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

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Remember also that conspiracy theorists claim that thermite was used, which is not an explosive and does not produce a banging sound.

    On top of this, we have the problem that if they indeed used thermite, then it couldn't possibly look like a typical controlled demolition as no demolition has ever used thermite.

    It's funny how they use completely contradictory claims like this.

    Really thermite making a bang at the end of this video and this not what they most likely used if I was to bet. Probably this rumoured nano-thermite explosive and this only speculation.



  • Options
    #93
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    Lol if you believe 9/11 ya would believe anything

    FBI officials didn't buy the official narrative of 9/11 either we not alone on this. So we are in good company. Sure they mightn't believe the buildings were brought down by explosives but they know the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it. Even if we totally wrong on the buildings were taken down by explosives there was a conspiracy on 9/11 and lot of facts are still unknown. The official narrative is not true and that's just a fact when you look at the entirety of the evidence.


  • Options
    #94
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    a big bang

    No demolition explosive sounds were heard or recorded. By anyone.


  • Options
    #95
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    FBI officials didn't buy the official narrative of 9/11 either we not alone on this.

    A couple of officials differed on specific details.

    They don't think that e.g. Rumsfeld orchestrated it, or that WTC 7 was "blown up"

    There is no credible evidence whatsoever that WTC 7 was blown up.


  • Options
    #96
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A couple of officials differed on specific details.

    They don't think that e.g. Rumsfeld orchestrated it, or that WTC 7 was "blown up"

    There is no credible evidence whatsoever that WTC 7 was blown up.

    The official head guy who investigated the 9/11 attacks for the FBI said the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it. Don't you think this is should have been investigated probably instead of being stifled at every turn by politicians? The FBI was frustrated they couldn't carry out their work and bring these preparators to justice?

    Sure but that doesn't mean the wider conspiracy doesn't exist. If rogue people in Saudi Arabia with political and religious ties to the Saudi government knew and funded the attacks, is it beyond the realm of possibility this group was working with rogue elements inside the US defence and political and business establishment?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    There was a 20th Hijacker who still been imprisoned still to this day Zacarias Moussaoui,. In his letters and talks to his lawyers.

    He said the operation was planned by Saudi Arabia and US. If was allowed to talk freely in a open court case we probably learn alot about what happened leading up to the attacks.


  • Options
    #98
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The official head guy who investigated the 9/11 attacks for the FBI said the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it.

    Which head? and source for that?
    Sure but that doesn't mean the wider conspiracy doesn't exist. If rogue people in Saudi Arabia with political and religious ties to the Saudi government knew and funded the attacks, is it beyond the realm of possibility this group was working with rogue elements inside the US defence and political and business establishment?

    AKA an agent (or agents) may have believed Saudi had a bigger role (that some senior figures in Saud potentially knew - which is not the current consensus) but you've used that the make the enormous leap to suggesting fantastical person notions e.g. WTC 7 was blown up

    Do any FBI agents who worked the case support the notion that WTC 7 was blown up? No
    Does any legitimate investigation support it? No
    Does any credible evidence support it? No

    There is no mystery as to how WTC 7 fell. But there are people who have a passion for mysteries - who badly want it to be that way

    They'll use any tool or method they can to discredit the established version of events in order to promote it as a "mystery" or "conspiracy"


  • Options
    #99
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They'll use any tool or method they can to discredit the established version of events in order to promote it as a "mystery" or "conspiracy"
    Like for instance say that it's a standard demolition, that uses thermite, which has never been used for a demolition ever. Then also say there were explosions consistent with demolition charges, which thermite does not produce.
    Then they also say there was molten metal which would not be the result of either explosions or thermite. Molten metal is never present at the site of a controlled demolition.

    All of these different scenarios cannot be true at the same time, but conspiracy theorist all think they are 100% proof that there was a conspiracy.
    Much like how conspiracy theorists use the same evidence to prove there were no planes...


  • Options
    #100
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,566 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    King Mob wrote: »
    Like for instance say that it's a standard demolition, that uses thermite, which has never been used for a demolition ever. Then also say there were explosions consistent with demolition charges, which thermite does not produce.
    Then they also say there was molten metal which would not be the result of either explosions or thermite. Molten metal is never present at the site of a controlled demolition.

    All of these different scenarios cannot be true at the same time, but conspiracy theorist all think they are 100% proof that there was a conspiracy.
    Much like how conspiracy theorists use the same evidence to prove there were no planes...

    If you believe in fairytales you believe 9/11. Sounds like your one of them


  • Options
    #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    If you believe in fairytales you believe 9/11. Sounds like your one of them
    No, I believe in the real accounts of 9/11 because you conspiracy theorists have failed to be convincing.
    Like for instance, you are not addressing any of our points. You are only parroting silly catch phrases like the above. Accusing me of believing in fairytales does not address any of the contradictions in the conspiracy theory. Accusing me of being "one of them" (whatever that means) is rather silly and hypocritical when you are accusing people of believing silly things.

    So again, could you explain:
    Why is there no sound of demolition charges?
    Which method do you believe was used, Demolition charges? Thermite? Mini Nukes? Space Lasers?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which head? and source for that?



    AKA an agent (or agents) may have believed Saudi had a bigger role (that some senior figures in Saud potentially knew - which is not the current consensus) but you've used that the make the enormous leap to suggesting fantastical person notions e.g. WTC 7 was blown up

    Do any FBI agents who worked the case support the notion that WTC 7 was blown up? No
    Does any legitimate investigation support it? No
    Does any credible evidence support it? No

    There is no mystery as to how WTC 7 fell. But there are people who have a passion for mysteries - who badly want it to be that way

    They'll use any tool or method they can to discredit the established version of events in order to promote it as a "mystery" or "conspiracy"

    In a powerful sworn statement, the FBI agent who led a 400-member Los Angeles-based task force on the 9/11 attacks has accused the 9/11 Commission of making “incorrect” statements to the American public about his team’s investigative findings.

    “Based on the evidence we gathered during the course of our investigation, I concluded that diplomatic and intelligence personnel of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two 9/11 hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot. My colleagues in our investigation shared that conclusion,” Moore said in his statement filed on behalf of thousands of 9/11 survivors and the relatives of nearly 3,000 dead.

    There lots more in this link what he thought if you truly are interested?
    http://www.floridabulldog.org/2017/11/ex-fbi-agent-says-911-commission-misled-public/


  • Options
    #103
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, I believe in the real accounts of 9/11 because you conspiracy theorists have failed to be convincing.
    Like for instance, you are not addressing any of our points. You are only parroting silly catch phrases like the above. Accusing me of believing in fairytales does not address any of the contradictions in the conspiracy theory. Accusing me of being "one of them" (whatever that means) is rather silly and hypocritical when you are accusing people of believing silly things.

    So again, could you explain:
    Why is there no sound of demolition charges?
    Which method do you believe was used, Demolition charges? Thermite? Mini Nukes? Space Lasers?

    I already provided a video with demolition examples and a couple of the buildings were brought down with only one single bang heard. On 9/11 a single loud bang was heard blocks away and the audio was picked up. Second or two later the Penthouse caved in. This pretty consistent with a demolition going off, you'll hear the bang and then a second or two later the building falls.


  • Options
    #104
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    If you believe in fairytales you believe 9/11. Sounds like your one of them

    The official version is bogus. Even if the buildings were not brought down there clearly is a conspiracy to cover up another country involvement with it ie Saudi Arabia.

    No Saudi diplomatic and intelligence personnel have has a criminal case brought against them. We don't know why they did it or anything it still a big mystery. Why were Saudi diplomats and Intelligence so keen to have 9/11 happen?

    That's why I am open to a wider conspiracy. A very high-risk strategy to carry out a false flag against a country as powerful as the United States and they are your allies! America could have attacked Saudi Arabia if it wasn't covered up that's why I have a feeling these Saudi government officials knew they were being protected before 9/11.


  • Options
    #105
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,566 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Ya think bin laden would have admitted to doing 9/11 but he never once did. He was the boogeyman they needed. 9/11 was a military operation nothing terrorist about it.


  • Options
    #106
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    In a powerful sworn statement

    He believed that two people, a Saudi diplomat and a potential Saudi agent played a bigger role. That differed from the commission's view. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong.

    That's nothing to do with your notion that WTC 7 was "blown up". Or DR Judy Wood's theory that the towers were dustified by energy weapons. Or that hologram planes were used. Or that the planes were remote controlled.

    Finding a disagreement in an investigation does not mean it's open season entertain bizarre and whacky theories about an event.


  • Options
    #107
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I already provided a video with demolition examples

    No demolition explosives were heard on that day. None were recorded.

    Were there loud bangs? plenty


  • Options
    #108
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    Ya think bin laden would have admitted to doing 9/11 but he never once did. He was the boogeyman they needed. 9/11 was a military operation nothing terrorist about it.
    This addresses zero of the points put to you. Again, it's just a silly, empty catch phase you are parroting.

    Why do you thing a point like this would convince anyone, especially when you will ignore any points or questions about it?
    Do you expect people to just swallow it without question?


  • Options
    #109
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He believed that two people, a Saudi diplomat and a potential Saudi agent played a bigger role. That differed from the commission's view. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong.

    That's nothing to do with your notion that WTC 7 was "blown up". Or DR Judy Wood's theory that the towers were dustified by energy weapons. Or that hologram planes were used. Or that the planes were remote controlled.

    Finding a disagreement in an investigation does not mean it's open season entertain bizarre and whacky theories about an event.

    There likely more Saudis involved, but those two Saudi officials were named in the 29 pages of the 9/11 report so they can refer to them in news pieces. A third official more senior Saudi official, that name was classified for national security reasons so we still don't know who that person was and what was their involvement. How can the leading investigator into the 9/11 attacks be wrong? We also know the money that came from Princess Haifa account ended up funding two of the 9/11 hijackers stay in the United States. Princess Haifa was the Wife of Bandar bin Sultan (friend of the Bush family) and Bandar, as we know in 2001, was Ambassador to the United States and later became the head of Saudi Intelligence.

    Lot this stuff not fully investigated we don't know how deep this rabbit hole goes and what other connections there potentially might be found if truly investigated. If Saudi Intelligence and diplomats were involved why should anyone rule out the possibility there was deep state involvement too in it?


  • Options
    #110
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Lot this stuff not fully investigated we don't how deep this rabbit goes

    Sure, by your logic if you can find one disagreement, grey area or discrepancy, then we can't rule out that the towers were "dustified" by invisible energy weapons or that aliens did it or that WTC 7 was blown up

    Each is as valid as the other


  • Options
    #111
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No demolition explosives were heard on that day. None were recorded.

    Were there loud bangs? plenty

    Again I have shown you examples of demolitions. Some buildings you hear multiple bangs then the building collapses. Others you hear one bang and the building falls. If all demolitions sounded the same you have a point, but they don't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Some buildings you hear multiple bangs then the building collapses

    There were no explosive sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    If you watch any demolition (with normal audio) there is no "grey area" about it

    Subjectively playing with definitions, sounds, semantics doesn't change the fact that there is zero credible evidence that WTC 7 was demolished

    You're also contradicting a large portion of truthers who believe it was "silently" demolished. It's a "make it up as you go along" hobby.


  • Options
    #113
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Sure, by your logic if you can find one disagreement, grey area or discrepancy, then we can't rule out that the towers were "dustified" by invisible energy weapons or that aliens did it or that WTC 7 was blown up

    Each is as valid as the other

    Saudi Arabia officials facilitated the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people and this lead on to 15-year war in the Middle East. Million + in Iraq and Syria who died over this since 2001 deserve answers. The repercussions from this event are still ongoing today.


    We had an official story Bin Laden was behind it but as the years pass we now seeing more information Saudi governments officials helped them. Why and for what purpose was this done and who if anyone in the US was involved? I have a hard time believing nobody in the deep state was aware the Saudis were helping the Hijackers pre 9/11

    People have looked at NIST WTC7 theory if how the building came down and found inconsistencies in their work. Never mind the building was reported to have come down almost an hour before it did ( pretty big mess up if events did not turn out way
    it was reported)

    Aliens brought down the towers is a new one haven't heard that one:D

    Energy weapons are unrealistic and only a few crackpots support this theory.


  • Options
    #114
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were no explosive sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    If you watch any demolition (with normal audio) there is no "grey area" about it

    Subjectively playing with definitions, sounds, semantics doesn't change the fact that there is zero credible evidence that WTC 7 was demolished

    You're also contradicting a large portion of truthers who believe it was "silently" demolished. It's a "make it up as you go along" hobby.

    There no messing with the sound the video came from NIST own archive. You can't silently blow up a building I not sure what truthers you're referring to? There has to a bang a noise to be heard before the building collapsed and that was captured there no doubt on that. Whatever that bang was pre 1 or 2 seconds before the Penthouse caved in. So It not ludicrous to believe the loud bang was the catalyst that caused the collapse.

    There plenty of evidence light fires were only ablaze on one side of the building when it collapsed. The truthers discovering there was no resistant from the other cores when it came down at freefall speed ( NIST denied freefall for years by the way) so who do you trust the guys who constantly get it wrong or the people who get it right? Never mind in NIST study they removed shear studs from the girders where the collapse began. Truthers later on proven they were wrong to do so as they found the constructions drawings for WTC7 and there was shear studs connections on the girders to stop lateral movements and buckling. This still to this day has never been changed in the NIST findings. Even Aegis Insurance agreed with the truthers.


  • Options
    #115
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    Energy weapons are unrealistic and only a few crackpots support this theory.

    Ah a 47 story building being "secretly" blown up in broad daylight under the full attention of the world which has as much evidence as the energy weapons one is a far better bet.. because it's the least stupid conspiracy theory

    That's a compelling case


  • Options
    #116
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Ah a 47 story building being "secretly" blown up in broad daylight under the full attention of the world
    And also, remember that it was done with secret nano-thermite which both explodes and also produces large flows of molten metal. (neither of which thermite does.)


  • Options
    #117
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    And also, remember that it was done with secret nano-thermite which both explodes and also produces large flows of molten metal. (neither of which thermite does.)

    Wait you said "molten", I've decided that word means something else than what the experts mean in context. Therefore, by virtue of my own definitions, the use of molten in the NIST report is a "lie"

    Simply by casting one piece of false doubt (using disingenuous subjective definitions) I've "discredited" the entire NIST investigation


  • Options
    #118
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,566 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Problem is all the diff conspiracies all trying to outdo each other. It plays into the hands of people actually who actually did it. Saudis , Israel and USA. It’s not about why would they do it but more so why wouldn’t they. So many gains from it happening to this day..

    No idea how the towers came down prob explosives. As we hve no footage of plane hitting pentagon it was prob an explosion. These two things prob never find out.


  • Options
    #119
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Ah a 47 story building being "secretly" blown up in broad daylight under the full attention of the world which has as much evidence as the energy weapons one is a far better bet.. because it's the least stupid conspiracy theory

    That's a compelling case

    Just because you didn't see the people rig up for explosion ahead of time doesn't mean that now how it happened. Obviously, things were happening on September 10th and before nobody has a clue about and probably never know.


  • Options
    #120
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    And also, remember that it was done with secret nano-thermite which both explodes and also produces large flows of molten metal. (neither of which thermite does.)

    Its a theory based on the eyewitnesses accounts of seeing molten metal flowing out of the buildings on 9/11. What could have caused the metal, steel and iron to melt? For molten steel and iron to occur temperatures are exceeding what capable in an office fire even with jet fuel in the Twin Towers. NIST denies anyone saw molten metal even though there countless eyewitnesses and photographs and videos. NIST know better than people who worked on the site that day and then with the cleanup.

    Thermite mixing with fire would melt steel to suggest it wouldn't is crazy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    As we hve no footage of plane hitting pentagon it was prob an explosion. These two things prob never find out.

    There is some footage - it shows a plane. The majority of witnesses support a plane. The wreckage is of.. that plane. The missing people were on.. that plane. The air traffic control tracked.. that plane. The hijackers were traced to.. that plane.

    It's not some mystery


Advertisement