many observers, including notably the families of the victims, criticized both inquiries for failing to address hundreds of key questions. [Points 1 and 10] An objective analysis, even quoting admissions by members of the investigations, leads to evidence of cover ups.

    Given that the events of 9/11/01 has been used to shape U.S. foreign and military policy and ushered in an era of all-encompassing surveillance of all Americans, much more scrutiny and fact-finding is warranted.

    Many chapters listing anomalies and problems cited by government officials which illustrate the shortcomings of the official 9/11 Commission’s investigation. Here are just a few facts to consider:

      • Evidence at the scene of the World Trade Center and Pentagon was destroyed or confiscated and withheld from public scrutiny. [Points 1 and 7]
      • Evidence given by the CIA to the 9/11 Commission was obtained through torture and is inadmissible. [Points 12-16]
      • Tapes held by the FAA were destroyed.Eyewitness reports from firefighters, police officers, and other reliable witnesses present in and near the WTC buildings on 9/11 have never been submitted as evidence in a legal action. [Points 1 and 23-25]
      • News reports, most notably from local New York City television stations, containing coverage of loud explosions were never presented as part of any official investigation. A FOIA case has revealed that NIST had made false statements claiming there were no samples of steel from WTC 7 for analysis when a photo that was obtained proves there is a sample. [Points 1, and 23-25]
      • There continues to be thousands of pages of classified documents. A forensic analysis of physical evidence at the crime scenes has yet to occur. [Points 8 and 20]
    In a properly functioning judicial system, federal and state attorney generals or special prosecutors would have taken actions to establish all the facts and obtain the fullest measure of justice. The reality has fallen far short of this.

    Understanding the Scope of Obstruction

    There has been widespread media coverage of the administration of George W. Bush’s attempts to stall, limit, and underfund the 9/11 investigation. The refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath, separately, and in public was highly problematic and suspicious. [Points 2-7 and 19]

    From the Washington Post:

    Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. [Point 18]

    “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. “The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true.” [Points 18 and 26]

    From the NY Times:

    The panel [i.e. the 9/11 Commission] also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to “intimidation” of the witnesses. [Point 7]

    [9/11 Commission co-chairs] Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues. [Points 23 and 24]

    At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of “minders” at the interviews as a form of intimidation. “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency,” he said. “You might get less testimony than you would.” [Point 22]

    “We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there,” he said. [Point 22]

    From “Without Precedent”, authored by chairs of 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote:

    “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue”. [Points 18 and 26]

    “We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources…. I think the commission could have successfully challenged the CIA on both access to detainees and release of names, but it chose not to fight these battles.” [Points 12-16]

    Four years after Tenet testified to the commission, Kean said the CIA director had been “obviously not forthcoming” in some of his testimony. Tenet said under oath that he had not met with President Bush in the month of August 2001, Kean recalled. It was later learned he had done so twice. [Point 26]

    “Did Tenet misspeak?”, we asked the New Jersey Republican.

    “No, I don’t think he misspoke,” Kean responded. “I think he misled.”

    The implications are clear. As Kean and Hamilton stated, the investigation was “doomed to fail from the start”. [Point 26]

    The 28 Pages Component and the Lawyers’ Committee For 9/11 Inquiry [Point 27]

    The classification of the chapter from the Congressional Joint Inquiry report which provides details on “the money trail” leading to two of the alleged hijackers who took up residence in San Diego struck a serious blow to the principle of transparency in government. The 28 pages contained nothing that would compromise national security.

    From the time of classification, key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee voiced their opposition. A letter of protest signed by 46 senators was delivered to Pres. Bush on August 1, 2003. This was followed by years of effort by key senators and 9/11 family members to pressure Pres. Bush, then Pres. Obama to declassify the 28 pages. A few members of Congress hearing the pleas of 9/11 family members as well as understanding the negative effects that secrecy on the 28 pages had upon national security took the unprecedented step of submitting legislation in Dec. 2013 to gain their release. This bi-partisan effort was led by Congressmen Walter Jones (R-NC), Steven Lynch (D-MA), and Thomas Massie (R-KY). A companion bill in the Senate followed, submitted by Rand Paul (R-KY), Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-UT). Over the next 2 ½ years pressure mounted as a result of more lobbying by 9/11 family members, and an even higher level of media scrutiny which approached saturation coverage in the spring of 2016. This began with a major exposé on CBS’ 60 Minutes on April 10th.

    In another influental mainstream report we learned through journalist Philip Shenon’s article in The Guardian, that Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, deliberately obstructed a full investigation of leads on funding of the plot. He went so far as to fire investigator Dana Leseman to prevent information from the 28 pages from being included. He manipulated the outcome to protect the oil-rich monarchs of the Saudi Kingdom. This included the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, close friend and confidant of the Bush family. This further proves that the public was deprived of key knowledge on logistical and geopolitical aspects of the attacks.

    This led to the actual declassification of the 28 pages. In the latter stage of this campaign for declassification, Mick Harrison, Legal Director of the Lawyers’ Committee For 9/11 Inquiry, composed a legal opinion which established that the Congressional Joint Inquiry’s report was a product of Congress and therefore, the Executive Branch had no jurisdiction over it. This assertion was based on the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. Former Senator Mike Gravel, who was charged with criminal conduct for his reading of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record, was exonerated by the Supreme Court on this very principle. Therefore, Mr. Harrison, with the help of Sen. Gravel and lobbying efforts by dedicated legislative activists, informed members of Congress who championed efforts to declassify the 28 pages that they could release them on their own, bypassing the president. In a meeting with Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, he was forced to admit this very fact. Within weeks Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie submitted another resolution which took matters to the next level, stating that if the president failed to declassify the 28 pages, they would follow through and act on their own.

    Although there were still nearly 100 redactions, the bulk of the information was released for the world to see exactly what key Senators and three members of the 9/11 Commission, Bob Kerry, Tim Roemer, and John Lehman, had all been claiming evidence exists leading to financing and support by high level officials and agencies of Saudi Arabia, of covert actions of agents tied to the Saudi consulate, as well as obstruction and cover up by U.S. agencies. Of utmost significance, the release of the 28 pages disproves the official narrative and 9/11 Commission’s assertions that the 19 Arabs acted alone.

    To this day, the full implications of the matters contained in the 28 pages have not been probed, the intelligence agencies have yet to be held to account for their questionable actions, nor have steps been taken to rectify the unsavory geo-political relationships which the 28 pages brings light to.

    However, the release of the 28 pages combined with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) has provided a new foundation upon which several legal actions by 9/11 family members can finally proceed. This development has the potential to open up additional avenues of inquiry and evidence.

    More Unsettled Issues Regarding the Saudi Role [Point 17]

    A FOIA case in Florida has revealed obstruction and concealment by the FBI regarding information it holds about a wealthy Saudi couple in Sarasota known to have contacts to some of the figures blamed as hijackers. They were visited by Mohammed Atta and a few others accused as hijackers, and fled at a moment’s notice just weeks before the attacks. Although the FBI claimed for years it had no information on this couple, the judge overseeing the case ordered the FBI to fully examine its computer files and produce the results. This resulted in the FBI being forced to submit over 80,000 pages to the court. This volume of information continues to be under review.

    The FBI released a report in March of 2015 with findings by its 9/11 Review Commission which was formed to conduct an “external review” of the FBI’s performance in implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations and to assess new evidence. It contains information contradicted by investigative journalism by a Florida media outlet centrally involved in FOIA cases which corroborates what Sen. Bob Graham refers to as “a pattern of cover up” and “aggressive deception”.

    From an ongoing FOIA action we learned that as late as 2012 the FBI had continued to review information regarding the Saudi couple in Sarasota, as well as events connected to two of the Saudis blamed as hijackers who spent time in San Diego as depicted in the 28 pages. So this body of evidence remains unsettled.

    Where We Stand 15 Years Later

    Although there are legal actions pursuing the money trail, more than 15 years after the attacks, an unfettered, comprehensive explanation of other vitally important aspects of the events on and surrounding 9/11 has not been established in a court of law or by an objective and thorough investigation.

    For example, evidence exists indicating the National Institute of Standards and Technologies has delivered an official report containing items contrary to scientific fact and rebutted by expert, peer-reviewed analysis.

    More recently, a former NIST analyst and whistleblower, Peter Michael Ketchum, has referred to NIST using tactics that are “an avoidance of inconvenient evidence”.

    These facts make clear the necessity and provide the foundation for a new level of legal analysis, strategy, and action.

    In summary, we as a dedicated team of lawyers and advisors, stand ready to pursue legal actions for the crimes of 9/11 with the intent of focusing on areas of evidence yet to be legally examined so as to reach a comprehensive review as required by law of the most consequential event of our time. We owe it to all adversely affected, to the general public, and to future generations to obtain truth and justice in this unprecedented effort. Your donations and grass roots support will help us make history. Time is of the essence.

    https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/compelling-evidence/
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sounds to me like people were trying to cover their butts because the 9/11 terrorist threats were not handle very well procedurally.

    How does any of the above provide evidence that the NIST report/investigation is wrong about WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsing due to fire and/or plane impact damage? How does any of this evidence provide doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon? Are there facts within that show it was NOT a plane that hit the Pentagon? Maybe one of those statements shows that WTC7 did not collapse from fire?

    You haven't provided proof that any of the above is true. It's all hearsay. Just like you have doubt that many people saw a plane impact the Pentagon because you claim there is no physical evidence.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    he probably claims that because a plane that size would have left 1000 times more debris than you have ever produced for evidence. Not to mention people found that the engines were not from the alleged planes that we are to ASSume went in. Most of the witnesses just happened to be reporters or actors associated with television media.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ALL hearsay??? Is that for real? Almost all of it has been published and is publicly available. Much of it comes from quotes from the 9/11 Commissioners themselves and Zelikow, not to mention the 9/11 Commission Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 families, including the Jersey Girls, videos, etc. Man you would deny you have a nose if it doesn't jive with the OCT.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course that's what it sounds like to YOU, it couldn't possibly be anything else. That's what I would really call a "failure of imagination" if you were for real.

    It's none of the above, it's overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 Commission and their report were a massive scam, read the title of the thread for reference.

    The evidence that NIST and their reports were a scam is mostly in another thread, among others:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

    I know you're trying to confuse readers as best as you can but it's really not working.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  12. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    2,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Pentagon accident didn't happen, all trick photography and holograms.
    They really hit an old peoples home in the Bronx.
    They took all the people in the plane and moved them to Sandy Hook.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please stick to the topic of this thread, you're trolling.
     
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    2,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why,, You can't

    You were asked lots of questions, and answered none.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you are violating the rules of the forum.

    I am under no obligation to answer any questions, never mind loaded ones that falsely claim what I posted. I have no problem answering legitimate questions as I see fit and preferably within the context of the topic at hand. But that is my prerogative, same as you.
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can't provide any concrete evidence that shows any of the explanations provided by the "OCT" regarding how twin towers came down, how WTC7 came down, what damaged the Pentagon, etc. NONE of your 29 points you posted provides any evidence that shows how they got something wrong. Point me to one of your 29 points that shows how a plane couldn't have penetrated the outer perimeter columns of the twin towers? How about how fires couldn't have weakened stressed/loaded steel to a point of failure. How one of those points that shows engineering numbers that refute that fire COULDN'T have caused the collapses.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is as silly as it gets. One more time for the reading comprehension impaired, the 29 points are not meant to provide any evidence of any of the above. They also don't prove Santa Claus exists or doesn't, you're deliberately trying to confuse the fact that the purpose of those 29 points is to show that the 9/11 Commission and their report were a complete scam (see Point #9 for an additional opinion from one who was deeply involved):

    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It "sounds" like that to ME Bob? That the points you put forth are about procedure and why we failed to handle the attacks in an efficient manner? I looked into one of your bullet points below:
    Here is the link to the questions they had:
    http://www.visibility911.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Family-Steering-Cmte-review-of-Report.pdf

    I searched that document for the following words:
    WTC
    Pentagon
    Plane
    Thermite
    Bomb
    Demolition
    Energy Weapon
    Nuclear
    Fire
    Column
    Collapse
    Shanksville

    You know what? Most of those words DIDN'T show up at all. A couple did, but were used in questions regarding procedures. None were questioning the "OCT's" explanation of how the twin towers collapsed, the explanation of how WTC7, the explanation of the plane impacting the Pentagon, or the plane at Shanksville.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You basically told me that my interpretation of your 29 as being directed at the procedural failures during the 9/11 attacks and people trying to cover their butts was baloney. I said none of them had to do with any explanations of the damage at the sites that were attacked.

    I am again going to say this.

    I think that there was some coverup and lies told because people's asses were on the line and some screwed up. I don't think it was to cover up the government because they planned the attacks themselves, lied about planes, used thermite, demolition charges, beam weapons, nukes, used missiles, holograms, faked deaths, etc.

    Are we clear?
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And how does any of that change the FACT that the 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered?

    You claimed it's ALL hearsay but yet you provide the link to confirm Point #10 is NOT hearsay but FACT. Why are you trying so hard to change the point of this thread? What you're doing is deliberately creating a diversion, inserting a host of red herrings if you will.

    So then you agree the 9/11 Commission and their report were a scam then. So if that's true you also agree 9/11 was never legitimately investigated. And by extension you also agree that the official story has never been proven and is strictly a story that can only be taken on faith. And that's the point of this thread, not what you're trying hard to invent.

    I also don't think it was to coverup that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't really exist or that Elvis is still alive. So this entire thread has nothing to do with any of the above nor was it ever meant to. You're not that stupid, you are deliberately being obtuse in order to try to create as much confusion as possible. This is why I have you assessed as a complete phony, not one ounce of sincerity.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope. I think it reveals the infighting, some procedural failures between organizations, and breakdowns in the system. I think it reveals that people were trying to cover theirs asses and not get in trouble. It revealed the deficiencies in how the US handled the attacks. I don;t think it was a scam to cover up the fact that the government planned and carried out the attacks.

    Every time you try to tell me what I think or feel, I'm going to copy and paste the above until it sinks in.

    See above until it sinks in.

    The "OCT' explanations for the actual attacks taking place from the planes being hijacked to the target destinations and subsequent damage, I fully agree with. There is plenty of evidence to back this up. There is no other conspiracy theory out there that has more proof and supporting evidence. There is also not enough evidence to throw a monkey wrench into "OCT" the explanations.

    Every time you try to tell me what I think or feel about that, I'll copy and paste the above.

    Now if you want to present evidence that you think shows any of the "OCT" explanations are incorrect, please do so. I'd be glad to discuss it. If not, that's fine with me also, but I will reply to any more garbage you try to parrot whether you're talking to me or not. Stupid comments like "Hulsey's report proves NISt wrong" when that report isn't even finished should be challenged.
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What was the purpose of creating this scam Bob? Let me guess. You don't know, you're just asking questions to try and figure it out right?
     
  23. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    2,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was wondering that myself.
    He presents phony or misleading stuff as fact
    He refuses to answer questions
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain this quote Bob.

    Is the report "far from accurate" because it contains lies, incorrect information, or both?
    Is the report "far from accurate" because it's information is correct, but there is more information that should have been included, but wasn't?

    Or something else?
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, he quotes people saying there we lies in it, but nobody ever says what the lies are? Go figure.
     

Share This Page