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

No I still think the filter is protecting me from stupid

 

well their noses have to get pretty long and obvious now days

 

pretty difficult to hide from yourself.

this is a pretty foolish avenue you are running down proving yet again you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rebuttal what so ever.

 

We rebutted your crap half-way through the thread when I found the sources for your childishly inaccurate gifs.

You are BSing us about being a lawyer, aren't you?

 

you mean you confirmed it. rebutted means you showed it to be incorrect, you confirmed it that means you showed me to be correct.

I know how painful gifs are since everyone can immediately see someone who is lying without the need to click on a link. Really handy (*)(*)(*)(*).

lawyer has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless of course you want to complement me on how skillfully I tied you boyz up in a knot and proved your pushin AAA

 

koko remains a victim to his own delusions.

 

hardly,

here is what the official troughers stand on the soap box and claim



that the poles just bounce right on off

and plane go right through steel buildings



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




and this one with the wing sliced into 3 pieces










they think that the poles were just mowed over and we know there was no wing damage because there was no streaming flame, only a little smoke that looked like a rocket.

I guess we got ripped off when we went to school since they never taught us voodoo fizzieaches. suffice to say i wont be going to purdue anytime soon LOL

 

Ok, don't tell me. Since I have koko on ignore I am going to bet that he just pulled out the .gifs. Then he used those .gifs to "prove" that the offical story was BS using some outdated, irrelevant footage that has nothing to do with the events that happened that day. Am I right?

 

I bet you are peeking!




yeh were are having a roast for dinner.




Hows that official "STORY" working for you btw?






plague thinks physics is political and changes dependant on who is in office!

 

Amazing. It is possible to bugger oneself. You just did it again. Notice how the inboard engine discombobulates on contact with the ground. The outboard engine folds under in exactly the same way, but, in terms of how long the entire action lasted, much LATER, indicating that it was higher off the ground. This is not consistent with your idiotic and observably false claim that the wing had been severed between the inboard and outboard engines.

Any dummy who had watched and airshow or seen a missile launched would recognize that that smoke looks more like it was caught in the turbulence under a very large aircraft wing.

 

Oh, grow up. We are all telling you that physics, as known since at least 1945, work the same way in NYC as off the coast of Okinawa.

 

You should have put some K-Y Jelly on this one. Notice that the left wing, which did not hit a pole, was broke off on contact with the ground. All the pole did was weaken the outboard section so that it snapped before the wing root did, saving that part of the wing. The left is broken off at or near the wing root.

 

KY Jelly. Sinking lower and lower I see. Desperation yields desperate measures, I suppose.

 

I see you have still not examined the evidence in the source material. Intellectually bankrupt, as usual.

 

I should have known it would be another half asses assessment.

Wrong.

the right wing is in 3 sections.

the pole clean sliced the outboard wing off.

the inside pole sliced the second section damaging it to the point that the bouncing and the twisting from the cowling being dragged under later the engine snapped it like a twig.

the point you are desperately trying to avoid is that the outboard wing section was cleanly sliced off by the pole and the plane was only going 100 mph. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing slower than any car that I know of.

 

Not really. The wing was still strong enough to stay attached until it dug into the dirt. The wooden pole, by design, had less give than has the top of a metal light standard, and the plane severed it and kept going.

You have not proven anything about the strike on the Pentagon.

 

Sources provided by folks here aren't worth looking at. Sorry..I rely on information outside of the team thing.

 

Yes fraud....your bogus sources are lacking.

 

There are plausible alternative explanations that would explain the poles so they aren't conclusive proof of anything.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

The light poles also don't make the mountain of proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html
(see posts #3, #5, and #8 )

It's clear that whatever hit the Pentagon was too small to be a 757. Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Even if you agree,

(*)(*)(*)(*) plausible, I deal in facts.

the fact is that it is ridiculously easy to prove its nothing more than official bull(*)(*)(*)(*), pent, wtc the whole damn thing

 

no its not




see the wing flipping in the wind no ground or bull(*)(*)(*)(*) story needed.

its that flat checkered part at the end of that big long thing and the round parts are engines.

 

Total hogwash. The wing marks and tail print match perfectly with a 757-type of aircraft. The only video with any kind of realistic scale is that from the Double Tree and it shows one enormous vertical stabilizer headed directly toward the building just before the fireball bursts into view.

That senile old dirtbag Stubblebine measured wrong.

 

The wing tip was severed. So what? It is fragile and hit a solid object with very little give. It gets left behind while the rest of the wing continues on to hit the dirt pile.

The tip is left behind and the two engines dig into the dirt about the same time and stay close together until they are at least half-way up the dirt pile. They had to be connected to do that.

 

so what?

So this:




and after it hits the first pole this too:



is reality!



Not this:



or this:





and the tip is airborne and flies forward as the plane comes to a stop on the mound.

 

Yes, yes...and the "official" BS story lacks everything (and even more bogus).