The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Please read for comprehension, I said 'visible damage' not building performance report though the BPR does show that the alleged path to the exist hole is blocked by intact columns, unless someone is foolish enough to believe debris can successfully maneuver its away around an obstacle course to pile up outside the building?

 

Wingtips tear through fuselage of planes at slow speeds. How can this be when they're as weak as Koko suggests?

 

It also shows that direction of the damage/impact.

 

which of course does not mean it conforms with reality.

 

Is that why columns/components are "bent" to the left in this photo?

 

Sure it does. It matches the flight path that the plane came in at.

 

sure the tail section fuselage has very little structural strength compared to a wing, since it does not need any, just like the outboard wing and other sections of the wing has very little structural strength when compared to a pole.

 

I thought you said all the columns were intact? Why aren't you addressing that?

 

actually if you look closely they are bent outward and to the left

 

So all poles have the same structural strength?

 

again please read for comprehension, I said:

"the building columns between the impact point and the alleged 'exit' hole are intact blocking any possible natural exit of material."

 

No they aren't.

 

Again please read for comprehension I said:

 

They aren't "intact".

 

well, yes they are.

 

Do all poles have the same structural strength? Yes or no? You seem to think they do.

 

oh? did you think I was talking about paint chipped off? They are intact, please read the BPM for comprehension.

 

The columns in the post are "intact"?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arning-issued.482175/page-113#post-1070129422

 

Dont you have anything better to so than post such foolishness? If you have a point of fact feel free to post it rather than strawman everything I write.

 

Answer the question Koko. Your examples of airplane wings versus poles seems to indicate that you think all poles have the same structural strength.

 

again, please read for comprehension I said:

"the building columns between the impact point and the alleged 'exit' hole are intact blocking any possible natural exit of material."

If you insist on continuing to disregard reading the BPM correctly then please find someone else to heckle, intact columns were blocking the alleged exit path.

You know damn well the pics you posted have nothing what so ever to do with the columns I am talking about, so stop with the incessant strawman misrepresentation horseshit already.

 

I dont respond well to ludicrous pointless questions that serve no purpose to advance an issue. In fact I ignore them typically.

 

Incorrect. He testifies quite clearly that it directly after seeing it on TV.

Irrelevant conjecture.

Incorrect, you are not quoting facts.

No explanation for why the tail was not bent downwards by the reinforced wall. It beggars belief that you spam everyone to death claiming the wing is weak enough to be sliced by a light pole, but the tail is strong enough to resist a blast reinforced wall!

Explain why the wings would not be bent inwards upon impact. The building collapse shows consistency with that very thing.

Conjecture.

Parts were. The impact at high velocity smashed everything to pieces, including engines.

False. Your claim is based on a bullshit comparison.

Conjecture and failed strawman.

False. No it wasn't.

False claim and false conclusion. Multiple deflections occur with such kinetic energy.

Inadequate and false. You failed to address the human DNA and the numerous airplane parts. You ignore the vast majority of witnesses.

 

Your bogus claims are incorrectly generalised and you cannot compare them to actual events claimed. Further, you ignore major problems with your entire numerously repeated claim.

 

Incorrect and repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it correct.

The investigation may not meet your bullshit requirements, but your conclusion is nonsensical hyperbole. This thread is about the Pentagon on 911, try to stay on topic and advise which facts have been covered up and how you know this. Generalising events elsewhere doesn't support any conclusions on this topic.