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. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,470
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thanks for yet another comedic gem ...
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as usual no references what so ever.
    We all know what you hope to achievewith nonsense posts like that:
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    9/11 Families and Experts Submit New Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in Building 7

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claimed in its final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that “there were no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell straight into its footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

    That claim, long discredited by eyewitness reports of a shockwave ripping through the building and multiple explosions going off, was further challenged in a new filing made today by 9/11 families and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The letter, sent to NIST as part of an ongoing effort to have the federal agency overhaul its report, provides the accounts of three different reporters who were close to the scene as Building 7 went down.


    Skipping ...

    The submission of these three eyewitness accounts is the latest filing in a pending “request for correction,” initiated in April of this year under the Data Quality Act, which asks NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires were the cause of the building’s sudden, total destruction. The original request identifies eight items of information in the NIST report that it argues violate NIST’s information quality standards.

    NIST issued an initial denial in August, which AE911Truth denounced as “egregious” and a “mockery of the Data Quality Act.” Then, on September 28, 2020, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters filed an appeal, which is now under review by Dr. James K. Olthoff, NIST’s associate director for laboratory programs.

    After the non-binding 60-day deadline for Dr. Olthoff to respond to the appeal came and went, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters moved to submit the additional eyewitness evidence, which had been brought to their attention only after they filed the appeal in September.


    Skipping ...

    The new filing asks Dr. Olthoff to include the additional evidence in the revisions that NIST has been requested to make to its report, since it is directly relevant to the claims already made in the original request.

    AE911Truth and its fellow requesters are now awaiting Dr. Olthoff’s final decision, hoping he will direct the responsible NIST personnel to develop a new “Probable Collapse Sequence” that is consistent with evidence of explosions. Should Dr. Olthoff decline to order the requested revisions, AE911Truth plans to file suit against NIST for noncompliance with the Data Quality Act.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/720...UtmSo4imRMZZZJtLFl4UQl33MWMreId2V1rJ_2iOFy1o8
     
    Kokomojojo and Eleuthera like this.
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    11,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob, Great news!

    Will NIST comply with Data Quality Act? It is possible. If they do, it will be one more official acknowledgement that the official story is false.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I expect NIST to ignore the appeal and a lawsuit to be filed (and likely dismissed on lack of standing, the usual phony tool used by attorneys when they can't argue on the merits of the case). You know as well as I do that these scumbags will do whatever they can to keep the official fairy tale the party line for as long as they can. More than half a century has passed and they're still pushing the lone gunman JFK garbage, same with RFK and MLK.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,854
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is because The evidence proves OSwald acted alone and there was no cover up or government involvement with 911

    Years of posting and you have failed to produce any evidence to the contrary as have all of the other conspiracy nuts
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    whats been incontrovertibly proven is that you still dont know the difference between a cover story and evidence
     
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,854
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do in fact and you have never presented evidence
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    great!

    quote your previously posted 'evidence',

    keep in mind: produce no evidentiary quote = total bullshit story = you lose = factless troll post. :deadhorse:
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2020
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,854
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The. Burden is on You to provide evidence not me know

    By cover stories you must mean the nist report, the 911 commission and the Warren commission report.

    None of which have been challenged by evidence but they do all three crush your theories with evidence
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PLONK! Thats the sound your post makes as it hits the bottom of the trash bin.
    Feel free to stop back when you have evidence. Have a nice day.
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,854
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again the burden is on you to provide evidence
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is a slam dunk case for truthers, the noncompliance act was created as a hurdle and road block to guv fraud.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a slam dunk case that exposes NIST for a multitude of lies and disinformation that served as a massive scam on Americans and the planet which was strictly meant to support the official 9/11 fairy tale. The evidence and science overwhelmingly supports the contention that NIST committed fraud in their phony investigation and resulting hypothesis.

    But you see that the real hurdle is placed on those who try to expose fraud and corruption.They've taken all the necessary steps and NIST is well overdue for a response to the appeal. I'm guessing they will never respond because they can't come up with a legitimate response and this will have to go through the courts. The Data Quality Act was meant to avoid litigation, yet here we are.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The recent discussion about evidence (of massive voter fraud) prompted me to post what evidence looks like (and this is just the tip of the iceberg). In this case, it's not affidavits unsupported by evidence, it's evidence (a good deal of it documented on video) supported by well over 150 accounts of seeing, hearing, feeling, being injured and/or killed by explosions.

    [​IMG]

    "The idea of a natural building collapse turning 100,000 tons of concrete to a fine powder in 10 seconds is utterly ludicrous." - AE911Truth



    Explosive Features | Twin Towers

    The report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was voluminous, yet NIST did not analyze what is arguably the most important aspect of the collapses for establishing their likely technical cause: the structural behavior of the towers during the collapse. Instead, NIST carried its analysis only to the point of what it called “collapse initiation.”

    As a result of stopping its analysis at collapse initiation, NIST’s final report provides virtually no explanation for the most relevant body of evidence. The very limited explanations NIST does provide come mainly from its FAQs webpage and are speculative rather than based upon scientific analysis.


    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...uO9IXdbferSgrguDLP19Dzrc7dJjelLLt71jz-lRLZyys
     
    ProVox likes this.
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    11,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh heck Bob, that's all been debunked by NIST, right? :lol:
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure but this is america and I know its hard to believe but there are people today that are too stupid to recognize an explosion. Not much evidence can do to help them
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the other way around, NIST's phony theories have all been debunked by many experts.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    11,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect you're letting the emotion of hatred drive your analytical skills. You hate DJT so much it colors your views.

    I let hatred go decades ago. It is harmful to harbor it.

    Trump is a charlatan and poor leader, but that doesn't mean there was no voter fraud in November.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh damn, I forgot about due process, this is america, people have to prove guv claims are true not the guv. good point.


    https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

    A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States

    The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. Each and every one of the cases in this database represents an instance in which a public official, usually a prosecutor, thought it serious enough to act upon it. And each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome — or that the results of an election were sufficiently in question and had to be overturned. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. This database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.


    1,308 Proven instances of voter fraud

    [​IMG]


    As I said the process is insecure, and we know for a fact vote fraud take place all the time, just because trump couldnt prove it does not mean it did not happen.

    Even murders go unresolved, the person is still dead despite the inability to catch the perp and prove it in court.

    We need a unified secure process for our voting system, its easy to devise a fool proof voting system, we do not have anything remotely close to that now and will never get it, especially when people are more concerned with which candidate got in than the process itself, it will forever be brushed under the table as merely sour grapes by the loser.

    If anyone should know, it should be you, its all about plausible deniability through the use and acceptance of defective processes that allows them to get away with this ****. Like NIST.

    Next time the person you hate will get in!

    .garbage in garbage out, you get what you pay for.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2021
    Eleuthera likes this.
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,854
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    It is not JUSt the government which has to prove it's accusations it is anyone. You have failed to provide any evidence and the burden is on you to do so,
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not about "hate", it's about getting rid of a psychopath.

    Apples and oranges. There was voter fraud and there always is voter fraud in many different ways as I already acknowledged. There was no evidence of massive voter fraud in this election on the scale claimed by the psycho-in-chief. The only massive voter fraud was Trump himself who tried everything in his power to overturn the election, even begging election officials from at least 3 different states to commit voter fraud.

    This will be my last post on this issue in any 9/11 thread. Sorry but we are sidetracking all discussions on 9/11 with a totally different topic. And especially this particular topic which is all about NIST's scam.

    Please stay on topic. Thank you.
     
  23. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    You cannot debunk FACT, a fact is a fact and it cannot be anything else. It can only be theory therefore that leaves itself open to alternate views.

    The more facts you have that support the theory the more credible the theory becomes. The official theory when looked at in detail is supported by very few facts. What those that believe the official theory claim as ‘conspiracy theories’ usually contain far more facts and detailed explanation than the official version of events. It therefore makes such theories the more probable version of recorded (factual) events.

    The WTC7 report NIST produced, when challenged, they now admit they have no evidence to support their version of events. The official version is therefore all theory. In the alternate theories there are undeniable facts. Most of the more credible alternate theories contain a lot of visible facts that are supported by the Universal Laws of Physics. It is thus highly probable that the alternate explanations in most cases fit more precisely with the hard facts than the official theory. Collectively the alternate theories are more credible and thus the probability is that they are nearer the truth.

    Debunking by those who believe the official version, is usually devoid of counter explanation and relies almost exclusively on ignoring facts and ridiculing any theory that attempts to use facts to disprove their argument.

    A theory that puts the whole events down to ‘little green men’ or ‘holograms’ is clearly devoid of facts. Not all theories are credible but those that are really ‘way out’ are those used by those that believe the official version as examples to prove they are right and all alternate theories are a joke.
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never seen any admission by NIST where they say they have no evidence to support their hypotheses. In fact, the document in response by NIST to the Request for Corrections are nothing more than a bunch of responses indicating that they stand by all their claims. But please enlighten me if you know otherwise.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,463
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    brilliant!
    That should be moved to the comedy section:roflol::roflol:

    so now you claim the nistar data on the 911 investigation are 'accusations'. :alcoholic::eyepopping::icon_jawdrop::roll:

    Flea Bailey doesnt stand a chance against you!
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2021

Share This Page