• 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!

911 Aircraft Impact Examination, Physics/Engineering POV.[W:195]

The phenomena being presented in videos as facts are laughably ridiculous given they have nothing in common with the crash condition of the WTC. Projectiles flying in to armored vehicles and crash tests of fixed wing aircraft on the ground with simulated wing-cutting devices are suppose to have what to with those conditions at the WTC?
 
American said:
The phenomena being presented in videos as facts are laughably ridiculous given they have nothing in common with the crash condition of the WTC. Projectiles flying in to armored vehicles and crash tests of fixed wing aircraft on the ground with simulated wing-cutting devices are suppose to have what to with those conditions at the WTC?
Click to expand...
It is an established pattern of evasion. Often directed against my posts because I have repeatedly challenged Koko for his use of parody physics (and also his parody "explanations" of "burden of proof" which he relies on for many claims.) On IIRC four occasions I have shown him exactly where he is wrong and he runs away as he did at Post #4 in this thread when he shifted the goalposts in the manner you have identified. Distractions nothing to do with the OP or with WTC collapse.

Note the first few posts of the thread where:
Post #1 - the OP - he makes some claims
Post #2 - he quotes part of one of my posts from another thread AND presents some reasoned comments. (he made 11 comments - Nos 1,2, 3, 7 and 11 agreeing with me - 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 actually agreeing BUT pretending to disagree - making counter claims which I had already covered in what he quoted. THEN #10 sets the scene for the goalpost shifting derail he is setting up.
(Post #3 - he changes comment #8 - amended to "agree")

AND in post #4, he shifts the goalposts by the off topic images you have identified.

He followed the exact same tactics on previous occasions when I have explained the errors in his claims. Three in parody physics and the fourth one his parody explanation of "burden of proof" where - among other silly bits of nonsense:
A) he insists that the defence in a criminal case do not have to do any more than claim that the prosecution hasn't made its case.
B) In truther debunker discussions it is the debunkers burden to disprove all claims by truthers including the ones they haven't made.

Read through this thread searching for my username referenced in Koko's posts. You will find either a false assertion OR some needling which I ignore.
 
ozeco41 said:
It is an established pattern of evasion. Often directed against my posts because I have repeatedly challenged Koko for his use of parody physics (and also his parody "explanations" of "burden of proof" which he relies on for many claims.) On IIRC four occasions I have shown him exactly where he is wrong and he runs away as he did at Post #4 in this thread when he shifted the goalposts in the manner you have identified. Distractions nothing to do with the OP or with WTC collapse.

Note the first few posts of the thread where:
Post #1 - the OP - he makes some claims
Post #2 - he quotes part of one of my posts from another thread AND presents some reasoned comments. (he made 11 comments - Nos 1,2, 3, 7 and 11 agreeing with me - 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 actually agreeing BUT pretending to disagree - making counter claims which I had already covered in what he quoted. THEN #10 sets the scene for the goalpost shifting derail he is setting up.
(Post #3 - he changes comment #8 - amended to "agree")

AND in post #4, he shifts the goalposts by the off topic images you have identified.

He followed the exact same tactics on previous occasions when I have explained the errors in his claims. Three in parody physics and the fourth one his parody explanation of "burden of proof" where - among other silly bits of nonsense:
A) he insists that the defence in a criminal case do not have to do any more than claim that the prosecution hasn't made its case.
B) In truther debunker discussions it is the debunkers burden to disprove all claims by truthers including the ones they haven't made.

Read through this thread searching for my username referenced in Koko's posts. You will find either a false assertion OR some needling which I ignore.
Click to expand...


No, your dodging and denials are pantomime debunking from an upside down world. SOP for setting up the dodge every time Koko points out no less than one but most often typical compound fallacies, in this case your "Propositional and Affirmation of the consequent" fallacies.

Then combine that with failure to state an affirmative claim by posting opinion based innuendo so viewers out here better have good psychic readers and a crystal ball.

If the above poster was serious you would see the format:

koko statement : ______
Poster rebuttal: ______

Just like koko does it! ....and so forth instead of the usual black hole of unfounded conclusions pretended as fact and riddled with the fallacies already pointed out.

Pretty difficult to debate with someone with such an unreasonable posting style especially when they nearly always contain compounded fallacies (aforementioned). Takes years just to argue the fallacies assumptions and ungrounded opinions. (but then I expect thats the objective)

Take note readers, there are no "statements/quotes" regarding what he thinks koko is agreeing with, its all left to your vivid imaginations to fill in the blanks which his posts depend upon. Typical debate avoidance and dodging the issues.
 
ozeco41 said:
Three in parody physics and the fourth one his parody explanation of "burden of proof" where - among other silly bits of nonsense:
A) he insists that the defence in a criminal case do not have to do any more than claim that the prosecution hasn't made its case.
B) In truther debunker discussions it is the debunkers burden to disprove all claims by truthers including the ones they haven't made.
Click to expand...

I dont quote criminal rules when referring to civil matters. FAIL

You have been given the proper understanding of burden of proof direct from law offices and court cases posted in various threads and this is nothing more than the same denial without cause reason or logic.
 
911 truth has no clue what mass is, or what mass does traveling at 590 mph, 470 mph, and 483.5 knots. 911 truth does not use physics to form conclusion, they use BS, lies and assorted fantasy nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo
 
ozeco41 said:
Note the first few posts of the thread where:
Post #1 - the OP - he makes some claims
Post #2 - he quotes part of one of my posts from another thread AND presents some reasoned comments. (he made 11 comments - Nos 1,2, 3, 7 and 11 agreeing with me - 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 actually agreeing BUT pretending to disagree - making counter claims which I had already covered in what he quoted. THEN #10 sets the scene for the goalpost shifting derail he is setting up.
(Post #3 - he changes comment #8 - amended to "agree")

AND in post #4, he shifts the goalposts by the off topic images you have identified.
Click to expand...

they are germane to statements you made, (and or the argument at large).

You had and still have the opportunity to demonstrate they would not be germane in argument, not your typical unfounded naked opinions which are completely unacceptable to any debate. You know the old saying right? Opinions are like assholes everyone has one so lets see some facts.
 
KokomoJojo said:
they are germane to statements you made,
Click to expand...
PROVE that they are germane or relevant by reasoned argument. Until you support your claim those off topic matters are off topic and evasions as correctly identified by American.
KokomoJojo said:
(and or the argument at large).
Click to expand...
define what that means THEN prove it.
KokomoJojo said:
You had and still have the opportunity to demonstrate they would not be germane in argument,...
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving the points I made in the earlier post viz:
1) You rely on a parody of "burden of proof" - YOU are claiming that the off topic information is germane to the discussion. Your burden to show that it is germane;
2) You did not assert that it was "germane" when you posted the off topic material in your obvious derailing runaway - you have only identified the issue post hoc;
3)AND it is not my burden to disprove something that you have not asserted - but thanks for proving my point:
ozeco41 said:
...B) In truther debunker discussions it is the debunkers burden to disprove all claims by truthers including the ones they haven't made.
Click to expand...
(Comment: it was nice of Koko to provide me an example where he demands that I should rebut a claim BEFORE he has made the claim. :roll:)

How far ahead do you expect me to read your mind? Should I be posting rebuttals of claims that you will make this time next year? I have shown that I can rebut your parodies of physics and burden of proof...even I cannot rebut the claims you may make in the future.

Basic simple stuff Koko:
A) If you claim something it is your burden to support/prove YOUR claim.
B) I will not waste effort chasing your inevitable evasive and untrue claims. If you ever decide to enter into reasoned discussion I may be interested.



not your typical unfounded naked opinions which are completely unacceptable to any debate. You know the old saying right? Opinions are like assholes everyone has one so lets see some facts.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: 911 Aircraft Impact Examination, Physics/Engineering POV.

Sunzi said:
911 truth has no clue what mass is, or what mass does traveling at 590 mph, 470 mph, and 483.5 knots. 911 truth does not use physics to form conclusion, they use BS, lies and assorted fantasy nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo
Click to expand...

Thats a good one, funny, but the ping pong ball through the paddle that I posted earlier is a much better representation to compare to planes flying through a building than dumping a lake on a car and caving in the roof.


How about this? truck goes right through invincible plane and doesnt even scuff the pain on the cab.





truck v plane

truck wins
 
Last edited:
Re: 911 Aircraft Impact Examination, Physics/Engineering POV.

KokomoJojo said:
Thats a good one, funny, but the ping pong ball through the paddle that I posted earlier is a much better representation to compare to planes flying through a building than dumping a lake on a car and caving in the roof.


How about this? truck goes right through invincible plane and doesnt even scuff the pain on the cab.





truck v plane

truck wins
Click to expand...

And yet airliners hit and seriously damaged the towers....
 
American said:
The phenomena being presented in videos as facts are laughably ridiculous given they have nothing in common with the crash condition of the WTC. Projectiles flying in to armored vehicles and crash tests of fixed wing aircraft on the ground with simulated wing-cutting devices are suppose to have what to with those conditions at the WTC?
Click to expand...

As you mentioned, it is an attempt to SIMULATE what might have happened, EXTRAPOLATE perhaps, information that might be helpful in analyzing what did happen there.
 
Henry David said:
As you mentioned, it is an attempt to SIMULATE what might have happened, EXTRAPOLATE perhaps, information that might be helpful in analyzing what did happen there.
Click to expand...

None of it will help disprove the official story.
 
Henry David said:
As you mentioned, it is an attempt to SIMULATE what might have happened, EXTRAPOLATE perhaps, information that might be helpful in analyzing what did happen there.
Click to expand...

Except that the examples are not relevant and the person posting them knows that and why yet persists anyway.
 
Henry David said:
As you mentioned, it is an attempt to SIMULATE what might have happened, EXTRAPOLATE perhaps, information that might be helpful in analyzing what did happen there.
Click to expand...

The GIF is misleading. In the actual test the basic wing structre was still intact after impact with the poles (except for a wing tip) and the wing did not fail until impact with the ground.

And yes, it has been brought to his attention.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
The GIF is misleading. In the actual test the basic wing structre was still intact after impact with the poles (except for a wing tip) and the wing did not fail until impact with the ground.

And yes, it has been brought to his attention.
Click to expand...
Remember also that it was Koko's own OP where he stated the scope of topic as follows:
KokomoJojo said:
...The perimeter columns were approximately 1/4x14x13 @ 120kips and 40 inches on center with a 4inch thick light weight concrete floor.

The object is to dissect and visualize the response of both the building and the aircraft.

Next post my response to some previous comments on the topic.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis.)

So the WTC Tower building and the actual impacting aircraft.

He could not legitimately find fault with my comments so took the thread off his own topic from post #4.

Evasive SOP for every failed attempt to address my reasoned explanation of physics.
 
ozeco41 said:
Remember also that it was Koko's own OP where he stated the scope of topic as follows:
(my emphasis.)

So the WTC Tower building and the actual impacting aircraft.

He could not legitimately find fault with my comments so took the thread off his own topic from post #4.

Evasive SOP for every failed attempt to address my reasoned explanation of physics.
Click to expand...

Evasion rather than discussion? Koko? No, say it ain't so.
 
ozeco41 said:
Sorry - cannot say that. It would be telling fibs and my mother told me I shouldn't tell fibs. :naughty
Click to expand...

Didnt sink in very well
 
Mark F said:
Except that the examples are not relevant and the person posting them knows that and why yet persists anyway.
Click to expand...

Really Mark?
Do tell what you think is not relevant and why you think whatever you think is not relevant, is not relevant .
 
ozeco41 said:
Remember also that it was Koko's own OP where he stated the scope of topic as follows:
(my emphasis.)

So the WTC Tower building and the actual impacting aircraft.

He could not legitimately find fault with my comments so took the thread off his own topic from post #4.

Evasive SOP for every failed attempt to address my reasoned explanation of physics.
Click to expand...

Not true, I made the thread open enough to include anything regarding the impact of the plane and building and from an engineering perspective in an effort to investigate the matter closer.

the greater the 'dodge' factor the lessor the comprehension.

still doing everything to evade discussing the impact with regard to that wonderful contradiction that I am sure is top shelf reason and logic :beat
 
Fledermaus said:
The GIF is misleading.
Click to expand...

the outboard wing is cut off just like I said. More comprehension issues I see.

As far as hitting a pole is concerned I posted a clip where a plane hits a pole and we can see what happens to the wing tips when hitting a pole that approaches the same yield as the wtc columns.

SLICE.gif



are you trying to make some engineering point fled?
 
Re: 911 Aircraft Impact Examination, Physics/Engineering POV.

ozeco41 said:
He cannot afford to - he would risk offending his claque of supporters. Correct. And the irony will not be missed.
Click to expand...

Now this is an unexpected twist. I dont think I ever expected you to make such a confession. Maybe there is hope after all.
 
KokomoJojo said:
the outboard wing is cut off just like I said. More comprehension issues I see.

As far as hitting a pole is concerned I posted a clip where a plane hits a pole and we can see what happens to the wing tips when hitting a pole that approaches the same yield as the wtc columns.

are you trying to make some engineering point fled?
Click to expand...

Engineering point: Misrepresentation is misrepresentation.

What was said about the wing structure?
 
Fledermaus said:
Engineering point: Misrepresentation is misrepresentation.

What was said about the wing structure?
Click to expand...

not relevant to my claim the outboard wing being cut off despite your continued misrepresentation.

Did the outbard 12 feet of wing get cut off or not:

Yes___
No___

go ahead deny it LOL

Oh and if for some crazy assed reason or lack thereof that your response is no or anything that would create a dispute for further discussion then please take it to the thread that was appropriated for that purpose HERE: http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ucational-services-presents-plane-v-pole.html

thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom