It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proper Investigations

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

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


All you have to do is look at the facts. The nose is pretty much destoyed on impact and the aluminum airframe is shreded by the steel reniforced collumns.

news.uns.purdue.edu...
"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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


All you have to do is look at the facts. The nose is pretty much destoyed on impact and the aluminum airframe is shreded by the steel reniforced collumns.

news.uns.purdue.edu...
"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by REMISNE]


Just out of curiosity - how come you didn't post that other little diagram from the same Purdue study - you know the one that shows the whole plane in the building?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just out of curiosity - how come you didn't post that other little diagram from the same Purdue study - you know the one that shows the whole plane in the building?


Just out of curiosity - how come you will not admit to facts and evidence shown?

I have shown several sources that show the plane would not make it into the buidling as the official story states. YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SOURCES TO DEBATE WHAT I POSTED OR SUPPORT WHAT YOU POST.

SO LETS LOOK AT THE SCOREBOARD.

REMISNE - 3

HOOPER - 0



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just out of curiosity - how come you didn't post that other little diagram from the same Purdue study - you know the one that shows the whole plane in the building?

Which image is that, hooper?

Is it the same as other Purdue images that do not show the whole plane because the engines are not included?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Is it the same as other Purdue images that do not show the whole plane because the engines are not included?


I like how hopper keeps talking about everything but the evidence shown that proves what i post and proves him wrong.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just out of curiosity - how come you didn't post that other little diagram from the same Purdue study - you know the one that shows the whole plane in the building?


Just out of curiosity - how come you will not admit to facts and evidence shown?

I have shown several sources that show the plane would not make it into the buidling as the official story states. YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SOURCES TO DEBATE WHAT I POSTED OR SUPPORT WHAT YOU POST.

SO LETS LOOK AT THE SCOREBOARD.

REMISNE - 3

HOOPER - 0



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Yep, that's the one! The one that shows the plane inside the building. Noting of course that it was not meant to be an exact representation of either the Pentagon or Flight 77. But an "idealized" depiction of the reaction of the reinforced columns and the dynamics of the fuel movement.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Noting of course that it was not meant to be an exact representation of either the Pentagon or Flight 77. But an "idealized" depiction of the reaction of the reinforced columns and the dynamics of the fuel movement.


Thanks for proving that you have no actual evidence that the plane made it all the way intot he building. On the other hand i have shown facts and evidnece that the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

In fact the officail story is completely wrong when it states that the nose of the plane made the hole in the outer ring.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Noting of course that it was not meant to be an exact representation of either the Pentagon or Flight 77. But an "idealized" depiction of the reaction of the reinforced columns and the dynamics of the fuel movement.


Thanks for proving that you have no actual evidence that the plane made it all the way intot he building. On the other hand i have shown facts and evidnece that the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

In fact the officail story is completely wrong when it states that the nose of the plane made the hole in the outer ring.



So if it so easy to see, by simple reiteration of so-called "facts and evidence" why is no one else seeing it?

Also, you have not posted any "facts and evidence" to prove anything except that you have access to a computer.

You referenced a statement made by someone at sometime to someone else that the person said he did not see the plane or witness the event and have somehow deduced that this alleged statement evidences the theory that Flight 77 did not penetrate fully the Pentagon building, much to the contrary of a mass of media reports that do not show any of the plane sticking out of the building as you theorize.

You also reference a computer generated image which was clearly labeled and sourced as NOT being an exact representation of Flight 77 and the Pentagon as, in fact, a representation of Flight 77 and the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Also, you have not posted any "facts and evidence" to prove anything except that you have access to a computer.


Thanks agina for showing you cannot accept or admit when facts and evidence are shown that disagree with what you think happened.


much to the contrary of a mass of media reports that do not show any of the plane sticking out of the building as you theorize.



Please show me the media outlets that were standing near the building like the eyewitness that i quoted when the plane hit.


You also reference a computer generated image which was clearly labeled and sourced as NOT being an exact representation of Flight 77 and the Pentagon as, in fact, a representation of Flight 77 and the Pentagon.


Only partially correct as usual. I posted a study that stated the plane could not have made it all the way intot he building along with the image.

Why do you only cherrypic certain things to respond to and not the actual post?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Thanks agina for showing you cannot accept or admit when facts and evidence are shown that disagree with what you think happened.


Soon as you present a fact and then show clearly how it evidences a complete theory I will admit it. Until then simply repeating the phrase proves nothing.


Please show me the media outlets that were standing near the building like the eyewitness that i quoted when the plane hit.


Sorry, you've presented no such "witness". The "witness" report you did post however was gleamed from a media interview, which, by your standards, does not fall into the "factual" area.


Only partially correct as usual. I posted a study that stated the plane could not have made it all the way intot he building along with the image.

Why do you only cherrypic certain things to respond to and not the actual post?


First, you did not post the study, you posted an article about the study. You should try and at least get the basics correct. Second, the study you are referring to made no such claim, at all.






posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Soon as you present a fact and then show clearly how it evidences a complete theory I will admit it. Until then simply repeating the phrase proves nothing.


I have shown and continue to show facts and evidence.


Sorry, you've presented no such "witness". The "witness" report you did post however was gleamed from a media interview, which, by your standards, does not fall into the "factual" area.


Thanks for showing that there was no media outlet present when the plane hit.

Also you have not shown any evidence that the witness i quoted is wrong.


First, you did not post the study, you posted an article about the study. You should try and at least get the basics correct. Second, the study you are referring to made no such claim, at all.


Thanks for showing that you cannot or will not read information that contridicts what you think happened.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just out of curiosity - how come you didn't post that other little diagram from the same Purdue study - you know the one that shows the whole plane in the building?



Originally posted by tezzajw
Is it the same as other Purdue images that do not show the whole plane because the engines are not included?



Originally posted by hooper
Yep, that's the one! The one that shows the plane inside the building. Noting of course that it was not meant to be an exact representation of either the Pentagon or Flight 77.



hooper has clearly contradicted himself. He stated that the whole plane was depicted inside the building, but he admits that the engines were not depicted inside the building.

The whole plane can not be inside the building, if the engines are not inside the building.

It is fairly clear that hooper has failed to adopt a consistent position with his absurd line of reasoning.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
It is fairly clear that hooper has failed to adopt a consistent position with his absurd line of reasoning.


Yes, he is like most people on here that still believe the official story, they cannot come up with a consistant position.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


What part of "idealized representation" is confusing you guys so much? The computer generated image also does not show any windows in the plane, should we then assume that they windows didn't make it into the building?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What part of "idealized representation" is confusing you guys so much? The computer generated image also does not show any windows in the plane, should we then assume that they windows didn't make it into the building?


So are you saying that anything that is a idealized representation, like what the official story mostly has supporting it is not real evidence either?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
What part of "idealized representation" is confusing you guys so much? The computer generated image also does not show any windows in the plane, should we then assume that they windows didn't make it into the building?


So are you saying that anything that is a idealized representation, like what the official story mostly has supporting it is not real evidence either?



No, it is what it says it is. And prepared for specific purposes. The image you chose to post was prepared as part of a study (which you did not post) wherein they wanted to show specifically how the fuel in an airplane would react in a crash.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, it is what it says it is. And prepared for specific purposes. The image you chose to post was prepared as part of a study (which you did not post) wherein they wanted to show specifically how the fuel in an airplane would react in a crash.


Please be aware of what i psoted, i did not post about the fuel reacting.

Between the witness, the Purdue study, and the photo showing how weak an aluminum airfrane is along with other evidence that a aluminum airframe could not have made it all the way into the building and punch a hole through the outer ring as the official story states.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Here is the actual study or simulation:

www.cs.purdue.edu...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Here is the actual study or simulation:


Yes i know. And again as the images show the airframe is destroyed by the wall and the collumns.

So as i have been stating and proving the airframe could not have made it all the way into the building and punched the hole in the outer ring as the official story states.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join