Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FOXNEWS: 9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    I think Boo Radley puts it very well below.





    Maybe you can show me that?

    NIST report is a fraud and those who back it up are accomplices and NIST knows it because it says that no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report pXXVIII NCSTAR 1-9,vol1. NIST admits that they cannot defend its own report in a court.

    The reason Bush, Mossad and co can do what they want, is because they know that they can get away with everything: lying, waging wars, torturing, raping. If anybody criticize those things, the debuggers the debunkers like snipers are ready to shoot: "conspiracy theory", "crack pot", "anti semite". No need to ask questions.


  • Options
    #63
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    NIST report is a fraud and those who back it up are accomplices and NIST knows it because it says that no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report pXXVIII NCSTAR 1-9,vol1. NIST admits that they cannot defend its own report in a court.
    That's not what that means at all. That's lawyer speak for "You can't sue us!". That's all that is. You'll find something similar in pretty much any US report these days ebcause some people will sue at the drop of a hat.


  • Options
    #64
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    That's not what that means at all. That's lawyer speak for "You can't sue us!". That's all that is. You'll find something similar in pretty much any US report these days ebcause some people will sue at the drop of a hat.

    It means exactly that: we lied and we are going to get away with it. If there was a trial for 9/11, NIST would be called as expert and they could be asked very tough questions.


  • Options
    #65
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    No, it means "we are not held accountable for how this information is used".

    It's honestly in pretty much every contract you will ever read. The people who draft them, cover themselves in case someone finds some sort of loophole that wasn't thought of, and sues them.

    Also, this only covers them for damages claims, not for criminal proceedings.


  • Options
    #66
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    No, it means "we are not held accountable for how this information is used".

    It's honestly in pretty much every contract you will ever read. The people who draft them, cover themselves in case someone finds some sort of loophole that wasn't thought of, and sues them.

    Also, this only covers them for damages claims, not for criminal proceedings.

    In "pretty much every contract"? This is not a contract. It was supposed to be an expertise. This is the Bible of the so called debunkers. They swear buy it. NIST can't be wrong right?
    NIST report has been technically demolished and is not valid in court. Period. I remind you that Khalid Sheik Mohammed the so called mastermind of 9/11 is still waiting for his trial (watch my next post regarding KSM).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    In "pretty much every contract"? This is not a contract. It was supposed to be an expertise. This is the Bible of the so called debunkers. They swear buy it. NIST can't be wrong right?
    NIST report has been technically demolished and is not valid in court. Period. I remind you that Khalid Sheik Mohammed the so called mastermind of 9/11 is still waiting for his trial (watch my next post regarding KSM).

    sigh... that clear as day says it can't be used for suing anyone, especially them i assume. Which is not what you said at all. Given the Americans will sue for almost anything it would seem quite prudent really.
    By technically demolished do you mean people who say stuff about it they can't prove? Almost like in a story or novel.


  • Options
    #68
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    sigh... that clear as day says it can't be used for suing anyone, especially them i assume. Which is not what you said at all. Given the Americans will sue for almost anything it would seem quite prudent really.
    By technically demolished do you mean people who say stuff about it they can't prove? Almost like in a story or novel.

    They say it can't be used in a court. It was a cover up. Period.


  • Options
    #69
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    In "pretty much every contract"? This is not a contract. It was supposed to be an expertise.

    I was pointing out that it's in pretty much every contract you'll read, to show that not every single contract is part of a conspiracy. It's a standard practice when there's a fear of some idiot taking advantage of others.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    This is the Bible of the so called debunkers. They swear buy it. NIST can't be wrong right?

    It's only called the bible of debunkers by conspiracists who can't argue the points it makes. And if you want to bring up all the points that you do find flaw with, then the authors names are on the cover (just make sure you don't try and sue them ;) ).
    TMoreno wrote: »
    NIST report has been technically demolished and is not valid in court. Period.
    Ignoring is not the same as demoloshing.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    They say it can't be used in a court. It was a cover up. Period.

    Yes it can. BUT there was a disclaimer put in to say that you can't sue the authors of it. This is absolutely no proof or even evidence of anything but societies stupidity when it comes to suing everyone about everything. Period


  • Options
    #70
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    ...no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report...

    Since you seem to be having some trouble with reading comprehension I'll help you out. That very clearly says it can't be used to sue anyone. So it can't be used in court to sue anyone, but otherwise it can be used in court.

    Now you can keep making stuff up in your head if you like but it won't change what that actually says.


  • Options
    #71
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    I was pointing out that it's in pretty much every contract you'll read, to show that not every single contract is part of a conspiracy. It's a standard practice when there's a fear of some idiot taking advantage of others.


    It's only called the bible of debunkers by conspiracists who can't argue the points it makes. And if you want to bring up all the points that you do find flaw with, then the authors names are on the cover (just make sure you don't try and sue them ;) ).

    Ignoring is not the same as demoloshing.



    Yes it can. BUT there was a disclaimer put in to say that you can't sue the authors of it. This is absolutely no proof or even evidence of anything but societies stupidity when it comes to suing everyone about everything. Period

    Again it's not a contract. It was supposed to be an expertise and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed. Mossad and co are finished.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    Since you seem to be having some trouble with reading comprehension I'll help you out. That very clearly says it can't be used to sue anyone. So it can't be used in court to sue anyone, but otherwise it can be used in court.

    Now you can keep making stuff up in your head if you like but it won't change what that actually says.

    It's exactly what I am saying. It has no value. Thank you for confirming.


  • Options
    #73
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Again it's not a contract. It was supposed to be an expertise and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed. Mossad and co are finished.

    Well seeing as the NIST put forward quite a long and detailed account of what happened, backed up by mountains of source documents and testimonies, and that is a failure in your book.

    Can you show where someone has put forward a successful argument, or indeed any argument, where it proves "Mossad and co" were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?


  • Options
    #74
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    It's exactly what I am saying. It has no value. Thank you for confirming.

    We seem to be back to your reading comprehension again.

    No what you're saying is it can't be used in court which it can. So you are very clearly mistaken, there's no debate... you are wrong.

    If you're going to be fantasising about this I'll leave you to it.


  • Options
    #75
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    yekahs wrote: »
    Well seeing as the NIST put forward quite a long and detailed account of what happened, backed up by mountains of source documents and testimonies, and that is a failure in your book.

    Can you show where someone has put forward a successful argument, or indeed any argument, where it proves "Mossad and co" were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

    Testimonies? What about the testimonies of the people who heard explosions in the lobby? None of them was interviewed by NIST.
    Any proof that Bin Laden did it?


  • Options
    #76
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Testimonies? What about the testimonies of the people who heard explosions in the lobby? None of them was interviewed by NIST.

    Sweet jesus man I've said this to you at least 3 times. Explosion is not the same as explosives.
    TMoreno wrote: »
    Any proof that Bin Laden did it?

    Well he said he did it. Seems like an honest religious fella too.


  • Options
    #77
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Testimonies? What about the testimonies of the people who heard explosions in the lobby? None of them was interviewed by NIST.
    Any proof that Bin Laden did it?
    There's evidence that he did. There's little proof of anything (even a cover up).


  • Options
    #78
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    We seem to be back to your reading comprehension again.

    No what you're saying is it can't be used in court which it can. So you are very clearly mistaken, there's no debate... you are wrong.

    If you're going to be fantasising about this I'll leave you to it.

    no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report pXXVIII NCSTAR 1-9,vol1.

    If you can't read it is not my fault. You don't understand English.


  • Options
    #79
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    There's evidence that he did. There's little proof of anything (even a cover up).

    Show me the proof that Bin Laden did it.


  • Options
    #80
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TMoreno wrote: »
    no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report pXXVIII NCSTAR 1-9,vol1.

    If you can't read it is not my fault. You don't understand English.

    A suit is a lawsuit i.e. suing someone for damages like it says. But otherwise it can be used in court. Are you taking the piss?


  • Options
    #81
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    Sweet jesus man I've said this to you at least 3 times. Explosion is not the same as explosives.



    Well he said he did it. Seems like an honest religious fella too.

    NIST did not look for explosives. They admit it in the report. That's not a scientific research.
    Bin Laden said he did not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    I did not think the Fox News discussion said too much.

    Either through incompetence, or a deliberate strategy, the different agencies were NOT to cooperate, by order, so it was an official policy but for what reason was not proven.


  • Options
    #83
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Show me the proof that Bin Laden did it.
    Maybe you want to read my post again.


  • Options
    #84
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TMoreno wrote: »
    no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the national Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report pXXVIII NCSTAR 1-9,vol1.

    If you can't read it is not my fault. You don't understand English.

    I am begining to think you are taking the piss now or deliberatly missing the point

    What you have quoted and bolded does not say what you are saying it does

    This has been pointed out to you several times now


  • Options
    #85
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    meglome wrote: »
    A suit is a lawsuit i.e. suing someone for damages like it says. But otherwise it can be used in court. Are you taking the piss?

    You are taking the piss. You don't read the text. NIST write that you can't use this report to sue anyone and you say that it does not mean that you can't use it in court. If they had written that you can't use it in a court you would have told me that you can't use in a tribunal. That's just bad faith.


  • Options
    #86
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    TMoreno wrote: »
    Testimonies? What about the testimonies of the people who heard explosions in the lobby? None of them was interviewed by NIST.
    Any proof that Bin Laden did it?

    Nice dodge. :)

    I am not interested in discussing those things at the moment though, I'd rather hear why you believe "Mossad and co." are responsible. I mean there is obviously a good reason why you suspect them, but dismiss the official narrative.


  • Options
    #87
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    The Recliner wrote: »
    I am begining to think you are taking the piss now or deliberatly missing the point

    What you have quoted and bolded does not say what you are saying it does

    This has been pointed out to you several times now

    You are taking the piss. What I read and what I say is clear. The report says you can't use it to sue anyone. Period. I leave it there.


  • Options
    #88
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    TMoreno wrote: »
    The report says you can't use it to sue anyone. Period. I leave it there.

    Now you get it!


  • Options
    #89
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TMoreno wrote: »
    You are taking the piss. What I read and what I say is clear. The report says you can't use it to sue anyone. Period. I leave it there.
    Finally. But I assume you still don't realise that you can use it in a court for non-lawsuit related reasons.


  • Options
    #90
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    humanji wrote: »
    Finally. But I assume you still don't realise that you can use it in a court for non-lawsuit related reasons.

    Exactly. I think this is the part he doesn't realise.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    TMoreno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭TMoreno


    humanji wrote: »
    Finally. But I assume you still don't realise that you can use it in a court for non-lawsuit related reasons.

    If it was used in a court it would be exposed as a fraud. The district attorney would question the unscientific methodology of the report, he would ask why they did not look for explosives. The people who produced the NIST report would be sued for perjury. I can't wait the trial of KSM " the mastermind for 9/11". Make no mistake it will never happen.


Advertisement