We have witnesses stating that the polles broke when the aircraft hit them. It is up to you to disprove what I stated about their breaking off easily. Nobody expects once-inch bolts to resist a moving vehicle of any size. And then you still have to prove what else could have knocked them down and gone on to cause the damage seen on the facade of the Pentagon.
we have witnesses on your team that said they saw the plane hit the ower too! caveat: on tv the trash troughers push is max absurdo look that (*)(*)(*)(*) is all made up, he thinks a plane at 300 mph wont even get a dent! this is from a bird at very low speed! troughers say any damn thing
Your problem is assuming thsat hitting the poles did not damage the aircraft. It did, just not enough to bring it down. Why do you think it was trailing smoke when it crossed the lawn? You still have to present evidence that someting else could have done the damage observed.
sorry man no picture of a plane, do you see a plane in any of those pentagon pictures? I dont. planes are fragile. this one hit a building during taxi, and cut the wing right off! they are not designed to repel light poles they are empty shells filled with gas troughers should lay off the koolaid
Actually, the wings are filled with fuel and rigid aluminum spars. You still have to show that anything else could have caused the damage observed to the facade of the Pentagon. And you are still stuck with this conundrum.
Funny how those 'empty shells' have to support the two engines,and have to be strong enough to support the entire weight of the plane,while flying...
yeh pretty light weight stuff, have vertical strength not horizontal, and they arent like the wtc, engines dont weight 1/2 million tons LMAO
yeh the wings did not go through the hull and they are built much heavier for military aircraft. more lights on nobody home language, rigid.....um geee how rigid is rigid, do tell
The left one did, because it hit first. No, they were not. Not in WWII, anyway. A Betty was not really all that big to begin with. You might have noticed, though, unless you are blinded by your own obstinate determination not to see that which makes your beliefs look silly, that there was an imprint on both sides of the hole that the Zero made in the side of the Sterette, a much more heavily-armored craft than was the Hinsdale. The Zero, of course, was also more lightly-constructed than the Betty. They were more concerned about speed and maneuverability than anything else, and making the wings strong enough to handle the load of cargo that a 757 has to carry work against that in a sub-sonic aircraft. Today's super-sonic aircraft need to be a bit more solid, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
its absolutely relevant, and making a mark is not going through. the fact that troughers believe it is irrelevant shows troughers do not know and are unqualified. whats the point of arguing this both eyes closed? I shoot them down faster than troughers can take their next hit off the bong and dream them up.
You still have not accounted for the 757-shaped crushed marks on the facade or the airplane pieces on the helipad.
I showed you video which shows debris on the helipad near the fire trucks. Below are crush marks from the vertical stabilizer (very light, except for the one mark at the top caused by the counter balance of the rudder,) the right wing and the left wing. These marks are where they should be if the plane were in a left bank on impact. This would put the left wing parallel with the ground, as shown by the fact that the limestone sheating is crushed about the length of a wing to the left of the large hole that remained after the collapse. (That was where the engine tore out some columns so that they had to put two heavy wooden piers under the floor slab to keep it up.)
looks like a stain to me. no reference where that stain is either. that looke like building debris blown rom the inside out. why you showing me pics that show the columns blown outward, you gonna make a case for th polane coming in the other direction now or what.
There are no columns blown outward. Only people who do not bother to look at the evidence see columns blown outward. You just bought another truckload of FAIL. But, what the hell. People might find it amusing if you do try to point out these mysthical "columns blown outward." Give it a shot, but don't blame me if you get laughed at by anybody here with any knowledge of construction or fire science.
So you cannot show me any columns blown outward, but have taken the word of a French criminal who claims to be an experienced fire fighter. Brilliant. Now go see a doctor about that bullet hole in your foot.
because I dont have one lol its on one of the foia released videos not that it matters because its plain as the nose on your face that is a suib and you already denied that so frankly I dont see the point in it anyway
You have no photo of an column blown outward because none exist anywhere. There never were any. You have been lied to.
Bull feathers. After your childish remarks, the only conclusion that a rational person can reach here is that you have no clue what you are talking about and you have mistaken something else for evidence based on the lies told by a senile, unethical scumbag general and a French intelligence officer who should have been shot years prior to his being dishonorably discharged.
