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:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So those who follow(ed) this thread have not tried to correct any of the above thus far. It seems to me like everyone agrees 100%. I expected at least 80% but not 100% agreement. That pretty much sums it up, even if you don't dare characterize it as SCAM we all agree on the details.
     
  2. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Little need to comment on your cartoonish "list" and heavily opinionated list of supposed infractions....
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since you haven't tried to correct one single point out of 29 or add to the list, it follows you agree with all 29 of them like I said.
     
  4. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    69,682
    Likes Received:
    11,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where's your PROOF that GWB and Bin Laden's brothers were meeting at the Carlyle?
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, unless you can show otherwise, that has nothing to do with the list of 29 points I posted or the topic of the thread.
     
  6. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    69,682
    Likes Received:
    11,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You made that asinine claim so back it it up.. Where's your proof?
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your insults also have nothing to do with any of the 29 points I posted or the topic of this thread. Stick to the subject or stay out of the thread.
     
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    They would have to be incorrect to be corrected…your opinions are simply dumb and you’ve proven that no amount of evidence will force you to give them up. For example, one of the “points” was that someone made an outline. Wow…really? How shocking.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct and since you've made no attempt to correct any of them, you agree they're all correct by default as I said.

    Your silly and insulting commentary doesn't change any of the facts nor does it constitute an addition or correction to any of the 29 points I listed. It is also falsely characterized, all 29 points I posted are fact, not opinion. Facts are not "dumb", they're simply facts and whether I "give them up" or not is irrelevant. Facts don't go away no matter what I do or don't do.

    You haven't provided any evidence in this thread at all with respect to the subject matter. If you have a correction to any of the 29 points, please provide it along with any valid supporting facts. I will be more than happy to modify any of the 29 points as applicable if any are proven incorrect.

    Correct, so you agree that Philip Zelikow (the "someone" you're referring to) created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.That's not a correction or addition, it's merely an agreement.

    Sorry but that's irrelevant, your sarcasm is worthless, it doesn't change the fact that Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission nor does it constitute an addition or correction to any of the 29 points.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2017
  10. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So you’re objecting to someone creating an outline for a report?
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's also irrelevant, it doesn't add to or correct any of the 29 points (or let's call it what they really are, FACTS) I posted. All your question serves (by your failure to add to or try to correct the FACTS) is to agree with all 29 facts listed and contradict your claim that they are "opinions" that are "simply dumb" and the insinuation that there exists contradictory evidence to these facts, which of course you have yet to post any. It wasn't simply a report, as you'd like to trivialize it, it was the 9/11 Commission Report. And it wasn't just "someone", as already explained quite clearly, it was Philip Zelikow, who was appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission

    Having said all that, #11 strongly indicates several things:

    1. That Philip Zelikow had a preconceived agenda/procedure for the 9/11 Commission Report. Note that he also had full editorial control (see #27).
    2. That Philip Zelikow consulted no one on the 9/11 Commission for their opinion with regard to the outline of the 9/11 Commission Report or the procedure the 9/11 Commission would follow.
    3. That Philip Zelikow wanted to exclude anything not in his outline.
    4. That Philip Zelikow did not follow universally accepted forensic/criminal/scientific investigative standards.
    5. That Philip Zelikow was either not competent to be the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission or had an agenda to corrupt the investigation.

    #11 is only 1 of the 29 FACTS listed. Perhaps you might like to try to discuss some of the remaining 28 FACTS or is that not your agenda? It is open for discussion but not open for trolling purposes.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2017
  12. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gee, someone who was responsible for a report started with an outline. Shocking. :roll:
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you have nothing intelligent to discuss about the topic of the thread stay the **** out of it, you're obviously trolling.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even trolls agree with those 29 facts, 100% imagine that.
     
  15. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    :roflol:I agree that if you're preparing a report, the first thing you do is make an outline. So would about 100% of those who have written reports. But apparently, facts are not what you want to hear so please do not read this post.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know, that's what I said.

    It's not about preparing a report though, it's about the 9/11 Commission, their mandate, their catastrophic failure to abide by their mandate, their SCAM investigation and their resulting SCAM report. Read the title of the thread, that's what this discussion is about, not about "preparing a report" as you insist on trivializing. It's also not about #11, it's about the entirety of it including #11.
     
  17. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Their Mandate. From the report you haven't read (otherwise you'd know this):

    Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,"

    They did all of that; detailing as much information as anyone could possibly know of the events of that day.

    Opinion. Worthless.

    Opinion. Worthless. The investigation and the report are the same ones in which you cannot locate a single inaccuracy of any major importance.

    You brought up that someone made an outline. About 100% of the time, reports start with outlines. Again, your opinion is worthless. That I comment on what you have listed seems to bother you.

    Good.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could say the same ("Opinion. Worthless") throughout. Your opinion is contradicted by the facts (well detailed throughout this thread), including the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report, the admissions of the 9/11 Commission members and those who resigned from the 9/11 Commission. Your opinion (that of an anonymous contrarian) is also contradicted by the opinions of the 9/11 families, the 9/11 Commission members themselves and others in a position to know and many scholars whose verifiable credentials are quite impressive.

    http://www.consensus911.org/

    Your opinion is also contradicted by the 29 facts listed that YOU agree with. You are therefore contradicting yourself.

    Whether it's worthless to you or not is irrelevant, it's fully supported by the facts that YOU agree with.

    Whether it's worthless to you or not is irrelevant, it's fully supported by the facts that YOU agree with.

    Lying doesn't help your failed argument. This thread and your agreement with the 29 facts listed is evidence that you're making **** up.

    #11 is part of 29 facts that YOU agree with and it isn't about "someone making an outline", it clearly says:

    Taking words out of context in order to trivialize is intellectually dishonest. #11 has serious ramifications (see post #211).

    The rest of your post is irrelevant (not that the first part has much relevance either).
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  19. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I agree that when someone is going to write a report, they usually make an outline. Why you have a problem with that is your sickness.
    Wrongo bongo! To date you nor any other twoofer has ever quoted a major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report. Prove me wrong and do so in your response. You can’t. You won’t. As has been the case forever.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant to FACT #11 or to the topic of this thread as addressed ad nauseum. Repeating this nonsense constitutes trolling as defined by Rule #5.

    No it's 100% correct. Your failure to contradict (or even try contradict) any of the 29 facts listed constitutes your agreement that they are all 100% correct.

    I don't need to prove you wrong, you already did so yourself by your agreement with all 29 facts listed.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least you understand where you stand, yes it's already established that trolling and being off topic is synonymous. This isn't about me, read the title of the thread again for comprehension. It's still about the 9/11 Commission and their report. I listed 29 facts directly related to the topic, the 9/11 Commission and their report, not Bob0627 or "twoofers" or the ins and outs of outlining a report. Any one of those 29 facts contradict your claim that:

    By your failure to dispute even one single one of those facts you agree with all of them. So you're trapped in your own pretentious mental quagmire. You can't agree with all those facts and claim 1. the 9/11 Commission fulfilled their mandate and 2. "detailed as much information as anyone could possible know of the events of that day". This is an obvious contradiction. I will post 2 of the most glaring examples.

    Example 1:

    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).

    If you agree with the above, that contradicts both your claims, especially claim #2.

    Example 2:

    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).

    If you agree with the above, that also contradicts both your claims. It's impossible that the 9/11 Commission did not know about the destruction of WTC7. But if they didn't, they were either incompetent or they failed to investigate. They also failed to investigate the financing of 9/11 by their own admission within the report itself. No matter which way one looks at it (incompetence or failure to investigate), they failed to fulfill their mandate and they didn't "detail as much information as anyone could possible know of the events of that day".

    I understand you're not here for any kind of genuine discussion about 9/11, you've proven that with every post. But that's ok, I can discuss the 9/11 Commission and their report using your posts anyway, I can get around the nonsense within them to talk about the relevant.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So back to the discussion. Most if not all 29 facts are interconnected. That the Bush administration did not want 9/11 investigated, as evidenced immediately following 9/11 by the swift destruction of physical evidence (see #1-#2) and that after yielding to an investigation they did everything in their power to compromise the 9/11 investigation (see #3-#9, #19, #22 and #26-#28 ). One cannot contradict any of the 29 facts because they are part of the historical record. This is why even pathological contrarians resort to posts meant to divert the topic, some pathetically silly, they can't disagree with the facts (see substituted quote above).

    I recently came across this site that I haven't visited in years, I'll quote from it:

    As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to alleviating suffering, to improving health, and to preserving life. We are horrified by the terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting from them.

    The terrorist acts of 9/11 resulted in the immediate deaths of 3,000 emergency service workers and innocent citizens. The inhalation of toxic dust in the weeks following 9/11 will result in the premature deaths of additional thousands of rescue and construction workers and New York residents. The acts of 9/11 have been further used to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of military personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

    As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents.

    We are not alone in our concerns about the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. A group of 25 senior U.S. intelligence services and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to the U.S. Congress expressing similar concerns and their desire for a new investigation. Several very senior CIA veterans have called the 9/11 Commission Report "a cover up" and "a joke" and have called for a new investigation. Several former Republican administration senior appointees have called for a new investigation. Several U.S. State Department veterans have called for a new investigation. And dozens of former senior U.S. military officers have also called for a new investigation.

    It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes.

    It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.


    http://mp911truth.org/
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
    Eleuthera likes this.
  23. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    69,682
    Likes Received:
    11,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are any of you "truthers" familiar with the architect of the WT Towers? Are you familiar with the changes made by the NJ Ports Authority ?

    Are any of you familiar with the particulars of an aluminium skin?
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,259
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless you can show what the above has to do with the topic of this thread, you're in the wrong thread. Please stay on topic.
     
  25. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    69,682
    Likes Received:
    11,964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don't know....... That explains your vulnerability to this conspiracy crap.
     

Share This Page