Proper Investigations

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

How do you dervie this:

"Well there was one report from a military witness near the Pentagon that the back of the plane (behind the wings) did not make it into the building."

From this:

'Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage. And then the fuselage was all gone."'

Even in the most imaginative reading it is difficult to conclude by the Sepulveda statement ".....and then the fuselage was gone" that somehow or another that means the fuselage never made it into the building.

NO this thread is about proper investigations.

You are correct, I got my threads confused.

Originally posted by hooper
Even in the most imaginative reading it is difficult to conclude by the Sepulveda statement ".....and then the fuselage was gone" that somehow or another that means the fuselage never made it into the building.

Well sorry if the facts get in the way of your imagination. Here is a fact from the Purdue study that shows the planes did not make it all the way into the building.

911research.wtc7.net...

The facts are between this witness statment and the fact that we know what the plane is made of the fact is the plane never made it all the way into the building.




[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Even in the most imaginative reading it is difficult to conclude by the Sepulveda statement ".....and then the fuselage was gone" that somehow or another that means the fuselage never made it into the building.

Well sorry if the facts get in the way of your imagination. Here is a fact from the Purdue study that shows the planes did not make it all the way into the building.


The facts are between this witness statment and the fact that we know what the plane is made of the fact is the plane never made it all the way into the building.
[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Cute. Can't help but notice that you did not include the caption for that little diagram. Remind me what that caption said again.
Was it something like:

"Idealized representation of impact on columns"

Or was it:

"Proof the whole plane never made it into the building"

I am pretty sure it was the former and not the latter.

Further explained:

"A frame from a physics-based simulation of an idealized airplane loaded with fuel impacting a set of spirally reinforced concrete columns (by Hoffmann and Kilic of Purdue University) is shown in figure 7.4. Although completely notional, their analysis senses the deceleration of the airframe as indicated by the buckling of the fuselage. It is also interesting to note that the columns are shown to tear into the airframe but get destroyed by the mass of the fluid in the wing tanks, events confirmed by the distribution of the debris."

Emphasis mine.

Pentagon Building Performance Report, pg. 47 and 48

Originally posted by hooper
Pentagon Building Performance Report, pg. 47 and 48

So again the plane did not makes it all the way into the buidling according to facts, evidnece and witness reports.

Originally posted by hooper
Pentagon Building Performance Report, pg. 47 and 48

So again the plane did not makes it all the way into the buidling according to facts, evidnece and witness reports.

As this photo shows the airframe of a airliner is to fragile to have made it all the way into the building.

i114.photobucket.com...


[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Pentagon Building Performance Report, pg. 47 and 48

So again the plane did not makes it all the way into the buidling according to facts, evidnece and witness reports.

As this photo shows the airframe of a airliner is to fragile to have made it all the way into the building.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

No, the plane did not make it into the building according to you and you alone. All "facts, evidence and witness reports" are to the contrary.

Originally posted by hooper
No, the plane did not make it into the building according to you and you alone. All "facts, evidence and witness reports" are to the contrary.

So show me these facts, evidence and witness reports.

Please try to show the facts and evidence i have posted wrong.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
No, the plane did not make it into the building according to you and you alone. All "facts, evidence and witness reports" are to the contrary.

So show me these facts, evidence and witness reports.

Please try to show the facts and evidence i have posted wrong.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Well, first you posted this:

911research.wtc7.net...

without posting the caption from the original source. That is not only incorrect it amounts to an attempt to decieve.

Originally posted by hooper
That is not only incorrect it amounts to an attempt to decieve.

Funny how you state the Purdue study to be incoorrect when your friends who still beleive the official story use it as evidence. You need to get together with those who beleive like you so you keep your stories straight.

Funny also how you keep avoiding all the other facts and evidence that show the plane did not make it into the building.

The photo i posted clearly shows that the aluminum airframe of an airliner is too fragiel to make it all the way into the building.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


You were being deceptive in posting a picture from a source and not including the caption for the picture from the source that explains the what is scene in the picture and the reason for its inclusion in the original document.

Originally posted by hooper
You were being deceptive

I used a site that otheres like you that beleive the official story use as evidence. You need to get together and get your stories straight.

Also you ignored all the other evindece that shows the plane did not make it all the way into the buidling.





[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

I used a site that otheres like you that beleive the official story use as evidence.

Again, posting a photo, diagram, chart, etc. from a source other than your own and deleting the creator's caption or description is deceptive.






[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by hooper
Again, posting a photo, diagram, chart, etc. from a source other than your own and deleting the creator's caption or description is deceptive.

I did not delete anything, i copy and pasted it as it was.

Again you refuse to accept and admit to the evidence that shows the plane DID NOT make it all the way into the building.





[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


All someone need do is go to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, pg. 47 and compare the photo as you linked it (without the caption it was published with) and the same photo on that page with the caption:

"Idealized representation of impact on columns".

The diagram is not posted as a actual representation of the behavior of Flight 77 and the Pentagon as you have so implied. It is "idealized" and meant only as a graphic representation of what happens when a plane impacts the columns.

Originally posted by hooper
The diagram is not posted as a actual representation of the behavior of Flight 77 and the Pentagon as you have so implied.

The diagram shows what the Purdue study concluded. Do you have evidence that the Purdue study is wrong. Should be interesting since all the people like you who still believe the official story use it.

Funny how you keep ignoring or refuse to accept all the other evidence that does show the plane could not make it all the way into the building.






[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Damian-007
I think 9/11 has been investigated, Scrutinised, Pull Apart, Analysed Profusely, Questioned, Blamed and whatever else you care to add.
In my opinion I have learnt all there is to know about 9/11 and I have formed my own opinions.

Problem is that since most of the evidence and official reports have not been released then you have not learned all there is to know.

Also something that makes my post different is that i can post facts and evidence to support what i post most people on here cannot.




[edit on 27-3-2010 by REMISNE]

You have also stated repeatedly that there was a Demo Inc truck outside WTF 7 on 9/11 and believe they went in to plant explosives while the building was on fire and about to collapse.

Do you also believe in the bogeyman?

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
You have also stated repeatedly that there was a Demo Inc truck outside WTF 7 on 9/11 and believe they went in to plant explosives while the building was on fire and about to collapse.

I have shown video of the demo truck around the WTC on 9/11. A newly panted truck with a phone number that is non-existant.

I have also shown a video of the hard hat workers who were inside the safety zone that was cleared at least 3 hours befoer the building was brought down.

I have shown lots of evidence from even the fire chiefs that show building 7 was brought down.

I will be waiting for your evidence to support what you believe happened.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
You have also stated repeatedly that there was a Demo Inc truck outside WTF 7 on 9/11 and believe they went in to plant explosives while the building was on fire and about to collapse.

I have shown video of the demo truck around the WTC on 9/11. A newly panted truck with a phone number that is non-existant.

I have also shown a video of the hard hat workers who were inside the safety zone that was cleared at least 3 hours befoer the building was brought down.

I have shown lots of evidence from even the fire chiefs that show building 7 was brought down.

I will be waiting for your evidence to support what you believe happened.

You have speculated many things, none of which is proof. You honestly think if they were gonna bring down wtf 7 and try to hide it, they would have a team in a Truck called Demos Inc ? Serious?, wow and you think they would go into the building to do this on 9/11 while the building is in a fragile state?

Serious question. If they wanted to do this to minimize collateral damage. Why would they have to lie about it?

When you have something that makes sense, post it. I'll be waiting. I think ridiculous theories like this take away from any credibility truthers have. If this was a plot I can guarantee you the explosives were planted long before 9/11.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by macaronicaesar]

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
You have speculated many things, none of which is proof.

I have shown facts and evidence, not speculation.

Sorry if the facts and evidence do not agree with what you believe happened.

lets look at a few facts to begin with.

1. Fire chief Nigro evacuated the firemen from the building BEFORE the phone call to Silverstien.

2. Fire chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

3. Video show hard hat workers in the safety zone that was cleared by chief Nigro hours before the buidling was brought down.

4. Hard hat workers and police clearly state in the video "that building is about to blow up"

5. Video shows a demolition truck in the area of the WTC. Plus the fact that we know that Controlled Demolition Inc. was called in.





[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Please show in the Purdue study where they concluded that Flight 77 never made it all the way into the Pentagon.