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

Appropriate avatar for koko,his Meg Wyllie being held down and throttled by our Jeffrey Hunter for not answering.

 

you cant even get that right

http://www.hulu.com/watch/283843 33:30 - 36 is the correct explanation of the avatar



.

 

Once again,koko's research has been found.....lacking.

 

oh dont take it so hard, I can sink your little fantasies all day long.

everyone can see you going into denial LOL

dont get any better than that!

 

Posting your own fantasy, without evidence, even posting evidence that contradicts what you claim, does not make anyone else look a fool.

 

Koko actually thinks his obsfuscation is cute....fact is,he hasn't been right yet,but won't admit it.

 

what a pitiful bunch of sore losers.

hey dont tell your moms on me k.



plane hits pole pole cuts off wing. DUH

 

Until you can show us a plane that hit an actual light standard or something VERY similar, you still have nothing but the residues of a great bukkake scene.

There is no resemblence between wooden telephone poles and aluminum light standards.

 

There are certain posters here that I have little patience with.

One in particular has a bad habit when evidence such as this is posted



will claim bul(*)(*)(*)(*) and demand peole to "prove" the ass was kicked while at the same time accepting anything labelled official either without evidence or superficial evidence.

as a general rule I write those types off as losers liars and delusional dreamers and do not waste my time with them.

I hope you do run that road since you have ain this thread all the information you need to draw the conclusions presented.

If you need to see a test that flies a plane into an identical standard despite the FACT they are constructed and directly compared to wood standards as used in the gif, after the required data has been given to you then you are not capable of discussing this frankly and you certainly are no expert on any level as you claim.

you are simply not able to feign ignorance at this point without looking like a fool.

I can only present evidence I cannot think for you.

This test shown in the gif if properly understood removes all doubt that what you see in the photographic evidence of both the pentagon and wtc is all faked.

 

Was this your Stuart Smalley attempt for the day koko?

 

I see koko is still trying to claim poles set in the ground designed to rip into wings during a crash test, are the same as breakaway light poles set up along the freeway.


But then he didn't know the actress that played the caretaker in 'the menagerie' was Meg Wyllie,and his avatar was being choked by christopher pike played by Jeffrey Hunter

 

you dont understand that he choked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the slave owners forcing them STOP THE ILLUSION. Missed the whole point like you nearly always do for most issues. The actors are irelevant.


Yet more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from you.

stop lying, the test was set up to research the effects of a plane hitting a telephone pole which are the same standards used on light poles.

how much more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) will people need to listen to from you?

 

And all you have to do is link us to that study.........but you continue to refuse to? Why is that exactly?

 

They were used to approximate tree trunks impacting on the wings in a crash,not light poles

And what forced them to give up the illusion was the realization that Humans would rather die than be kept captive,even if it was pleasant.


NOT being choked.

Once again,koko fails

 

when you give people the location of the link and they fail to click on it, one can only conclude they are mentally incapacitated.

I told you LEFTY POSTED IT

If you need more I cannot help you. sorry

 

thats why they used the same poles they use for light and telephone poles! damn man can this get any more DUH!!

geezus you cant even follow and understand a the most simple plot of a movie! unreal. and I am not going to explain it to you.

why the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are posting in thread that requires some basic talents is beyond all reason.

 

Then why dont you link to the study you used as the foundation of this thread. Why does Lefty have to do your homework. How do I know Lefty linked to the right thing - which was actually just a youtube image of a plane crash

 

Yes we can infer a lot from the footage - especially the liquid in the wing tanks being colored differently. But I'd very much like to see some documentation regarding what the experimenters expectations of the event where

 

if you are not intelligent enough to see that the wing is being chopped off by a pole you are not remotely qualified to be here in this thread.



sorry, but your posts are a complete waste since the information has already been given to you.

please do everyone a favor and find another playground more commensurate with your knowledge base.

 

expectations and the elements required to achieve the results are not intrinsically connected. again you should know that if you were qualified to be in this thread.

I have already given you all the data you need to compute the parameters if you were capable. You are not capable therefore the report does you no good since you have proven yourself incapable of assessing the matter. Translated that means you are operating a light year out of your league.

 

I think this may be the test http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/654538.pdf

 

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

aint getting any younger here LOL

he is probly asking fang LMAO

 

BREAKING NEWS!

10 years ago the 911 commission assembled a team of top scientists from around the world to assess flight 77 and create a model to correct previous tests performed by the us air force and the faa.

Previously it was believed that when a plane hit a pole over 300 miles per hour that the wing would be sheared off resulting in fuel spray and a huge streaming fireball as the fuel was spied from the tanks.for up to several hundred yards as seen below.






We can see above however that there was no streaming fireball following the plane as it went into the pentagon.




therefore it follows that aircraft wings do not become severed or cut as previously tested shown here below.



.
This above test was erroneous. Those are not poles, that is not a wing, and its not fluid spraying out of a severed fuel tank that is merely the reflection of the sun.


Flight 77 successfully mowed down 5 light poles and suffered no wing damage


That concludes 10 years of hard and our analysis and correction of the previous tests and declare the pentagon pole mower a huge success!


A giant step forward in science and physics for mankind!

 

Sorry, Koko, you asre still stuck with the fact the top of an aluminum pole is far more flexible than the bottom of a wooden one, and that a far lesser amount of stress will rip a metal light standard off its pedestal than a wooden one.

 

sorry lefty, you blew it again.

First the tops of a wood poles and the top of an al poles are designed to have the same performance between them and by the dimensions given it should be painfully obvious to you that they used the tops of the wood poles not the bottoms. So that argument fails.

Worse your argument fails again since there is roughly only 15% difference in strength between the top and bottom, which is taken into account in the design of the al poles.

your argument fails yet again when taking into account that the poles were bent nearly all the way to the base.




Next you have the mistaken idea that bases are used that are not capable of carrying the same load the pole is designed to carry. How (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up is that?

Thats like putting a tranny that blows up at 100 hp in a car with 400 hp motor.

THINK!


all you have is red herrings and I had lobster, thanks anyway.