911 WTC Flight 77 Clips Poles, yet another nail in the official coffin

Well here we go again, once again the official fantasy is put to waste by reality.



In real life wings just get clipped right on off, but not on 911, why they had a 767 light pole mower!

I cant wait to hear what you all have to say about that!

 

just what we need, another out-of context gif of something not the least bit related to 9/11.

Those were not freeway light poles. Those were rigid steel poles designed to tear the wings off of an aircraft.

One of these days, when I have the time, I might have to sit down and explain to you the concept of "relevancy."

 

You're a bit late, my blog already proves AA77 hit the Pentagon.

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

AA77 took out 5 highway light poles, as witnessed by dozens of people, and photographed afterwards

Oops, time for another change in hypothesis? 9/11 Truth, still failing at every turn.

 

I just remembered, Kokomojojo, that you said that the fuel should have ignited the instant that the plane hit the south tower.

Bandage that bullet wound and stop tracking all that blood on the carpet.

 

WRONG!

100% IN-CONTEXT!

Those are standard older style freeway and wherever else they wanted to put them poles that have approximately the same (mow-down) resistant strength as the newer breakaway versions used today!



up close and personal!

HAHAHAHAHA!

LIke taking candy from babes! Yes it tis!

the reason runways are foamed down is to insure sparks are subdued, because it is the sparks that ignite the fuel.

When you have metal on metal you have lots of sparks.

For the wtc the whole event would have had literally thousands of sparks from the radar all the way to the tail and everything in between as the metal scraped against metal, so every bit of the way there would have been ignition sources.

There is very little ignition sources until the engine plows into the ground all nicely captures on video to show everyone what it really looks like when a fuel tank hits a solid object proving yet another point made earlier that some self proclaimed fire experts gave their usual incorrect answers for, even in the light of simple demonstrations.





no where to hide, no where to run, everything happens precisely how you were told it would happen thousands of posts ago.





no video of 77 but if there was it would be as fake as 175, nothing close to reality at the wtc either.


[video=youtube;cKhw_Zbcdto]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKhw_Zbcdto[/video]

 

Why do you continually spam your blog?

I suppose you are getting money for a hit count?

[video=youtube;BAnobEWC7v8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAnobEWC7v8[/video]

more like 911 truth has made a laughing stock out of your official fantasy.

 

Horse feathers. They are still standing after the aircraft has hit them. You can see them spring back. I have taken out a freeway light standard at 10MPH. They are designed to break away.

Don't lecture me. I have foamed a runway for an actual emergency landing. It is a damned rare event. (The runway in the source film was not foamed.)

Well, DUH! That does not always mean that the aircraft will burst into flames immediately. It clearly did not happen here.

Okay.....and?

Yup, you screwed the pooch that time and you just did it again.

It does not matter how much available fuel there is, or how hot an ignition source there is, or how much oxygen there is in the air, if you do not bring all three sides of the triangle together at the same time. In both crashes, the fuel around the ignition sources was not properly oxygenated to deflagrate until the aircraft had lost some speed or, as in the test aircraft, fuel had leaked around the engine so that they got all three sides of the triangle together.

Now right here is the only gif you ever posted that was of any use in a rational discussion. Notice how all of the water flows around the face if the balloon had been stretched that far before breaking. Only where its forward momentum is arrested by the face does it spalsh back. The same happened in the towers. Because the windows yielded immediately, most of the fuel went in one side and out the other, while a little of it that was directed to the columns splashed back.

On the down-range side, that fuel and a few bits of aircraft wreckage and office contents blew out the windows at several locations on one or two floors, creating that pressurized cloud of fuel that some idiots take for a CGI artifact.. A good clue that it is not is the fact that it casts a show on the building, even as it deflagrates.

Clearly, you are clueless.



no where to hide, no where to run, everything happens precisely how you were told it would happen thousands of posts ago.

 

stop posting crap and there wont be a need for lectures.

yeh you can take out any pole with a tank at 1 mph, more crap generalizations.

What did you do at 300 knots?

so you believe a plane can fly in a vacuum or somehow the oxygen was mysteriously sucked out by aliens LOL

no the poles did not stand after they sliced through the wings like a hot knife through butter, you can see them both tip over, stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

oh now the balloon in face counts huh? funny it didnt the many other times I posted it.

Any particular reason you changed your mind? LMAO

No in the case of breaking through poles you are wrong again. You certainly do get splashback even from bullets

more fantasies and lack of understanding. Nothing like proving we need to take a close look at who or what we call "experts".

see if you can figger out the difference and come to a proper conclusion

 

Koko's too ignorant it seems to differentiate between poles set in concrete,specifically designed to slice into wings in CRASH TESTS and light poles using what are known as 'frangible connectors',to keep drivers safe by not having them drive into an immovable object.

 

He seems unaware that the light poles are specially designed to do exactly what they did. It is mandatory for such poles around airports

 

so what are you trying to say or get us to falsely presume is that there would be no wing damage?

Even after the poles shown to the public were completely bent or ripped in half?

You dont see the obvious problems with that huh?

 

What poles set in concrete? and concrete makes any difference what so ever how exactly? On the contrary lone is too ignorant to read what was posted.

read my last post, you people are simply pulling (*)(*)(*)(*) out of that place lefty described and misapplying it as usual.

 

No because the poles were made by Union Steel. Visit their website and see for yourself. The poles are designed to limit the amount of damage caused to an aircraft wing. They can actually be brought down by VW bug travelling at 25 mph. They are a mandated product for roads surrounding airports.

 

yeh but vw bugs do not fly at 300 knots and clip poles off 3/4 of the way up.

can we stop with the red herrings

again the pretense here by implication is that they do very little damage to a wing! as far as touhgers are concerned it barely scratches the paint.

that was a pretty worthless post

 

deflagration begins and continues immediately upon ignition.



deflagration is circumstantial, detonation can be produced. I should not have to be explaining this to you.

the artifact you are talking about happened before the wings hit the building! Your problems are mounting exponentially here.

at least you got the forward momentum right, hence approximately 40% of the fuel would have remained outside the building.

That translates into however large the fuel explosion was on the other 2 sides combined the entry side would have had to have been 40% of that total!

 

telling you to stop with the red herrings already is not a "new" hobby

 

It was designed to illustrate how the poles work. Wether you like it or not, those poles are at virtually every airport in the US

 

you did not post a link. brain fart?

we know how the poles work and whether you like it or not, unless you have something that shows they would NOT damage an aircraft AT ALL, then you have NOTHING and you are wasting your time with more FAIL.

Do you understand?

 

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/utl_pole/description_of_strat.htm#162A3

 

pretty much mandatory for light poles all over

I remember a PSA from the seventies showing breakaway light poles that had a driver demonstrating what happens by driving into one

 

You can make excuses all you like, the fact remains everything on this page debunks this thread from page 1. You cannot refute the overwhelming evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and instead try to avoid this evidence by focusing on mundane little irrelevant details which in no way support your hypothesis.

The fact remains, 100% of the evidence supports AA77 hit the Pentagon. Time to get a new hypothesis.

 

stop posting crap and there wont be a need for lectures.

I wasn't driving a tank. It was a Ford Torino. THe three 2"pine trees that I hit going down the side of the hill did more damage than the light standard. The only thing that any vehicle that I was in hit at 300 MPH was a starling. Everybody on the Herk thought it was a goose, it was so loud. Luckily, it just dented the wing a little bit inboard of the arc of the props and left a couple feathers in an aeleron actuator fairing.

Stop being silly. The fuel dispalced the oxygen just long enough for the plane to get inside and slow down a bit before it deflagrated.

We also see them spring back.

And you accidently included a gif there that has some forensic value. We can, in the close up, actually see how the poles were structured. They are box columns, and you can see the one on which you focus splitting its seams at the front. stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

Context. Get your mind around it.

This does not prove what you think it proves.

The bullet is striking a homogenous solid surface. Some of the lead in the core vaporizes in the heat that the friction generates. It has to go somewhere before the lead in front of it gets out of the way. The bronze jacket is keeping it from spreading out to the sides. The only way for it to go is backward, under some pressure. The bronze jacket falls away and, as we can see, flies off in every which way because it is too light to follow the lead core through the hole once the steel yields. Some of the steel is also seen to vaporize as heat is transferred to the surface.

This, you might notice, is similar to the way that Flt 77 entered the Pentagon. Much of the lighter material was ablated and wound up at or near the entry point. What continued through the barrier was smaller in diameter than was the orginal object which struck it, and thus would do damage over a narrower path as it progressed. Any explosive charge, to include a shaped charge, would have done increasingly lesser amounts of damage over an increasingly wider area.

This is useless, as it appears that nearly the entire outer surface of your incediary device is already aflame, so that a source of ignition followed the fuel.

Lose this irrelevant crap. You're wasting bandwidth.

 

you could not have read one damn word in there or you would know its another FAIL

 

so what?

you go driving your vw at 300 knots 50 feet off the ground eh....

FAIL again

 

I just did, get used to it. The evidence is not overwhelming, I am feeling just fine thank you!

Sliced through that wing like a hot knife through butter, but like wtc these guys think planes are invincible and light poles are wet noodles. DOH!

here we go again, once again the official fantasy is put to waste by reality.



In real life wings just get clipped right on off, but not on 911, why they had a 767 light pole mower!

I cant wait to hear what you all have to say about that!


and you post lots of purty pictures that are meaningless unless you have something that shows chopped up wings and engines laying out on the lawn among other things.