High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

Joboo flies an Easy one wing airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

Again with the personal reference. Are you guys shitting me, or simply shills? The same call out routine, then someone else comes in for a cheap character swipe with nothing constructive as a follow up. Real high caliber situation.

The hole...the real hole...not the loose change version hole, was ample size to fit the plane. It matched, and if the wings were getting banged up smacking down light poles on the way in, can this definitely disprove the plane over a missile? I'm still not seeing it.

$100 says this guy is looking at the same pictures everyone else has access to on the net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

It matched, and if the wings were getting banged up smacking down light poles on the way in, can this definitely disprove the plane over a missile? I'm still not seeing it.

---

Question is, are your poles clean enough that you should be using them in the first place?

http://goodideajohng.files.wordpress...ind-monkey.jpg

Now he's suggesting that a couple breakaway light poles slowed down & further dampened an already impossible flight path of a 757.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Question is, are your poles clean enough that you should be using them in the first place?

Now he's suggesting that a couple breakaway light poles slowed down & further dampened an already impossible flight path of a 757.

---

"Clean enough"? What does that even mean?

Dampened or damaged? Is that a typo?

Go crash a car into an aluminum light pole to see what kind of forces are involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Go crash a car into an aluminum light pole to see what kind of forces are involved.

---

Now we're starting to get somewhere.

Imagine traveling at over 500mph and hitting one.

Think they'd risk destroying tracks of 2.3T on a bank shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Now we're starting to get somewhere.

Imagine traveling at over 500mph and hitting one.

Think they'd risk destroying tracks of 2.3T on a bank shot?

---

It would knock them over, and mess up the wings.

Do you think they could hit the p-gon with an airplane? I think it would be incredibly easy.

With that much momentum, there is no such concept of a "bank shot" off a light pole.

It's like a dart...(wings or no wings) at that distance...short of a giant hand reaching out of the sky, it's hitting the mark straight on without deviation.

Some people say "aha!...the wings didn't fit perfectly!" Safe to say they weren't looking too profile perfect either after hitting 5 lamp posts.

i listened to the Major General's testimony.

blows the official US gov. conspiracy theory to pieces.

good video !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joboo

Do you think they could hit the p-gon with an Boeing 757 @ 500+MPH?

---

Nope, not the wall, not at all.

Maybe the roof if computer guided at a high angle descent, but would have to be plotted perfectly, and corrected in an instant upon approach.

Right angle perpendicular to the wall is an impossibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Nope, not the wall, not at all.

Maybe the roof if computer guided at a high angle descent, but would have to be plotted perfectly, and corrected in an instant upon approach.

Right angle perpendicular to the wall is an impossibility.

---

What you see visually, and where the force/momentum vector is pointing over such a short distance is not necessarily conclusive. If the camera was panned out more it would give a much better indication. I don't see it as a smoking gun.

I don't consider this as smoking gun proof/evidence either, but it does make a point. @26 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o

That jet might be going 220mph if that, if it impacted anything at the time there would would be large chunks all about the place. You need 500knots to enable the kind of disintegration you are hoping for.

Give it up joboo, no Boeing can do what your asking, its impossible. It is fully conclusive evidence.