The Five Lightpoles at the Pentagon

Discussion in '9/11' started by usda_select, May 11, 2017.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree this thread is total rubbish because you didn't create it to discuss 9/11 but tampering with evidence is still a serious crime.

    18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519


    Ethics and Training in Forensic Science

    The field of forensic science is important to the criminal justice system. Forensic personnel must pay close attention to detail during the collection, preservation, and analysis of physical evidence. If evidence is mishandled, manipulated, or misinterpreted it can potentially destroy a case and/or the lives of all individuals involved.


    http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/ethicsinforensicscience.html
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  2. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28

    yawn?

    Any explanation for the 5 light poles yet? Or are you going to try to divert attention away from you having no explanation for them from here on out?
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I can't find one in any official document, did you? If you do come across one, I'd be interested to read what theory the fraudsters came up with, so please post the link. Thanks.

    Yeah sorry, do go on. I have nothing more to add to this rubbish thread as you put it, unless someone comes up with something interesting. The only thing of interest to me in this thread is what I already posted, the government's persistent pattern/evidence of fraud. And of course the fact it's been scientifically proven via experiment that poles do destroy airplane wings. So the likelihood that an airplane downed those poles is severely diminished by reality. But anything is possible, maybe the plane had titanium wings.

    I agree.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    half is also 2 pieces, I never said it was half to within 1 thousanth of an inch

    half: either of two equal or corresponding parts into which something is or can be divided: But it can be used loosely for a nearly equal division.


    you are in error again, I dont have to account for anything, my accounting ends where the story is proven to be a lie, which has been already been done since the scientific controlled study testing does not agree and in fact produces results completely contrary to the story being peddled.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    Bob0627 likes this.
  5. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The light pole you showed did not have two equal parts. Sorry.


    [/quote]
    You also don’t have to pretend that you have something to add. But you do.

    Any argument you make is invalid unless you account for the physical evidence. Which you do not.

    Thanks for playing.

    Next!
     
  6. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well, the only thing you’ve ever added to anything is garbage; it’s your only capability from what I can tell.

    Unless you can account for the physical evidence…you have nothing.

    At least you avoided sounding like a complete moron by not using “theatrics” or “more proof”.

    You’re dismissed.

    Next!
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Bob was 100% correct, this thread should be moved to the comedy section. Now I have to teach you how to comprehend a dictionary ffs.

    half: either of two equal [parts]
    or corresponding parts into which something is or can be divided: But it can be used loosely for a nearly equal division.

    I made no error, it does not have to be equal, that is why they say 'or', anything split into two parts is halved regardless where the divide is, put the 2 parts together and you have the whole, you are making consecutive errors, ridiculous ones at that.


    Seriously try to keep up, when this devolves into teaching someone how to read and comprehend a dictionary it goes without saying their initiative is totally lost.

    Then compound the comedy with lies since everyone can see that I most certainly did provide evidence FOR MY CLAIM, which scientifically proves the official story is a lie and you are demanding I provide evidence for your claim. Its your credibility being flushed using those tactics. Smartest thing to do is either concede the point and move on or provide scientific evidence to the contrary.


    Do you intend to continue with this foolishness or do you have something that actually defends the unscientific claim you are making?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Equal is the key word you’re looking for there Professor.
    That is “half”
    The light poles were not cut in half so your theory about the plane’s wing and this alleged study is crap.

    Now either come up with an explanation or leave the discussion to serious folks.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113


    See when the word 'OR' is used that means that one possibility is equal and the other is 2 corresponding parts.



    [​IMG]

    If you look really closely you can see the 2 "corresponding parts"

    So I'm sorry my word usage falls under the 'OR' corresponding parts section not the 'perfectly' equal halves section nothing I can do to fix illiteracy but show a dictionary and crayola it, after that everyone is on their own.


    I'd be highly surprised to find anyone but another oct supporter who is going to be willing to provide evidence to support your bogus claim, especially since I already proved its bogus and defies and is contrary to the results from controlled scientific method,see how the wings are laying beside the plane, thats because the poles sliced through them like butter.

    [​IMG]

    If you need help understanding that let me know.




     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see what you mean, instead of arguing in context they invent a strawman then try to force their strawman on you in pretense that is what you mean even if they have to misapply the dictionary to accomplish it,
     
  11. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If you look just for a second, you don’t see 2 halves since AA77 didn’t cut the light pole in half and hit a hollow aluminum tube where the upper and smaller portion is crimped. Thanks for posting it again.

    Have you come up with a story about how they got there if AA77 didn’t knock them down?
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what that jibberish you posted is supposed to say, and I have no need to speculate how the poles got there, I went as far as I needed to go using science to determine if the gubmint was truthful, they were not, they lied, that is all I need to come up with, you are the one who needs to come up with a 'story' thats better than the one they did.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  13. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No longer care what you think

    Tell ya what, lets go out to eat at Mortons. We'll each pay half. My half will be $18, your half will be $132. Sound good to you?

    PS: You still haven't accounted for the light poles.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anything that doesn't conform to your boot licking adoration of the OCT is "garbage" to you. Even the 29 facts about the 9/11 Commission and their report that point to blatant fraud that you haven't and can't dispute is "garbage" to you. What else is new?

    So then by your own logic you have nothing since you certainly can't account for it. The difference is I know no one can account for it other than those knowingly involved. And that's also the difference between reality and delusions.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah the "half" lunacy is a perfect example. When there's nothing intelligent to post, create a strawman or insert a red herring.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would have thought they up'd their game play a bit, but it seems it has devolved into childish craziness.

    [​IMG]

    such asshelmet arguments as the above.

    //previews.123rf.com/images/eye4detail/eye4detail1205/eye4detail120500038/13642419-Cigarette-broken-in-half-with-life-written-across-it-indicating-concept-that-smoking-cuts-a-human-li-Stock-Photo.jpg

    I never dreamed I would ever have to reduce anything to teaching kindergarten level concepts to anyone.

    It screams abject desperation when such ridiculous arguments are made. Hands down and without any doubt this thread should be moved to comedy.

    Oh that cigarette is not broken in half btw its just a figment of everyones imagination, OCT supporters......where no rational people have gone before! LOL :deadhorse:
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    Bob0627 likes this.
  17. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If the two segments are the same length, yes it is broken in half. If they are not, the item is simply broken in two.

    Where 9/11 is concerned, the light poles are designed to become dis-engaged on impact. In the case of the pole you showed that was broken in two, the conical shape of the pole allowed the plane to slice through it.

    There were five that were knocked down by AA77. If you don't feel that is the case, please humor us with your explanation.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113


    1) I have shown using the dictionary that my usage of in half is correct, (broken into 2 parts) your usage does not invalidate my usage, you need to prove my usage is incorrect, and I will await your citation.

    2) I addressed the breakaway misconception you people have and explained how it is yet another bogus and false representation of function in detail in a previous post.

    3) Using the scientific method I have proven that the gubmint lied, a plane could not have taken down the poles because poles slice off wings and I dont give a **** how they got there as that is beyond the scope of my purpose.

    Have a nice day, and if you want to repeat your same questions again prelease refer to sections 1, 2 and 3.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  19. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28

    I use yours; where it says "equal".

    The poles are made to break away when hit.


    You cited a study that apparently does not exist anywhere.


    Please explain the physical evidence of 5 light poles outside the pentagon on 9/11.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    now you resort to posting lies, and whats worse, in my book anyway, is that even a child at kindergarten age understands the meaning and application of the word 'or', care to explain why you do not? Especially after I explained it in complete detail in post 84.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  21. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm sure your level of understanding is that of a kindergarten child.

    Any info on how the lightpoles got there if a plane didn't knock them down? No?
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here allow me to help.

    When the word 'OR' is used that gives the writer a choice between what is said on the left side of the word 'OR' and what is on the right side of the word 'OR'. Then there is the awesome concept of comprehension that comes into play for the reader to understand which choice the 'writer' made.


    ôr
    conjunction: or

    1. used to link alternatives.
    "a cup of tea 'OR' coffee"

    2. introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase.



    See they even give an example of how kiddies can use this new knowledge to communicate with humans such as:

    "a cup of tea or coffee"

    That means kiddies can choose tea if they want and if they dont want tea they can choose coffee.

    Ok this is where the lesson gets really tricky so kiddies put on your thinking caps.

    Everybody ready? Ok Great! There will be cookies candies and a safe space for anyne who gets the right answer! Ok here we go!

    in half: either of two equal [parts] >'OR'< corresponding parts into which something is or can be divided.
    (corresponding, adjective, similar in position, purpose, form, etc.)


    Ok kiddies find the 'OR' and tell us what the 2 choices are!

    Thats right! The little girl in the corner wins!
    the choices are
    2 equal parts for choice 1 and
    corresponding parts which something can be divided for choice 2!
    Very good!


    Oh usda, sorry didnt see you there, what were you saying again?


    Nope no new info, just finishing a kindergarten lesson for the children on the purpose and usage of the conjunction 'or' and waiting for you to show us how a plane can mow down poles without the wings getting cut off, how about you any new info yet?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please point to the official investigation and the conclusive forensic physical evidence that makes the above fact and not theory.

    See above (it doesn't exist to my knowledge). Humorous enough for you to move this thread to the "Humor and Satire" section?
     
  24. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again, lets go to Mortons and get the Ribeye; we’ll go halves. I’ll pay $18.00 for my half and you pay the remaining $132.00. Sound fair?

    I’m not sure why you don’t understand the word “equal” in your own definition. I would demand that my 2nd grade teacher prepare me better for the world if I were you.

    In the mean time, you still haven’t accounted for the 5 light poles which is important because it’s physical evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Some morons think there were bombs in the Pentagon.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please point to the official investigation and the conclusive forensic physical evidence that makes the above fact and not theory.

    And some morons believe unsupported claims are fact and not theories and state them as if they were fact.
     

Share This Page