911 Flight 77 "The Official Pentagon Light Pole Mower"

[KokomoJojo]

Well, actually I have.

My cousin works for Boeing.

He got us time in a 747 simulator. The tech thought we were a little ghoulish, but he set it up with Pentagon & Twin Towers scenarios. We both "successfully" piled into all of them.

And I'm only typed in a Cess 421.

at 500 mph? I am trying to keep a straight face here.

you can do that on Microsoft simulator LMAO

I was doing the 747 cruising speed of Mach .93 (698 mph) when I hit the South Tower.

isnt this about the pentagon?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

at 500 mph? I am trying to keep a straight face here.

you can do that on Microsoft simulator LMAO

I was doing the 747 cruising speed of Mach .93 (698 mph) when I hit the South Tower.

isnt this about the pentagon?

I hit the Pentagon, too. In a 4 engine jumbo jet. 4 engines is a different type of flying, altogether.

All Together: 4 engines is a different type of flying.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I will post my video as soon as you post a link to a single incident in the history of the universe where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters.

Got such a link?

I dont care one way or another if you post your video, lol

but wings get clipped right on off, and this one did not start on fire because the wing tanks were filled with water!

It was a test to see how well the plane would perform in a crash

otherwise all that fog you see would be huge massive inferno of flames.

.
​

No lamp post involved and the fireball occured when the plane struck the ground.... and it was still moving pretty good.

So that was a complete fail on your part. Want to try again?

Sheesh, I provided 4 instances where an actual plane struck an actual light post and survived mostly intact even though two of them were airborne at the time... and you respond with a video of an intentional crash into an object clearly not a lamp post which was probably specifically reinforced to withstand the forces involved as part of the test AND it still does not burst into flames when the wing hits the object and the plane continues going until it crashes into the ground and then and only then does it burst into a fireball.

You have not really thought this whole thing through, huh?

but your question purports that your knowledge is either completely void of any of the necessary background knowledge to grasp the subject we are discussing.

You must understand that atoms exist before you can discuss atoms and you must understand that dropping an anvil on your toe will break it just as dropping a sledge hammer on your toe will break it.

and I provided a picture proving wings get clipped completely off at 1/4 the speed you claim 77 was moving and the fuel is completely misted.

I also gave you a clip showing how a plane bursts into flames when struck by a pole.



so I cant imagine what you are trying to prove at this point with your broad stroke one shoe fits all approach and it seems like your logic is pretty convoluted, care to sort it out?

Oh and no you did not cite any details what so ever for my review, you must be thinking of a different thread.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I gave you information that a knowledgeable person can immediately draw conclusions from, are you not knowledgeable?

So to make a long story short, you have nada.

please read for comprehension

I understand you can not provide a single link where where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters?.

No I do just fine on my own.

In your dreams.

Any link to any plane erupting into a fireball after hitting a lamp post in the history of the universe?

yeh posted already

No you did not. Not even close.

again:

​

1.) Is it a lamp post
Answer NO!

2.) Does it explode into a fireball as soon as the wing is struck?
Answer NO!

3.) Is it a large commercial aircraft
Answer NO!

4.) Does it come to a stop before 100 meters
Answer unable to determine.

So you missed entirely on 3 items and are inconclusive on the 4th.

Want to try again? This time try to explain why the British aircraft and the Canadain aircraft did not explode into a fireball.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I was doing the 747 cruising speed of Mach .93 (698 mph) when I hit the South Tower.

isnt this about the pentagon?

I hit the Pentagon, too. In a 4 engine jumbo jet. 4 engines is a different type of flying, altogether.

All Together: 4 engines is a different type of flying.

not really, they track pretty well, but sure I believe you LOL

 

[Rat in the Hat]

isnt this about the pentagon?

I hit the Pentagon, too. In a 4 engine jumbo jet. 4 engines is a different type of flying, altogether.

All Together: 4 engines is a different type of flying.

not really, they track pretty well, but sure I believe you LOL

I don't give a flying rat's ass if YOU believe me or not. I know what I did in that simulator. Richie and the tech know what i did, too. And THAT'S all that matters to me.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I gave you information that a knowledgeable person can immediately draw conclusions from, are you not knowledgeable?

So to make a long story short, you have nada.

please read for comprehension

I understand you can not provide a single link where where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters?.



In your dreams.

Any link to any plane erupting into a fireball after hitting a lamp post in the history of the universe?

yeh posted already

No you did not. Not even close.

again:

1.) Is it a lamp post
Answer NO!


2.) Does it explode into a fireball as soon as the wing is struck?
Answer NO!

3.) Is it a large commercial aircraft
Answer NO!

4.) Does it come to a stop before 100 meters
Answer unable to determine.

So you missed entirely on 3 items and are inconclusive on the 4th.

Want to try again? This time try to explain why the British aircraft and the Canadain aircraft did not explode into a fireball.

1.) Is it a lamp post
Answer NO!
YES

2.) Does it explode into a fireball as soon as the wing is struck?
Answer NO!
THE WING IS FILLED WITH WATER DUH!!!

3.) Is it a large commercial aircraft
Answer NO!
YES

4.) Does it come to a stop before 100 meters
Answer unable to determine.
YES

So you missed entirely on 3 items and are inconclusive on the 4th.

WRONG, you are demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding how to perform a side by side comparison. Better stick with your official report then, you are unteachable.

This time try to explain why the British aircraft and the Canadain aircraft did not explode into a fireball.

I exaplained that already and told you that you need to put more data on the table if you wish for me to review it further.

Want to try again?
No, total waste of time with someone who simply wants to argue for the sake of argument about matters that are incomprehensible to them.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I hit the Pentagon, too. In a 4 engine jumbo jet. 4 engines is a different type of flying, altogether.

All Together: 4 engines is a different type of flying.

not really, they track pretty well, but sure I believe you LOL

I don't give a flying rat's ass if YOU believe me or not. I know what I did in that simulator. Richie and the tech know what i did, too. And THAT'S all that matters to me.

yeh but we dont know what you did or if you even did it, and that is all that matters to us.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The wings tanks were filled with water.



So I'm left with the question of how the jet flew when the engines are fed with fuel from the wing tanks.



Water fed jet engines.



Sounds like something Wile E. Coyote would buy from Acme Products.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The wings tanks were filled with water.



So I'm left with the question of how the jet flew when the engines are fed with fuel from the wing tanks.



Water fed jet engines.



Sounds like something Wile E. Coyote would buy from Acme Products.

the one in the pic I posted? hell it burst into flames too! Aint that a kick in the pants!

 

[PredFan]

OH?

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

Liar.

It's called the official report of the incident. You know what it is, you are lying.

Oh so you think the official fantasy is like the infallible gospel and word of God eh?

well you can spend the rest of this thread trying to prove that if you wish. as long as its relevant. if not you will go in circles for a very long time.

like I said, you ignore tha mountain of data and cling to this one minor curiosity as if it cancels out the whole thing. that's ok if you want to believe it but don't expect us to.

 

[PredFan]

I try not to confuse people with facts but then you know we just cannot ignore the fact those poles were sliced in half, sorry if that bursts anyones bubble.

No one is denying that they were cut in half, we are denying that that has any meaning at all.

it has meaning because it takes a LOT of power and force to cut poles that strong in half.

A jet airline puts out plenty enough force.

 

[PredFan]

Top Gun hits lamppost.. going 600 mph... no injury:

AN RAF Top Gun pilot was facing the high jump last night — for flying so low he hit a lamppost. The ace clipped the airbase light at 54ft with a wing tip on his Jaguar attack jet while doing 600mph.

He wrestled control of the crippled single-seater and headed straight out to sea from the coastal base in Cyprus.

Ground crews went into a full-scale emergency — but the pilot swooped round over the Med and headed back to base before slamming the plane on a runway.

RAF police immediately impounded the £25million Jaguar and the ace was grounded pending an investigation.

He faces an official carpeting and court martial, which could cost him his wings.

Top Gun hits lamppost | The Sun |News

Court martial? He should be dead and his plane should be a fireball!

no not necesarily, if he just clipped it with the wingtip it may have been outside the fuel tanks in the vent area.

However the articl goes on to say it did clip that portion of the wing off, got video?

You're quite the dancer.

 

[legaleagle_45]

and I provided a picture proving wings get clipped completely off at 1/4 the speed you claim 77 was moving and the fuel is completely misted.

Irrelevant you did not provide anything to show that wings would get clipped off when a plane strikes a lamp post, much less a lamp post specifically designed to break away. .. much less that the pentagon plane must have struck the lamp post with the vulnerable part of the wings which would lead to such a catastrpohe what you have shown is that a plane hit something in the wing in an experiment and that the plane did not explode until it hit the ground. .... well, you have actually shown nothing as we have no way of knowing what your plane actually struck and how it compares to a lamp post.

I also gave you a clip showing how a plane bursts into flames when struck by a pole.

Again, a pole is not a lamp post which is specifically designed to break away. We have no idea what the nature of that pole was and whether it is in any way comparable to the lamp posts at the Pentagon. Got anything on that at all?

so I cant imagine what you are trying to prove at this point with your broad stroke one shoe fits all approach and it seems like your logic is pretty convoluted, care to sort it out?

What I am trying to find out is whether you can provide a link to a single incident where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters? I have previously provided you with several links to actual incidents where no such disaster occured. You wish to ignore them and pretend that those links do not exist or are you going to say they are fake news stories or somthing? Somethiong planted in a newspaper in 1938 so as to cover for 9-11?

Oh and no you did not cite any details what so ever for my review, you must be thinking of a different thread.

I provided links, if that is insufficient, for you at least it is better than what you provided which is no link whatsoever demonstrating a single incident where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters. Got a link to any such occurance? Got any explanation as to the Canadian link or the British link? Or do y9ou wish to pretend that those incidents did not happen and that I did not provide links. Care to prove that the Pentagon plane could only have hit the light posts in areas of the wing which would cause such a catastrophe even if your theory is otherwise correct?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Liar.

It's called the official report of the incident. You know what it is, you are lying.

Oh so you think the official fantasy is like the infallible gospel and word of God eh?

well you can spend the rest of this thread trying to prove that if you wish. as long as its relevant. if not you will go in circles for a very long time.

like I said, you ignore tha mountain of data and cling to this one minor curiosity as if it cancels out the whole thing. that's ok if you want to believe it but don't expect us to.

well see since physics calls bullshit you need to explain how these miracles took place, and I will remind you that we are talking about the events between the impact of the first pole and the last pole. So I expect someone has an explanation how these miracles took place.

 

[PredFan]

Will one of you geniuses explain how a towel head who could barely land a Cissna let alone execute a tight turn descent at G's that approach the limits of the craft, and fly that bitch across the deck at 500 mph leaving a small hole with little wreckage outside the hole while 6000 lb titanium Rolls Royce engines supposedly wrapped up like some kind of orgami while theoretically vaporizing without a trace, with the only trace of the stupid plane was some light aluminum wreckage outside the Pentagram's new butt hole?

forst of all, ther towel head got training to fly the aircraft.

2nd, it was a large hole with lots of wreckage.

 

[PredFan]

Will one of you geniuses explain how a towel head who could barely land a Cissna let alone execute a tight turn descent at G's that approach the limits of the craft, and fly that bitch across the deck at 500 mph leaving a small hole with little wreckage outside the hole while 6000 lb titanium Rolls Royce engines supposedly wrapped up like some kind of orgami while theoretically vaporizing without a trace, with the only trace of the stupid plane was some light aluminum wreckage outside the Pentagram's new butt hole?

Who are you referring to?? Hani Hanjour, the hijacker who flew Flt 77 held a commercial pilot's license.

He was also type rated in the 737.

If only Emirates would have hired him when he went to Saudi Arabia in 1999, he wouldn't have been a hijacker in 2001.

So you're saying he could have pulled this off? I'm sorry, I don't know exactly what happened there but I can't drink that kind of Kool Aid yet. Just seems like a 1 in one 1000 shot. Maybe it did happen, but it's hard for me to get my mind around the skill required in such an endeavor. I'll digress and let you folks teach me because relatively new to this debate.

Easy anser: it happened just as they said. Flying that plane that low is like landing it. Not really that hard for an experienced pilot.

Come on RC, you're usually a rational person, don't go 'round the bend on us.

 

[KokomoJojo]

and I provided a picture proving wings get clipped completely off at 1/4 the speed you claim 77 was moving and the fuel is completely misted.

Irrelevant you did not provide anything to show that wings would get clipped off when a plane strikes a lamp post, much less a lamp post specifically designed to break away. .. much less that the pentagon plane must have struck the lamp post with the vulnerable part of the wings which would lead to such a catastrpohe what you have shown is that a plane hit something in the wing in an experiment and that the plane did not explode until it hit the ground. .... well, you have actually shown nothing as we have no way of knowing what your plane actually struck and how it compares to a lamp post.

I also gave you a clip showing how a plane bursts into flames when struck by a pole.

Again, a pole is not a lamp post which is specifically designed to break away. We have no idea what the nature of that pole was and whether it is in any way comparable to the lamp posts at the Pentagon. Got anything on that at all?

so I cant imagine what you are trying to prove at this point with your broad stroke one shoe fits all approach and it seems like your logic is pretty convoluted, care to sort it out?

What I am trying to find out is whether you can provide a link to a single incident where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters? I have previously provided you with several links to actual incidents where no such disaster occured. You wish to ignore them and pretend that those links do not exist or are you going to say they are fake news stories or somthing? Somethiong planted in a newspaper in 1938 so as to cover for 9-11?

Oh and no you did not cite any details what so ever for my review, you must be thinking of a different thread.

I provided links, if that is insufficient, for you at least it is better than what you provided which is no link whatsoever demonstrating a single incident where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters. Got a link to any such occurance? Got any explanation as to the Canadian link or the British link? Or do y9ou wish to pretend that those incidents did not happen and that I did not provide links. Care to prove that the Pentagon plane could only have hit the light posts in areas of the wing which would cause such a catastrophe even if your theory is otherwise correct?

These poles are not lamp posts. please try and keep your facts straight unless you want to make this about correcting you?

 

[PredFan]

I will post my video as soon as you post a link to a single incident in the history of the universe where a large commercial aircraft struck a light pole causing it to burst into flames and drop to the ground immediately without going another 100 meters.

Got such a link?

I dont care one way or another if you post your video, lol

but wings get clipped right on off, and this one did not start on fire because the wing tanks were filled with water!

It was a test to see how well the plane would perform in a crash

otherwise all that fog you see would be huge massive inferno of flames.

.
​

No lamp post involved and the fireball occured when the plane struck the ground.... and it was still moving pretty good.

So that was a complete fail on your part. Want to try again?

Sheesh, I provided 4 instances where an actual plane struck an actual light post and survived mostly intact even though two of them were airborne at the time... and you respond with a video of an intentional crash into an object clearly not a lamp post which was probably specifically reinforced to withstand the forces involved as part of the test AND it still does not burst into flames when the wing hits the object and the plane continues going until it crashes into the ground and then and only then does it burst into a fireball.

You have not really thought this whole thing through, huh?

Conspiracy theorists usually don't think any further than their one point. In this case he can't think further than the light poles.

 

[PredFan]

Oh so you think the official fantasy is like the infallible gospel and word of God eh?

well you can spend the rest of this thread trying to prove that if you wish. as long as its relevant. if not you will go in circles for a very long time.

like I said, you ignore tha mountain of data and cling to this one minor curiosity as if it cancels out the whole thing. that's ok if you want to believe it but don't expect us to.

well see since physics calls bullshit you need to explain how these miracles took place, and I will remind you that we are talking about the events between the impact of the first pole and the last pole. So I expect someone has an explanation how these miracles took place.

Physics does not call bull shit. that only exists in your deranged mind.