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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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]


Please show where the study concludes, as you keeping alluding that it does, that the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

Not your opinion, but the quote from the study.

Or, barring that, please state that the study does not support nor evidence your conjecture.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Please show where the study concludes, as you keeping alluding that it does, that the plane did not make it all the way into the building.


Please go the anuimations on the site and look at number 5.

Also lets look at the facts posted do far.

1. Eyewitness nearest the Pentagon stated the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

2. Purdue study animations and images show plane shredded by the collumns.

3. Photo of aluminum airframe being destroyed by small trees showing how fragile the airframe is.

Still waiting for you to post any evidence that debates any of the above.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper


Please go the anuimations on the site and look at number 5.


No.5 what? There is animation (please note the word ANIMATION) No.5 in Phase I of the study - is that what you are refering to?




1. Eyewitness nearest the Pentagon stated the plane did not make it all the way into the building.


Really? Or is that, as I have previously stated, your opinion? Please show in the quote wherein he stated the phrase " the plane did not make it all the way into the building".


2. Purdue study animations and images show plane shredded by the collumns.


And?


3. Photo of aluminum airframe being destroyed by small trees showing how fragile the airframe is.


And?

Still waiting for you to post any evidence that actually supports your conjectures.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No.5 what? There is animation (please note the word ANIMATION) No.5 in Phase I of the study - is that what you are refering to?


Please answer the question,

Does the animation show the plane being shredded, YES or NO?


Really? Or is that, as I have previously stated, your opinion? Please show in the quote wherein he stated the phrase " the plane did not make it all the way into the building".


I have shown his statment, its not my fault if you cannot or will not read it.


Still waiting for you to post any evidence that actually supports your conjectures.


I have posted 3 sources to support the facts.

If your next post does not show sources to debate them then you must concede to the facts.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


"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."

"And then the fuselage was all gone"

And of course in your world this obviously is the same as saying "the plane never made it into the building".

I'm sorry, but your own references constantly defeat your own arguments.

The animations shown in the Purdue study clearly show the "idealized" depiction of the plane fully and undeniabily breeching the building in its entirety.

I am hoping in the future that you may actually post something that would bolster, not deflate, your contentions.

Good Luck!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And of course in your world this obviously is the same as saying "the plane never made it into the building".


Yes in my world, called REALLITY a part of the plane sticking out means that it did not make it all the way into the building.

I thought even you could see by the staatment of the witness and photo posted and the knowledge of what the plane is made of that you would at least have the common sense to be able to admit to the facts and evidence shown.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT SINCE HOOPER CANNOT POST EVIDENCE TO DEBATE WHAT I POSTED HE CONCEDES TO THE FACTS I HAVE POSTED.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Yep, I surely concede to the "fact" that a witness watched the entire fuselage of Flight 77 disappear into the Pentagon.

I also concede that the Purdue study and animations clearly depict the plane fully entering the building.

No two ways about it.

Done deal.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yep, I surely concede to the "fact" that a witness watched the entire fuselage of Flight 77 disappear into the Pentagon.


So now everyone can see how you make things up, since thats not what the witness stated.


I also concede that the Purdue study and animations clearly depict the plane fully entering the building.


Look everyone how Hopper has to make things up.

So the following facts stand.

1. Witness stated the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

2. Purdue study shows plane did not make it all the way into the building.

3. Common sense of what the plane is made of states that the plane woudl not make it all the way into the building.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Look everyone how Hopper has to make things up.

So the following facts stand.

1. Witness stated the plane did not make it all the way into the building.

2. Purdue study shows plane did not make it all the way into the building.

3. Common sense of what the plane is made of states that the plane woudl not make it all the way into the building.


But you declared the wreckage littering the front lawn was not from AA77 so we'll assume AA77 went all the way in.

In any case, AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you declared the wreckage littering the front lawn was not from AA77 so we'll assume AA77 went all the way in.


What wreckage? Can you show the photos and the sources that show this wreackage is from AA77?


In any case, AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Just too bad you have no real evidence to support this theory.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper


1. Witness stated the plane did not make it all the way into the building.


"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."


2. Purdue study shows plane did not make it all the way into the building.


Only if you stop watching the animation half way through.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
"For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls.


So yes you are correct that the fuselage was sticking out of the building if even for a second before it was destroyed means the plane did not make it all the way into the building.


And then the fuselage was all gone."


Yes it was destroyed by fire, it did not go inside the building.


Thanks for posting the support for what i have been stating all along.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Yes it was destroyed by fire, it did not go inside the building.


Thank you for your opinion. It is so noted.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for your opinion. It is so noted.


Well it is not an opinion it is fact based on several sources.

Sorry if the facts and evidence get in the way of your theories / fantasies.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
BUMPED:


Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for your opinion. It is so noted.


Well it is not an opinion it is fact based on several sources.

Sorry if the facts and evidence get in the way of your theories / fantasies.



Sorry, you are confusing the veracity of the facts you noted with the conclusions you draw from them. The conclusions are your opinion, to which you are more than entitled.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, you are confusing the veracity of the facts you noted with the conclusions you draw from them. The conclusions are your opinion, to which you are more than entitled.


Well i am afraid there is only one conclusion you can make from the facts and evidence. They are not my opinion.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, you are confusing the veracity of the facts you noted with the conclusions you draw from them. The conclusions are your opinion, to which you are more than entitled.


Well i am afraid there is only one conclusion you can make from the facts and evidence. They are not my opinion.



Again, a reasonable person could differ with the philosphy of that logic. The idea of citining one or two "facts" and ignoring all other information is a logical fallacy. It forces a conclusion. The idea is to look at all data, assign the data a weight in accordance to your percieved confidence in the data and then draw conclusions, noting that these are only your perceptions and conclusions.

Your approach is typical of the average conspiracist or psuedo-scientist, construct a theory that is sympathetic to your personal bias and then go looking for "facts" that only support your conclusions. Then deflect criticism with the claim that your conclusions are supported by facts, and therefore assume the veracity of the factoids that are referenced.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Again, a reasonable person could differ with the philosphy of that logic.


Well then a reasonable person should be able to post facts and evidence to debate what i have posted or show facts and evidence to support what they believe happened.

I can post facts, evidence and photos with proper sources that would hold up in court, why can't you and others?



[edit on 12-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Again, a reasonable person could differ with the philosphy of that logic.


Well then a reasonable person should be able to post facts and evidence to debate what i have posted or show facts and evidence to support what they believe happened.

I can post facts, evidence and photos with proper sources that would hold up in court, why can't you and others?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by REMISNE]


You don't seem to understand. Simply posting what you think or percieve to be "factual" and then tacking on your conclusion is not sufficient . The strength of your position is not in the listed so-called evidence but the totality of your argument.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join