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
    to recap, beta pretends leverage will prevent the plane wing from being severed, and of course as usual SSDD offers to give expert explanation and as usual FAILS produce, and as usual moves on to his strawmen.....SOP. :roll:

    yes this information will be retained.


    Thanks for proving you post nothing more than empty rhetoric and address all issues with strawman fallacies.

    What have we learned today?

    1) Leverage does not prevent a wing from being torn off.

    2) Breakaway bases do not prevent a car from being totalled.


    class dismissed

    [​IMG]
    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He wriggles, he squirms, he diverts but nothing will detract from his total and humiliating failure. I don't need to pretend that a wing wouldn't be ripped off. I just need to refer to the plane knocking over two wooden poles. That is something Koko is frightened to do!

    We can confirm that Koko reasserts a car striking the base of a pole is the same as a plane hitting near the top. It would be painful, but I'm starting to suspect Dunning and Kruger may be in play here.

    Once again he fails to answer anything. We can add "hasn't got a clue what a Straw man is" to his list of ignorance.

    He will not answer to his failures. That is a conspiracy theorist embodied.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks for proving you post nothing more than empty rhetoric and address all issues with strawman fallacies.

    What have we learned today?

    1) Leverage does not prevent a wing from being sliced off by a pole.

    2) Breakaway bases do not prevent a car from being totalled



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    pole cuts 1/2 way through wing before pilot can hit the brakes.

    Score:
    Plane 0 Pole 4


    class dismissed

    [​IMG]

    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What a thoroughly pathetic response. If you were hoping to save face with your obfuscation it is way too late. Your utter failure to respond to your exposed deception, your appalling claims and your stunning physics vacuum, in the face of actual pictures and video that YOU chose is ludicrous.

    1. You are afraid of evidence.
    2. You don't know what kinetic energy is.
    3. You don't understand English.
    4. You don't understand what a lever is.



    A Straw man statement The question is not whether the wing striking anywhere on the pole severs it or not, but whether the applied kinetic energy at the top of the pole, will sever the bolts at the base, far EASIER than hitting the pole at the bottom.

    Leverage.

    The videos you ran away from show a car knocking the poles over. But things like that are too difficult for you to acknowledge.



    Hitting the pole much higher would limit the damage because the leverage on the pole increases the torque. The force on the pole at the base needed to break the support is considerably higher than needed at the top. The only consideration is whether the resistant force of the pole bending is more than that of the torque needed to break the bolts at its base.

    You have no understanding of physics. Or how to debate.


    You got your ass kicked. You never went to class.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    False, stop making **** up or quote it.
    and you are dead wrong the pentagon poles would have been far easier to down if they werehit at the bottom. Please review pole construction and try again.
    False given the stated conditions, try again.
    [​IMG]

    That is all part of the [un]reasoned irrelevant strawman diversions that you posted in response to the pole slicing the wing off which is undeniable except for you course.

    Go ahead argue your strawman, I wont.

    Please read for comprehension and address what is on the table instead of inventing off point **** then pretending your strawmen have anything to do with me or the argument on the table.


    Otherwise thanks for proving you post nothing more than empty rhetoric and address all issues with strawman fallacies.

    you were asked to explain your kinetic energy claim, YOU FAILED again
    you were asked to explain why a lever would prevent the wing from being cut off, YOU FAILED again
    you gave incorrect physics examples,with corresponding incorrect answers, YOU FAILED again



    What have we learned today?

    1) Leverage does not prevent a wing from being sliced off by a pole.

    2) Breakaway bases do not prevent a car from being totalled

    3) OCT supporters FAILED high school physics.



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    All that kinetic energy from the plane being towed at 500 millimeters per minute! Brilliant!

    Score: Plane 0 Pole 5

    class dismissed

    [​IMG]


    :cool:


    @bob check this out, its ****ing hilarious, if I were him posting the strawman **** he is posting and he were me posting the hard facts that I am posting, I would run and hide my face in the sand, but like a paddle ball they take a licken and keep on ticken! Poles shred wings LOL Smoke trail was a total **** up if they wanted to prove a plane....

    Downed pole theory totally destroyed! No flames, no sliced up gigantic wings (both sides) laying on the lawn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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


    Hogwash word salad.

    The truther and his diversions. I see your ever more desperate search for supporting evidence gets even more bizarre. We had the plane hitting water, a lesson in hydrodynamic failure!



    Incorrect. The only thing I failed at is educating you on basic leverage and torque.



    I believe you have been shown a plane of considerable less wing strength slicing through two wooden telegraph poles with base foundations and not bolts. You chose to ignore and run away. No amount of pointing this out, reiteration or quoting will make you do that which you are frightened to do.




    You are not a "we" in terms of things learnt and you are incapable of learning anything anyway it seems.



    It does however give the wing enough energy to apply enough torque to the pole to break its base support.




    Cars hitting the base of a pole do not even come close to wings hitting the top. Leverage, torque and energy. I realise these terms must confuse you.




    Yet I just showed you the physics involved and you ran away. High energy hits high up on a lever, breaks the support. High energy hits very low down on the lever, breaks the wing as well. Simple.



    Seems somewhat of a different pole, d'ya think? It is a 50 foot floodlight pole with considerable ground support!

    Explain why you ignored the two poles snapped on my video and the two pictures.



    You want reinforcements clearly. Too late, you got your ass kicked. The problem is two fold, you don't seem intelligent enough to know it and you seem hopelessly frightened to face up to the evidence you have thus far completely ignored.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is a waste of my time, please take a course in physics and materials science before arguing physics and material effects, ask gam to help you, then try again, Im getting really bored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Run away again. You got your ass kicked and you argue with/without:

    • Cars that hit poles where you cheated and pretended it didn't knock it over!
    • Planes that hit water, the very thing to make a stadium of people clasp their palms to their foreheads.
    • You ignore CLEAR evidence with simple to see pictures of a plane knocking over telegraph poles!
    • Airport Midstream lighting poles 50 feet high and heavily base reinforced, far thicker in more ways than one.
    • Cars that hit poles at the base, most of them knocking the damn thing over!
    • No concept of leverage, torque or kinetic energy
    See the big poles, perhaps you reckon they are like the light poles in question?

    http://vnloxhq9y3-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DSC00069.jpg

    You look at something with no understanding whatsoever and come to a conclusion from ignorance. You just don't understand basic physics, or the balls to admit you are hopelessly wrong.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Again, please read just 'one' thing for comprehension and stop making **** up, just once in your life: This is a waste of my time, please take a course in physics and materials science before arguing physics and material effects, ask gam to help you, then try again, Im getting really bored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What does one need to be a "truther"? We hear that term bandied about, but what attributes are these people exhibiting?

    • Systematically deny evidence.
    • Completely ignore rebuttal and posts that tear apart their argument..
    • Make lots of noise about straw man arguments, demonstrating that they don't know what a strawman is.
    • Fail to acknowledge their errors.
    • They accuse people who DO admit their errors of "falsifying evidence", when that is EXACTLY what they have done!
    • There are numerous other points but it's a waste of time to list them.
    KOKO!! Hello? None of this is a strawman, go and learn what one is:

    Can you acknowledge your evidence falsification?
    Can you watch the video with the two screen grabs of a plane mowing over two wooden poles?
    Can you acknowledge the 3 cars mowing down poles?
    Can you quit being so afraid, it's ok to be wrong, not so much to tremble in fear at admitting your numerous blunders.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Apples and oranges. An expression so apt in this crazy claim. We have Koko claiming that a plane would not knock over bolt supported poles without losing its wing. To bolster his claim, he shows us an older weaker plane, hitting solid ground embedded poles. He shows us a plane hitting water! He shows us cars hitting the base of poles. Finally he shows us a couple of airplanes, one striking a pole of unknown foundations with the wing edge, one striking a very solidly anchored, very high pole!

    He has failed to take into account and ignored, another plane knocking over the wooden poles, a whole series of cars knocking over light poles, explanation about leverage, torque and force and why his examples are not relevant. No amount of argument will suffice, as once a person loses THAT amount of credibility, there is no way back.



    Sheering off the bolts, barely denting the wing. Apples and oranges.
     
    Shinebox likes this.
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What does one need to be a "truther"?
    Someone who does not engage in gross faulty generalities that in the final analysis are quantum BS like posers.
    We hear that term bandied about, but what attributes are these people exhibiting?
    Accuracy, they have higher educational skills and are more capable of getting the right answers.
    • Systematically deny evidence.
      Yes, a leading characteristic of Poser central.

    • Completely ignore rebuttal and posts that tear apart their argument.
      Yes Posers are forced to generalize and skip past in depth rebuttal due to the lack of their education typically.
    • Make lots of noise about straw man arguments, demonstrating that they don't know what a strawman is.
      Yes Posers stare in the mirror and and pretend everyone else debates just as poorly as they do.
    • Fail to acknowledge their errors.
      Posers fail to comprehend their errors because they are arrogant and argue 50 levels above their pay grade.
    • They accuse people who DO admit their errors of "falsifying evidence", when that is EXACTLY what they have done!
      Only if a Poser is cornered and the subject does not require physics or science, its possible readers could get lucky and get the hard facts and truth out of them.
    • There are numerous other points but it's a waste of time to list them.
      Yep thats why I no longer try to teach Posers, they do not want correct answers only their answers.
    KOKO!! Hello? None of this is a strawman, go and learn what one is:
    Yes they are all made up BS
    Can you acknowledge your evidence falsification?
    Koko falsified nothing, beta on the other hand did and koko busted beta.
    Can you watch the video with the two screen grabs of a plane mowing over two wooden poles?
    Thats not my argument, thats your strawman, red herring diversion please reread my previous for comprehension.
    Can you acknowledge the 3 cars mowing down poles?
    Thats not my argument, again its your strawman red herring diversion, please reread my posts.
    Can you quit being so afraid, it's ok to be wrong, not so much to tremble in fear at admitting your numerous blunders.
    Afraid? Words used by children to invoke irrelevant emotional responses and to the contrary koko's emotional response is laughing his ass off over the quantum BS that posers bring to the table. When if they 'ever' figure out how wrong they are their faces will glow in the dark.

    Again, please read just 'one' thing for comprehension and stop making **** up, just once in your life: This is a waste of my time, please take a course in physics and materials science before arguing physics and material effects, ask gam to help you, then try again, Im getting really bored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,132
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    False, we have beta making **** up as usual.
    Good call :winner:!

    I'd have to be doing some amazing drugs to make a loony statement like that.

    Again, please read just 'one' thing for comprehension and stop making **** up, just once in your life: This is a waste of my time, please take a course in physics and materials science before arguing physics and material effects, ask gam to help you, then try again, Im getting really bored.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did you learn your debate "skills" in the playground? Nothing I posted is made up.

    • We have a video and screen shots showing exactly what I claimed.
    • A plane knocking over two ground supported wooden telegraph poles!
    • A car, from your fraudulent gif, knocking over the pole.
    • More videos of cars doing the same.
    • You DID claim that the tail fin would damage windows etc. whilst claiming that a light pole would shear off the wing!
    • You DID claim that a plane hitting water is relevant.
    • You DID post two videos of wing damage, one from a 50ft reinforced pole!

    Everything I posted was real and you ran away from it. That's a truther for you.

    Yes, exactly. The pickup effortlessly knocks over light poles with barely a dent to its wing!

    Is this just your poor reading skills in play? Or are you seriously denying that there is minimal damage to the pickup wing?

    You failed at every point in this ridiculous claim. You just got your ass handed to you and have nothing but this sad arm waving as a response.

    If it were complicated physics you could be forgiven for your stubborn opposition, but it isn't!
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Koko and I had a debate a couple of years ago regarding which formula he would use to figure out the mass of the plane to be used to figure out the impact force on the pole. The formula he posted was As+Tm^I=m.

    https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...s-plane-v-pole-w-576-a-56.html#post1064529699

    When asked to present where he had gotten this formula to figure out the mass of the plane to be used, he balked at it. He even denied posting it multiple times and tried to say I posted the formula in question.
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...s-plane-v-pole-w-576-a-66.html#post1064538370

    Until he was shown his exact quote multiple times. Then he admitted it.
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...s-plane-v-pole-w-576-a-66.html#post1064538384

    These are the types of games Koko likes to play when caught in a corner.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Just for fun, here is a "Trougher Fizix Test" Koko posted some time ago...
    trpougherfizictest_zpsd23625db.png
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Scott? where'd you go?
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    After it had flown over the Pentagon, I'm not sure where it went as Roosevelt Roberts seemed a little confused about that as he was trying to drive and talk at the same time. The important thing is that he said he'd seen the plane fly past the side of the Pentagon where he was after the explosion. He only saw one plane. He talked about two planes because he thought the explosion was caused by a plane crashing into the other side of the Pentagon. What you describe is an impossibility.

    You're just trying to confuse the viewers with this. I don't know anything about the data and I don't know what kind of maneuvers a 757 can perform. I just know that the damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with a plane crash and that there are wintesses who saw the plane coming from the north side of the gas station and a witness who saw it flying away from the Pentagon which belies the official story.

    Check out posts #1, #5 and #63* of this thread to see my view of this.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...grees-with-citizen-investigation-team.548562/


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...estigation-team.548562/page-4#post-1070076404
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hey Koko!

    Any reason you lied through your teeth and tried to pass off the above FEA as a PLANE WING? When in reality it's the front end of a Formula 1 race car?!


    From the video description:
    Another video from the same person.


    From the video description:
    What's even better is you posted this same garbage a year ago and Bobby liked it because he thought it was "accurate evidence".
    boblike.PNG
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-pentagon.504480/page-8#post-1067603968
     

Share This Page