Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

BUMP for newt

 

Quit dodging.

 

you first

 

Where was this stated?

 

in the other thread by your sock pal who is a trougher.

 

He can't. He's stuck in the trough.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't. He's throwing sand, misquoting what was actually stated.

 

not misquoted, more trougher rubbish

 

It wasn't.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=318902&p=1063103802#post1063103802

Truthers have a little bit of difficulty with math.

But just for the sake of argument:

An empty 757 weighs 58,390 Kg. A full load of fuel weighs 35,335 Kg. Maximum takeoff weight is 255,000Kg, so let's just round off what the people, fuel, luggage, food, etc, weighed and go with 180,000 kg. The aircraft was last clocked at 458 knots, or 235.59 m/s. If we were to stop that aircraft completely in an instant it would take 42,406,200 newtons.

Now, if we're trying to calculate pressure at the point of impact between a static pole with a 10" diameter and a 180,000 kg mass travelling at 235.59 m/s we need to know some variables that have been left out.

How much did the pole accelerate during the impact?

How much did the mass decelerate during the impact?

What is the surface area of the wing impacted?

What is the surface area of the pole impacted?

Of course, if we want to know if the pole will sheer, which was actually the question, that's a whole different set of math entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timoshenko_beam_theory

 

liar liar panties on fiar!

Just repeating EXPERT TROUGHER CIPHERIN!

 

We've been over this stupidity. The poles were hollow. They were hit by airliner wings. Hence you are once again showing evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Everyone has explained this stuff to you before, you chose not to listen, what ever, keep trolling along.

A response.

 

Would this be the post (part of) he is mangling?

Oh and IT DOES make a difference which object is impacting the other.

 

Really?

Explain! LOL

 

The lamp post is designed to flex.

 

then I guess it failed did anyone sue the light pole company? Clearly it did not flex and instead broke in half.

Of course a better description is that its another one of your half assed useless and as usual incorrectly applied explanations.

 

troughers have huge issues getting anything right.

FIRST: the effects pole bending is negligible and therefore does not apply in this case since it was allegedly sheared off.

SECOND: the whole mass of the aircraft is not in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing part of the alleged wing that hit the alleged pole.

Troughers make so many fundamental errors its a full time job correcting them.

Hollow poles is immaterial. To say it is only demonstrates trougher stoopidty.

I am showing what troughers claim is evidence and having a great laugh over it.

 

Well, as YOU HAVE SAID.."they weren't up there..."....You weren't up there so, your opinion doesn't count. The only opinion that counts is that of the people WHO WERE there...and they saw the plane knock down the light poles.

Thanks for refuting your own claim.

 

Oh my opinion does count.

I can see review the evidence. you know like a judge.

and compare fantasy:



to reality




and your light poles fail.

 

koko, why in your gif of AA77 did you edit out the smoke coming from the engine?

 

"Oh my opinion does count."

No it doesn't...by your own claims that if a person wasn't there, their opinions doesn't count. The only opinion that counts is the one from the people who were there...and they saw the planes knock down the light poles.

Just using your own logic and statement.

 

they cannot tell me about the non existence of explosives when they did nothing to determine or rule out their existence. I on the other hand do examine the evidence to include the possibility of explosives and any imaginable means that could result in what we observer.

when their opinions and witnesses are contrary to the evidence they are trash.

the evidence has no political agenda like you do.

 

So, what you are saying is...you don't deal with reality. Gotcha.

What explosives were used?...you claim they were used so, you must know what was used because how else would you make that claim?

OH, and don't forget to tell me how I "misapplied" the ImplosionWorld position. Hurry along, Scooter...you have lots of work to do!

 

koko, did you edit the smoke out of your gif because it would mean you have to admit the aircraft DID in fact take damage??

 

I am saying troughers positions are delusional

again what brand is immaterial.

I already showed you.

you are going in circles

- - - Updated - - -

that is not flt 77

 

Not what I asked. Did you edit the smoke trail out from the right engine because it ruined your claim that the aircraft didn't take damage from hitting the poles?

 

then I do not know what you are talking about.