Secret Note Discovered in Stomach of "AA77" Passenger

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Aug 1, 2018.

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. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Neither do I. I've looked into the claims presented against the 'OCT" and counter-conspiracy theories and every time, each falls flat on its face.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said I don't believe it either, that's correct. Yes you missed it because I said very clearly I'm skeptical of all US government claims about 9/11 given the track record.

    Yes my apologies, I missed the post where you posted the EXACT same photo (but a bit larger) that was originally posted in Honegger's letter to Trump. I merely posted a photo that's much larger allegedly superimposed on the remaining section of the Pentagon (I assume for reference if true). So it's not doctored and it doesn't change anything for me. I remain skeptical that a large commercial airliner penetrated the Pentagon BASED on the photo and many, many other factors. Like I said in earlier posts, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it also doesn't mean that the airliner was not AA77 but it does mean there is NO PHYSICAL PROOF and for sure the US government has zero credibility.

    None of these are my or your photos, they are simply photos, at least one of which was allegedly obtained via a FOIA request.

    ALL of it as of today. At least I have never read a post from you that is anything other than a rabid defense of the OCT, every aspect of it. But you certainly can correct me if I'm wrong.

    It isn't by itself and I never claimed it is. Why are you always trying to invent things about me out of context?

    A perfect example of your machinations. You know full well I've posted a ton of incontrovertible evidence that the official narrative is a blatant crock. In this forum and the other biased one you frequent that eloquently booted me. You just deny all of it and defend it all.

    Yeah it's pretty amazing how you've concluded that ALL counter-theories and FACTS ALL fall flat on their face. How about ALL these too?:

    Who are you trying to fool Gamolon, me or yourself? I'm quite inclined to believe you have reasonable intelligence based on your posts, the problem is you use that intelligence for sheer phoniness. I don't really know what your agenda is but you really aren't fooling me in the least, your phoniness is quite glaring.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's get straight to the point. You have claimed that "the alleged plane would have to have punched holes through several rings". Please explain that. Holes punched into/through what exactly? Please explain.

    What do you mean it's not doctored? Here is the photo you posted and claimed was a photo before the collapse:
    compmix2.jpg

    So I marked the photo you presented with a red border which encompasses an area added to the original:
    compmix3.jpg

    The area within the red border came from the photo below:
    pent3.jpg

    The area outside of the red border came from the image below:
    Pentagon1.PNG

    And you want to claim the photo you presented was not doctored in any way? That's laughable. It's even funnier that you claimed it was a photo from before the collapse when in fact it's a picture that combines both a photo before the collapse and one after.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    May I ask what you find so persuasive about the OCT?

    May I also ask if you have a photo of the "exit hole" at the pentagon?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have anything straight, you're deliberately convoluting what I post as usual. I don't have to explain anything, that's the official claim, not mine. I'm sure you understand the meaning of the word alleged.Why would I need to explain the official narrative? That's your agenda not mine.

    The photo (within the red border) is allegedly one claimed to be from a FOIA release prior to the collapse of the Pentagon wall. It's not my claim, it's Honegger's claim. And the one you posted within the red border is identical to the one Honegger posted in the letter. What's so difficult about that?

    Go back and read earlier posts for comprehension, this is a waste of time.

    I do note that you addressed nothing about the list of 29 facts I recently posted though that I'm sure you read these before and still claim everything that challenges the official theory "falls flat on their face". Deliberately selective mentality as usual. You only keep confirming my assessment of your phoniness.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My guess is that he doesn't, he just pretends to for some kind of personal agenda. I really don't believe he's that obtuse, his posts exhibit a lot more intelligence than that.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Absolutely you may ask.

    I find the "OCT" to be the most plausible and most supported (by evidence) in explaining what happened that day compared to any other conspiracy theory. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence that shows it to be incorrect. As I said before, anytime I went down someone's conspiracy theory rabbit hole, I always found quotes taken out of context, incorrect information, things that weren't exactly what folks made them out to be or mean, etc. There was never anything of substance in any of the conspiracy theories to overtake the "OCT" explanation.

    I'll give you a couple of examples.

    Harrit and his thermite paper. He says that there are red, unreacted thermite chips in the dust samples he examined. He also said there were red primer paint chips in the samples. Steven Jones, one of his partners in crime, did a slide show presentation. One of the slides presented was of the XEDS spectra of a red paint chip found in the dust samples. You know what? It matched the XEDS spectra of a proclaimed thermite chip in Harrit's paper. You know what else? According to Harrit's paper, he never tested any of the TWO different types of steel primer paint chips to compare. He used EXTERNAL book sources for his primer paint characteristics. Mark Basile, a chemist, had gotten $5,000 in donations 4 1/2 years ago to verify Harrit's findings via independent labs. We're still waiting. His proposal wa to gather both primer paint chips and the thermite chips and send them off to an independent lab to be analyzed. 4 1/2 years and people are STILL waiting for this report.

    Judy Wood claimed that cars were toasted by a beam weapon some distance from ground zero. people tried to tell her that the the toasted cars were MOVED from ground zero to their resting places, but she denied that. I found proof that cars were moved and presented my case with photos.

    That's just a couple of the things I found while researching.

    I do not personally. I use what I find on the internet. Why do you ask?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So if you're repeating it, I'm sure you have a quote of the "official claim" that you are quoting then right? Please provide a link to the "official claim" that "the plane punched several holes through several rings" of the Pentagon. "Punched holes through several rings" has a totally different implication then "passed through rings".

    You posted that photo here parroting it was a photo from before the collapse. That's simply not true. It is a photo that combines both picture from PRIOR to the collapse and AFTER the collapse. You were furthering incorrect information no matter how you want to spin it or who you want to say provided the picture. You didn't research any further and just took it for face value. I did research and found out you were wrong. Deal with it and move on. I'm sure if I posted something that was incorrect you'd be all over it, whether it was from me directly or another source right Bob? Get off your high horse already.

    I did address them. None of them have anything to do with the characteristics and explanations of the physical attacks carried out or their results.Your 29 points deal with procedural failures and why the attacks happened when they should have been avoided. It all looks like people covering their butts because they screwed up.
     
    Shinebox likes this.
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here's one of the most ridiculous quotes yet. You claim Hulsey PROVED NIST was wrong, but in the same breath, admit his paper hasn't been released yet nor has it been peer reviewed!

    What a joke!

    You're citing a paper as PROOF when said paper is STILL in the process of being worked on and has not been peer reviewed?! That's just awesome Bob!
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, according to you the holes were there before the planes "passed through" them. Not sure what your point is but it is really silly.

    I suggest you do the same, I'm not interested in your asinine assessment of the photo issue.

    Yes you did and I will address that in the proper thread. I merely brought it up in this thread as a response to another post.

    What I posted very clearly is this:

    The PROOF exists on many different levels regardless of peer review or not, well before Hulsey confirmed it in his preliminary paper.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To quote you...
    So Bob, why do YOU need to invent things about ME?
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, the point is, there were not "several holes punched through several of the rings". That would imply there more than two external type walls for the plane to "punch" through. You do realize the areas between E and D rings and D and C rings had two story buildings there. There were no internal walls of the rings to "punch through" or "put holes in". The walls, from what the damage assessment drawings show, are on the outside of the E ring were the plane impacted and the outside of the C ring were the exit hole is at.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You seem to have missed me addressing your Hulsey garbage Bob.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have any "Hulsey garbage". That's pretty juvenile of you to label Hulsey's work "garbage" and quite hypocritical since you admit the 9/11 Commission Report was strictly CYA and never called that "garbage".
     
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would call the 9/11 Commission Report "garbage" but it doesn't change the kinetic events of 9/11 ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No Bob. Let me explain since you are having more comprehension issues.

    The key point in my sentence was "YOUR Hulsey garbage". It had nothing to do with Hulsey or his report. It had everything to do with your statement that Hulsey's report proved something when it isn't even finished nor has it been peer reviewed. That statement of yours was garbage.

    Get it now?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well if you would call it "garbage", the events of 9/11 are described within that garbage so that description is garbage by your own assessment. Nothing changes the events of 9/11, they are what they are. The problem is we don't know what they really are because 9/11 has never been legitimately investigated.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :applause:
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already explained it but since YOU're having more comprehension issues (or pretending to), I have nothing more to add for you that YOU would comprehend. Look, I'm not here to educate you or convince you of anything, it's not my job. I'm merely here to discuss 9/11 issues. For me it's long been settled (before I ever heard of Hulsey) that the 9/11 Commission Report and all the NIST reports are atrocious criminal scams designed to coverup the massive crime known as 9/11. For you it's all just CYA and can't possibly be anything else. It's quite ok with me but I don't believe that's your true assessment, that's it. Take it as you will, it makes no difference to me. For me you're here fighting really hard to try to convince me and/or others that the OCT is defensible, every single nook and cranny of it, despite that you already claim it's strictly CYA. If that makes sense to you or anyone else, that's also ok with me. For me it makes zero sense and neither do you make any sense.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah DUH, what a revelation! No investigation or report changes what happened on 9/11, give the guy a round of applause for that brilliant statement.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I see you completely skipped the point of my post addressing the fact that you think Hulsey proved something in his report even though it's still being worked on and hasn't been peer reviewed.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn’t skip anything. I already explained that Hulsey’s preliminary report confirmed much of what other experts concluded and more. I’m quite confident that his final report available for peer review will only reaffirm his preliminary report and that perhaps with some minor disagreements and adjustments will not be rejected on peer review. If you read some of my many opinions on it, you would know that I questioned his conclusion that it was proof that WTC7 did not collapse primarily due to fire. I am waiting for his final report to show that, among other things. Note it does not mean that I believe WTC7 collapsed primarily due to fire. But you don’t want to discuss it so that’s fine.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What was scientifically proven by Hulsey's preliminary report Bob?
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hulsey preliminarily confirmed that the NIST report on WTC7 is filled with obfuscations, manipulated data, omitted data, distortions, fallacies, etc. that render the NIST theory impossible even when NIST's own fake data is applied. And that the data and methodology was designed to lead NIST to a specific conclusion. Did you miss it? I thought you didn't want to discuss it because you're anxiously waiting for the final version for peer review.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The irony of course is that you think something needs to be completed to be 'proven', dream on, it was crystal clear NIST report was purely fraud before any 3rd parties began to take a look at it. huxleys analysis merely dot the t's and crosses the i's, to confirm it beyond a shadow of doubt for the oct worshipers that failed physics.
    Does that clear things up a bit for you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
    Bob0627 likes this.

Share This Page