A theory, (especially an official one) is deceptive when it is unsupported, intended to be used as FACT or a set up and is based on a predetermined agenda. This happens quite often, pay attention to the world around you (if your question is legitimately asked). Whether I admit it or not is irrelevant, it is a fact. See above. The pattern is OBVIOUS in NIST's case, it isn't just about walking away from a theory. NIST couldn't support many of its theories intelligently because most of them were clearly bankrupt. They were conducting a trial and error scheme, NOT INVESTIGATING. Even so, they ended up with a massively bankrupt theory. They were FLAILING for 7 years, trying to come up with something that makes technical sense to the average person but clearly could never fool most experts.
Was the diesel fuel supply considered a FACT for the cause of the collapse Bob in the 2004 PROGRESS REPORT? Here, let me present a QUOTE from said document: See the part about IS CONSIDERED POSSIBLE and SUBJECT TO FURTHER DATA AND/OR ANALYSIS? It pure stupidity to claim something as DECEPTION when the source clearly states it's a POSSIBLILITY and needs FURTHER DATA AND/OR ANALYSIS. That's what investigating is Bob. Did you even read the document you present as proof or are you just parroting Sarns' garbage? After further investigation, NIST walked away from the diesel /fuel system theory because they found it wasn't viable. Correct! It is a fact that they were looking into it and found that it wasn't viable. You calling it deception it pure idiocy. Especially with with what I quoted above. More idiocy. Have you been part of a disaster investigation? I have Bob. You are looking at possible causes and follow leads. You look at EVERYTHING. Why would you not include your current possible leads or possible causes in a progress report regarding your ongoing investigation?
Since when is a possible cause being investigated and then later ruled out based on data and analysis considered a deceptive practice Bob? You're making zero sense here.
I'm not? Are you saying it's against your rules to provide counter points to what you present as evidence of the topic being discussed? Or is your posting criteria you way of getting people to just post only what they consider NIST scamming the public and not discuss reasons why it should not be considered scamming/lying/deceit? Tell me Bob. Why is my post off topic? I was clearly refuting what you posted as evidence of NIST's deceit. You have a problem with that?
Please explain your view here Bob. How can you make this claim when the document clearly says the fuel system was a POSSIBLE cause and will be FURTHER ANALYSED? How was it not supported as a possible cause? It was used as FACT because they clearly stated it was under investigation. You just keep spewing nonsensical views.
Tell you what Bob. Post a quote from NIST where it shows that they ever believed that the cause of the fires/explosions/collapses was 100% based on the fuel system. Everything I have seen regrading the fuel system prior to the final report included words and phrases like "current working hypothesis", "possible cause", "Further research, investigation and analysis is needed to resolve this issue", "may have been", etc. Tell me how you associate these phrases and words to mean "fact'.
You're showing your bright yellow color Gamolon. You refuse to answer a very simple question I asked you multiple times and instead continue to pretend NIST conducted a legitimate investigation as if the question was never posed to you. If this was a legitimate investigation, I might agree with you on some of the issues you posted. However, given NIST's failure to investigate using universally accepted investigative and scientific standards, some of these developed by NIST itself, then everything NIST did was NOT within the context of an investigation. Sarns highlights a number of these issues and I agree with Sarns that these are NIST deceptions, especially given the fact that NIST publicized their "findings" using Popular Mechanics as a willing partner in their scheme. Had you answered my question in an honest manner, it would (or at least should) address all your desperate attempts at defending NIST and attacking all those who ripped these criminals apart. It should be so OBVIOUS to anyone that NIST was trying to find a way to support a preconceived premise, that WTC7 collapsed naturally as a result of fire. They first tried to come up with a collapse theory that included structural damage but likely decided that might not work. So they moved on to the diesel fuel fire theory but apparently that wasn't plausible either. So they ended up with the thermal expansion theory, which was of course still not workable.
If insults don't work, perhaps repetitive posts might, you never know. At least you worked hard to keep the one sentence above somewhat clean so it deserves a response. This forum doesn't allow posts that run for 571 pages. It's probably easier to quote what isn't a lie. Let's see what I can do to relieve your desperation: The title is a lie (as explained in an earlier post) so that's not it. Ah here, the list of contents, illustrations, list of Commission members and staff, pages v through xiv. I'm more or less ok with that although I'm not sure if it's all been verified. The Preface is an insulting sad joke though, it even starts with their admission: "We present the narrative of this report", which is of course the preconceived OCT. "We have sought to be independent, impartial, thorough and nonpartisan", all of that is a bald faced lie contradicted by the Commission members themselves (see the many quotes listed in this thread). All the Commission members had conflicts of interest and Zelikow himself was neither independent or impartial and the only thing he was thorough with was to hide everything that didn't agree with the OCT. The rest (along with the Preface) is a criminal fraud, not based on any legitimate investigation (according to the Commission members themselves), similar to the NIST reports. They admitted two whole chapters (5 and 7) are absolutely worthless because they are based on totally unverified/uninvestigated "confessions" from detainees who were mercilessly tortured, relayed by 3rd parties. As already explained, this forum's limitations does not allow me to quote two chapters. Like I said, it's not just specific quotes that are lies, the whole thing is a massive fraud, as publicly admitted to by the Commission members verbally and in subsequent books authored by them and other publications. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, in this case the 9/11 Commission and that doesn't exist. It's not up to others to prove a claim is untrue. For example, it's not up to anyone to prove Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not real, it's up to those who claim they're real to prove it. Now I can expect yet another "still no quotes" post from you I suppose?
Giving up already Gamolon? I thought I should point out your deceptive language as an additional response. Note what I posted (and you quoted more than once): The key word is highlighted. Your responses for example: I never said any of that was considered a fact by NIST. Their objective was to toss any sort of possible cause into the ring, all unsupported, in order to plant seeds of deception in case one of these might work to support a natural fire induced "collapse", which was their ultimate goal. In this case well publicized and peddled as FACT by Popular Mechanics (which were never retracted by PM). In most legitimate investigations, the investigators do not leak possible causes when an investigation is ongoing for good reason, but not so with NIST. And so the reason I asked you about the legitimacy of NIST's "investigation". When an investigation is illegitimate to begin with, then just about everything the investigators do is all about deception. The scam was on when NIST immediately discounted the most likely cause under false pretenses (in clear violation of their own investigative protocol) in favor of the least likely.
Quotes? You need quotes? Why don't you take the time to read the document yourself? Do you need someone from the government to tell you how to think? If you are not aware of what Hamilton and others said about it, and you are not aware of so many other details about it, discussing such things with you would be a complete waste of time.
He's not here for a genuine discussion about the 9/11 Commission Report (or anything about 9/11), it's obvious from his posts (including the many deleted ones for forum rule violations) that he's only here to troll. Given all the facts posted in this forum (if one has taken the time to read just a small sample), one has to be either brain dead or a fake to reach any conclusion other than the 9/11 Commission and their report are a blatant fraud. The 9/11 families know that (many of their videos and documents are posted in this thread) and they have much more of a stake in this than most others. I only respond to his posts when I feel I can contribute additional information on this subject in the process, otherwise as you put it, it is a complete waste of time.
As predicted. I already did multiple times in several posts. Now back to the topic at hand, at least for those who are not here to troll.
Yeah I got that long ago, along with your repetitive responses, including sheer insults at times. Unfortunately, it's irrelevant what you believe. What's relevant are the facts posted in this forum, those are irrefutable and most relevant. For you the Commission were all honorable, including and especially Zelikow and the WH were eager to investigate 9/11 and cooperated in full, with complete transparency of course. And their report was 100% accurate. I think most who have been following this thread agree that's what you keep dishing out. As for the facts posted here, well .... not exactly. You forgot to ask about the quotes. Just trying to help.
It’s Friday and about 16 years after the event. Still no inaccuracies in the report. Although I think I did see a typo on one of the pages. So there is that.
For you no. The reality though is that the documented evidence (quite a bit of it from the actual report and the 9/11 Commission itself) shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the entire report is a fraud and not based on any legitimate investigation.
Ketcham is a brave man, a patriot truth seeker. It seems the only people who still believe the official story are those who prefer to avoid the unpleasant truth.
In most cases because they are terrified of it. You see how OCT defenders ridicule those who demand the truth about 9/11 by using silly juvenile terms such as "troofer". They would rather find comfort in the lies (see Stockholm Syndrome).
Shortly before 9/11 and thereafter, every incident pertaining to powers that be (kingdoms) up to today, has gotten us where we are now. Regardless of the conspiracy of 9/11 (I believe it was an inside job), what is truly important is figuring out why, as to determine what's next. This is where all 9/11 conspiracists should be. The research in which I have done has lead me to believe it is all being done behind the curtain in which the pope resides. The Vatican is doing and causing almost all conflicts between kingdoms.
"Let us not dive into conspiracies and conspiracy theories". Said Bush (might not be exact quote). People cannot see that the government (powers that be) have manipulated the minds of people as to think of conspiracy theorists as freaks or nut jobs. This way nobody questions the authority of powers, on final determinations within an event. When in reality, a conspiracy theory is merely an investigation.
That could be said of everything, all events planned or not have gotten us to where we are now. What is truly important IMO is to expose the lies for what they are so everyone can see for themselves that they've been scammed big time. Once the vast majority understands that, then there might be motivation for the majority to force a legitimate investigation that will uncover the real details as to what happened on 9/11 and who were the major suspects/players involved. And that will take us down other possible roads. I don't care for generic labels. Each individual is unique and has a personal agenda. I don't know what research led you to that conclusion but unless you can provide compelling evidence I don't believe the Vatican had anything to do with 9/11. The Vatican was quite influential for a few centuries in terms of control but that has been significantly weakened in the last couple of centuries. This thread is specifically about the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't believe you have anything that links the Vatican to those two issues but if you do, by all means please provide what you have.
