Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

Turbidity flows.. DUH!

Largely because you have no clue what you are talking about and have just taken the word of a bunch of ass clowns on what it was.

 

Maybe it looks like that to you, but I would need another view of those twisted white forms to be sure what they are. They are not part of the exterior wall. Beyond that, who knows. I see no evidence that they extend outside the wall at the bottom.

You will need to point out the "rebar on the ground. I see a couple of tree branches, but no rebar. BTW, where are all of the bricks that an internal explosion would have scattered all over the lawn?

And how the hell does an internal explosions crush limestone sheathing from the outside? You are not making a lick of sense here.

What are you on about? All of the windows in the impact hole are gone.

The left wing was exactly parallel with the ground and struck below the second floor slab. Nothing unexplained here.

 

Which thread would this be?

 

KOOKOO said:

.

Congratulations!...you've just lowered yourself the same level as 7-11 when interpreting photos.

Second, why does your opinion count, you weren't there.

 

It looked EXACTLY like a pyroclastic flow.

 

Well, you could compare video of that flow from a volcano 9widely available), and the flow on 9/11. Looked identical. I didn't take the word of anyone. I LOOKED for myself.

- - - Updated - - -

My response debunking the Millette study that was supposed to be the trump card of one poster here.

 

not to anyone who knows what a pyroclastic flow is.

 

He said...she said.

 

Do you even know whay a pyroclastic flow is? If you did, you would know, what you saw in NYC was not a pyroclastic flow. You people are simply idiots.

 

Zee point is that you link disingenuous and purposefully deceptive information clown. I used to think you were a troll, but now I realize you're just that stupid.

 

that one single hat has been a part of more imtermet forum banners...ie poster imgaes than you can imagine.... but its bever looked better than on Bouncing troofer boy[/B

 

WTF? I rarely link anything.

troughers need to make up their minds, they claim that I never link and that I link at the same time.

That is some serious kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

 

You got half of that right, you rarely link anything of substance. Loads of disingenuous gifs however. Which is what I was referring to fvcktard.

God you're stupid. How are you able to function safely in society with that useless mass between your ears?

 

but troughers have all sorts of really wierd theories and they are incapable of explaining them on any level what so ever..

Here is logical.....whatever;

so lets say its true that your pumpkin really can penetrate both sides of a boat, then why cant THIS bullet even go through THIS standard everyday windshield? [emphasis added for the literacy challenged]

Maybe its just not trying hard enough?



there another one for you to dodge.



meanwhile you continue to believe a plane is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing light pole mower





despite what we know for a fact is reality



real planes, when engines and wings get hit they burst into flames!





Did the high speed lead bullet go through the metal?

Can you describe what is happening to the bullet?



It takes an adult with a physics education to sufficiently answer "why".

I am sure logical and lefty and now you can put your heads together and give us the reasons why it does what is seen in the clip, especially since they claim a pumpkin can penetrate a boat. I was going to ask, is that with or without lube btw?

if a pumpkin can penetrate a boat and a bird can penetrate the same same wing that hit the poles it seems pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy that a pole hitting a wing would not penetrate it. Frankly it sounds like typical trougher bull(*)(*)(*)(*), but I give them the benefit of a doubt.



they are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sheet metal


after all people are expected to believe that a plane is a pole mower we deserve a damn explanation using physics!

How can we accept troughers as anything more than a comedy act?

 

Looks like someone hit the stupid reset button again. When in doubt, reboot.

 

the plane crashes that start on fire and where the wings fly off after hitting a pole are from government tests.

I actually agree with them in this case.

are you saying the tests are a conspiracy theory?

 

no it did NOT

It may have looked SIMILAR to the intellectually challenged,but it was just a dust cloud.

No hot volcanic ash and gases sweeping down at high speed and destroying everything in it's path

 

well let me know when you have a real question.
why dont you tell us what color it is then LMAO

and you should help the troughers out



how come three 400 pound poles on the left, and 2 on the right with a yeild strength of 60,000 psi did not slice right on through the wing sheet metal?

 

WRONG! STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!

I never said a bullet cannot go through glass.

stop dodging

I said once again:


Why cant THIS bullet go through THIS standard everyday windshield? [emphasis added for the literacy and/or vision challenged]

This is simple physics, everyone here understands physics I hope? Dont they??????




Here
Bettter yet, I will make is super easy for you.

Here is a 7.62 armor piercing round shot at a windshield with bullet proof rating.




so why did the bullet go through your glass but neither of these will go through? Seriously easy problem here kids. I noticed logical went awol too which is hilarious considering how easy this is.

So ante up.

 

koko, you do realise the bullet in your gif did go through the glass, right?

 

learn how to quote

- - - Updated - - -

you realize you are WRONG, right? lol

 

koko, I've linked the video where you got the gif from. It clearly shows it going through the glass. Just because you cut your gif short, doesn't mean the bullet doesn't go through lol. Your dishonesty is astounding. Do you ever click on anything I link?





But aside from you being totally wrong about bullets going through glass (shows your lack of physics right there), what does this have to do with my blog?

 

you dont understand what you are watching,

It is painfuly obvious why no one here would get past base one for forensic analysis of anything.

1st is a blunt does go through, 2nd is a pointed does go through, 3rd is a round does NOT go through, 4th a round does go through, 5th is a round does go through.

tellin ya, you peeps arent real good at this stuff.


Why didnt it go through? Why didnt the earlier one posted go through steel? How come some do and some dont?

Very simple and applies directly to the pole issue and why you first need to show a plane went in forensically before I will humor debate about any wheels that could be dumped off the back of a truck.

 

Updated my blog with the Arlington County Police Dispatch call.

[video=youtube;J3fMPe7tjEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3fMPe7tjEU[/video]

Also, if anyone has any comments on formatting my blog (which order certain pieces of evidence should come/be lumped into) feel free to comment.

 

The wing was not a floppy piece of unsupported sheet metal, it was a rigid assembly of stressed-skin over ribs and stringers. It did not hit poles embedded in the earth, but lamp supports designed to yield to lateral stress. It hit them not at the low landing speed of a prop aircraft, but at over 500 mph.

Think of a truck at high speed hitting a motorcycle. Which vehicle gets 'mowed over?'