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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I was wondering that myself. He presents phony or misleading stuff as fact He refuses to answer questions
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?
Well, he quotes people saying there we lies in it, but nobody ever says what the lies are? Go figure.
He just reads those conspiracy truther sites, they were going nuts 10 years ago, but most has died down. Most of the stuff they write is pretty funny, phoney pictures, edited dialog, and dwelling on the mistaken eyewitness testimony. 20 people can see an event, and one of them, sees something different, as in all testimony. So he pretends that one, is the right one.
How does it change the fact that it's a scam no matter what you or I believe its purpose was? I'm not trying to tell you what you think or feel, what you say logically leads to that conclusion. Not for you of course, nothing will ever lead you to any conclusion other than that OCT is correct. Follow the bouncing ball if you care to or not: 1. The purpose of the 9/11 Commission: "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." https://9-11commission.gov/ 2. Clearly the 9/11 Commission did nothing of the kind in any legitimate way (see most of the 29 points I listed for reference). 3. An investigation that fails to perform such to the highest level of investigative standards and whose agenda is compromised by any factor (including the one YOU theorize) is worthless and its conclusions are equally worthless. 4. The official conspiracy theory is based mostly on the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. 5. As such the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission as published in the 9/11 Commission Report ("garbage" by your own description) are worthless. 6. You claim that the official conspiracy theory (which is worthless) is the best one there is. How do you know it's the best one there is if it has no value? A good guess? The US government said so, so it must be the best? These are all rhetorical questions, I don't care how you respond to any of this, you don't make any sense.
Every single one of the 29 points I listed is FACT, there's not one thing "phony" or "misleading" about any of it. But you can feel free to show otherwise. Just saying it's "phony" or "misleading" is not evidence that it is.
Claiming something is fact, and providing the evidence that makes it fact are two different things. So far you have provided zero proof of anything.
Virtually all 29 points are sourced in this thread. Go through it (there are 14 pages) before you make false accusations. I could say the same about you, you haven't proven any of the 29 points are phony or misleading, just shooting your pathological denying hot air as usual. In fact I'm hoping to meet with former Sen. Max Cleland around the end of this month. No guarantees though.
It's not my job to source your post,, Nor am I going to waste my time checking your claims that have already been proven false. Dude, You are about 10 years too late.
No worries dude, I would never expect you to do any research OTOH I fully expect you to make baseless accusions.
