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

You are correct in fact the higher the impact up that pole would increase the force upon the bolts like using a lever.

AboveAlpha

 

Might want to also ask koko how a pound and a half or so chunk of polyurethane foam punched a hole in the wing of the space shuttle Columbia.......Velocity made the same stuff beer coolers are made of,deadly for 7 astronauts during re-entry.

 

Perhaps koko can quit teasing us and just tell us why they weren't 'designed to operate that way',and show proof of his claim.

 

A Meteor the size of a Golf Ball traveling at 38,000 Miles Per Hour that is made of a high melting point metal would impact the Earth with as much Kinetic Force and Energy as a small Nuclear Weapon.

AboveAlpha

 

Speaking of mowers, how do you explain being able to cut willow shoots with monofilament nylon?

 

What are you talking about. Of course light poles are designed to shear off when cars hit them. Anybody who knows how to drive a car knows this.

 

So what?

 

so what?

thats as silly as trying to tell us an airplane can fly to the moon

- - - Updated - - -

I pointed out the reason you need to prove your claim, poles designed to snap thats a good one

 

yeh but you need to explain this foolishness of how the same plane wing that a bird slices through can slice through a steel pole.

 

You guys, I am not trying to be a dick here, but why the hell are you still engaging Koko? You made your point 6 pages ago. Any rational, intelligent individual understands why the poles snap, and where it happened. Koko will not give in, it's not in his blood. You are wasting your time, and doing nothing but feeding him. It's like giving alcohol to a drunk, you're just making him feel good. People responding is what he gets off on. Just leave him alone, I just read 4 pages of you guys saying the same (*)(*)(*)(*), and Koko continuously denying that it is even possible.

Do you think this is going somewhere? Some truthers at least change arguments, Koko is completely gone. There is no chance you will get him to realize anything.

What's the quote? Doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity?

 

Mine breaks the line every time it hits the willow tree.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried telling the other one that cars dont fly 50 ft off the ground.

 

Because like you they prefer a battle of words not FACTS.

Explain WHAT has been done to the poles to design them to snap. I never heard of such nonsense.

yeh left to your own next you people will say planes are designed to be bull dozers, you already think they are light pole mowers.

Oh (*)(*)(*)(*) wait you do think they are bulldozers, I forgot about flt 93 that took a short cut to china.

Simple, put up the design specifications for the poles, you wont because you know you are wrong. LMAO

Insanity is insisting that a wing will slice through steel unscathed going the same speed that a little tweety bird slices through the wing, and most importantly that it will not immediately burst into flames upon impact.







Flt 77 was one bad ass mower!

 

The poles ARE designed to break away when hit,so drivers don't kill themselves driving into a solidly anchored pole

 

The "POLE" is NOT designed to break, no pole is designed to break, that is pure *******.

 

http://www.carsonite.com/breakaway-light-poles.asp

Standard industry issue.

 

no its not.

you think these are composite?



give us a break already

see what you did here would land your butt in jail for perjury if you waltzed into court with that crap. you dig?

again the POLE is NOT designed to break

OR

if you prefer the POLES THAT THE ALLEGED PLANE ALLEGEDLY HIT WERE NOT DESIGNED TO BREAK!

 

Ahhh,koko is back to his 'who are you going to believe,me or your lying eyes?' kick..

 

oh wait a second here.

I am so accustomed to trougher diatribe lip service I may have dismissed this without due consideration.

So what you now are saying is that the "POLE STRUCTURE" when hit "LATERALLY AT GROUND LEVEL" is designed to "BREAK OUT OF ITS SUPPORT MOUNT", and you are no longer saying the pole is designed to break is that correct?

 

no you got that wrong,

who are you going to believe, your eyes, when reviewing picture proof or some lying (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) claiming to be an expert?

 

Ahhh koko is starting to parse words now,he knows damn well what I meant when I said 'the poles were designed to break away'

 

Given the so called 'picture proof' is coming from koko, some lying ******* claiming to be an expert,I know who to believe

 

No I do not presume to read minds, especially those who support the government fairy tale.

So you confirm they break away when hit laterally at ground level and your eyes can see when its not at ground level the pole itself broke despite a breakaway mounting structure.






what level of insanity must we get to to believe that lil birds could do SO MUCH DAMAGE and BIG steel poles SO LITTLE DAMAGE?









Stoopid little bird sliced through the wing instead of the wing slicing through a bird.



So riddle me this batman!

How did a plane wing do that feet of magic slicing that steel pole in half when a soft bodied lil ole tweety bird at the same speeds punch holes right through the wing?




Oh and then not only did it slice the steel pole in half, no no no, it sliced several more poles in half and continued to rip a hole in one of the most fortified buildings in the US.



when ACTUAL TESTS PROVE that is impossible.

You got problems in Dodge pal!

 

Someone said 'never argue with idiots,they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience'...this exchange with koko proves that.

I'm done.

 

Hey dont take it personal, look how easy it is to prove 911 is a delusional fantasy. Consider it a learning experience on how to more carefully choose the side you are on next time.



2 poles = 2 slices of wing, served hot n flaming!

 

I said that 3 pages ago

Then again on page 12

Then on page 10 haha, with the following quotes:

I'd understand if maybe he made a point every once in awhile, but all he does is reverse burden of proof, and talk (*)(*)(*)(*). Why is anyone wasting their time with this guy anymore? Just ignore him, and like a child that gets ignored by his parents he'll move on.