What does this mean, that 63 times the Commission found no evidence to support statements from various agencies in their investigation? https://digwithin.net/2011/10/30/no-evidence/ This is the very informed investigation by a man who rather worked in the business. Kevin Ryan has done very much to inform the public by publishing such analysis. I would never have the time to study such details, too busy working when it all happened. Any thoughts?
Well there's already a thread on the 9/11 Commission. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ Having said that, if you just want to address that the 9/11 Commission found no evidence, it begs the question as to why they published the 9/11 Commission Report when they found no evidence. It's the same thing as the NIST reports, they admit that they only have a theory (they called it a "probable collapse initiation theory") for the destruction of WTC7 and admit they never investigated the actual "collapse" of the twin towers in a footnote. Yet you see in both cases the reports were published hoping most people would accept these reports as fact. And it worked for the ignorant, gullible and disinterested.
After reading Kevin Ryan's comments, and considering that the Commission did use the term "we found no evidence" 63 times, I am wondering if this was the method used by the conscientious members of the Commission? Is this their way of pointing out that 63 elements of the OCT (my term) have no evidence to support them? Is this their way of telling readers that, indeed they were set up to fail, and the story told by government agencies was not valid? Just wondering.
The 9/11 Commission members not only published the fact that there was no evidence multiple times but publicly said a lot more than that (we were lied to, told different conflicting stories, doubted the "confessions" of the tortured detainees relayed via 3rd party CIA - which comprised over 25% of the footnotes, wanted a permanent 9/11 commission - indicating they hadn't even scratched the surface, etc.). Not to mention one 9/11 Commission member (Sen. Cleland) who resigned publicly admitted the whole thing was a scam and wanted no part of it. The 9/11 Commission members were not in control of their own "investigation". It was plainly obvious the Bush administration was in full control and through one of their own plants (Philip Zelikow) created a secret outline of the narrative they wanted published before the Commission even started their "investigation". That it was a scam is a huge understatement. Yet one can read the many posts in this section of the forum rabidly defending the 9/11 Commission Report as truth. So despite that the members themselves strongly indicated the report was a massive lie in many ways, it did serve its purpose as intended.
I guess nobody bothered to read the bullshit blog and how the phrase "we found no evidence" is taken out of context ... and of course, Bob, being the gullible truther that he is, took it even further out of context ... The clown car is still rolling along and nobody has jumped out yet to write that scathing book about the "big lie" and win that Pulitzer ... cue Bob to insinuate I'm less intelligent because I used a smiley or whatever their called ...
Funny thing I didn't notice the "invisible" comment following the emoji until it was used in a quote. The better description would be maturity, not necessarily intelligence Shiner. But sometimes that goes hand in hand.
please respond to the blog as written and tell me with an honest face that is wasn't taken out of context ... your constant spamming of your 29 points only points to a Saudi connection and nothing that addresses the destruction of any of the buildings or that planes were involved ...you don't believe a 757 hit the Pentagon ... why? ... serial numbers right? ... does that explain away all the other evidence? ... see how I can go off topic just like you? ... what's your IQ Bob? ... education level? ... how many books do you read a year? ... does it really matter? ... don't you ****ing dare question my intelligence or constantly being a rabid defender of your made up OCT ... quit trying to play word games ... it just makes you look stupid ... are you Anthony Robbins? ...
I don't need to, there is no evidence is 100% correct as already well explained ad nauseum and proven by those dreaded 29 points you hate so much and much, much more. If that's all you get out of those 29 points you are truly a hopeless case and permanently lost in a delusional world. But I will note that you haven't ever addressed a single one of those points except just now as a general statement (false at that). Could that be because the 9/11 Commission Report never addresses the destruction of any of the buildings in any manner that makes sense (or no manner at all for WTC7) for an "investigation"? The 29 points are strictly about the 9/11 Commission Report, the destruction of the 3 towers is a NIST issue which of course I address in very elaborate technical detail in the thread below and elsewhere: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ Planes were involved as seen from some of the videos with respect to the twin towers, I don't have any conclusive evidence that disputes that. As for the Pentagon and Shanksville, there is no conclusive evidence that supports that planes were involved. I'm not saying planes were not involved, I am saying I need a lot more than what is being officially peddled to convince me. As for serial numbers, not one single piece of hard evidence exists so it's impossible to identify exactly what planes were involved (for those planes that seem to be involved). Why is this such a difficult concept for you? I understand when one accept things on faith as fact and truth, then one does not need to examine anything but I'm sorry, I'm just not that gullible. Well you do on occasion and admittedly so do I. However, this particular discussion is actually on topic, at least some parts of it. None of that is on topic and no it does not matter whatsoever. However my last IQ score (not that I believe IQ scores mean very much) measured about 5+ decades ago in high school was 138 if I remember correctly and I'm a college dropout with a near 4.0 GPA in my major (mathematics) and started as an engineering major. For further background, I had an over 40 year career in computer consulting for many different international and domestic corporations and am the author of the very first corporate legal solution for the PC, designed and written for the IBM XT. I don't need to question it you do a good enough job of exposing it all by yourself son. And I never invented the OCT, that's the invention of the US government, not moi. You sound angry, oooh scary. I don't play games (although I do get facetious at times admittedly) nor am I here to play games and if I "look stupid" to you, I'll take that as a compliment because I'm sure you can guess how your posts on 9/11 sound to me. You OTOH admitted that 9/11 is a hobby for you. So you're the one who's here to play games, n'est pas? No I'm Bob, you can tell by my ID in case you have a problem reading it.
Although widely criticized when it first appeared in March of this year, Thierry Meyssans 11 Septembre: LEffroyable Imposture, nevertheless went on France's bestseller list in its second week and became the highest-grossing book in a single week in Europe ever. https://www.amazon.com/9-11-Big-Thi...d=1522958753&sr=8-1&keywords=9/11+the+big+lie Sorry, no Pulitzer ... yet.
same typical Bob responses ... the blog context problem still exists and you are still ignoring it ... you are bordering on the tediousness level of Scott ... oh yeah ... Meyssan ... the same guy who put out the bullshit "Find the Boeing" video many years ago ... bestselling books mean nothing as the dumb downed masses are looking for entertainment rather than factual expose's ... I'm sure you can find a Kardashian who agrees with your paranoid delusions of 9/11 .. once again, I'll gift you the Saudi connection as I do believe they (certain factions) were aware/involved in the hijacking of 4 airliners that crashed as per the official account of 9/11 ...
Did you expect typical Shiner responses? Already addressed, the blog context is not my responsibility, email the author if you object to it. Feel free to ignore my "tedious" responses then. Sorry I don't play along with your hobby. Yep, the author of The BIG LIE. I'd be willing to bet all the Kardashians agree with your paranoid delusions of 9/11 rather than the facts. The official account is a BIG LIE by their own admissions so it's impossible to figure out what the connections were since they were never legitimately investigated.
Edit: See #25 from those dreaded 29 points (called facts). 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). Is there something paranoid schizophrenia about that or is that an eye opening fact Shiner? It's quite rhetorical Shiner, no answer from you necessary of course.
this is a lie. the 9/11 Commission had a lot to say about Saudi financing of the 9-11 attackers, its all in the redacted pages that was released.
Incorrect. Graham was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and co-chair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the attacks. The Joint Inquiry reviewed a half a million documents, interviewed hundreds of witnesses and produced an 838 page report -- minus the final chapter which was blanked out -- excised by the Bush administration for reasons of national security. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report-steve-kroft/ The 9/11 Commission was censored with regard to those 28 pages. 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.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases-28-pages-saudis-9-11/index.html the 28 pages were released in 2016.
Please verify your facts before you make false accusations. You're welcome for the facts though, thanks for bringing that up Ron.
Yes thank you. The 9/11 Commission had disbanded by 2016 and the 9/11 Commission Report masquerading as fact was published in 2004. So your point?
Yes, that's true. So you don't have a point with respect to the 9/11 Commission and their failure to investigate the financing of 9/11. I believe you called me a liar.
You see how it works. I've challenged anyone to dispute the facts (the 29 points) I posted about the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission Report, in fact I encourage it in case I did make a mistake so I can fix it. So far one poster called it "spamming" and has questioned my intelligence (and my IQ score lol), called me various names including paranoid schizophrenic, but can't dispute one single point with anything legitimate. Another poster attempted to dispute one point by calling me a liar on Point 25 and only tried to back it up with the unrelated recently declassified 28 pages. The poster is missing the cojones necessary to retract his false accusation and man up and apologize. I don't expect him to, I'm just exposing these cognitive dissonants for what they are. Name calling is their MO but never any facts, just the usual regurgitation of the official 9/11 narrative despite the admitted lies.
the 9-11 Commission did indeed investigate the funding for the 9-11 attacks. the 28 redacted pages go into it very thoroughly.
Post #14 incontrovertibly proves otherwise via evidence and history. But keep trying, the 9/11 Commission failed to legitimately investigate 9/11 financing, admitted ("little or no practical significance"), period, end of story and had nothing to do with those 28 pages by design.
