• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
Still wrong....

READ THE PDF,,,,
Click to expand...

cant view it

just gonna have to correct more debunker comprehension issues why waste the time?
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
More goalpost moving....

More nonsense.....

More GIFs that do not how the whole story.

More insults.

In other words. Another intentionally dishonest post.

ETA - I looked up the fuel cells for a DC-7. Once again, Koko is WRONG when he states "1) The outboard wing-tank is seen to be completely severed and sliced off from the plane." The outboard wing-tank is at least 2X-3X the size of the section lost in the impact with the non-breakaway telephone pole.

Ergo Koko is ALSO WRONG when he stated "2) The outboard wing-tank went AIRBORNE while the inboard wing drops and hits the ground" Only a PORTION of the outboard wing tank.

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0624051

Pages 47 and 58 apply
Click to expand...








IHATETRUTHERS.png








​
Fledermaus said:
Since it is known that you misinterpret and improperly edit your GIFS.

And yes, you do...

For example... Your pet GIF about aircraft vs. telephone poles. Later in the video it is made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR the basic wing structure is undamaged....

Intentional misrepresentation... Edited to ensure the real point is missed.
Click to expand...


Its a known fact that you posted a bold faced LIE

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-own-footprint-rnd-2-a-9.html#post1064410935





​
/fb/|\
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Don__t_feed_the_Troll.webp
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
Its a known fact that you posted a bold faced LIE
Click to expand...

...cut off the wing 12 feet from the tip.....

Wingspan: 117 ft, 6 in (35.81 m)

Ergo approximately 10% of the wing area....

Lets us look at the CLAIMS:

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. - WRONG (A portion was)

"1) The outboard wing-tank is seen to be completely severed and sliced off from the plane." - WRONG

"2) The outboard wing-tank went AIRBORNE while the inboard wing drops and hits the ground" - WRONG

the wing was CUT OFF, so the basic wing structure with regard to the 'WHOLE WING' did not stay intact DUH!! - WRONG (Again, only a small portion of the wing)

6:45 of the video = "The basic wing structure remains intact"
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

zyzygy said:
View attachment 67181788

ozeco41 likes this.
Click to expand...

Even complete annihilation doesnt seem to stop them.

Instead of simply dropping it with a red face like a truther would do, they double and triple down sinking deeper into the bull**** abyss.

Which is fine with me since its why no one takes debunkers seriously anymore.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. - WRONG (A portion was)
Click to expand...

the government claims the outboard wing was cut off, it sliced one fuel tank in half lol




whats not clear about "cut off the wing". brace yourselves readers!
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
the government claims the outboard wing was cut off, it sliced one fuel tank in half lol

<Snipped KokoGIF>

whats not clear about "cut off the wing". brace yourselves readers!
Click to expand...

...cut off the wing APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET FROM THE TIP.....

That is not the outboard wing... Only a fraction of it.

So, more misrepresentation... But Bman is sure to lap it up.

The FULL VIDEO with commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4

Very clear and concise.....

6:45 = "The basic wing structure remains intact"
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
...cut off the wing APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET FROM THE TIP.....

That is not the outboard wing... Only a fraction of it.

So, more misrepresentation... But Bman is sure to lap it up.

The FULL VIDEO with commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4

Very clear and concise.....

6:45 = "The basic wing structure remains intact"
Click to expand...












SLICE.gif





No one said or claimed that every square inch of the outbard wing was severed, that is your BS strawman that I refuse to argue.

You claimed that I misrepresented the event and that claim is a lie.

So that settles it then, according to debunkers its not the outboard wing, and a sliced off outboard section is a wing that remains intact.

Same as usual debunker word games.

No surprise debunkers have taken up residence beside the titanic.
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
GIF Insults Removed.


No one said or claimed that every square inch of the outbard wing was severed, that is your strawman, well then that settles it, according to debunkers its not the outboard wing, and a sliced off outboard section is a wing that remains intact.

Same as usual debunker word games.

No surprise debunkers have taken up residence beside the titanic.
Click to expand...

The outboard wing-tank is seen to be completely severed and sliced off from the plane.

He said the outboard wing was cut off.

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off.



...cut off the wing APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET FROM THE TIP.....

That is not the outboard wing... Only a fraction of it.

The FULL VIDEO with commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4

Very clear and concise.....

6:45 = "The basic wing structure remains intact"
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Mark F said:
Another completely irrelevant OP from Koko.

Once again I encourage others not to indulge his need for attention when Koko knows full well he is full of :censored

NWO_Spook, mike2810 and ozeco41 like this.
Click to expand...



No its not irrelevant since it proves that debunkers create strawman meanings to spam threads. Fled claimed that I materially misrepresent events using gifs. That claim is a lie. The gif can be seen and the original clip can be seen and it is the truth.

To win this argument fled would need to prove it was the inboard wing since the outboard wing in the posts that lead to the thread clearly was used to distinguish it from the inboard wing which was also struck by a pole, with the emphasis that it was ****ING CUT OFF, which is contrary to the WTC where the magic plane wings do not get cut offnot what debunker word games has turned it into.

Glad you all cheer that kind preposterous posting on.
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Semantic twists and turns, and pejorative descriptions of the messenger is pretty much all those still defending the official story have.

If the outboard 12 feet of a 50 foot wing is not the outboard section, I don't know what is. Maus' desperation is painfully obvious.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Henry David said:
Semantic twists and turns, and pejorative descriptions of the messenger is pretty much all those still defending the official story have.

If the outboard 12 feet of a 50 foot wing is not the outboard section, I don't know what is. Maus' desperation is painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

The bolded is correct.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

kokomojojo said:










SLICE.gif





no one said or claimed that every square inch of the outbard wing was severed, that is your bs strawman that i refuse to argue.

You claimed that i misrepresented the event and that claim is a lie.

So that settles it then, according to debunkers its not the outboard wing, and a sliced off outboard section is a wing that remains intact.

Same as usual debunker word games.

No surprise debunkers have taken up residence beside the titanic.
Click to expand...



fledermaus said:
the outboard wing-tank is seen to be completely severed and sliced off from the plane.

he said the outboard wing was cut off.

koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off.
Click to expand...


..............................
The above quote shows the video clip which was posted TO SHOW HOW MUCH of 'the outboard wing' koko is referring to and how disingenuous debunkers misrepresent truthers issues to bog down threads.

please read kokos posts for comprehension.
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Henry David said:
Semantic twists and turns, and pejorative descriptions of the messenger is pretty much all those still defending the official story have.

If the outboard 12 feet of a 50 foot wing is not the outboard section, I don't know what is. Maus' desperation is painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

yes and sandia labs even did a particle fea showing how nicely poles slice through plane wings

 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:

..............................
The above quote shows the video clip which was posted TO SHOW HOW MUCH of 'the outboard wing' koko is referring to and how disingenuous debunkers misrepresent truthers issues to bog down threads.

please read kokos posts for comprehension.
Click to expand...

Please refer to post #35 insteads of posting more irrelevant graphics.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

So now it appears I am expected to teach debunkers how to read and comprehend what they are reading.

When a picture of clip is provided with a description the picture shows the quantitative details of the description.

It is the combination of the both the text and the picture that provides a reader with the ability to fully comprehend what is being communicated.

We know debunkers are not blind since they respond to posts, therefore there is only one possible conclusion if we presume they are here to debate rather than disrupt threads and that is comprehension problems.

Hopefully this will help those with reading difficulties better understand how to comprehend what is being said in posts.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
So now it appears I am expected to teach debunkers how to read and comprehend what they are reading.

When a picture of clip is provided with a description the picture shows the quantitative details of the description.

It is the combination of the both the text and the picture that provides a reader with the ability to fully comprehend what is being communicated.

We know debunkers are not blind since they respond to posts, therefore there is only one possible conclusion if we presume they are here to debate rather than disrupt threads and that is comprehension problems.

Hopefully this will help those with reading difficulties better understand how to comprehend what is being said in posts.
Click to expand...

Please refer to post #35 for accurate assessment of the damage to the wing.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

There is no real reason to give anyone who supports the OCT any citations what so ever since every citation I have given resulted in nothing more than debunkers creating fictional strawman claims that bog down a debate and debunkers have been proven wrong in every claim they challenged koko for misrepresenting videos/gifs by the use of photobucket.

time for debunkers to step up the academic level of their claims or simply concede the arguments in the first place.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
There is no real reason to give anyone who supports the OCT any citations what so ever since every citation I have given resulted in nothing more than debunkers creating fictional strawman claims that bog down a debate and debunkers have been proven wrong in every claim they challenged koko for misrepresenting videos/gifs by the use of photobucket.

time for debunkers to step up the academic level of their claims or simply concede the arguments in the first place.
Click to expand...

Anyone interested in the actual tests and their results can refer to post #35 and judge for themselves.

Blatant POE is blatant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom