911 Flight 77 "The Official Pentagon Light Pole Mower"

[legaleagle_45]

this is what a 1kilo bird does at 250mph

Unsubtantiated and unsourced material posted on the internet-- no material evidence to examine. Sorry.

 

[PredFan]

news report no material evidence to examine

I see...

You are dismissed.

I think it's time to just make fun of him.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I already told you that the part of the plane with the strongest axial loading was between the engines and the body and that is where your 1:08 point is talking about.

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine, sorry.

very little wiggle room both sides would have wiped out fuel tanks

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine and neither is undocumented and unverified graphic media from photo bucket, sorry.

the strength of poles are chosen based on height, length of standard, and light weight that it has to support against gale winds.

Your average pole for around 50 foot high is 50 to 80kps while your average duck is 3 pounds LOL

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine, sorry. Do you have any real evidence to submit? Anon internet poster opinion is not material evidence, neither are unsourced and unverified photos, exhibits diagrams or diagrams which are devoid of any verifiable factual foundation as to when, how and who took or created said documentation, the parameters associated with same and the professional credentials attesting to the specialized expertise of the creator of the exhibit so as to establish his or her bona fides to express an expert opinion so that it will be acceptable into evidence. So far you have not even established that there are or ever were any lamp posts at the Pentagon.... sorry.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Spokane Daily Chronicle - Google News Archive Search

Of course KokomoJojo will pretend this did not happen.

news report no material evidence to examine



news report no material evidence to examine




news report no material evidence to examine




news report no material evidence to examine





news report no material evidence to examine

Small plane hits power pole while trying to land | Ocala.com

Seriously injured? They should have been vaporized in a fireball. LOL, poor KokomoJojo

and again news report no material evidence to examine

Do you have any idea what material evidence is that can be examined?

Let me put it to you like this what itt is NOT

It is NOT some newspaper reporters opinion as you have posted! LMAO

when you dont have anything jump up and down and throw cesnas in the works and planes that wings fell off, any hodge podge trash will do for you it seems.

Dude. You are getting you ass handed to you. Give it up.

Nah... see when you want to convince someone other than those who are suffering from cognitive dissonance and simply incapable of looking at the facts you need to put up hard material evidence as I have done.

news reporters only give you the drama as you have provided, however if that makes you "feel" good and soft and comfy then fine for you, but posting nothing but news spin drama and hype has gotten you no where.

 

[PredFan]

news report no material evidence to examine



news report no material evidence to examine




news report no material evidence to examine




news report no material evidence to examine





news report no material evidence to examine




and again news report no material evidence to examine

Do you have any idea what material evidence is that can be examined?

Let me put it to you like this what itt is NOT

It is NOT some newspaper reporters opinion as you have posted! LMAO

when you dont have anything jump up and down and throw cesnas in the works and planes that wings fell off, any hodge podge trash will do for you it seems.

Dude. You are getting you ass handed to you. Give it up.

Nah... see when you want to convince someone other than those who are suffering from cognitive dissonance and simply incapable of looking at the facts you need to put up hard material evidence as I have done.

news reporters only give you the drama as you have provided, however if that makes you "feel" good and soft and comfy then fine for you, but posting nothing but news spin drama and hype has gotten you no where.

Lol! ROTFLOL! Stop it! "Hard Material Evidence"? STOP!

 

[legaleagle_45]

Nah... see when you want to convince someone other than those who are suffering from cognitive dissonance and simply incapable of looking at the facts you need to put up hard material evidence .

So when are you going to put up hard material evidence?

news reporters only give you the drama as you have provided, however if that makes you "feel" good and soft and comfy then fine for you, but posting nothing but news spin drama and hype has gotten you no where.

Fair enough, but then I find them generally more reputable than anon internet posters.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I already told you that the part of the plane with the strongest axial loading was between the engines and the body and that is where your 1:08 point is talking about.

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine, sorry.

very little wiggle room both sides would have wiped out fuel tanks

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine and neither is undocumented and unverified graphic media from photo bucket, sorry.

the strength of poles are chosen based on height, length of standard, and light weight that it has to support against gale winds.

Your average pole for around 50 foot high is 50 to 80kps while your average duck is 3 pounds LOL

speculation and opinion of anon internet posters is not material evidence to examine, sorry. Do you have any real evidence to submit? Anon internet poster opinion is not material evidence, neither are unsourced and unverified photos, exhibits diagrams or diagrams which are devoid of any verifiable factual foundation as to when, how and who took or created said documentation, the parameters associated with same and the professional credentials attesting to the specialized expertise of the creator of the exhibit so as to establish his or her bona fides to express an expert opinion so that it will be acceptable into evidence. So far you have not even established that there are or ever were any lamp posts at the Pentagon.... sorry.

I keep telling you that crap does not work, but just because that is your posting tactic does not mean you can apply it to everyone else.

you believe yourself to be qualified to argue the facts on an expert level, I give you every opportunity to do so and then you defer to the experts.

Face it you are in over your head, go find an expert to argue with me, that would be fun to go head to head and escalate this above the typical my expert is better than your expert childishness you usually see on these boards.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Nah... see when you want to convince someone other than those who are suffering from cognitive dissonance and simply incapable of looking at the facts you need to put up hard material evidence .

So when are you going to put up hard material evidence?

news reporters only give you the drama as you have provided, however if that makes you "feel" good and soft and comfy then fine for you, but posting nothing but news spin drama and hype has gotten you no where.

Fair enough, but then I find them generally more reputable than anon internet posters.

and you are?

you wanna banter with me you better be able to think on your feet, I will give you fair warning that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

that said I gave the data, you claim you understand physics then why and what in this universe are you arguing about again?

 

[legaleagle_45]

I keep telling you that crap does not work, but just because that is your posting tactic does not mean you can apply it to everyone else.

And I keep waiting for you to post material evidence to support your position. As of yet you have not even provided evidence that lamp posts were at the Pentagon.

you believe yourself to be qualified to argue the facts on an expert level, I give you every opportunity to do so and then you defer to the experts.

Excuse me what experts have you provided?

Face it you are in over your head, go find an expert to argue with me, that would be fun to go head to head and escalate this above the typical my expert is better than your expert childishness you usually see on these boards.

No need to have a hissy fit merely because I am requesting that you provide verifiable material evidence of your claims. Sounds like you are try frantically to avoid giving material evidence of your claims or provide experts.

Is that your expert? Sorry unverified and unsubstantiated photobucket images are not material evidence, although he does appear substantially smarter than you.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

the plane was already on a collision course and leading edge damage from the light poles wouldn't have affected the plane's attitude or lift. Aircraft can sustain quite a bit of damage and still remain kind of air worthy.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I keep telling you that crap does not work, but just because that is your posting tactic does not mean you can apply it to everyone else.

And I keep waiting for you to post material evidence to support your position. As of yet you have not even provided evidence that lamp posts were at the Pentagon.

you believe yourself to be qualified to argue the facts on an expert level, I give you every opportunity to do so and then you defer to the experts.

Excuse me what experts have you provided?

Face it you are in over your head, go find an expert to argue with me, that would be fun to go head to head and escalate this above the typical my expert is better than your expert childishness you usually see on these boards.

No need to have a hissy fit merely because I am requesting that you provide verifiable material evidence of your claims. Sounds like you are try frantically to avoid giving material evidence of your claims or provide experts.

Is that your expert? Sorry unverified and unsubstantiated photobucket images are not material evidence, although he does appear substantially smarter than you.

well if you want to go all sorts of legal and hard ball n shit, fine with me.

Put up the signed affidavits by those who provided anything you want us to accept as evidence and chain of custody.

 

[KissMy]

Water slices through 6" thick steel because it is traveling fast.

[youtube]2YedfdX7Nuk[/youtube]

 

[legaleagle_45]

and you are?

That is of yet undetermined, however your opinion of what I am is not material evidence as it is the opinion of an anon internet poster.

you wanna banter with me you better be able to think on your feet, I will give you fair warning that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

I see so experts are not your forte and we can dispense with them according to you... nice

that said I gave the data,

No you did not. What data did you give? Merely because you claim you provided data does not mean you have. All I have seen is your speculation and opinion which you have not substantiated with any material and verifiable evidence. You claim that some lamp post were at the Pentagon. You have not even established that... please do so. Then we can proceed to you proving that something actually occured at the Pentagon on 9-11. For all we know it may just be some reporters bull.

you claim you understand physics then why and what in this universe are you arguing about this again?

I thought you said experts did not matter. Now you are trying to throw in some irrelevant thing called physics? Just because some experts like Newton may say F = MA does not mean it is true. Stop trying to waive experts around... are't you the one who said:

that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

Now proceed with your "material evidence".

 

[KokomoJojo]

Water slices through 6" thick steel because it is traveling fast.

[youtube]2YedfdX7Nuk[/youtube]

yeh they usually have a very fine grit mixed with it, is there a point you are trying to make here that is different than those I have already made? and I covered that several posts ago.

and fyi water cutting is accomplished by friction and has nothing to do with the arguments raised.

 

[legaleagle_45]

well if you want to go all sorts of legal and hard ball n shit, fine with me.

Put up the signed affidavits by those who provided anything you want us to accept as evidence and chain of custody.

Sorry, you have the burden of proof. You provide the signed affidavits and material evidence first. Then I rebut that. If you do not put on any evidence, you lose. See, that is the way it works.

Now please proceed.

 

[KokomoJojo]

and you are?

That is of yet undetermined, however your opinion of what I am is not material evidence as it is the opinion of an anon internet poster.

you wanna banter with me you better be able to think on your feet, I will give you fair warning that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

I see so experts are not your forte and we can dispense with them according to you... nice




No you did not. What data did you give? Merely because you claim you provided data does not mean you have. All I have seen is your speculation and opinion which you have not substantiated with any material and verifiable evidence. You claim that some lamp post were at the Pentagon. You have not even established that... please do so. Then we can proceed to you proving that something actually occured at the Pentagon on 9-11. For all we know it may just be some reporters bull.

you claim you understand physics then why and what in this universe are you arguing about this again?

I thought you said experts did not matter. Now you are trying to throw in some irrelevant thing called physics? Just because some experts like Newton may say F = MA does not mean it is true. Stop trying to waive experts around... are't you the one who said:

that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

Now proceed with your "material evidence".

and you are?

That is of yet undetermined, however your opinion of what I am is not material evidence as it is the opinion of an anon internet poster.
its not my opinion, you said anon posters opinions have no validity and YOU ARE AN ANON poster.

you wanna banter with me you better be able to think on your feet, I will give you fair warning that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

I see so experts are not your forte and we can dispense with them according to you... nice

Nah I will review their work, but you do need to stop posting news reporters trash and expecting people to accept that as evidence.


No you did not. What data did you give? Merely because you claim you provided data does not mean you have. All I have seen is your speculation and opinion which you have not substantiated with any material and verifiable evidence. You claim that some lamp post were at the Pentagon. You have not even established that... please do so. Then we can proceed to you proving that something actually occured at the Pentagon on 9-11. For all we know it may just be some reporters bull.

I gave you pole data, you said you understood physics then tell us about how a 2.4 pound bird can go in one side out the other and a 400 pound pole just bounces off, unless you want to claim a plane did not go in.

you claim you understand physics then why and what in this universe are you arguing about this again?

I thought you said experts did not matter. Now you are trying to throw in some irrelevant thing called physics? Just because some experts like Newton may say F = MA does not mean it is true. Stop trying to waive experts around... are't you the one who said:

that if your arguments depend on labels like "experts" and "official" you are sunk before you start.

F=MA well thats a great start but why dont you prove to us you understand physics then? It appears you found the basic formula but do not know how to put the data into a calculator or use it.

if your point is anything beyond spin you failed to make it.


Now proceed with your "material evidence".

Your failure to accept the basic physical characteristics and physics principles of the objects discussed pretty well proves you are not what you say you are. Certainly no expert and certainly not capable of disputing the issue on a physics much less expert level.

 

[legaleagle_45]

its not my opinion, you said anon posters opinions have no validity and YOU ARE AN ANON poster.

Thank you for agreeing with me that you have no validity. This is what is known as "an admission against interest" and is admissable material evidence that you have no validity.

Nah I will review their work, but you do need to stop posting news reporters trash and expecting people to accept that as evidence.

Sorry, news reports can not be dismissed merely because you do not like them. It is not a reporters "opinion" on an op ed page, but reports of events which have occured and are being reported through sources such as the FAA. As such they are subject to judicial notice as historical events. You are free to dispute their veracity to show that they did not occur, but you are not free to ignore them.

I gave you pole data, you said you understood physics then tell us about how a 2.4 pound bird can go in one side out the other and a 400 pound pole just bounces off, unless you want to claim a plane did not go in.

No you gave no data whatsoever. You claimed that the picture represents a strike of a 2.4 lb bird, but provided nothing more than your say so. You claimed that there was a 400 pound pole, but provided no evidence that the pentagon poles weighed 400 lbs. You claimed that other people were claiming that a 400 pound lamp post just "bounced off " and when confronted with the assertion that no one was saying that, you claimed that it "had to have caused damage which results in total annihilation of the entire aircraft", yet failed to provide any evidence that a lamp post even existed on the Pentagon grounds. When I provide news reports of other aircraft surviving hitting telephone poles and other objects, you respond with the BS no material evidence. LOL So put up or shut up, provide your actual verifiable material evidence.

Your failure to accept the basic physics principles of the objects discussed pretty well proves you are not what you say you are. Certainly no expert and certainly not capable of disputing the issue on an expert level.

Assuming facts not in evidence and immaterial and irrelevant. Please provide material evidence that there were in fact lamp posts at the Pentagon.

 

[PredFan]

its not my opinion, you said anon posters opinions have no validity and YOU ARE AN ANON poster.

Thank you for agreeing with me that you have no validity. This is what is known as "an admission against interest" and is admissable material evidence that you have no validity.

Nah I will review their work, but you do need to stop posting news reporters trash and expecting people to accept that as evidence.

Sorry, news reports can not be dismissed merely because you do not like them. It is not a reporters "opinion" on an op ed page, but reports of events which have occured and are being reported through sources such as the FAA. As such they are subject to judicial notice as historical events. You are free to dispute their veracity to show that they did not occur, but you are not free to ignore them.

I gave you pole data, you said you understood physics then tell us about how a 2.4 pound bird can go in one side out the other and a 400 pound pole just bounces off, unless you want to claim a plane did not go in.

No you gave no data whatsoever. You claimed that the picture represents a strike of a 2.4 lb bird, but provided nothing more than your say so. You claimed that there was a 400 pound pole, but provided no evidence that the pentagon poles weighed 400 lbs. You claimed that other people were claiming that a 400 pound lamp post just "bounced off " and when confronted with the assertion that no one was saying that, you claimed that it "had to have caused damage which results in total annihilation of the entire aircraft", yet failed to provide any evidence that a lamp post even existed on the Pentagon grounds. When I provide news reports of other aircraft surviving hitting telephone poles and other objects, you respond with the BS no material evidence. LOL So put up or shut up, provide your actual verifiable material evidence.

Your failure to accept the basic physics principles of the objects discussed pretty well proves you are not what you say you are. Certainly no expert and certainly not capable of disputing the issue on an expert level.

Assuming facts not in evidence and immaterial and irrelevant. Please provide material evidence that there were in fact lamp posts at the Pentagon.

Here's the problem my friend. These loney toons truthers are clinging to such a thin shred that they have to erct themselves a force field that repels all logic and reason. they can safely yell back through the shield but no logic or reason can ever break the fragile bonds between themselves and their flawed conspiracy.

Just make fun of them.

 

[whitehall]

You don't have to be an expert in the laws of physics, take a freaking remedial math course. If you think a couple of light poles are going to stop a 255,000 pound mass moving at close to 500 mph you need your head (or your political affiliation) examined.

 

[KokomoJojo]

its not my opinion, you said anon posters opinions have no validity and YOU ARE AN ANON poster.

Thank you for agreeing with me that you have no validity. This is what is known as "an admission against interest" and is admissable material evidence that you have no validity.

Nah I will review their work, but you do need to stop posting news reporters trash and expecting people to accept that as evidence.

Sorry, news reports can not be dismissed merely because you do not like them. It is not a reporters "opinion" on an op ed page, but reports of events which have occured and are being reported through sources such as the FAA. As such they are subject to judicial notice as historical events. You are free to dispute their veracity to show that they did not occur, but you are not free to ignore them.

I gave you pole data, you said you understood physics then tell us about how a 2.4 pound bird can go in one side out the other and a 400 pound pole just bounces off, unless you want to claim a plane did not go in.

No you gave no data whatsoever. You claimed that the picture represents a strike of a 2.4 lb bird, but provided nothing more than your say so. You claimed that there was a 400 pound pole, but provided no evidence that the pentagon poles weighed 400 lbs. You claimed that other people were claiming that a 400 pound lamp post just "bounced off " and when confronted with the assertion that no one was saying that, you claimed that it "had to have caused damage which results in total annihilation of the entire aircraft", yet failed to provide any evidence that a lamp post even existed on the Pentagon grounds. When I provide news reports of other aircraft surviving hitting telephone poles and other objects, you respond with the BS no material evidence. LOL So put up or shut up, provide your actual verifiable material evidence.

Your failure to accept the basic physics principles of the objects discussed pretty well proves you are not what you say you are. Certainly no expert and certainly not capable of disputing the issue on an expert level.

Assuming facts not in evidence and immaterial and irrelevant. Please provide material evidence that there were in fact lamp posts at the Pentagon.

so you admit once again that you know nothing about these matters and need me to provide you with all the background data. Looks like someone needs to do their homework.