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

While he keeps screaming 'I'm right',koko misses the point AND basic physics

 

you might actually stand a remote chance of being believed if you put your fiziks cipherin up for us, since you obviously have no idea of pole construction we wont hold our breath.

 

this is what troughers believe happens when a plane hits a pole:



that the poles just bounce right on off because they are protected by their shields aye good job scotty!



this is what truthers believe happens when a plane hits a pole:





that this is not startrek and the plane had no shields!


Flight 77 successfully mowed down 5 light poles and suffered no wing damage had no flaming streamers of burning fuel!

 

Apparently koko has a hard time telling animation from actual live footage...

 

no the animation is the green one, that is the trougher version, the real one is the reddish and bluish ones, which are the truther version.

see here is another truther version




look how the same test sliced the wing clean off!

shields scotty shields!

 

According to the test,the poles were set up to replicate trees NOT light standards,and were there to explicitly rip into the wings.

The light poles were designed to break away if a sufficient enough force hit them,which the airplanes wings that day were plenty enough.


Koko fails yet again,apparently at simple understanding.

 

what the hell is going on here.

you boys seem to have a memory lapse between 3 posts in a few hours.

I already told you that breakaway boxes do not work more than 3 feet above the box, and otherwise operate like a concrete mount.

oh? Ok I get it so now wood light poles with the same specifications as steel/al light poles dont count for you? Only someone with absolutely no comprehension what so ever of how these devices work would even think such a ridiculous notion much less say it in public and prove they dont know. dang have some pride.

 

Koko seems to be pulling more ridiculous claims out of his ass again

the breakaway mounts won't act as concrete mounts

And the wooden poles were there to replicate TREES,not light poles....the test PDF even said as much

And I think koko doesn't understand how frangible connections work

 

"wooden poles [which were light poles] were there to replicate TREES,not light pole"

Does it have electrolytes?

[video=youtube;-Vw2CrY9Igs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs[/video]

Hmm still having difficulty breaking out of your debilitating orwellian double think box and grasping such a simple concept in logic I see.

"but they *WERE LIGHT POLES*"

They were NOT trees.

Have you been hitting the bottle?

sure everyone knows how they work, or so I thought. if you hit one with a car it breaks. not realy complicated. if you hit the pole more than 3 feet above the box too bad as they are not designed to break away any higher than 3 feet. the imaginary plane hit much higher than 3 feet above the box, and since the pole bent all the way to within 3 feet of the box the box operated properly by not breaking away until the force was great enough to rip the pole in 1/2.

dood this is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing elementary I cant imagine wtf your problem is that you fail to grasp something so simple.

 

That wing broke off when it hit the dirt pile. In the video, you can see both engines discombobulating right next to each other, which would be impossible had the inboard pole sliced through the wing, because the outboard engine would have been skittering along the ground behind the plane.

FAIL

 

Of course, this is just a simplification. Some of the pole just fell flat , some would have had some rotation going on, some would have flipped end-for-end. That really mangled one is far enough from any base that it probably did a flip or two, causing those folds and fractures.

 

Koko maybe ought to think before he posts.....he claims without any proof that the poles aren't designed to fail if hit above 3 feet

then he claims the box connection didn't fail when the plane hit it,without proof,again

and lastly, he can't grasp why they'd use wooden POLES TO REPLICATE trees ,since there aren't any in the desert where they ran the test...


Speaking of grasping the simple stuff,koks fails miserably

 

Since you do not get it get a tutor. I explained it to you many times I see no need to continue trying.

 

simplification?

from the evidence its what happened!

No flame streaming, no wings laying all over the grounds, just a lot of stanky



this is how it should have happened





Flight 77 successfully mowed down 5 light poles and suffered no wing damage had no flaming streamers of burning fuel!

lots of people are really stoopid but come on now.

all we know for sure is that after hitting 3 on the left and 2 on the right and no flaming streamers and no wing parts proves there was no plane.

 

Perhaps koko could point to any time he's adequately explained ANYTHING on this forum

 

yeh its hard to tell waht came first on the INNER break the chicken or the egg, however the outer break was clean cut just like da udder one.



hot knife through butter!



of course that does not apply to a plane going 200 mph FASTER because it is a pole mower disguised as a passenger jet!!!!

 

lots of people are really stoopid but come on now. Anybody who has ecver seen a light standard in a gale-force wind knows that they are far more flexible at the top than is a wooden pole. The aircraft hit the most flexible part of the light standards. Since we know that the wooden pole did not sever the wing of the Constellation, we have no reason to expect the more flexible light standard to serve the wing of the 757. One of them did damage the right engine, and we have fuel streaming from it in the parking lot camera frames.

FAIL.

 

Yup. Chopped that wooden pole right off at the ground. You can see that both engines start to dig in at the same time. If ir were not still attached to the rest of the aircraft, the drag would have stopped the outboard engine right away.

 

liar liar pants on fire




the wingtip was sliced clean as it first goes forward (faster then the inboard wing section) immediately when the plane hits the second pole as a result of its deceleration, and you can see the inboard section rise up as the outboard section falls to the ground.

I am talking about the outboard section of the wing not the inboard section which does not hit the ground until long after it was sheared off the inboard section.

The engine twists folding under the inboard wing force it to rise, so this whole premise you are claiming is either with respect to the inboard wing or you have a very long nose right now.

because it is more flexible does not mean it breaks easier and I have seen it both ways, wood or steel. wood generally once dried is not as flexible, it comes down to the loading abilities which I posted the specs for you a very long time ago and you did not even recognize them.and the most flexible part of the tube is is the very tip, the aircraft did not hit the very tip, and the idea that a wing can hit even a 300 pound wet noodle without being sliced open when going 300+ mph is not just silly but ludicrous

 

so I wanna know how flexible a bird is?








now the alleged aircraft was supposedly going over 300mph when it hit those poles.

Look at the damage a bird does at under 200mph!

Remember the ping pong ball and the effects of speed that newt posted?


so what I want to know is how flexible is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bird that can cut right on through the outer hull like that at much less speeds and how that compares with hitting a 300+ pound pole at 300+ mph and the pole does not damage the wing in your world, when tested poles of the same loading characteristics cut wings completely off at only 100 mph as seen in my previous post? whats up with that

 

Great response - surprised you didn't have a little gif to go along with it

 

Flight 77 was the "magic flight"! Don't you know? ROFL!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah really. Come see my blog! Come see my blog!

 

actually I did, little dishonesty on your part only ruins your own credibility and demonstrates how weak your position is and in your face fraud is pretty weak.

 

I guess my stupid filter is set a little too high - I see nothing

 

most likely you are viewing another forum and posting here.