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

That wont happen because he clearly knows nothing about the test the gifs show

 

Well, I had to go find the full video. Seems I was wrong on two points. The poles do appear to be wood, and they do break.

He is still wrong about their ressembling typical light standards in any way. They broke above ground level where the wing hit them. They were not break-aways.

[video=youtube;zI-FkWJaVEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-FkWJaVEs[/video]

Now, what is even more embarrassing for the trolls is that the fuel in the wings still keeps on trucking, even overtaking the nose of the aircraft as it slows down.

Thus we have the fuel in the towers rushing ahead of the exit of any solid debris without violating any laws of physics.

Somebody help Kokomojojo bandage that foot so he doesn't get the blood everywhere.

 

[video=youtube;8CZxvu85VM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4[/video]

Long Version

 

Truther self debunking? The only thing koko is good at.

 

aw sorry didnt mean to hurt your feelings by using your post to prove you wrong.

Gotta admit it was fun though

 

first off thats a different plane not that it matters all that much, and since when you slice off a wing the fuel does not instantly drain what else would you expect it to do? Otherwise that gray is from plowing up the dirt and its very difficult to actually see fuel in there if any at all.

Another forensic screw up on your part

Presuming there was a plane, The graphic overlays show there was not, fuel with regard to the the towers would be totally atomized as it went through the shredder. As you can see its impossible for it to puddle as the not to intelligent troughers tried to make people belive.

Next you have the problem of 16" flats, not rounds like a pole, FLATS that would have cut into and shredded the wing producing this:



effect along the flat on the OUTSIDE of the structure, unless we want to believe the steel simply yielded to the oncoming plane and got the hell out of the way breaking itself apart.



see the 16" flats? they were spaced 22 inches apart.


and of course you do not see that happen here;



on the contrary the you see no fuel fanning outward by the flats what so ever.
no fire against the wall what so ever.



just a vanishing plane into the side of the building.

40% of the fuel should have stayed outside the building and ignited against and near the outer wall



and look exactly like that. well it would have been fuel oil moving the speed of a 45acp bullet that would have instantly and completely atomized passing through the 22" shredder. The above is just lobbed at a wall a few mph, not 450+mph.

see that is what fuel looks like hitting a flat. it follows it.


now a class 5 standard if I remember right, up where the lights mount, that is the easiest one that I am aware to break that is about 50 ft high, if I remember right takes about 12 ton of force to knock it over and from cj's pics not only were they knocked over but sliced right in 1/2!

Looks like you got lots and I mean LOTS of problems in dodge with your official fantasy LMAO

 

Well, you're only partly right. That is the same facility and test set-up. I found the right one after I posted that video and ran it until the next suggested menu appeared. This is the exact aircraft, with an explanation of what we are looking at. At about 6:45, it puts are steel-toed boot to your crotch regarding the poles tearing the wing completely off. Live with it. The colored water also shows that you are wrong about most of the debris we see after impact being dust.

Another forensic screw up on your part

[video=youtube;TrIZd53Gl4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrIZd53Gl4E[/video]

Nobody on the non-mentlly ill side said that it puddled, other than at the bottoms of the eleveator shafts, and there only in a small amount.

No, the fuel would have continued moving through the gaps made when the aircraft broke windows and shove columns out of the way. Unoxygenated fuel would have covered and cooled most of the sparks produced by contact with the columns. Your brick wall and already-flaming firebomb are irrelevant because neither in any way reflects the conditions at the points of impact of any of the aircraft.

The fuel at the Pentagon did have a little more time to spread out because the brick walls yielded a little more slowly, so that there was more fire on the outside there than in the towers, but the difference is not great enough to be considered highly important.

You clearly just pulled that figure out of your butt. The steel did get out of the way. Did you miss the part in that film of how the wing broke one of the poles in the test, rather than vice-versa?

So, how much energy was the jet capable of applying? Remember that the amount of energy applied at the tops is amplofied at the bottom due to leverage. The broken poles were not broken by slicing, but, as anyone who has done any metal working can see, by being bent too far, too fast. This is less a problem with most types pf steel than it is with aluminum. That's why they used aluminum in the frangible bases.

You really need a wider variety of life experiences before you start challenging the gown-ups.

Looks like you got lots and I mean LOTS of problems.

 

yep and the 15 gallons of fuel made a fire that is as big as wtc2 and only lasted 5 seconds!
and there is no fire damage to the aircraft from mist that did not have enough oxygen and condensed on the walls! LOL

at 6:40 he said the pole cut off the wing. exactly as we can see, so that boot (*)(*)(*)(*) is all show no go drama

Its understandable that the pole may not have clipped off the wing between the engine and the fuselage since that is the strongest part of the wing. HOWEVER the left wing od 77 HIT # POLES and we should have seen a streak of fire when those poles hit and there should have been sliced off wing laying on the ground since they hit outside the engine on the weaker part of the wing.

otherwise you are as usual ignoring everything that does not fit your official fantasy. dood no way you will ever convince me and I doubt anyone else that you are a "fireman" that dealt with forensics on any level you just plain miss too much (*)(*)(*)(*). I simply have too correct you far to many times on far too many issues.

based on the fires from that crash compared to the size of the wtc fires you are looking at maybe 50 gallons to make the size seen there.

thanks for getting that video, added to my collection.

here you go again, no, you have 22inch opening and 16" flats. Simple grade school math to do the ratio. again look at the bottle thrown against the wall.

Breakaway bases used on srteet lighting mounts no longer breakway when the strike is over 3ft above the top of the breakaway base as I said it has to be designed for the maximum loading of the pole design for moment capacities with a min of 30 to over 1000 kips and pole weights between 300 to 8000 pounds.

wtf good would it do for anyone to pay a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of money to buy a 60kip pole and then put it on a base that can only withstand 2kips to breakway for a kids go cart? Your whole concept is totally ridiculous, you should have learned how this stuff works before you come on to a board and play expert.

so lay off the koolaide!

 

Methinks koko ditched math in grade school.

 

He does seem to have missed the concept of "leverage."

 

Probably thought Archimedes was some sort of spider..

 

No, it did not make as big a fireball as the aircraft that hit the south tower, nor did it last as long, nor did it get shoved into as many places. The fuel that entered the towers acted as an accelerant to spread fires throughout several floors.

The fuel that burned in the crash test was well-aerated. There just was not much of it.

Pay attention. It severed the wing TIP. That part of the wing between the engines severed the POLE. Does the narrator speak a language that you have not heard spoken?

Its understandable that the pole may not have clipped off the wing between the engine and the fuselage since that is the strongest part of the wing. HOWEVER the left wing od 77 HIT # POLES and we should have seen a streak of fire when those poles hit and there should have been sliced off wing laying on the ground since they hit outside the engine on the weaker part of the wing.[/QUOTE]No, because the typical light standard is far more flexible than a wooden pole.

That is another figure you just pulled out of your butt.

thanks for getting that video, added to my collection.

Not a bit of it. The plane shoved the columns out of the way. You can see the bent-over column stubs in the close-up photos of the gashes.

There is still a hell of a lot more room for the fuel to enter a structure like the WTC than there is on that solid brick wall you use to show off your Molotov.

I found the source for that, but cannot download it without a downloader that would also put some freaky add-ons onto my already too-crowded browser. If anyone else wants the full video, it is at:


http://zomebo.com/play.php?id=lfvceHUBWnU

You show an amazing degree of ignorance here. If the pole were more rigid higher up, the wind would knock it down. Maybe your fellow tin-foilers can believe this, but not anybody who has worked in the construction trades.

so lay off the koolaide!

 

I already gave that information to you.

The fact is that 77 was claimed to be going 300+ mph, the plane below is going less than 200 mph, the breakawway boxes do not break away for impacts more than 3ft above the box, and 77 allegedly hit 3 poles on the left, 2 on the right, and every other plane in the world instantly bursts into flames and the wings are cut off, but 77 is another invincible airplane, stays precisely on course. No flaming fireball going in, no cut off wings, nada. no plane.

I cant think of any drugs good enough that could get me to believe that, other than blind ignorance.

see how easy it is to prove its all bull(*)(*)(*)(*). no different than wtc, for those with knowledge.

 

No, because the typical light standard is far more flexible than a wooden pole.

That is another figure you just pulled out of your butt.

thanks for getting that video, added to my collection.

Not a bit of it. The plane shoved the columns out of the way. You can see the bent-over column stubs in the close-up photos of the gashes.

There is still a hell of a lot more room for the fuel to enter a structure like the WTC than there is on that solid brick wall you use to show off your Molotov.

I found the source for that, but cannot download it without a downloader that would also put some freaky add-ons onto my already too-crowded browser. If anyone else wants the full video, it is at:


http://zomebo.com/play.php?id=lfvceHUBWnU


You show an amazing degree of ignorance here. If the pole were more rigid higher up, the wind would knock it down. Maybe your fellow tin-foilers can believe this, but not anybody who has worked in the construction trades.

so lay off the koolaide![/QUOTE]

beaten to death and you people keep on ticking. the dead do live.

yeh burning fuels are accelerants, the plane had no fire damage.

the fuel that burned in wtc was also well aerated.

pay attention, the TIP is anything outboard of the last engine.

even if it did not sever the tip the camera would have picked up a fireball smoke that looked like a missile. LOL

tellin ya man you got no place to run in this storm.

standards are rated based on wood pole comparison. I already gave you that information you just failed to properly assimilate it.

the brick wall demonstrates deflagration against a flat surface. does not matter if its brick or a steel column its flat.

I did not make those numbers up.

on the contrary you need to educate yourself on this and several other matters.


there isnt a stone small enough for you to hide behind

 

beaten to death and you people keep on ticking. the dead do live.

you are confusing my use of the term rigid with brittle.

yeh burning fuels are accelerants, the plane had no fire damage.

the fuel that burned in wtc was also well aerated.

pay attention, the TIP is anything outboard of the last engine.

even if it did not sever the tip the camera would have picked up a fireball of smoke nothing that looked like a missile. LOL




tellin ya man you got no place to run in this storm.

standards are rated based on wood pole comparison. I already gave you that information you just failed to properly assimilate it.

the brick wall demonstrates deflagration against a flat surface. does not matter if its brick or a steel column its flat.

I did not make those numbers up.

on the contrary you need to educate yourself on this and several other matters.



there isnt a stone small enough for you to hide behind





I wish you would learn how the quotes work and stop (*)(*)(*)(*)ing them up.

now we can continue to argue every point of your confusion.

like I said there is no rock small enough for you.

this is so elementary its laughable,

 

Nice work. Where's this sourced?

 

Up his ass,apparently.....

 

Despite repeated requests the poster has flat out refused to supply the information. I suspect he found this random footage and decided it aided his case. The fact he refuses to give details clouds the discussion because without knowing what the aim of the test was we can not follow the relevance of the exercise. Something the poster has chided us about in our ignorance.

 

lefty found the source and posted it in one of his earlier posts.

- - - Updated - - -

when people actually read a thread they dont usually say such incorrect (*)(*)(*)(*) as the above

 

So why do you continue to ignore requests to source your research?

 

huh?

dont blame me because you are too lazy to click on links

I can have my secretary quote you pricing if you need help

 

You have begun babbling incoherently. You have proven nothing to anyone with an education and IQ adequate to participate in this discussion.

Not a bit of it. The poles are far more flexible and less brittle farther from the ground. If they were not, they would either snap off in a strong wind or transfer so much torque to the base that the frangible connectors would fail.

Flt77 was able to strike the tops of the poles and push them beyonf their failure point because the stress on the structure of the wings would have been applied gradually as the poles resisted with, initially, little force.

Flt 77 was damaged by this contact, and was observed trailing atomized fuel of white smoke from the right engine. Some idiots did, indeed, interpret this as the exhaust from a misslile or for the missile itself, but only when viewing photographs. None of the eyewitnesses on the scene saw it that way.

Because the fire was mostly in the engine housing and, once that was torn apart, continued travelling on a course parallel to, and not crossing, that of the fuselage. Pretty easy to grasp, for a rational person who knows something about aircraft fires.

And?

Of course you did.

on the contrary you need to educate yourself on this and several other matters. now we can continue to argue every point of your confusion.

this is so elementary its laughable,

 

see what I mean? Just like a timex
"beaten to death and you people keep on ticking. the dead do live."

the information I posted covers everything you said in your post, proving once again that its not me lacking in either IQ or education

 

Koko,flat on his back in the boxing ring,bloody and beaten looks up and says 'give up yet?'

 

havent seen anyone qualified here yet, better drag in your friends tell em you just got your asses whomped by a truther and you need something anything to muddy the waters!


.