Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Everything dismissed with one felt swoop...again, with an insult thrown in for good measure, again.

....and some pretend to wonder why their responses about any serious discussions, aren't taken seriously.

 

Now be fair--serious contrary witness evidence was posted first, and kokomojos total 'rebuttal' was "so you base your "proof" on what some dip wit dweeb said?"

Serious discussion just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Still, two things occur to me to mention:

1. Effects of plane hitting objects vary depend on just what part of plane hits what object. A witness said one the hits was on landing gear, for example. A fuel explosion isn't to be expected from that, is it? Kokomojos gif, on the other hand, was of a test in which the posts were deliberately placed to rupture the fuel tanks.

2. Even if an 'immediate' explosion ensues, how fast was the jet aircraft travelling? How far was left to go to impact? Let's just pull out some conservative numbers, 250 mph and 500 yards. Going 250, the aircraft will cover 500 yards in (calculate calculate) about 4 seconds. Suggests to me that the plane was likely going in anyway, no matter what hit what.

I suspect I know what sort of response to expect to these ideas, though....

 

awww all the big cow tears when faced with facts, you dont have enough spin in your top.

Face it since this is a government test you cant deny it without going completely insane.




the wings are completely sheered off!




People who want to believe in light power pole mowers are fine with me.





Of course belief in light pole mowers is top shelf madness.

Well except to someone who is mad of course.

 

Explain how to have a "serious" discussion with people who believe in light pole mowers?

Is that what it suggests?

Then where is the associated fireball upon impact of the very first pole forward, or do you also believe in light pole mowers?

 

well the rules of the game are laid out when you have people arguing that jumbo jets are light pole mowers, or black is white, or left is right, you pretty much know where this is going.

Nice comedic relief though.

Hey Fraud, I have a witness, his name is jimmy joe and he works for the left right agency and said that the sun is an giant icecube!

So there you go! See if you can beat that damn it! My witness said so!




I wonder where we have heard those lines before LOL

 

As expected. No serious engagement. No reasoning. No argument. Just scoffing, the sort RWF says is so unfair and awful--when your side is on the receiving end.


A serious discussion would mention the report that a landing gear hit a pole. Would you necessarily expect a fireball if a landing gear hit a pole? If you're so sure that this means nothing, give me a bit or argument. Convince me. Tell me "I know it wasn't the landing gear that hit. here's how I know...."

Or you might say "Oh, a landing gear gear hitting would indeed be instantly catastrophic. Here's how I know...."

Or you might say "It doesn't matter if one pole just hit a landing gear, because I know another one smacked full-on into the wing root. Here's evidence...."

That would be engaging in serious argument. Can you do it?

 

If you want a "serious" discussion then GET SERIOUS!

A serious discussion would laugh and scoff at the idea that landing gear is significant beyond even the most absurd unreasonable doubt.

you want to talk about a landing gear shielding a plane?

How did that landing gear protect that alleged plane from being ripped apart by how many?

7 poles was it? Installed as wing bumpers maybe? I cant even begin to guess the mind of troughers now days.



Show me that trick.

 

More scoffing and ridicule. Even after I modeled real argument for you. You clearly can't or won't engage in that. But I'll comment on the one factual point you mention as if you could or would.

You say seven poles were hit. Did anyone report a plane exploding in a fireball as it approached the Pentagon? If not, only two things are possible:

1. Hitting the poles, however the aircraft actually did it, did not have the results you insist must occur. Perhaps the poles were constructed and erected in a way that allowed them to be knocked over easily, without doing the damage you posit. I've often see poles that are held onto concrete bases by four bolts and nuts. Perhaps such fasteners failed and the poles went over much more easily than was the case with the poles in the test you showed.

That's one hypothetical explanation. If it's not the case, and and aircraft hit the poles, there must be some other explanation, because there is no reported fiery-explosion-on-approach.

2. No aircraft exploded on hitting the poles, because no aircraft hit the poles. But you say seven poles were hit. If an aircraft didn't knock them down, what did?

 

are you joking?

I could care less what may have coulda shoulda woulda knocked poles down. They, maybe you too, claim poles were in fact knocked down, they who make the claim get to prove the claim.

Dont ask me to prove their claim for them. How (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up is that? Trust me it wont happen arguing with me. LOL Neither do I care what alternative may have been used, all I give a damn about is that the method claimed is factual, and not only is it a fairy tale on every conceivable level but it reaches to the level of a comedy show.

In so far as your hypothesis well you go gather up all the data on light poles then come on back and make your case. I went over this far too many times to (*)(*)(*)(*) with it and do your homework for you.

 

My source that seven poles were hit is you.

If you now say seven poles were not hit, well, that would explain why the plane was not destroyed by hitting poles.

There was no plane destroyed in a fireball on approach to the Pentagon, in any case, do we agree on that?

 

in your video those light poles are designed to shear off when hit...the base is about 6feet to 12 feet deep with number 6 rebar or higher with the bolts attached before pour concrete is in place..concrete is a standard 5 sack 1 inch minus six with a psi of atleast 2500 psi..so a plane or car hitting the poles just breaks at the base of the pole causing little damage...now the poles at the airport are probaly different but i would have to know what those poles where before i could tell you how they were in the ground...more than likely they wereimbedded in the ground and then concrete poured around them just like a power pole is

 

well that is superfluous and irrelevant 7,6,5, who cares it only takes one to slice a wing opne like hot knife through butter, which would result in a huge fireball of flying parts headed toward the pentagon.

We do not see such a thing in any video that the government has given to the public.

You will find if not already that there is a big difference between posters out here.

You got the government authority dependents and those who can see and think for themselves. That is what this is really about.

 

How's it going guys? Still arguing with koko? Figured out it's pointless yet? Has it gone a little bit like I said? Lol I love it

 

you are wrong...not designed to rip the wings apart

 

what are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

still licking your wounds huh.

I am just so happy to be loved!

 

n your video those light poles are designed to shear off when hit...the base is about 6feet to 12 feet deep with number 6 rebar or higher with the bolts attached before pour concrete is in place..concrete is a standard 5 sack 1 inch minus six with a psi of atleast 2500 psi..so a plane or car hitting the poles just breaks at the base of the pole causing little damage...now the poles at the airport are probaly different but i would have to know what those poles where before i could tell you how they were in the ground...more than likely they wereimbedded in the ground and then concrete poured around them just like a power pole is


and for you info i have pour 100s of these light poles..how many have you done?..

 

Hit how?

Lots of different ways to hit poles you know.

What if I hooked a bulldozer to the top and started pulling would it shear? How about same thing with the bottom? If your answer is yes describe how and what would shear. (the failure mode) If no tell us why not.

Riddle me that batman!

(oh and you made several mistakes in your understanding of how they work but I will let them slide for now to give you time to answer the question that will also answer yours)

 

Koko has been told time and time again the poles are designed to shear off when hit for the same reason concrete dividers on freeways have multiple water filled plastic barrels on their ends.

To ensure crash survivability if hit.

 

climb a t pole and shake it at the top it will shear off at the bottom if you weigh about 200 lbs..thats the design..

- - - Updated - - -

look at a light pole next time and you will see an acces box at the bottom of the pole..thats where the pole is designed to shear off at...

 

well then you answer the question I asked cjm, I will post the correct answer when I can make enough faces red that its worth my time to dig it up. LMAO

- - - Updated - - -

ok so you cannot answer the question, beck to school then, now its lonestars turn, so lonestar you wanna take a shot at answering the question or you gonna side step it too?

fyi we all know about the breakway feature and that has nothing to do with the pole btw, and yeh a 100 year old small telephone pole probly would break if a mosquito hit it. lol and no that is not the design and if you really believe that then post your design data. I wont be holding my breath that it will be forthcoming. lol

 

i did answer it but you are too stupid to understand it like always...

 

I answered koko's 'question',he might THINK he has the correct answer,but given his track record,he's wrong.

 

one time at band camp i thought he got something right once but i was wrong that time..its like talking to 9 yr old child..

 

Thanks for explaining clearly what this is really about: insult-exchange between your gang and a rival gang.

I shall decline further participation here, thanks.

 

nah I dont need to exchange insults. they do!

They are insulted when ya post the facts. (because it shows how foolish their positions are)

they are the ones without the goods.

You got troughers out here that will look at a black and say its white.

Here is John Gross head Engineer at NIST posing on disintegrated steel.





He is the one that said there was no molten metal and there are several here that stand by their man!

Hell they cant even tell us how simple poles are designed to operate. lmao