|
#51
●
12-11-2010, 04:43 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: SERGEANT Poster Rank:972 Male Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 726 Mentioned: 4 Post(s) Quoted: 46 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
Incorrect! the light poles were 46' in height, if you don't believe me go and measure (light pole #1) it's still at the side of the fucking road. The rest of you post is BS also. |
|
#53
●
12-12-2010, 11:27 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: GUNNERY SERGEANT Poster Rank:615 Male Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,473 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 3 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
You actually got in a cherry picker and measured the light pole on I385 by the pentagon? Or did you go to the Virginia Department of Transportation and have them pull up the schematics on the regulations pertaining to the height of the highway lights? or did you just go on your side street and use an anecdotal guess? Really? I think your geometry is off son. And your lack of response to the rest of the evidence presented is disturbing. Especially the trite dismissal of my rebuttal. |
|
#54
●
12-12-2010, 11:36 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: SERGEANT Poster Rank:972 Male Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 726 Mentioned: 4 Post(s) Quoted: 46 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
I actually researched it, as for the rest of your post, anyone who refers to a fuselage as a hull clearly has ships and aircraft confused. You also point out that the plane is traveling about 223 meters per second or something close to that and that the plane was 2 to 300 feet from it's target and that it wouldn't be that hard to control...WTF? at that speed by the time you had thought of an input for the controls it would be all over red rover. That's why I thought the rest of your post was not and is not worth replying to, but considering you asked I am polite enough to honor you with the reply you beckoned for. |
|
#55
●
12-12-2010, 11:40 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: SERGEANT Poster Rank:972 Male Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 726 Mentioned: 4 Post(s) Quoted: 46 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
Oh and a couple of other things of interest to you, the Jeep and I believe it is a Saturn (the white car) are F.B.I vehicles, also please explain to me how a light pole falls on the cab smashing the windscreen yet doing no panel damage whatsoever????. Sorry if I have the make of the white car wrong, I am Australian after all and have never owned one, although I do drive American cars, mainly Jeeps, but have had in the past 67 Mercury Cougar, 71 Mach 1 Mustang fastback, 64 Chev Belair, 64 Chev Belair wagon,71 chev impala, 67 chev pillarless impala, Rambler classics 2x wagons (cross country's) and 4x 770 classics. I love American cars and most Americans, I am also fighting to save the SS United states from being scrapped, so please don't think like the rest of this site that I am a American hater, far from it, I love the states, just wouldn't live there until your politics are sorted. My prerogative :) |
|
#57
●
12-13-2010, 03:18 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: GUNNERY SERGEANT Poster Rank:615 Male Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,473 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 3 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
The white car is a Saturn S series. It is built by the Saturn division of GM. Jeep is part of the Chrysler Corporation. As to it being an FBI vehicle, the front plate appears to me to be a vanity plate rather than a plate that would be on a federal government vehicle. but I don't live in the D.C. area. As far as the cab, which is a Lincoln Town Car, is concerned, I assume that the hood of the vehicle was able to absorb the hollow aluminum piece of the light pole that hit the vehicle and that the vehicle was traveling, the light pole did not stay on the vehicle but fell off before the cab driver completed stopping the vehicle. i would also assume that the windshield absorbed most of the impact force as evidenced in the photo. I also wrote 200 to 300 Yards (which would be 600 to 900 feet or about 183 meters to 274 meters) (An American Football field is 120 yards) as an estimate based on the photo with the Capitol Cab. Now if it was a Missile as some would assert, then how did it hit a Light pole and not explode. Are all the witnesses stupid enough not to tell the difference from a airliner and a missile. What kind of missile was deployed? Did all the FAA workers miss it on their radar? Especially in the DC area? Did no witnesses that lived in the surrounding area speak of seeing a missile coming from any direction? On this day of all days? Did they reduce the payload as to not make it most effective when it struck the Pentagon? Were all the witnesses coerced or were they all government plants? Or did Bush/ Cheney have that much control instituted after only eight months on the job. How were all the people disposed of that were said to be on the fictional American Airlines flight 77? Were they all made up? If the US government is that competent and compliant, and Bush/ Cheney that devious, and all the witnesses and experts and political opponents that easily duped by them? Finally, when I used "outer hull", I merely misspoke as I was referring to the fuselage itself and I had a brain-fart on the correct vernacular as can be seen with my usage of fuselage in the rest of the post. If mistyping is cause for dismissal of evidence, then logic can very well take a back seat to any reasoned discussion and this forum can devolve into a 4chan clone. |
|
#60
●
12-15-2010, 04:26 PM
| ||||||||
 ★ Legacy Member ★ Poster Rank:423 Male Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,726 Mentioned: 2 Post(s) Quoted: 300 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: New Photos Found Of PSA Flight 182 That Crashed
This one is available somewhere because I remember listening to it. very scary
|
