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
    The question you need to ask yourself is do you understand? And if you do, why are you worried about what other people may or may not understand?

    Regardless, one only needs to understand that the NIST investigation excludes critical components, uses fabricated data, does not conform to investigative standards that NIST publishes and expects all investigations to conform to.and is a theory that is proven to be impossible. The videos show step by step the major differences between real known data and NIST's selective data and how real data, when used correctly renders NIST's theory completely invalid. More importantly though, NIST was not tasked by Congress to concoct theories, they were tasked with investigating how and why the 3 towers collapsed on 9/11. So NIST failed to do its job and created worthless reports as a result.

    Having said that, qualified experts in relevant disciplines fully understand and have exposed NIST's fraud in detail. What's incredibly evil and vile about that fraud is that this was supposed to be an investigation into the worst terrorist attack in modern US history that murdered 3,000 innocent people. And NIST's theory is being used in part as pretext to wage perpetual war that has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and otherwise destroyed millions of lives, something that is still ongoing.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fast and Furious - WTC7

    The following video is a tongue-in-cheek version detailing the many NIST lies and fabrications, along the same lines as the video titled "9/11 - A Conspiracy Theory", sort of a "NIST Investigation for Dummies".

    [video=youtube;nIrdRWYHiss]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrdRWYHiss&feature=youtu.be[/video]
     
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nice :)
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and it explains it all quite clearly for those who really don't understand:

     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTC 7 Fell Due to Fires Fuelled (sic) by Office Furnishings!?

    [video=youtube;2qn1Iu6olJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qn1Iu6olJQ&index=5&list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl[/video]
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3): US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
    matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
    judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
    and willfully –

    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
    same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years
    or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
    defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or
    both.

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001

    Just sayin'
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems as if 9/11 truth is dying out ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah it never had a chance, 9/11 lies is the official standard. It's always been that way since, er 9/11. This thread explains only some of the bigger 9/11 lies, the actual number of lies is staggering.

    [video=youtube;bNHMRlKI8fw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHMRlKI8fw&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1[/video]
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    completely useless twoofer vid ...

    I don't even understand your point Bob ... who the hell are they even talking about? ... the vast majority of whistleblowers are complete cranks that hang out in your stratosphere ...

    ya know, the bombs in the basement types which have no relevance because nobody else can corroborate ... well, maybe one other guy ...

    bring some hard evidence Bobby ...

    your complete lack of knowledge of construction and destruction is appalling ...

    but please go on about beam 79 ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you really believe any of the above makes any sense to anyone or has anything to do with anything? You should have stopped at what I highlighted, that's the only thing that makes sense.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tony Szamboti presents a detailed analysis of the NIST "probable collapse initiation theory" scam for WTC7. It begins at approximately 15:20 into the video.

    [video=youtube;oFEMi617B6Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEMi617B6Q&feature=youtu.be[/video]
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HE presents fiction based on supposition he has no evidence or even logic which is what all twoofers have in common.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Besides the fact that this "twoofer" lunacy labeling is just that, you haven't cited one single thing to support your claim, never mind provided any legitimate supporting links. I doubt you reviewed anything in this thread, including the video I posted. You also have no standing/credentials that lends any credibility to your fanatical contrarian claims. Your post has no meaning and is absolutely worthless.
     
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you realize negatives cannot be proven? The opposite has to be proven.

    That means the burden o proof is on you and all other twoofers.

    the very word is accurate even if slightly ridiculing because you and all others ignore all forms of truth logic reason and evidence to post your assertions. The is the essence of everything you say, twoofers love to claim to be enlightened because they do not trust government but that is not a valid argument.

    It is on you to provide evidence of your claims and you have NOT done so.

    You have no credentials either so simple reason and logic does destroy your claims and your claims have been consistently destroys them.

    Yes i have watched the videos and they are FICTION.

    My posts ruins yours because they point out facts and evidence that the burden is on you and you fail MISERABLY to provide any evidence and that is the common standard for twoofers.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, not getting into this drivel, something all too familiar with your style of posting. The only post that is worth responding to is one where the poster can show in technical detail how and why the facts posted in this thread are incorrect or one that questions or requires clarification of the facts posted in this thread, or one that can correct and/or add to the facts posted in this thread.
     
  16. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    You have yet to post facts.

    You have repeatedly and consistently posted assertions and opinions without a speck of support.

    The style you accuse me of using is what others call accuracy.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These are of course, bald faced lies. The following posts in this thread alone are all fully supported and factual:

    Page 1: Posts 1, 3, 4, 9 & 10.
    Page 2: Posts 11, 13 & 19
    Page 3: Posts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 29
    Page 5: Post 43, 48, 49 & 50
    Page 6: Post 55
    Page 7: Post 69
    Page 8: Posts 77 & 80
    Page 9: Posts 81, 83 & 86
    Page 10: This post.

    A total of 27 posts in this thread that are all fully supported and factual.

    The above quote does however fully applies to the quoted poster. Not one post in this thread that is supported and/or factual.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST and its "investigation" into the twin tower collapses. To review:

    But NIST did not complete or even attempt to complete its first primary objective. Despite its published report, there's not one thing in it that explains why and how those towers were totally destroyed. Kevin Ryan brilliantly rips the NIST investigation into the collapse of the twin towers:

    [video=youtube;VsfLQAclHA0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsfLQAclHA0[/video]

    The following is a review of his work by Jim Hoffman:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

    In Ryan's Power Point presentation, there are several eyewitness quotes of interest. Not one of them was used by NIST or in any official 9/11 investigation.

    Paramedic Daniel Rivera – “[Did] you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop?’…I thought it was that.”

    Witness Timothy Burke – “the building popped, lower than the fire…I was going oh, my God, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.”

    Firefighter Edward Cachia – “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives…”

    Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory -- “I thought…that I saw low-level flashes…[at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”

    Firefighter Richard Banaciski – “It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all around like a belt, all these explosions.”

    Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick – “My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.”

    Battalion Chief Brian Dixon – “the lowest floor of the fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives all around it because…everything blew out on the one floor.”

    Firefighter Kenneth Rogers – “there was an explosion in the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. [It] looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.”
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST never explained why and how the twin towers were globally destroyed but its "probable collapse initiation theory" does rely heavily on the (lack of) fireproofing. Accoring to NIST:

    "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

    The Broadgate and Cardington experiments were conducted specifically to determine what would happen to an office building in an inferno. The structures were deliberately loaded to cause the most severe fires and the fires lasted much longer than the WTC fires and the steel was UNPROTECTED by any insulation. The result? NO COLLAPSE of any kind.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

    So how did NIST decide the thermal insulation was "widely dislodged" anyway? In experiments they fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples. NIST pretended this was similar to an airplane crashing into the steel frame. NIST’s own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit. But even if the fireproofing had been "widely dislodged", it could have only been dislodged within a small fraction of the entire building's steel volume, at the area of impact. It is also interesting to note that the fireproofing was previously upgraded specifically at the site of the impacts for both towers.
     
  20. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    56,016
    Likes Received:
    27,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    lamont4-4.jpg

    ^ The experiment you cited showed what fire could do to unprotected steel beams.

    lamont4-5.jpg

    ^ It also showed how the connections could fail.

    Combine the above with the actual situation in the twin towers, especially the physical damage to the overall structure caused by the impacts themselves, and you get what happened on 9/11. Watch any video of the collapses and pay special attention to how and where they begin. In each case, it begins at the point of impact. Soft steel + lost support structure = tower collapses.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I emphasized the key words. The experiments showed the structure(s) did not collapse under the most severe fire conditions.

    Even if all the above is 100% true, the discussion and the point of this thread is about NIST's 9/11 "investigation", not about what could theoretically happen or what did actually happen or what anyone believes happened. Those are topics for a different discussion.
     
  22. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    56,016
    Likes Received:
    27,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    NIST did a fine job. It's not their fault you close your eyes to what they turned up.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually what they turned up is itemized in clear and thorough technical detail throughout this thread. My eyes are wide open, if they weren't, this thread wouldn't exist. Your opinion that NIST did a "fine job" doesn't change the facts or the reality of all that technical detail. Feel free to explain in technical detail anything you dispute about NIST's methodology with regard to its 9/11 collapse investigation as has been exposed in this thread, if you can. You will need to provide supporting links, your unsupported generic opinion is worthless. Insulting me personally doesn't help the credibility factor or add anything relevant to the discussion. I am not the topic of this thread.
     
  24. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    56,016
    Likes Received:
    27,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you presented detailed information about these allegations you have made? I'm curious how NIST supposedly omitted structural components and manipulated data.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All over this thread, all you need to do is actually go through the posts and the supporting links to articles and videos and read them. You wouldn't be asking that question if you did that.

    Ditto. The proof that NIST omitted critical structural components and manipulated data comes from the NIST reports and their own evidence (e.g. NIST's published drawings vs the original Frankel drawings and the actual bill of materials). The very first post in this thread contains videos, articles and a letter that clearly identify some of the details of NIST's chicanery.
     

Share This Page