• 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]

KokomoJojo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
7,544
Reaction score
1,503
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
this is a place (not the kausel thread) for debunkers to post their claims about how planes interact with poles and the damage incurred.

Koko posted a gif that a debunker claims is misrepresenting the observed results.

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. (as seen in the clip)

The debunker claims the basic wing structure was intact.





koko disagrees since we can see the outboard section of the wing getting sliced off which is part of the basic structure. (it didnt simply lose a panel) lol
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]


No, the OUTBOARD WING is not cut off...

That too is a classic Koko misrepresentation.

The FULL VIDEO with commentary:

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

Very clear and concise.....

6:45 = "The basic wing structure remains intact"

How could The basic wing structure remain intact if the wing is gone?

What percentage was lost? Not a wing. Not half a wing. Not even a quarter of the wing. Not even "the outboard wing".

What percentage of the wing is gone?
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]


koko never said "the whole wing" was cut off. you made that **** up.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-own-footprint-rnd-2-a-9.html#post1064411302


selective hearing too?

He said the outboard wing was cut off.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
koko never said "the whole wing" was cut off. you made that **** up.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-own-footprint-rnd-2-a-9.html#post1064411302

selective hearing too?

He said the outboard wing was cut off.
Click to expand...


Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off.

Koko WRONG again....

Appox 6:45.... "The 12" telephone pole cuts off the outer PANEL....."

ETA _ Anothr Koko CLAIM: the wing was CUT OFF, so the basic wing structure with regard to the 'WHOLE WING' did not stay intact DUH!!
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
koko never said "the whole wing" was cut off. you made that **** up.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-own-footprint-rnd-2-a-9.html#post1064411302


selective hearing too?

He said the outboard wing was cut off.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't think I noticed the edit Koko.....

What percentage was lost? Not a wing. Not half a wing. Not even a quarter of the wing. Not even "the outboard wing".

What percentage of the wing is gone?
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off.

Koko WRONG again....

Appox 6:45.... "The 12" telephone pole cuts off the outer PANEL....."
Click to expand...


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

Fledermaus said:
Oh, don't think I noticed the edit Koko.....

What percentage was lost? Not a wing. Not half a wing. Not even a quarter of the wing. Not even "the outboard wing".

What percentage of the wing is gone?
Click to expand...


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

Typical Koko being vague. "Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off."

Do you mean part of the wing tip?
The wing was cut off at the fuselage?

Seems to me the wing did not break off , If you want to say part of the wing near the tip did. then yep., but not the whole wing itself.

Bet you have not been involved in any aviation accident investigation nor are you an aviation engineer.:mrgreen:

The OP is a fail.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
Click to expand...

moving the goal post. Where was that image in your OP?

Same stupid posts when you fail to show the original source with the whole vid.

Cherry pick much.:mrgreen:
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
Click to expand...

And?

You have a point?

At that point the aircraft had suffered two serious ground impacts....

Two serious ground impacts that resulted in the wings detaching....

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. = Utter fail
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
percentage is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Nonsense....

the wing was CUT OFF, so the basic wing structure with regard to the 'WHOLE WING' did not stay intact DUH!! = FAIL

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. = Fail
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
And?

You have a point?

At that point the aircraft had suffered two serious ground impacts....

Two serious ground impacts that resulted in the wings detaching....

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. = Utter fail
Click to expand...

a panel is attached to a plane by screws, not the whole outboard section

as usual this is nothing more than word games
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
a panel is attached to a plane by screws, not the whole outboard section
Click to expand...

And?

You have a point?

At that point the aircraft had suffered two serious ground impacts....

Two serious ground impacts that resulted in the wings detaching....

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. = Utter fail
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

Fledermaus said:
And?

You have a point?

At that point the aircraft had suffered two serious ground impacts....

Two serious ground impacts that resulted in the wings detaching....

Koko claims and maintains the outboard wing was cut off. = Utter fail
Click to expand...

Why are you bothering? Oozlefinch blew Koko's interpretation of this video out of the water recently, and Koko knows this.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

NWO_Spook said:
Why are you bothering? Oozlefinch blew Koko's interpretation of this video out of the water recently, and Koko knows this.
Click to expand...

more made up **** residing in the vivid imaginations of debunkers. carry on
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

KokomoJojo said:
more made up **** residing in the vivid imaginations of debunkers. carry on
Click to expand...


No, and it is quite convenient you don't remember. Oozlefinch went through that old video and demonstrated why the pole was placed there and what it was intended to achieve, while relating how this cannot be compared to 9/11. It was fascinating stuff and well researched (as always with him). You can easily examine his posting record to find it, but I know you won't.
 
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]

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

Mark F said:
Once again I encourage others not to indulge his need for attention when Koko knows full well he is full of :censored
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
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
Click to expand...


I am so sorry that debunkers are victims of a world of butthurt, again, I really am.

The first step to curing the problem is for them to stop posting lies and bull****.

See debunkers posted lies claiming that I was proven wrong about the outboard wing being 'sliced off', despite the fact I proved it with a video clip, (see OP), and when I corrected debunkers rather than dropping it debunkers made a big stink out of it and tried to derail my kausel thread, so I made this thread so debunkers have a place to argue this subject and prove the point, where people (not other debunkers of course) can see that the debunkers do not comprehend simple english. (and they suk at forensics too)

1) The outboard wing-tank is seen to be completely severed and sliced off from the plane. (as shown in the OP)

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




peace out man! (and better luck next time)
kokos forensics lessons, class adjourned.
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]


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

Fledermaus said:
Another intentionally dishonest post.
Click to expand...

why do you continiue when everyone can see the wing being cut off?

No amount of pretense can change the facts.

I like these little mini threads that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt subjects debunkers reject since it shows the world the fraud debunkers are perpetrating on them.

koko said outbard wing gets sliced off fled said debunkers proved koko was wrong. That is the OP, proving debunkers lied is the purpose of this debate.



Unless you want to continue to pretend the outboard wing tank was not sliced off. Its your reputation on the chopping block!
 
Last edited:
re: Debunker educational services presents "Plane v Pole"[W:576]


Still wrong....

READ THE PDF,,,,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…