• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm

Math for the pole entering the car? How old are you? Check out the
orientation of the road and alleged damage path. How does the pole
falling in a diagonal direction enter the cab which is on a huge angle?


Please explain mr math?!

define "huge angle" mr argument from ignorance,

31point8degrees.jpg


And Furthermore;;

From Caustic Logic
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Crime_Scene_fakery_1.jpg


Russel Pickering's analysis at PentagonResearch.com found that they were 27.66 feet high, made of .188 inch-thick aluminum, 8 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches at the top and topped with 70 pound lampheads. The reason the wings wouldn't be damaged is because the use of a "breakaway style" pole design. As Pickering explains: "this limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft." He cited the FAA's rules: "any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."


more at pentagon research
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html


LAMP POLES

5 aluminum lamp poles were knocked down preceding the Pentagon wall. Through contact with the VDOT, the distributors and manufacturers of the poles used in the area I have been able to determine the following basic information.*

1) The poles were breakaway style on a 18 inch transformer style base. This means that at 23 inches off the ground the pole would be broken by a Volkswagen Rabbit traveling 20 mph.
2) The poles themselves were 27.66 feet high with a weight of approximately 175 pounds.
3) The truss style mast arms were 8 foot long with a rise that brought the pole height up to 30 feet. The mast arm weighs between 15-20 pounds.
4) The lamp head weighs approximately 70 pounds.
5) The aluminum on the poles was .188 of an inch thick. The pole was 8 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches in diameter at the top.
Since the light poles are the first physical damage we encounter at the Pentagon I will break the rest of this page into a consideration of them in light of a plane and a no-plane point-of-view. This is very important in order to continue on into the rest of our investigation. The damage preceding the Pentagon wall has to be logically accounted for in either scenario.
[SIZE=+1]PLANE[/SIZE]

At the speed of 345 mph which was recorded by the recovered AA77 flight data recorder, the leading edge of the wing could slice through the approximately 5 inch diameter pole (at that height) with .188 of an inch thick aluminum walls like butter. This would cause the top half of the pole to pop up over the wing and essentially fall straight back down, which is effectively what we see with all the poles in the photos. The bottom half of the pole would have been driven forward with little resistance. If a VW Rabbit can break one at 20 mph 23 inches off the ground then it takes significantly less force with the leverage effect of being hit higher up. This may be why we have minimal wing debris on the ground.

This limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft, "FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot." (Source)
One of the most commonly reported features in the eyewitness reports was the aircraft impacting light poles. In conjunction with the reported striking of the poles many eyewitnesses mentioned a change in the sound of the engines. Some described it as the engines being "revved up" or the aircraft going to "full-throttle".
The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams.

The first pole impact occurred at approximately 1000 feet prior to the Pentagon wall. 345 mph is 506 per second. That means it would have been roughly 2 seconds with the aircraft being driven by momentum between the first pole and the wall. There would not have been the force or the time for the pole damage to cause a deviation in the flight-path.
 
Last edited:
Hey, "netgineers":
How does the pole enter the cab based on the angle of impact vs. the
angle of cab?

Simple. If the cab was moving forward at 40 mph, the pole wouldn't need to be "thrown like a javelin" to explain what happened; it would simply need to be in the air when the cab got to it.
 
It's no wonder you guys are so confused, your facts are ALL WRONG!

The jet was traveling at 463 Knots, or 532.81 MPH - NOT 345 MPH !

Second, the lamp height was 40 feet, not 30 feet! Here are the correct
stats, and a scaling of the Lincoln front end (78.2 inches)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...-town-car-6.htm


PFT_pole_length2.jpg


newpoles1.jpg


P.S. WC, you're just a punk who likes to push buttons. That's all you do.
You got nothing else. Don't waste my time.
 
Last edited:
It's no wonder you guys are so confused, your facts are ALL WRONG!

The jet was traveling at 463 Knots, or 532.81 MPH - NOT 345 MPH !

Second, the lamp height was 40 feet, not 30 feet! Here are the correct
stats, and a scaling of the Lincoln front end (78.2 inches)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...-town-car-6.htm
Links' broken in the bolded red section....

Code:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...-town-car-6.htm
howstuffworks.com...-town-

Figured you might want to correct that....


P.S. WC, you're just a punk who likes to push buttons. That's all you do.
You got nothing else. Don't waste my time.
Insult fails... try arguing with out ad hominems... of course I know asking you to do this is the equivalent of talking to a brick wall :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It's no wonder you guys are so confused, your facts are ALL WRONG!

The jet was traveling at 463 Knots, or 532.81 MPH - NOT 345 MPH !

Second, the lamp height was 40 feet, not 30 feet! Here are the correct
stats, and a scaling of the Lincoln front end (78.2 inches)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...-town-car-6.htm

P.S. WC, you're just a punk who likes to push buttons. That's all you do.
You got nothing else. Don't waste my time.
You could do some research and see where things come from! The 350 speed came for a truther (you can't figure out what is going on you are behind years!)! You never are able to work with reality. Where did you get the speed from? Funny stuff.

Punk? Is that the new p4t term for people who know your ideas are false and you lie about 77? Can you do better?

You know the more you think you are correcting other people, the more you are refuting your own ideas?

You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, you are still wrong.

P.S. WC, you're just a punk who likes to push buttons. That's all you do. You got nothing else. Don't waste my time.
Are you too busy spreading the lies from p4t?
 
Last edited:
Second, the lamp height was 40 feet, not 30 feet! Here are the correct
stats, and a scaling of the Lincoln front end (78.2 inches)
Mr. Technical, are you using an object in the back of a pic to measure an object more to the foreground of a pic? :eye-poppi

P.S. WC, you're just a punk who likes to push buttons. That's all you do.
You got nothing else. Don't waste my time.
I'm sorry the facts and evidence, as well as the complete lack of expert support for PfffT, makes you cry.
 
According to Reheat's calculations, you're lying.

None of these parameters are impossible for all planes, therefore, the flightpath is flyable.

Now please, Wildcat, 16.5, and Turbofan, please stick to the topic (i.e. Lloyd England's Story).

1. You are a freaking goof: I posted Morin's testimony to show that the plane was descending. One of the other CIT sheep said the plane was not. FAIL.

2. Re-read Reheat's paper ya mutt, Morin to NOC 1 (annex to Citgo station) IS NOT CIT's new official path and it is freaking not over the annex, bank north of Citgo, pull out of bank and over the impact site.

3. I said airliner, not "super sekret" does not exist CIT Super plane.

And YOU are CIT's primary fan and full time spammer on this site? Wow, FAIL.

eta: This thread is NOT limited to Lloyde England, this thread is primarily about the CIT's latest and most pathetic video, and therefore the CIT's ridiculous misrepresentations in the stupid video are more than fair game.
 
Last edited:
Windshields are a type of laminated glass (safety glass), which is coated with a plastic interlayer (PVB) so it won't cut the occupants of the car when shattered. Hence the name "safety glass". Your bringing this up as (non) evidence speaks volumes about how much "evidence" there is to support CIT's claims.



I mentioned that already. Here. (Third from the bottom in the indented section.)


SPrestons response?
Well, read it and judge for yourself:

Your post, therefore, is worthless as an argument. That is why some of the other posters mock it.
Skipping past all your kindergarten coloring nonsense, the real reason is that you pseudoskeptics are dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the real perpetrators of 9-11. You people mock everything here. Your entire existence is based upon mocking, glad handing and circle jerking.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned that already. Here. (Third from the bottom in the indented section.)


SPrestons response?
Well, read it and judge for yourself:

Oops, didn't read your comment. I was going to go off on a big lecture how Volvo was the first to use laminated glass and Edouard Benedictus and how lacerations from broken glass was the most common injury in car accidents before its use, then I realized it would be a complete waste of time. I'd be better off teaching a parapoligic how to dance.
 
According to Reheat's calculations, you're lying.

None of these parameters are impossible for all planes, therefore, the flightpath is flyable.

So, we're back to claiming some super sekret alien craft flew this flight path, huh?

It's funny that this moron takes my numbers which show that the aircraft stalls and twists it to support the absurd notion that some aircraft (we don't know what and we can't prove it, but we'll say it anyway) was able to fly this impossible flight path.

I've tried to stay out of these Lloyd England threads because they are just more bickering over minute details for an absurd claim which has been proven false from here to Sunday and back.

Back on the specific topic now.... I notice that no one has pointed out to them Lloyd's description of how the pole was oriented in his taxi. He pointed out that it entered at an angle, not straight over the hood and was resting on the dashboard while angled off to the right over the right fender. In other words, it was not hanging directly over the front of the hood. This angle would allow more space for the pole NOT to touch the hood.

In essence, it doesn't matter anyway and these morons will come up with another twist to keep this fantasy alive. There is not one single FACT that points to a flyover. All facts, in fact all evidence except these few witnesses confused about the flight path indicate AA77 struck the Pentagon. Even these witnesses say it did. But, the moronic beat goes on....
 
Last edited:
So, we're back to claiming some super sekret alien craft flew this flight path, huh?
No, we're not. Nothing flew your ridiculous fabricated flightpath. However even your path is flyable, so it doesn't "debunk" CIT anyway.

If you take Terry Morin's flightpath literally and ignore the inconvenient "FOB flyover" part, the plane will impact on the wrong side of the building. So obviously it was not "parallel to the FOB", and when Craig interviewed Morin in person he admits that he only saw the plane inbetween the wings of the Navy Annex. Thus the flightpath was not parallel to the annex, nor did the plane descend into the Pentagon.

What the witnesses do imply, is that the plane came over the Navy Annex to the North of the Citgo, and flew over the Pentagon without descending (or atleast, descending very little and pulling up). Needless to say, this a very simple maneuvore that practically any plane can fly.

You will be happy to note, that a Virginia resident over at the Loose Change forums just discovered a new NOC witness at a Halloween party. I'd like to see you tell this witness about your BS math (email 22205 at the LC forums- we can arrange a recorded call).
 
Once again, trolling for telephone numbers. Not very subtle.
 
If you take Terry Morin's flightpath literally and ignore the inconvenient "FOB flyover" part, the plane will impact on the wrong side of the building. So obviously it was not "parallel to the FOB", and when Craig interviewed Morin in person he admits that he only saw the plane inbetween the wings of the Navy Annex. Thus the flightpath was not parallel to the annex, nor did the plane descend into the Pentagon.
He said out edge. Oops, south flight path.

Darn, testimony proves you wrong. How easy is this.

Morin said:

The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you.
Oops, this means there was no FLY over! Do you lack the skill to figure this out?

Here is the killer! Geometry, seems lacking in the 9/11 truth fantasy world you support! How anti-intellectual of the truth movement.

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.


Why are you wrong on 9/11? CIT are the worse investigators in the world, your support of their ideas means what?

Why is it so easy to see 9/11 truth is evidence free?

Was Morin a pilot? I was an instructor in pilot in the USAF, he means the path over the ground was parallel to the FOB, this means NO NoC! Failure on your part due to the fact you are not an expert, you can't connect the dots and MORIN says;
in a slight nose down attitude
; Descent! OOPS you messed up?


Gee, he sees just the tail and the top of the Pentagon as 77 impacts the Pentagon. The nose is impacting as he sees the tail! Your ideas are debunked, refuted, and just plain stupid wrong!

See, if you take the descent into account, he means the flight path over the ground was parallel to the FOB. Ask him, he agrees with me; I was in the USAF on 9/11, and you were doing what? I give you expert analysis, and got Morin right, you have hearsay and got it all WRONG. Thank you for sending me to pilot training.
 
Last edited:
No, we're not. Nothing flew your ridiculous fabricated flightpath. However even your path is flyable, so it doesn't "debunk" CIT anyway.

If my flight pathS are fabricated, so are yours because that's where they originated.

You're a freakin' ignorant idiot to believe that an aircraft can fly 25 Knots into a stall and survive.

If you take Terry Morin's flightpath literally and ignore the inconvenient "FOB flyover" part, the plane will impact on the wrong side of the building.

Don't tell me where the aircraft would have impacted. I know where it impacted. You don't have a clue.

The "FOB flyover part" is your tale, I sit on mine.

So obviously it was not "parallel to the FOB", and when Craig interviewed Morin in person he admits that he only saw the plane inbetween the wings of the Navy Annex. Thus the flightpath was not parallel to the annex, nor did the plane descend into the Pentagon.

Nothing is obvious except the idiocy of this fraud. An interview with Morin that can't be proven and only allows this fraud to continue. Morin didn't stutter when he said parallel and all evidence points to the fact that the aircraft did, in fact, do what he said it did. Where's your flyover witnesses? Roosevelt Roberts? Bwhahahahaha!

What the witnesses do imply, is that the plane came over the Navy Annex to the North of the Citgo, and flew over the Pentagon without descending (or atleast, descending very little and pulling up). Needless to say, this a very simple maneuvore that practically any plane can fly.

If it's so simple why can't you prove it with numbers? Over two years and waiting!!!!!! You've just debunked Roberts' again when he said it was 50-100' over the South Parking Lot. Can't you keep your lies straight?

You will be happy to note, that a Virginia resident over at the Loose Change forums just discovered a new NOC witness at a Halloween party. I'd like to see you tell this witness about your BS math (email 22205 at the LC forums- we can arrange a recorded call).

No doubt, another one who said the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. Was this latest one dressed as a witch with a broom stick? Maybe that's what flew North of the service station!!!!!!
 
no wonder CIT are such indiots, They got turbofan on their side.

It's no wonder you guys are so confused, your facts are ALL WRONG!
the lamp height was 40 feet, not 30 feet! Here are the correct
stats, and a scaling of the Lincoln front end (78.2 inches)

We aint confused. We know you would like your pole to be a bit longer than it is in real life. Don't let your girl (or boy) friend see this .

27footpole.jpg



loydepole.jpg
 
No doubt, another one who said the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. Was this latest one dressed as a witch with a broom stick? Maybe that's what flew North of the service station!!!!!!
We know you would like your pole to be a bit longer than it is in real life.
:dl:

Freakin hilarious!!
 
Hey, does anybody know how many people saw the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon rather than into it?
 
Everybody, stop debating all these weird tangents and just answer me this:

What are the implications of Lloyd incorrectly stating his location?
 

Back
Top Bottom