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:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firstly why are you even asking when you know the answer? Multiple EYEWITNESSES corroborating each other's claims are the "who". It's not Mick West, you or anyone else who wasn't actually there. And the FEMA investigator in the video below says he "saw the melting of girders at the World Trade Center". Are girders made of steel or pasta? Are you implying they're all lying (or have no clue what they saw) because Mick West said so and you want to go with Mick West over multiple eyewitnesses? And even if they didn't see 100% pure molten steel and it was mixed with other stuff, how does that change anything? They saw huge pools of this superheated molten stuff that they couldn't get near to for weeks. You think that's "routine" like the 12 war games on the morning of 9/11? And why do you figure John Gross is bald faced LYING that he never heard of it when NIST claims they allegedly interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses? Why are you not asking THAT question instead of trying to sidetrack the point?

    All rhetorical questions, I know the answer to all the above.



    There is no secondly, thirdly, fourthly or whatever nonsense you want to peddle. Nothing Mick West or you have to say changes what these eyewitnesses saw no matter how desperate you both are to try sidetrack the point.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already did and you well know it.

    Of course you do, you know exactly what I mean, who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself of course.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't own any witnesses. Eyewitnesses are courtroom level evidence, they speak for themselves. You are not a witness of any kind, never mind an eyewitness, and you speak for no one but yourself. Keep fooling yourself if it makes you feel better, you fool no one else.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not the one who's in denial, you are. You deny every single eyewitness claim, all the evidence, science and the hundreds of convenient coincidences and impossible anomalies that challenge the official 9/11 narrative and question none of it. I have no reason to deny or challenge multiple corroborating documented eyewitness claims, that's your M.O. You keep coming up with ready made excuses from Mick West and his metabunk cult that purport to challenge multiple experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers. Even setting aside the experts, the official 9/11 narrative makes no sense on any level. Sorry, but questioning me about what eyewitnesses saw, heard, felt and were injured by isn't going to change what these eyewitnesses saw, heard, felt and were injured by on 9/11 no matter how much you want to try to change their testimony to support and defend the phony official 9/11 narrative. I have zero interest in playing along with your denial game. I'll post all the evidence as I find it and make my own personal comments when and if appropriate. You want to challenge every minutia of it? You are certainly free to pursue your agenda.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They saw the "molten" something. The problem being that they did not take samples or measure any temperatures, so it's just guesswork.

    • Describe in exact detail how molten steel can stay molten for weeks without melting everything around it.
    • Video two has him talking about "molten lava" - not a very impressive observation.
    • What steps did you or they take to verify whether it was molten aluminum mixed with copper, zinc, tin or glass?
    • The aerated vast amount of compressed combustible material is almost a perfect setup to create a forge-like environment.
    • Magic pools of thermite all gathered together and not actually heating things right next to it. Yeah right!
    • Regarding witnesses - In any legal sense, an eye-witness giving an opinion on something they have not verified, or something they have no qualification on is totally useless. THIS is why they call EXPERT witnesses in courts.
    • On my needing to have witnessed the molten material : The great thing about science is that it works whether I am there or not. Steel still gets molten around temperatures higher than copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, glass(!) and any one of a whole series of other substances. So when someone tells me "it looks like molten steel", I have a whole load of readily available data to verify this!
    • Explain how all the "thermite" congregates and stays "molten" for weeks.
    • Do you deny that numerous metals (that must have been at ground zero) that melt at much lower temperatures are far more likely than steel, thus not melting surrounding concrete and steel? Do you deny that Patrick Dillon referred to the stuff as "molten lava"?
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So according to you, NIST are in on this somehow and deliberately lied and deceived about the "demolitions"? Is that correct?

    I can just imagine the meetings:
    Right everyone, let's keep it tight. No leaks, no mistakes and make sure we dispose of all the samples. Oh, and make sure none of you stand there like a muppet posing against some obviously "chemically altered" thin steel panelling.

    This looks very much like the piece they analyzed. Would you like me to point you towards the report?
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My post was deleted because I posted 2 videos without commentary, my apologies. So I will re-post, as usual, to continue the purpose of this thread, that is to expose NIST's scam.

    The following video is a compilation of eyewitness testimony of seeing molten steel following 9/11 and describing lava-like lakes and rivers of it and the intense heat they encountered. The video is sandwiched by John Gross's (lead NIST engineer and spokesperson) obviously false claim that he never heard of any molten steel claims despite NIST's claims that they interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses.



    The next video is the very recent testimony of Patrick Dillon, another first responder eyewitness to molten steel following 9/11 and in proximity to WTC7.



    It should be noted that these many corroborating eyewitness claims of large pools of molten steel described as running like lava are unprecedented in building fires.

    Note the above are just some recorded testimony, there are many others, including but not limited to John Skilling, chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know exactly what they're "in on" but the rest is correct except it's not just me who knows that's obviously true. That has been proven in great detail throughout this and other threads beyond the shadow of any doubt. Why do you think this thread exists? I'm not going to re-post all the evidence, just one quick video from a former NIST employee.



    For me the NIST reports are a crime against humanity. One of the biggest scams ever perpetrated in support of and in collusion with whoever those are responsible within the US government.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. However in any legal sense, multiple corroborating eyewitness claims weigh quite heavily. And when expert witnesses add their supporting testimony, that is almost always a slam dunk. Neither Mick West, Oystein, you or anyone at Metabunk (the "experts" you often rely on to deny anything and everything that challenges the official 9/11 conspiracy theory) have any qualifications required for expert witnesses. The same is not true for the many experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers proving the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a scientific impossibility and a massive fraud.
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What I find incredibly amazing about this country, especially with all of the discussion about education, is how little the word CURIOSITY is mentioned. It is like Education is turned into Work. Like learning isn't supposed to be the fun of satisfying one's curiosity.

    It is like that guy is guilty about not doing his JOB, not disturbed that he did not find the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers fascinating. When I was with IBM before 9/11 I had to write my own benchmarks to test a new machine. It had nothing to do with my JOB. I wanted to know.

    It is like so many people can keep their minds in boxes and regard that as normal.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2023
    Bob0627 likes this.
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Utter nonsense. You can line up 100 people who all claim that they saw an Elephant because they saw a lot of droppings, it doesn't alter anything. NONE of the witnesses gave anything more than an opinion on what the great-big-fat-strawman molten material was!

    Your very un-scientific conclusion is "big blobs of molten-something, that is 100% completely NOT verified, therefore it must be steel, therefore it must be magic thermite because of reasons." It's all so rather hopeless as a theory.

    I have listed reasons that you have once again ignored! None of the witnesses saw "molten steel" they all claim to have seen molten something. Since nothing surrounding the molten material was melted, it can be concluded that it wasn't at a high enough temperature to do that. Numerous metals in large quantities were in abundance in the building, not least a number of tons of aluminium from the airplane!
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2023
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally false! He says quite clearly that it was what looked like something from a science fiction movie, MOLTEN LAVA! Bright orange and moving slowly.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the "reasons" you personally listed amount to utter nonsense in a court of law. They carry no weight whatsoever because you are neither an eyewitness nor an expert witness, just an anonymous denier of corroborating eyewitness and supporting expert testimony posting your personal opinion in a mostly anonymous discussion forum. No one on earth would ask you for your opinion in any court of law deliberating/litigating the events of 9/11.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. When 9/11 happened I was a computer consultant converting a legacy system into what is known today as lawyers.com. I started my career programming IBM mainframes. I often would test out various programming techniques even though it wasn't part of my job also because I wanted to know. It's the best way to learn.
     
    psikeyhackr likes this.
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repetitive noise. None of the witnesses tested the material or the temperature. Some said it was lava, some said it was orange, slow, solid etc. Incidentally Bob, the same observations about anonymity and forums apply to you. But it's good that you finally recognize that this is about people's opinions?

    A court of law would throw out this strawman hogwash. Then again the strawman premise wouldn't even get that far.

    "It's molten, therefore it's steel, therefore it's thermite, because of reasons."
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go on Bob, admit your mistake.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. The difference is what I post comes from verifiable credentialed experts, their papers, incontrovertible evidence and eyewitnesses. What you post challenges everything these experts and eyewitnesses claim using just your opinion and anonymous sources as well as sources that have no associated credentials or standing and whose only purpose is to deny everything. My opinion may not mean anything in a court of law as your opinion wouldn't either, but neither would the opinions of most of the sources you use to support your opinions.

    Of course you're just making that up because that's what you want to believe.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2023
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're deliberately side-tracking now Bob! We are discussing the "molten steel". I don't care who your eyewitnesses are when they are just GUESSING what it is! You failed to admit your "error" about Dillon who saw lava.

    A completely false statement again. Detail exactly what experts saw this molten material and show the results of their testing!

    "Yeah, it looks like steel is not evidence"!

    A completely false statement once more - with a wave of your arms suddenly all of my sources are not experts and yours are the ones who are totally accurate - that is just hogwash.

    Well no. I listed a fair few reasons that you completely ignored. Since I believe you are trying to bury them:

     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To be accurate, sources such as Mick West, Oystein, you, me and anyone else at Metabunk do not qualify as expert witnesses and would never be used in any courtroom. Outside of me, those are the primary sources you use. Sources who have the proper background and credentials (which are the primary sources I use) do qualify as expert witnesses. Who is accurate and who is not among expert witnesses depends on many factors.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope.

    Incorrect! You have no idea as to the qualifications of the people you arbitrarily dismiss. How can you possibly suggest their testimony will "never be used in any courtroom" when you simply have no idea about their qualifications! I will take your statement as a tacit admission that you have none.

    Not true. In one of my first few posts I cited experts who had written detailed reports. NIST are far more expert than the people you cite. I don't care whether your cited experts find fault with their reports. It is simply not relevant!

    It boils down to this once again: YOU claim YOUR sources are correct and those who do not fit with your claims are all wrong.

    And once more this side tracking. This topic is centered on the observations at ground zero.
    • What steps did your EXPERTS take to verify whether it was actually steel and not something like molten aluminum or copper, zinc, tin or glass? NONE
    In this case, did they test the substance in question! Well Bob, they didn't, you know they didn't so it is just guesswork.

    Why did you avoid that list of items Bob? They are all 100% relevant, straight to the crux of the matter and all suggesting you are wrong. Surely you are more concerned with establishing the truth rather than being wrong on this minor issue?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2023
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct, that's why I created many of these threads and contribute to them as often as I can. It's also why I have no interest in participating in your phony games of denial of the facts and the truth.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you deliberately trying to elicit a negative response Bob? You just misquoted me out of context! I said this:
    Surely you are more concerned with establishing the truth rather than being wrong on this minor issue?

    You then completely ignore, 100% totally valid points that make your argument total nonsense and come out with this diversionary statement "phony games of denial of the facts and the truth."

    The REAL facts are that you are NOT interested in anything that proves your current position wrong. Why are you refusing to address any of these points?

    Your cited witnesses saw "molten" something. The problem being that they did not take samples or measure any temperatures, so it's just guesswork.
    • Describe in exact detail how molten steel can stay molten for weeks without melting everything around it.
    • Video two - Does Patrick Dillon talk about "molten lava"?
    • What steps did you or they take to verify whether it was molten aluminum mixed with copper, zinc, tin or glass?
    • The aerated vast amount of compressed combustible material is almost a perfect setup to create a forge-like environment.
    • Magic pools of thermite all gathered together and not actually heating things right next to it.
    • Regarding witnesses - In any legal sense, an eye-witness giving an opinion on something they have not verified, or something they have no qualification on is totally useless. THIS is why they call EXPERT witnesses in courts.
    • On my needing to have witnessed the molten material : The great thing about science is that it works whether I am there or not. Steel still gets molten around temperatures higher than copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, glass(!) and any one of a whole series of other substances. So when someone tells me "it looks like molten steel", I have a whole load of readily available data to verify this!
    • Explain how all the "thermite" congregates and stays "molten" for weeks.
    • Do you deny that numerous metals (that must have been at ground zero) that melt at much lower temperatures are far more likely than steel, thus not melting surrounding concrete and steel?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2023
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just want to know why "experts" do not discuss and demand data on the distribution of steel down the structures for two decades.

    Maybe that can disqualify all of the experts. LOL
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't need to, they just look at the blueprints. Why haven't you?

    p.s. as @Shinebox has exhaustively stated. Blueprints are one thing, actual real world installation, cost cutting "cheaper items" etc. are an entirely different thing.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2023
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know you've been on a years long crusade about this but for me that data is not relevant in a controlled demolition. Of course I can't speak for any expert. It may be relevant in supporting or disputing a "collapse" of course but like I already posted, there is more than enough evidence and other data that proves all 3 towers were controlled demolitions without the distribution of steel data.
     

Share This Page