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

no fire, hell in the pentagon clip there isnt even a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing plane! LMFAO

 

But if you don't claim DESTROYED, you claim nothing. Everyone agrees the aircraft would doubtless have suffered 'some' amount of damage, just that there obviously wasn't enough to keep it from flying 2 seconds more and hitting the Pentagon. But if you don't claim it would be DESTROYED, what reason is there to think it didn't knock over the poles?

 

there has to be one to be destroyed now doest there.

better luck next time

 

As you know, that's how it works with a 'slow' frame rate security cam and a 500 mph plane.

If you can't argue more honestly than this, you're a total waste.

 

Oh, another claim!

Good then, what what is?...and, show us proof all the eyewitnesses who witnessed a plane, are lying....Clown.

 

What reason do you have to think the plane didn't exist?

 

you can get them at 240fps, you mean to tell me that our govenment that is charging me buko (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dollars cant afford to by a camera that is as good as (*)(*)(*)(*)ty service station cam system? What is it 1 frame every 30 seconds?

- - - Updated - - -

where are the wing parts? wings dont slice poles with a 30 ton yield without leaving a mess and flaming inferno along the way as I posted above.

go back and read my posts and look at the pics again. that is why they are there.

 

It's fast enough to catch people running around. Look at your clip and estimate.

 

how did all those plane parts get there?....I guess your crack team of invisible dwarfs and leprechauns?

Do you even think your nutter claims through?....and you're an attorney?...wow.

 

nope that is not the test I want to know what cam they had.

 

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. Neither of us knows if 'wings sliced poles' is a fair description of what happened here. Neither of us knows what hit what, how, in this case, or what results could be expected.

 

criminals dumped them off a truck.

 

I want lots of things. So what?

 

792ft per sec....how many frames did you think the camera would capture? How much time did the wing have to ignite or catch fire.

wanna try again?

 

its you who does not know.

the poles are sliced up like a mulching mower went over them. they had a 30ton yield factor. wing parts should have been strewn all over and flames all over the lawn. There were no wing parts, there were no flames, we know, you dont.

 

Proof?...evidence?....

You claims are as hollow as your head.

 

does not matter it shows no plane.

 

how do cars traveling 50 mph knock over the poles?

 

no wings on the lot, no flames, no video evidence, poles still standing after alleged impact.

no material evidence of anything prejunk pile.

 

Ah! You know exactly what parts of the plane hit poles, and what angle of impact?
You know everything about the plane structure, and can analyse the resultant effect accurately?
We're back to needing you to post your degrees.
Then post the design for the time machine you used to go back and view all the relevant details of what hit what.

 

WHAT????? WHY DOESN"T IT MATTER??? Bring it liar....er....lawyer. Show us that acedemically sharp mind.

Bet you can't

 

not me you.

security cams operate at a very high frame rate and only record during motion. as I saif 240 fps is common.

you are being dishonest.

 

No, there is just no evidence that anything other than the plane caused those poles to come down, and plenty of eyewitnesses who saw a plane do it. Of course, in true lawyer mode, you then accuse the eyewitnesses of lying...of course, without proof.

You might want to start practicing the line, "would you like fries with that?"

 

Some do, some don't Operate at a high rate of speed, that is.

In any case, the clip you posted is at a slow frame rate. You can't claim evidence exists just because you say so.

 

no were not.

short memory?

poles with 30 ton yield were sliced like butter. that is all you need to know to analyze the problem. lol

are you joining the troughers now and merely trying to mix in (*)(*)(*)(*) to confuse such a no brainer simple matter?

- - - Updated - - -

did the investigation look for any other evidence?

reports please.