Secret Note Discovered in Stomach of "AA77" Passenger

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This "waiting" for Hulsey's final report is really buying time and hoping and praying it's never published for peer review. Just the usual phoniness. That's the real reason none of them want to discuss the details of Hulsey's preliminary analysis I've challenge all to discuss. Once it's published for peer review and approved by the scientific community at large. it becomes settled science and that's terrifying to the OCT huggers. What's really going to change from his preliminary report? If anything probably a lot more detail and other supporting factors, such as the promised computer simulation(s) created by Hulsey's team. The heart of it is done and already explains in vivid detail how WTC7 could not possibly have collapsed even given NIST's contrived and deliberately biased data. That will not very likely change because much of it was well exposed well before Hulsey was even a discussion point. One only needs to look at the date this thread was created that contains a wealth of non-Hulsey detail:

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

    And a similar thread in another forum perhaps a couple of years earlier.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So I guess you also agree that he has "preliminarily" confirmed that WTC7 could not have been brought down by fire?
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That "exit hole" photo might help explain why a person might claim that "AA77" penetrated through a number of walls at the pentagon building, that's all. If you know which photo I'm talking about, the official story was that the nose of the airplane made it, virtually a perfect circle.

    As to the persuasive qualities of the OCT, how can it be true considering the testimony of Wallace Miller of Somerset PA, the coroner?

    If any element of a story is false, that renders the entire story invalid. If we judge element by element of the OCT, many elements fail, rendering the theory itself invalid.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    But it didn't make it through a "number of walls". It made it through two according to damage assessment drawings. The outer wall of ring E where the impact took place and the outer wall of ring C that has the exit hole.

    What testimony are you referring to? Can you provide a link so we are both on the same page?

    I see.

    So Judy Wood's theory is invalid because she claimed as part of her proof that cars were "toasted" quite a distance from ground zero and said that the explanation that said cars were moved to their distant location from ground zero were bunk. I proved they they moved vehicles. So her theory is invalid.

    Harrit showed spectra of what he claims were thermite chips. Steven Jones later should a slide of spectra from a primer paint chip. They were both the same. That makes Harrit's paper invalid.

    We can go on if you'd like. Do you have a theory that you believe in?
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In March of 2012 Miller was interviewed by Christopher Bollyn. Sorry, no link, but there is an article written by Bollyn, and published in his book "Solving 9-11".

    Miller finally explained, 11 years later, why he changed his testimony so drastically that day. He had been persuaded by the FBI to be a "team player" and reverse his initial statement in which he said he found nothing in that field that suggested an airliner had crashed there.

    On pentagon, airplanes travel in straight lines, and the straight line from the supposed point of impact to the supposed exit hole goes through a number of walls.

    Woods? Who cares?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Can you provide a link to the quote or information were the ""OCT" claims that it was the nose.

    Thanks.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Two walls as I have explained, not "a number". Do you disagree?

    Do you believe in a particular theory? If so, which one?
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=wallace_miller_1
    I see all kinds of different things being said or observed by Wallace. Some quotes say he saw vertebrae. One says he didn't see a drop of blood. So I guess HIS testimony is invalid because he contradicts himself. His testimony can't be counted on.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I agree to is that it is one of his primary claims. I question it because I don’t see how his analysis arrives at that conclusion but perhaps I’m missing something. That’s why I asked others to engage in a discussion of that particular conclusion. No one seems to be interested. Regardless, whether his conclusion that it was not brought down by fire is correct or not does not change the many factors that expose NIST’s fraud. For me that’s my particular primary concern, that all the official 9/11 investigations have been conclusively proven to be frauds. And as a result there has never been a legitimate investigation into 9/11. And by extension the OCT has no credibility.
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So you read through his preliminary paper? Can you link to it please?

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/
    Dr. Hulsey only use one static temperature distribution for his study? If so, why? The actual fires moved around heating the structure unevenly.

    What about this:
    At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but we're coming up on the 17th anniversary of the attacks. For years it has been promoted that way. As I recall, some piece of landing gear was nearby, suggesting the airplane was responsible.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can’t speak for Hulsey and I won’t attempt to. So far I agree that one of his primary claims looks to be unsupported. That his research concludes that WTC7 did not collapse primarily due to fire. However that does not change the illegitimate factors that led NIST to falsely claim that it did collapse primarily due to fire and that the NIST theory for the probable collapse inititiation was due to the failure of column 79.

    So with respect to Hulsey’s primary claim I will wait for additional detail which hopefully will be provided in his final paper. If not the peer review process I’m sure will scrutinize it.

    IMO if Hulsey cannot support his primary claim he should have just concentrated his study on critiquing NIST’s publication. It would be more than enough to prove that NIST falsified their analysis and their conclusion. And by extension that no legitimate investigation was ever conducted.

    But like I said I will await the final paper and peer review to hopefully solve that one dilemna. As an aside I did listen to the debate between West and Szamboti.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry I can't provide the link you seem to need so desperately, but again, this is 17 years old now. When first stepping out of the field he stated they found nothing there consistent with a crashed airliner. That statement was consistent with the many pictures taken from overhead which showed nothing in the field consistent with an airline accident.

    You may recall that eventually the feds "moved" the crash site from the open field to a forest area nearby. Bollyn's reporting covers all that.

    After initially stating they found and saw nothing in the field, hours later after the FBI arrived, he changed his story to claim that they did find something.

    So the curious citizen with an open mind is left wondering which statement is true and accurate? The first one before the FBI showed up, or the second one after he was persuaded to be a "team player" for the agency?
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When there is no agenda in most cases the freshest testimony is the most honest one.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  15. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Like the over 100 witnesses who watched the plane hit the Pentagon.
     
  16. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All kinds of plane residue was found inside the building, and some, including people, were found outside.
     
  17. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I would like to see that.

    More than likely it was an engine or landing gear, something with weight to it.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It has? The "nose" or "the fuselage"? Do you know the difference?
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Did you read his preliminary paper? Can you link it please?
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already provided a link to an entire discussion on it. Why would you even ask that question? Did you read it?

    See above it is contained within the thread. If you are so resourceful as well as critical about it you should have it handy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.

Share This Page