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. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read for comprehension, I used the word ALLEGED for a reason. The now declassified 28 pages are a part of the OCT so they are to be taken with a grain of salt. However, as FULLY EXPLAINED, they were known to Zelikow, the guy who LIED when he said there's NO EVIDENCE of Saudi government funding of 9/11 and steered the 9/11 Commission away from anything having to do with the Saudis and fired a staff member who wanted such classified information made available to the 9/11 Commission.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/911-report-details-saudi-arabia-funding-of-muslim-/
    http://www.salon.com/2016/07/15/28_..._911_attacks_finally_released_after_14_years/
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/

    That's the best you can come up with after the reams of videos and documents I posted in this thread about the 9/11 Commission and their report? Yet another (non-)defense of the OCT?
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And of course the usual libel and insults. That is a required component of your hobby, right?
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    who besides you used the word alleged? ... you're trying to mislead the gullible with wordplay ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's right Shiner, divert the thread and make it about me...as usual, because as always, you never have anything of substance to add to the discussion. Facts aren't "wordplay", no one is that gullible, not even you, no matter how much you want to try to defend these massive crimes. Diversion is just another way of defending the indefensible.
     
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following the money was actually pretty straight forward. The Saudi student who was supported by Bandar's wife had five kids, a rental house and furniture and a wife being treated for breast cancer. The practice has been common place since 1952.

    Of course conspiracy theorists wouldn't know that fact.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether that's true or not (you had access to Bandar's wife's bank accounts since you claim it's a "fact"?), what does that have to do with the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report, Zelikow or his lies and obstructions?
     
  7. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know her.. and she's not a terrorist.. In fact, she is very pro-American.
    Sweeping ignorance doesn't make your case.
    I mean really.. look at Eleuthra.. She thinks the Saudis issue US visas. LOLOL
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess I should respond to this elementary nonsense anyway for those who need clarification. The word ALLEGED is used because the 28 pages (which are OFFICIAL) strongly suggest Saudi government funding, it is not a proven fact. There's nothing "misleading" or "wordplay" about using the word ALLEGED when there is no proof. And Zelikow should have directed the 9/11 Commission to FOLLOW UP on the claims made within those 28 pages, rather than lying about no Saudi funding when it was never investigated (or such investigation was deliberately blocked). The word ALLEGED should be used with any and all US government claims given its history of pathological lying. It's also a common term used when a claim is unproven or unsupported. Anyone who believes the US published the truth about 9/11 given all the facts is delusional or a fake (or a hobbyist?).
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you had access to her bank accounts then?

    The above false and insulting claim about me as well as your unsupported claim about Bandar's wife (if true) has no relevance whatsoever. I asked you what any of that has to do with the topic of this thread and you haven't answered.

    That's also irrelevant.
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to worry Bob. Margot seems to follow the crowd and fabricate stories about what other posters think. It is one of the many signs of how desperate one must be to defend the discredited official story.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Margot is not someone I worry about. Just like all the other rabid OCT defenders, they can't find anything of substance to defend the official story or the storytellers so they need to resort to insults and/or diversions. Margot won't show any correlation between her unsubstantiated claim and the topic of this thread because she can't, there is none. Virtually all their responses contain the term "truther" (or some silly variant) or "conspiracy theory/ist". They were taught to believe it's a term of ridicule that somehow magically ends the discussion or dismisses the poster.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread needs to be resurrected because it goes hand in hand with this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/495859-9-11-commission-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    And because, oh yeah, we've been scammed. The evidence is overwhelming no matter what story you want to believe. This scam is fully sourced (the source being the official storytellers for the most part), publicized and mostly irrefutable. It's always up to the individual to read the evidence (if there's any genuine interest of course) and determine whatever they want to determine for themselves. My agenda is to share the evidence and discuss it, preferably civilly and a bonus would be intelligently. If you can't do that, please stay out of my threads. Thank you.
     
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you're a proponent of CD ... perhaps if you could provide some evidence, "we" might take you seriously ... it's not about you Bob ... get over yourself ...
     
  14. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The Commission Report say that AA77, AA11, UAL 175 and UAL 193 were hijacked and all crashed into buildings or a field in PA. Its easy to defend because that is precisely what happened.
    The reason you're summarily dismissed is because you've offered nothing to counter those facts excepts "could haves".

    Please take your best shot...you've been doing so for over 15 years and have made not one inch of progress. Pretty pathetic.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I don't own any evidence of a CD, the evidence speaks for itself.
    2. Whether YOU take me seriously or not is irrelevant to this subject and in general.
    3. This thread is not about CD or me, quit trying to change the subject because you don't like what's being posted.
    4. If you can't stick to the subject, stay out of the thread.

    Then why are you constantly trying to make it about me then, Mr. Hypocrite? Part of your "hobby"?
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks, I'm glad we have a point of agreement for a change. That's more or less what the 9/11 Commission Report says. It says lots of things within its 571 pages. I even quoted some of what it says, I know it's not enough for you as you claimed but nonetheless it addresses the facts in the context of the subject of this thread and isn't meant for you anyway.

    Even if that's 100% true, it doesn't change anything within the context of this thread. The 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report are still scams.

    The rest of your post is a lie, insulting (as usual ... don't you ever get tired of having your posts deleted?), typical for you when you have nothing relevant or intelligent to contribute to the discussion and more importantly, irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you omit is that the Commission was "set up to fail", as reported by many on the Commission, including the 2 main dudes.

    Like the Warren Commission, the 911 Commission was set up to protect the guilty parties and fool the gullible. It worked.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    NIST depiction of approximate damage caused by the collapse of WTC1 taken from NCSTAR 1-9 dated November 2008, not from a "progress report" done in 2004. Discussion of how that damage depiction was determined starts on page 130 (Section 5.5.2), complete with photographs.

    http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611, page 173

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok but:

    1. NIST also claims the damage to WTC7 from the "collapse" of WTC1 did not contribute to the "collapse" of WTC7.

    2. What is the significance of NIST's graphic with respect to whether it appeared in NIST's "progress report" or NSCTAR 1-9?

    3. What does any of that have to do with the fraudulent manner in which NIST "investigated" the "collapse" of WTC7 (which is the topic of this discussion)?

    (words in quotations are those that are used in official reports and are not necessarily accurate)
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You need to address why you posted Chris Sarn's arguments regarding a document from 2004 that was clearly a work in progress as evidence proving NIST's scam. Why would you do that when there was final document published in 2008 that had changes due to more information? Below is an excerpt from the "progress report" from 2004:

    You want to present this garbage evidence towards proving NIST's "scam" when it clearly states "the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present." and "While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions." The final report came out 4 years later with a better approximation of damage, yet you're ok with using someone's arguments regarding the OLDER document? Ridiculous.

    Why are you asking me? You're the one who thought it significant enough to post as evidence of a scam right? I posted the 2008 information from the final document so people reading this thread could actually see that what you posted was outdated.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because if you read Sarns' article in context he clearly illustrates the extent of NIST's fraud beginning with NIST's early publications. Much of NIST's early claims were fabricated purportedly in an effort to create a myth. The myth was further propagated by Popular Mechanics, which published these early claims as fact (with NIST's full blessing) and never retracted them even after NIST changed/contradicted some of their earlier claims. Sarns clearly states the source of all these claims, he does not say some of these were still present in NIST's final publication.

    Anything that doesn't conform to the OCT or attacks NIST's procedures is "garbage evidence" to you regardless of the facts.

    Because YOU wrote a post that has little or no relevance to the topic of this thread and therefore, I asked YOU what is its relevance in case I missed something.

    Correct and it is highly significant (thanks to Sarns' meticulous research) and clear evidence of NIST's fraudulent pattern. There is much more to it than just what you selected out of context in order to try to dismiss the entire article as "garbage evidence".

    NIST's earlier documents may be outdated and no one makes the claim they are not. But NIST's scam is still a scam today and as explained, they show a pattern of deceit which did not end with its final official report on WTC7. In order to understand the full extent of NIST's scam, one should know its history as well.
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You posted evidence FIRST that supposedly showed NIST's "scam". I posted a reply with up to date information to show that the information you used was outdated.

    Are you saying that you're initial post about the south facade damage has no relevance to the topic? Is so, why'd you post it?

    If you think your post about the facade damage IS relevant, then why is my response, showing the more updated and correct information to the your subject matter you posted, NOT relevant?

    Like I said. It was a "work in progress". I even quoted a paragraph from the 2004 document that states they had conflicting accounts and that they were still looking into the damage of the facade.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob, you can sit here and whine all you want. The bottom line is that you used outdated evidence (it was an evolving document) to try and prove a point and I presented information from the final 2008 document that makes your information old AND irrelevant as it CHANGED in the 2008 document.

    Case closed.
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Since when is a theory deception?

    So you admit that NIST walked away from the diesel theory yet...

    Since when does someone constructing a theory and then walking away from it after doing further research and concluding the theory was wrong constitute deception?
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already explained it to you in terms of its significance to the history of NIST's deceptions. History may be "outdated" but NIST's pattern of behavior is NOT. While the initial claims were not part of NIST's final report, it does clearly show NIST's pattern of deceptions/contradictions. Sarns fully identifies the origins of NIST's concocted claims, unlike you, he isn't being deceptive. If you have a problem with it, contact Sarns, I didn't write the article but I fully endorse it and it is completely relevant to the topic of this thread.

    Why is it you're not asking why NIST would publish an early report that includes concocted (unsupported) claims/theories that were NOT investigated? Why is it you're not addressing the topic of this thread, which has been PROVEN in abundant detail and instead fallaciously trying to divert one specific issue (in order to try to defend NIST)?

    Why is it you have never answered a question I asked you multiple times?

    Are you that much of a coward? Or more likely, any answer would expose YOU.
     

Share This Page