Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 7. (Read 2858 times)

There's all kinds of evidence that the hole didn't come from an airplane the size and shape that the official account says.

Why, you are most welcome. I'm glad you are now referencing some pages. I don't know what the pages reference are to? Care to explain? Of course, you never explained what the hole in the wall pic was from, I got google images to do that.

So yes, I could (should). be 5000 pieces of obscure, hidden, arcane, information behind you and have no interest to go exploring that rat hole. Please clearly explain a pictorial item, and link to its source, otherwise it has no meaning.

But by the way, your hole in the wall? There is a conclusive proof that it did not come from an explosive detonation, and that is the spherical radius of destruction does not continue into the floor. There is no crater, and thus it was't from an explosion.

It's hard to image you are fit for anything except cereal box debates, if the most obvious things such as FBI releases have eluded you then what you doing even trying to figure out 9/11.. you're like 5000 pieces of information behind me.

The other pics were on pg 16 but you always miss these thing.

No plane hit anything, back to pg13 or 14 where I mentioned AA fought to remove itself from the conspiracy. There was no flight 11 on the books at all. There was no terrorist and the images shown on TV were from years earlier at Denver AP. 

I'd get banned if i told you how smart I think you are.

thanks for participating again.

Actually nothing is obvious, that's the basic reason humans use language to communicate.

Like I said, you picked not the immediate wall the plane hit, but some interior wall. If you don't know the exact location and numerous other factors, you don't know anything about that wall's relevance or lack of to your claims.

And what's a tail wing?

This stuff is all known and readily found all over the Internet.

I don't know what these trolls are trying to accomplish by showing us that they are against the truth. Are their bosses afraid we are going to ignite another inquiry? Probably we should.

No plane parts worth mentioning.. the parts shown are small enough to fit in the trunk of a car. Just like in PA where they dumped a tail wing on the field.

No sneaking in the pentagon required either, that part was empty and under renovations, why would there be bare brick walls and no furniture in that part if it was being used.

The part to note, which you beat around the bush again and avoided was the size of the hole in the pentagon, which is barely the size of a minivan,, both side walls intact so where would a plane have gone ?

In the other pic with the hole, which is ground level, there is also black spray paint around the whole, its not proof of anything but its like a "cut here" or blast here marker.  the floor looks perfect, hardly a crash site, again only a fool would believe this is a commerical airliner crash

I figured date and time were obvious since the fire hoses are still spraying.

What is the time and date the picture was taken, and where was it taken?

You should get these kinds of questions if you don't post a link, just a picture...

But through google images I locate your pic as a recently released FBI picture of "an inner wall" of the Pentagon after the 911 hijacked plane struck it.  It's in a group of pictures along with lots of crumbled up airplane parts. I didn't see any detail on where that hole was exactly, related to the angle of and direction of impact of the aircraft.

So yeah, what about this pic. Some inner wall of the pentagon. I'm not seeing anything at all there that you can hang a conspiracy theory on. I'm not seeing enough data to address your (poorly framed) question about whether the picture "is consistent with..." A better way to ask might be "is there anything here that directly shows an explosion." The answer to that is no, there are none of the fractured or shattered appearances that would indicate pressure waves faster than the speed of sound in the materials, such as would be the case with a 50,000 fps gas shockwave.  Oops, sorry, that's not at the 8th grade level.

I am seeing something else, which is "don't bother trying to damage the Pentagon by ramming planes into it."

Now, you ask about a pic of a hole in a wall, next to hundreds of crumpled airplane parts, whether that pic is consistent with an airplane crash. Do you think some guys snuck into the Pentagon in the middle of the night with a disassembled Boeing jet, sneakily assembled it, then planted explosives, then in the morning blew it all up?

That seems rather complicated to me and would require some guys working a night shift. They don't like to work night shifts and want more more for them.

since you replied to my pic about no planes at pentagon, "it" would be the pics.

How in the world insane are you? If Blue Powder is an authority on it, why don't you believe him? If he isn't, how silly you are to ask his opinion!

You said,

It doesn't even matter what the context or conspiracy, the question is, is it consistent with a plane crash or an explosive...

What is the "it", exactly?

So why even take part in this thread, one words replies don't exactly make you look good. When you're in a corner and can't get out you just find a word to pick out of the post and ask why or where or how.. Of course nobody is fooled but you.

Nothing random about those pics,, straight from your boy Donald via the FBI .. if they're new to you it further shows how you're not on the same field as me. I'm playing with the pro's and you're fumbling around with grade 8 players

What is consistent?

In every post where you stepped up you were humiliated, mostly by your own doings. you weren't even able to offer anything besides a one line denial or subject change, they got shorter over time to just a couple of words.

It doesn't even matter what the context or conspiracy, the question is, is it consistent with a plane crash or an explosive. its clear to 99.9% of the viewers that its an explosive.

Thank you

Destroyed

Almost 3,000 people killed, real estate damaged, gold stolen, and a lie being foisted on Americans, and you want to ignore it?

We have your number, Spendy. Your true colors are showing. And they show traitor.

Absolutely, let's ignore it. I don't have any interest in a rather idiotic posting of some random photograph, with no explanation, context, or specific question or assertion.

Your just ignore it way is easier than saying all thousand of the words... A picture is worth a thousand words.

A picture. Which means zero.

All of them but the most obvious would be

What explosion? What building? What hole?

In other words, destroyed again.

You sniffed around for a new theory again but danced away from the issue. The issue being that the hole and explosion is consistent with a blast not at plane.