NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tedious diversionary and failing to address the argument. You interjected your spam into an exchange that you failed to understand, then when pointed out you start playing your part quote games.

    HOW DO THE WORDS "NO EVIDENCE" INVALIDATE THE REPORT AS PER THE CLAIM?

    Now REALLY, try to keep up.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh I understand it perfectly well. It just that post #136 has nothing at all to do with supporting Eleuthera's claim that the 63 "no evidence" instances invalidate the "official theory". Post #136 also has nothing to do with me calling Eleuthera's statement "complete garbage" and you asking me to prove why I think that.

    So again, I posted the first five "no evidence" instances from the report. Since you obviously disagree with me that Eleuthera's claim is "complete garbage", you MUST believe that all or some the 63 "no evidence" instances "invalidate" the "official theory" in some way like Eleuthera claims. Which ones are they?

    You're now trying really hard to shift the goalposts instead of discussing what you disagree with me about in regards to Eleuthera's statement.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree 100% which is why Bobby tries to divert the conversation away from Eleuthera's claim.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know you do, you did the first time you read it. In fact you understand every single post that contradicts the OCT and likely agree with the majority of these. You fool no one Gamo. I stand by what I posted like it or not, pretense or not. There are so many issues with the OCT and this one is trivial in comparison to many other major issues with 9/11 Commission Report. There is not one word within the report that has any credibility (as already well detailed) and "we found no evidence" repeated 63 times is just one very minor symptom of that scam.

    30. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.

    Patty said it best, their words, every single one of them, are ALL lies. No amount of pretentious/phony defense of the 9/11 Commission Report will ever change that fact.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you can't find any of the 63 "no evidence" instances that supposedly "invalidates" the "official theory" as Eleuthera claimed? Then may statement stands that Eleuthera's claim is COMPLETE GARBAGE.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Call it what you want, there is not one thing you post in defense of the OCT that has any relevance to 9/11 or the fact that the OCT is a complete scam.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry that's NOT what we were discussing at this particular point now is it Bobby. We were specifically discussing Eleuthera's statement regarding the 63 "no evidence" instances that supposedly "invalidated" the "official theory". Can you provide any of the 63 instances that "invalidate" the "official theory" like he claimed? Move along if you don't.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "WE" were not discussing anything that I'm interested in discussing beyond what I have already discussed and explained quite explicitly.

    Good idea, why don't you do that. I'm sure the list of OCT defenses in your arsenal is quite extensive.
     
  9. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with many 9/11 Truthers is that many of their beliefs are not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever. They rely on presumption with a hint of the "fantastical". This leads to pointless back and forth banter. Something i wish to avoid. There is absolutely no constructive conversation unfortunately in regards to 9/11 and i blame known frauds like Rebekah Roth, Christopher Bollyn, Loose Change, Alex Jones etc for infecting millions of minds with useless information.
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. Unfortunately your explanation was not about the "correctness" of Eleuthera's statement regarding 63 "no evidence" instances "invalidating" the official theory. You keep avoiding that like the plague.

    I wonder why.

    8)
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The statement was 100% correct. What you refuse to acknowledge (at least in this forum) even though I know that you know it's true is that the entire 9/11 Commission Report is bogus and a scam and that the report invalidates itself in many ways (as noted by each of 30 key facts). It's obvious you want to dwell on this trivial issue just for the purpose of creating a useless distraction in order to try to bury the facts.

    And I wonder why you've spend nearly 24/7 for years defending the OCT when you know it's a scam. Not that you or your posts are relevant to any 9/11 issue, it would just be interesting to know what your purpose/agenda is. That would also be true for all the 24/7 OCT defenders/apologists in this forum.

    According to this article, a 2016 Chapman University study found that more than half of Americans believe the US government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks:

    https://truepublica.org.uk/global/some-interesting-new-information-about-9-11/

    The most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.

    https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-they-telling-us/

    That means the 9/11 Commission Report is not very convincing to most Americans. If the rest only knew about just a few of those 30 facts I listed I'm sure many more would agree with the majority. I would guess the majority of those who do believe the 9/11 Commission Report don't have any clue about WTC7.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What does any of this have to do with Eleuthera's statement? I said it was a garbage statement and you challenged me on it and asked me to explain why. Now you don't want to have anything to do with discussing any of the 63 "no evidence" statements referenced by Eleuthera and are doing everything in your power to avoid discussing it.

    Interesting to say the least.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I told you many times I use posters with your mindset to pursue my own personal agenda so thanks for helping me do that. What I won't do is help you with your agenda, whatever that is.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I guess your personal agenda is to challenge people's claims and then run away?

    That's an... interesting agenda...

    :roflol:
     
    Adam Fitzgerald likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, that's not it Gamo. I challenged YOUR claim and you haven't shown one thing that comes close to your "garbage" description. Garbage would be the childish emoji you found necessary to support your post. There's no point in continuing this worthless "discussion" (if one could describe it as such). So in pursuit of MY agenda I posted several very worthwhile facts while you were busy pursuing YOUR agenda.
     

Share This Page