911 Flight 77 "The Official Pentagon Light Pole Mower"

[PredFan]

Ok so does anyone here really and truly buy into the flight 77 fantasy?





since when does a plane simply mow down 5 poles unscathed without self destructing?

Since 9-11-01.

You're welcome.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Any examples involving plane wings hittin light poles on roadways and which light poles are specifically designed to break away in the event of a collision?

the location of the metal does not make a difference, break away is not the same as break in half, breaking away is irrelevant when they break in 1/2.

Who says? Again, any examples of a plane wing disintegrating and bursting into a fireball when hitting a light pole which is specifically designed to break away?

BTW, your pics are annoying because you can't stop the action and look at the individual frames to determine exactly what they represent.

 

[PredFan]

Since we are thanking Mr Newton

Now you can explain how your "missile" swerved around and knocked down all those light poles

what missile? who said anything about a missile?

NOT ME!

So you think a missile swerved around and mowed down all those poles do ya?

So far..

Not a plane
Not a missile

Pigeon?

My money is on giant titanium frizbie.

 

[PredFan]

yep, lots of mass, 400 pound poles sliced in 1/2 like a hot knife through warm butter with no substantial damage to the mower blades!

How do you know the wings did not suffer any damage?

because the wings did not disintegrate and there was no ball of flame associated with metal on metal collision when wing tanks are severed.

Numerous examples of wings hitting metal out here.

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

 

[PredFan]

Koko has already proven that an airplane moving at 500 mph is incapable of knocking out light poles. I mean Youtube doesn't lie

I'm thinking of an army of angry beavers descending on the Pentagon to take out light poles

It is the only LOGICAL choice

He got that info off the internet. Of course we all know that they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

 

[PredFan]

This is what these conspiracy people do. They try to find inconsistancies in the story, and without actually putting out any theory of their own, they simply press their "truth" for some self-serving purpose. Instead of like rational people would do: looking at this trivial fact as an interesting sidenote, they think it debunks the entire report of the incident.

Meh, at least it's entertaining.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How do you know the wings did not suffer any damage?

because the wings did not disintegrate and there was no ball of flame associated with metal on metal collision when wing tanks are severed.

Numerous examples of wings hitting metal out here.

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Koko has already proven that an airplane moving at 500 mph is incapable of knocking out light poles. I mean Youtube doesn't lie

I'm thinking of an army of angry beavers descending on the Pentagon to take out light poles

It is the only LOGICAL choice

He got that info off the internet. Of course we all know that they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

well we know he is joking that beavers did it.

dont we?

 

[PredFan]

because the wings did not disintegrate and there was no ball of flame associated with metal on metal collision when wing tanks are severed.

Numerous examples of wings hitting metal out here.

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Really? You cannot maintain a shred of credibility asking questions like that.

 

[rightwinger]

because the wings did not disintegrate and there was no ball of flame associated with metal on metal collision when wing tanks are severed.

Numerous examples of wings hitting metal out here.

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Why would it burst into flames?

 

[rightwinger]

because the wings did not disintegrate and there was no ball of flame associated with metal on metal collision when wing tanks are severed.

Numerous examples of wings hitting metal out here.

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Why would it burst into flames?

From a lightpole?

 

[PredFan]

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Why would it burst into flames?

Someone ignored the no-smoking sign in the restroom.

 

[Politico]

Ok so does anyone here really and truly buy into the flight 77 fantasy?





since when does a plane simply mow down 5 poles unscathed without self destructing?

I know your horse died, was beaten repeatedly, buried, dug up and beat 1000 more times. And low and behold he still has nothing to say.

 

[KokomoJojo]

This is what these conspiracy people do. They try to find inconsistancies in the story, and without actually putting out any theory of their own, they simply press their "truth" for some self-serving purpose. Instead of like rational people would do: looking at this trivial fact as an interesting sidenote, they think it debunks the entire report of the incident.

Meh, at least it's entertaining.

Yes but what is entertaining is the extent certain people go to try and gloss over opening their eyes to reality.

The whole idea behind going to court is to dispose of bullshit, and that is accomplished by sorting out the inconsistencies.

The purpose being to get to the bottom of the matter and establish facts based on the merits and substance of any issue.

That is how you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Do you have a better way?

Like mindlessly believe everything the government tells you?

Is that your solution?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Ok so does anyone here really and truly buy into the flight 77 fantasy?

since when does a plane simply mow down 5 poles unscathed without self destructing?

I know your horse died, was beaten repeatedly, buried, dug up and beat 1000 more times. And low and behold he still has nothing to say.

the facts speak for themselves but I dont mind demonstration it for those who need a better understanding of physics.

 

[legaleagle_45]

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Who says?

Why did it not happen to a Korean Air 747 which hit a light pole, knocked it down but only ended up denting its wing and no one was injured.

Korean Air 747 Hits Light Pole - NYTimes.com

 

[KokomoJojo]

You do understand that the distance between the light poles and the building is so short that at that speed, there isn't time for an explosion to develop very far.

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Why would it burst into flames?

From a lightpole?

all it takes is one grain of sand to scrape the metal or high speed compression will reach temperatures that will ignite the fuel.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It would have burst into flames well before the first pole hit the ground and beyond unreasonable doubt before the alleged plane hit the second pole why do you ask? How long do you think it takes?

Who says?

Why did it not happen to a Korean Air 747 which hit a light pole, knocked it down but only ended up denting its wing and no one was injured.

Korean Air 747 Hits Light Pole - NYTimes.com

planes taxi at 500 mph?

never happened.

we have proof however that these pole were cut in 1/2 despite the korean incident.

 

[PredFan]

This is what these conspiracy people do. They try to find inconsistancies in the story, and without actually putting out any theory of their own, they simply press their "truth" for some self-serving purpose. Instead of like rational people would do: looking at this trivial fact as an interesting sidenote, they think it debunks the entire report of the incident.

Meh, at least it's entertaining.

Yes but what is entertaining is the extent certain people go to try and gloss over opening their eyes to reality.

The whole idea behind going to court is to dispose of bullshit, and that is accomplished by sorting out the inconsistencies.

The purpose being to get to the bottom of the matter and establish facts based on the merits and substance of any issue.

That is how you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Do you have a better way?

Like mindlessly believe everything the government tells you?

Is that your solution?

You ignore the mountains of other evidence, and cling desperately to this one thing that you think is inconsistant. then to defend your goofy thinking you try to imply that anyone who opposes you is a mindless drone.

You aren't the first conspiracy wack-job to try this method.

 

[KokomoJojo]

This is what these conspiracy people do. They try to find inconsistancies in the story, and without actually putting out any theory of their own, they simply press their "truth" for some self-serving purpose. Instead of like rational people would do: looking at this trivial fact as an interesting sidenote, they think it debunks the entire report of the incident.

Meh, at least it's entertaining.

Yes but what is entertaining is the extent certain people go to try and gloss over opening their eyes to reality.

The whole idea behind going to court is to dispose of bullshit, and that is accomplished by sorting out the inconsistencies.

The purpose being to get to the bottom of the matter and establish facts based on the merits and substance of any issue.

That is how you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Do you have a better way?

Like mindlessly believe everything the government tells you?

Is that your solution?

You ignore the mountains of other evidence, and cling desperately to this one thing that you think is inconsistant. then to defend your goofy thinking you try to imply that anyone who opposes you is a mindless drone.

You aren't the first conspiracy wack-job to try this method.

OH?

Did I somehow miss your mountain of evidence. please cite it because I cannot seem to locate it.

and I presume you mean APPLICABLE relevant evidence between the first impacted pole and the building.


.