The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wow I forgot all about the Sandia Labs FEA!

    Baloney, it cut the wing.

    Whats the point?

    Thats a great pic Gam, to bad for the oct team its totally useless to support the invincible pole mower theory.

    Reality is not with the OCT

    [​IMG]

    Its amazing how fragile wings are in REALITY!
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Have you provided a chain of custody? Oh no you didnt, PLONK tbss its not evidence.
    Have you provided any signed affidavits? Oh no you didnt. PLONK tbss its not evidence.
    That tiny little thinglaying on someones lawn? Ah.... tonka plane then too! Looks to be about the size I would expect to those little tonka wheels they dumped in back.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You simply fail at so many levels and apparently don't even know it.

    You keep posting a high speed collision where a vertical stabilizer that is probably about 1 inch thick tears through the edge of a wing. You simply are incapable of seeing how it does not compare to a 757 wing knocking poles over, held in place by 1" bolts.

    You missed this post deliberately. See the plane hacking through TWO wooden telegraph poles?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-101#post-1070052078

    I eagerly await your evasion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And here we have the ramblings of a "truther". If a chain of custody was provided THEN, you would say it's fake, just like you say all the bits are faked and planted. You are like a broken record. You have nothing meaningful to say.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Its amazing how fragile wings are in REALITY!

    No I didnt, I dont respond to questions that require engineering talent to comprehend unless they are at a minimum formatted in engineering terms.

    Besides there is nothing to debate, the pics incontrovertibly prove the points I make.

    [​IMG]

    we can see its in pristine condition just like the invincible poser light pole mower!

    [​IMG]

    Why doesnt the oct team post it and find out? No one can predict what I or anyone else will do. thats ludicrous especially since what I ask for has never been posted so the oct team has nothing to base it on. nice copout post though. But if thats all the oct's can bring to the table is blind unsupported speculation I guess its all they got huh..... :boo:
    Ah....good argument adjustment!

    [​IMG]

    now we have noodle weak light standards and invincible hollow fiberglass winglets. brilliant!


    So we have graduated to invincible winglets now, this get more comical by the second.

    Who would have guessed that they 'reinforced' plane wings with concrete.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No they are not.

    You ignored basic questions and make assertions that require the very thing you lack. You continue to ignore my post. Are you afraid?

    They prove that a pole with ground based foundations and not hollow will break a wing off. It does not compare to hollow poles held upright by 1 inch bolts and striking a more solid area of the wing and a bigger aircraft.


    Spam reported.



    You have been given evidence collected and imaged at the crash site. It includes DNA from plane passengers. you dismiss it. That is seriously pathetic.

    I have made no adjustment. It is bog standard physics. A narrow edge it may be, but it is held on to a strong rigid wing. Nothing unexpected about it at all.

    Hot air.


    An extremely dumb supposition.

    No claim made of that nature. I suggest you take year 1 physics to fill in your knowledge vacuum.

    You missed this post deliberately. See the plane hacking through TWO wooden telegraph poles?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-101#post-1070052078

    I eagerly await MORE of your evasion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why are you lying? It didn't cut the wing. The wing was intact after the impact. The pole only damaged the front edge, that's it. Why didn't the pole cut completely through the "weak" wing like you keep claiming? Left red oval, severed wing. Right red oval, wing still intact after slicing pole in half.
    planewing.PNG
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thank you for conceding that the pole did fact cut the wing.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hey Koko, the animated gif you posted shows this as "reality":
    wingletreality.PNG

    So which is it? Fiberglass winglet cuts through a plane wing or the winglets of a plane are incredibly weak?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And you lied about the second pole cutting the wing. Why are you lying?
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It DAMAGED the wing. It didn't cut through and sever it.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I did no such thing! That is your strawman interpretation. But thanks for admitting that the wing was cut after all.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It sure does!

    First you present evidence to make people believe that plane wings/winglets are incredibly weak and couldn't have knocked down/severed the light poles, then you present evidence that fiberglass winglets are strong enough to sever aluminum plane wings.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Uh, yeah, you did.

    post1.PNG

    You quoted me and put the "didn't cut the wing" portion of my quote (which was referencing the second light in towards the fuselage) in bold. And then responded by saying "Baloney, it cut the wing".

    Why are you lying about what you actually said Koko?. You can't wiggle out of this one.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why didn't the second light pole in towards the fuselage cut and sever the supposedly "weak" wing like you want everyone to believe?
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    wingletreality.PNG

    Which is it Koko? Incredibly weak like the first picture you posted or incredibly strong like the reality picture in the animated gif you posted showing the winglet severing the plane wing?

    You are so desperate, you can't even see the contradictions you post!
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    KOKOMOJOJO

    Why do you keep avoiding things that prove you wrong? They aren't going away:

    NUMBER 1 - differences in your example:

    Tell me if you agree or disagree:
    a) Much smaller plane, wings not as reinforced.
    b) Vertical upright wooden telegraph poles, supported several feet in the surface by concrete footings.
    c) NOT hollow tubes supported by bolts.
    d) NOT travelling 500+ mph. Not even half of that.

    NUMBER 2 clear evidence that you are wrong:

    This plane still sliced through two wooden telegraph poles! The wings were not even taken off by the second pole, but by the engines impacting with the surface and ripping the wings to shreds.



    Video picture 1, pole sliced through wing still intact:

    [​IMG]

    Second pole and wing still attached!

    [​IMG]

    Answer specifically why you think this plane managed to slice through two tougher objects than the Pentagon light poles!

    NUMBER 3 - simple questions you keep avoiding:

    The list gets bigger and you keep running around waving your arms around and blowing hot air!

    1. The leading edge of the tail went through the impact hole, the upper part is almost certainly sheared off as it strikes the upper edge of the impact hole.
    Regarding the scratch free window - Prove the tail is alleged to have struck it. Explain with diagrams and physics why the plane tail would hit a window.

    2. So an 8 inch hollow pole can cut a reinforced 757 wing, but the edge of a reinforced concrete wall can't slice off the top of a tail fin!? EXPLAIN THIS!

    3. I asked you to show why the pole would leave the plane NOT intact. How come you avoided that? Showing different planes and circumstances is not an answer.

    4. Your remark about the Toyota truck - You aren't the spokesperson for "everybody else". Point me to a post explaining what the hell you are waffling on about, or kindly zip it.

    5. What happened to the upper fuselage on the 747, what would happen to plastic/fabric/aluminum making up the structure of the seats?

    6. Your remark about Tonka truck wheels - Explain it to me. The wheel came from a 757 landing gear, yes or no? If not, see picture above and tell me what the problem is.

    7. The supporting bolts of the poles are the weak points and where they all gave way. Do you disagree that this is where the poles gave way? Explain why these small bolts would keep the pole rigid enough to slice the wing off.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Koko is analyzing the posts to see how he can word a response to wiggle out of answering the questions, lies, and contradictions.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So let me get this straight. If I wanted see accurate results of how an 18 wheel semi truck and highway light poles react when the truck is going at 70 mph and impacts said light poles, I'll set up the test as follows:

    1. I'll use a pickup truck traveling at 35 mph.
    2. I'll use wooden telephone poles embedded in the ground instead of actual light poles.

    That'll yield accurate results for the semi/light pole scenario!
     
  20. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I will post a short evident history of American Airlines Flight 77 Here:


    American Airlines Flight 77 (Washington Dulles International Airport, Virginia to Los Angeles International Airport)
    Model Aircraft: Boeing 757-223
    Registration Number: N644AA
    Passengers: 58 (Including 5 hijackers, 6 reported however)
    Crew: 6 (Captain Charles Burlingame, First Officer David Charlebois, and flight attendants Michele Heidenberger, Jennifer Lewis, Kenneth Lewis, and Renee May
    Departure: 8:20am
    Hijacked: 8:51am
    Crashed: 9:37am
    Total Deaths: 64
    Hijackers: 5 (Hani Hanjour (presumed pilot), Salem al-Hazmi, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, and (6th unknown hijacker)

    Summary: September 10th, 2001 at 8:15pm a group of five Arab men approach the secure area leading to parked aircraft at Washington’s Dulles Airport. They were met by two security guards, Eric Gill and Nicolas de Silva. Gill, who will later identify two of the men as 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Marwan Alshehhi, notices they approach a door to the secure area in a suspicious manner and that only three of them are dressed as United Airlines ramp workers and have the correct passes. Gill, a Pakistani, prevents the two without passes from entering the secure area, and realizes that he does not recognize the other three, and that their uniforms are unusually dirty for United employees. It was noted by Gill that the one man who he later identifies as Nawaf al-Hazmi, curses at him with seething anger. All 5 men then later depart. Gill goes off duty at 10:00pm while his supervisor will comment after 9/11, “If someone wanted access to the aircraft, say to plant weapons, it would have been easy for the group Eric saw to come back after he got off duty and simply use the ID cards they had to activate the electronic lock and slip through.” On September 11th 2001, at around 7:15am Flight 77 hijackers Majed Moqed and Khalid Almihdhar check in at the American Airlines ticket counter at Washington’s Dulles International Airport and arriving at the passenger security checkpoint a few minutes later at 7:18am.

    Both men set off the metal detector and were put through secondary screening. Moqed continued to set off the alarm, so he was searched with a hand wand. In the Dulles airport video (shown below) at 1:05 of the video you can see Marie Rae Sopper carrying a red cat cabin and boarding the plane after clearing the security checkpoint. A notable figure wearing black shirt and pants was seen right behind Moqed, and was cleared thru checkpoint while retrieving black carry on bag (This is presumably the 6th hijacker). Hani Hanjour checks in at the American Airlines ticket counter at Washington’s Dulles International Airport some time between 7:25am and 7:35am. Hanjour is selected for additional scrutiny by airport security under the FAA’s CAPPS program, he clears the checkpoint. Nawaf and Salem Alhazmi, check in at approximately 7:29am by Dulles Airline employee and American Airlines ticket agent Vaughn Allex, who gives the brothers their boarding passes. At 7:35am Salem and Nawaf al-Hazmi, set off the metal detector's alarm. The screener at the checkpoint never resolved what set off the alarm. As seen in security footage later released, Nawaf Hazmi appeared to have an unidentified item in his back pocket. Hanjour, Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi did not check any bags for the flight. Checked bags belonging to Moqed and Salem al-Hazmi were held until they boarded the aircraft. On the flight, Hani Hanjour was seated up front in 1B, while Salem and Nawaf al-Hazmi were seated in first class in seats 5E and 5F. Majed Moqed and Khalid al-Mihdhar were seated further back in 12A and 12B, in economy class. American Airlines Flight 77 then was cleared for takeoff by Dulles ATC Tower which was received for takeoff by Captain Charles Burlingame at 8:10am.

    At approximately 8:51am, Flight 77 was hijacked. Six minutes later, the plane fails to respond to a routine instruction. Presumably, it is hijacked during that time. Indianapolis flight control center is handling the plane by this time. Unlike the other two flights, there were no reports of anyone being stabbed or a bomb threat and the pilots were not immediately killed but shoved to the back of the plane with the rest of the passengers. The hijackers set the flight's autopilot on a course heading east towards Washington, D.C. At 8:54am Flight 77 from Washington begins to go off course over southern Ohio, turning to the southwest. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center, as well as American Airlines dispatchers, made several failed attempts to contact the aircraft. At the time the airplane was hijacked, it was flying over an area of limited radar coverage. At 8:56am Flight 77’s transponder is turned off. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked Flight 77 from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56am. An air traffic controller at the FAA’s Indianapolis Center contacts the American Airlines dispatch office in Texas, and informs it that contact has been lost with Flight 77. Soon after this call, American Airlines’ executive vice president of operations, Gerard Arpey, will give an order to stop all American flight takeoffs in the Northeast US. At 9:12am, flight attendant Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. During the call, which lasted nearly two minutes, May said her flight was being hijacked by six persons, and staff and passengers had been moved to the rear of the airplane. she also relayed that she should call American Airlines and relay the information of the plane being hijacked.
     

Share This Page