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. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There has to be reason for it Bob. What do you think the reason was for all these lies, finger pointing, etc. It's a simple question. People don't make up lies and information for no reason.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob, in point 12. above it says Philip admitted that most or all of the 9/11 commission report relied on 3rd party elayed torture testimony, yet in point 13. it says 25% of the footnotes is relayed torture testimony? How does "all" or "most" equal 25%?
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Bob, the Commission report is 567 pages. I have a few questions. Since you believe that what Philip says above is fact, can you answer some questions?

    1. Was chapter 12, What To Do? A global Strategy, based on torture testimony? Were the footnotes based on torture testimony? Those two sections took up pages 361 to 567.
    2. Was chapter 11, Foresight and Hindsight, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took up pages 339 though 361.
    3. Was chapter 9, Heroism and Horror, obtained from torture testimony? That took up pages 278 through 324.
    4. Was chapter 10, Wartime, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took pages 325 through 360.

    That's just some of the information in the report.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Does this "fact" mean Philip cannot be trusted?
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,001
    Likes Received:
    11,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any thoughts on why the Commission in its report wrote 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the OCT?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Have you read each one of those instances in context in the report?
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    An this is just a nitpick. The statement "we found no evidence" does NOT appear 63 times. I just searched the document.

    "no evidence" appears 61 times.

    Of the 61 appearances on "no evidence"
    "we found no evidence" appears 8 times
    "there is no evidence" appears 21 times
    "we have found no evidence" appears 8 times
    "we have seen no evidence" appears 2 times...

    ...etc...
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Example 1:
    Example 2:
    Example 3 (in response to the question of whether a hijacker used the cockpit jump seatfrom the outset of the flight):
    Looks to me like they investigated certain questions or claims and found "no evidence to support them. What exactly is YOUR point about the "no evidence" instances?

    Edit: I just reread your post:
    Can you explain how stating they found no evidence of a hijacker sitting in the jump seat "supports" the "OCT"?
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  9. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just standard courtroom garble
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there has to be a reason. But speculating as to what the reason is is putting the cart before the horse. When someone commits murder the accused is prosecuted and could be found guilty based on the evidence even if no reason is ever known. It seems to me you’re trying to marginalize the fact that the 9/11 Commission and their report are scams or divert that fact. For what reason? To protect the criminals? Because what they did was a heinous crime amounting to complicity and treason.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apples and oranges man you should be able to figure that one out for yourself if you really wanted to. The former is a fact taken from a Zelikow quote and the latter is strictly a calculation of the FOOTNOTE contents. Why would try to conflate the two facts? Just to try your damnedest to confuse?
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See prior post if you’re still pretending confusion.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you think? Is that even a serious question?
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So if Phillip can't be trusted, how can you trust he's telling the truth in points 12 and 13? Or are you talking his statements on blind faith?
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I thought he couldn't be trusted?
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because one can’t be trusted doesn’t mean everything that person says is a lie. I don’t see how or why Zelikow benefits by claiming all or most of the 9/11 Commission Report is based on torture testimony but he’s really lying. But let’s just suppose he’s lying about that and only 10% is for example. Any testimony extracted via torture is unreliable and could render an entire report unreliable as a result. I’m sure you know that and you’re still trying to create your shenanigan diversions.

    No you don’t think that you KNOW the guy is a scummy weasel despite your phony pretenses.

    Edit: What I meant to say is it’s a fact that he was quoted to have made that claim. Whether his claim is true or not is arguable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  17. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting to see what the scam is.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where did I say he was a scummy weasel? Why are you again making things up about me? Didn't you recently whine about this?
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh I see. We don't know that what he said is factual, just that it's a fact he said it. Funny you decided to clarify that.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So the 75% of the footnote references back to information in the report WEREN'T gotten from torture testimony? How can Philip say ALL of the report was from torture testimony then?
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tell you what Bob.

    What is the implied meaning for the following points you posted here regarding Philip. Are these meant to show him as a trustworthy person or someone who may be shady? I would LOVE your opinion.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn’t you’re right my apologies. I should not be a hypocrite and assume anything about you, at least not on paper.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing funny about it. I said virtually all 29 points are sourced or sourceable. I would assume you try to twist my posts to suit yours so I clarified it.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,584
    Likes Received:
    2,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was his claim not mine. Email him for an explanation. The 9/11 Commission Report speaks for itself in terms of the footnotes used to support the many claims. I understand much of the torture testimony was obtained 3rd party from a detainee who signed a “confession” he wasn’t allowed to read.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're not making sense here Bob.

    If the the above is only referring to the fact that he made that statement and nothing else, how does that support your claim that the commision report is a scam? Especially when you admit you don't know if the subject of the statement is true or not.
     

Share This Page