Light Poles at Pentagon

buka001

Thinker
B
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
221
Came across a post on LC. It states that the arrangement of where the poles lay after the incident is erroneous, as they should all have been deflected out to the right (90 degrees to the angle of the leading edge of the wing.



The above photo is used to illustrate the direction the poles are expected to deflect out.

The following diagram is used to illustrate the positions the of the poles, when they came to rest following the incident.



Now my opinion on this is, it is being over simplified. No consideration seems to be given to the fact that they were struck by a heavy fast moving aircraft. The impact time was extremly low. The poles could have landed and rolled or flipped etc. Also it appears that the person is assuming that the break away of the poles from the ground was uniform, i.e. one portion of the base did not hold longer than another.

If one section of the base held longer than the other, this would have caused a rotation of the pole and subsequently the expected landing position would not be as expected.

Thoughts or suggestions on this theory?
 
Don't forget being struck by the engines or the inboard part of the wing.

The larger question is: "Why does small variations in the angle of the light poles, trump the other evidence that supports reality?
 
I think you're right on it, but be prepared for their "irregularly ruffled fescue" retort, followed by a devastating see-saw analogy which renders calculations moot.

Also, don't be afraid to just walk – no, run – away from such lunacy and remind them what's important: all the people who saw the plane hit and all the responders and investigators who confirm it.
 
A no-planer? Why would anyone give a rat's arse what pattern the poles fell in?
 
Their arguement really falls apart if they also rant about "ground effect" keeping the plane from coming in that low.

The wings and engines inevitably created an area of turbulence under the flight path. This would have had an effect on the motion of the tops of the light poles.

Just look at the undulating pattern of the smoke across the lawn in the parking lot video. That hardly shows an undisturbed flow of air.

The twoofers are thinking of what happens when you drive a car into a light pole. That would give you some control over the direction in which the pole would fall.
 
So let's review the information - large metal object traveling at 500 mph - hits a pole - and they expect it to fall like a tree - See if you can guess whats wrong with this picture
 
buka001 said:
Now my opinion on this is, it is being over simplified. No consideration seems to be given to the fact that they were struck by a heavy fast moving aircraft. The impact time was extremly low. The poles could have landed and rolled or flipped etc. Also it appears that the person is assuming that the break away of the poles from the ground was uniform, i.e. one portion of the base did not hold longer than another.

If one section of the base held longer than the other, this would have caused a rotation of the pole and subsequently the expected landing position would not be as expected.

Thoughts or suggestions on this theory?
Click to expand...

That's a more detailed analysis than I would like to do, but I agree totally. There's the chaos factor, multiple variables. And besides, their lining up too perfectly with what's 'expected' would also be dead giveaway to CIT types. "They planned it out and laid them that way! If a real 757 hit them it would be more chaotic because [and then a repeat of what you said above]"

BTW, Has anybody here done an analysis of where each pole was hit along its lentgh? I'd be curious to see how that lines up, but it's too much work.
 
They would have all snapped pretty much the same. They were special FAA approved poles that a found around all airports. The idea is they fail before the aircraft wing hitting them
 
Welcome to the forum, Caustic Logic. Your blog is a terrific resource on the Pentagon. I hope we can bring your skills at debunking the Frustrating Fraud to the rest of the 9-11 Conspiracy Industry. Feel free to try to change our minds in the other threads!

:welcome3

Pat from Screw Loose Change
 
MG1962 said:
They would have all snapped pretty much the same. They were special FAA approved poles that a found around all airports. The idea is they fail before the aircraft wing hitting them
Click to expand...

?? If not the wings/engines, then what would trigger this give? The air pressure in front of them? The poles as seen on ground were curved, clipped, crimped, and severed. Looks mechanical to me.

lightpole.jpg

a10a-DSC_0472-1.jpg
 
Brainster said:
Welcome to the forum, Caustic Logic. Your blog is a terrific resource on the Pentagon. I hope we can bring your skills at debunking the Frustrating Fraud to the rest of the 9-11 Conspiracy Industry. Feel free to try to change our minds in the other threads!

:welcome3

Pat from Screw Loose Change
Click to expand...

Word! Thanks for the colors.
Gumboot offered a debate on air defenses and I mean to take him up sometime... And you don't need any convincing! I remember when you broke ranks with that tell-all blog and joined the movement and helped produce LC final cut. ;)
Adam
 
Caustic Logic said:
?? If not the wings/engines, then what would trigger this give? The air pressure in front of them? The poles as seen on ground were curved, clipped, crimped, and severed. Looks mechanical to me.
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading due to poor wording. I think he meant the word "before" in the "cowering before my wrath" sense.
 
JoeEllison said:
I think you're misreading due to poor wording. I think he meant the word "before" in the "cowering before my wrath" sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess so. I'm too used to running into morons. But they clearly broke and bent in different ways and spots anyway, and I mean to map that out sometime and get a pitch, roll, and altitude reading better than the FDR crud offers.

This is a start:
Right_Wing_Path.jpg
 
I think most people cannot get their heads around a plane hitting the pentagon because of trying to imagine a plane of its size coming in so low and smashing into this building.

It is literally a few feet off the ground, and that is extraordinary.
 
This line of questioning might make sense if the polls were still partially connected and they just bent down like grass under a mower's wheel.

The poles came completely off. They rolled. They bounced. They spun. It's conceivable that they even stayed partially attached when they got hit, slammed into the ground, and came off during the rebound (this is not uncommon behavior, especially for metal), going the other direction.

There is absolutely no way someone could accurately predict the final position of a pole in this situation and I challenge any truther to try.
 
Shalamar said:
The lightpoles were obviously brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!

(Sorry. I've had a weird day)
Click to expand...

ARTIST: Monty Python
TITLE: I'm a Lumberjack
Lyrics and Chords


I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay
I sleep all night and I work all day
He's a lumberjack and he's okay
He sleeps all night and he works all day

/ G - CE7 Am7 / D D7 GC G / :

I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea
He cuts down trees...
He's a lumberjack...

/ G - C Am7 / D D7 G - / G - C A7 / D7 - GC G /

I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I love to press wild flow'rs
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars
He cuts down trees...
He's a lumberjack...

I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspendies and a bra
I wish I'd been a girlie
Just like my dear papa
He cuts down trees...
He's a lumberjack...

WAHH! And I thought you were so RUGGED!
 
Caustic Logic said:
snip...

BTW, Has anybody here done an analysis of where each pole was hit along its lentgh? I'd be curious to see how that lines up, but it's too much work.
Click to expand...

CL,

Nice to meet you. I have been reading your blog. Your style is witty and refreshing. Thank you for the compliment too!

I have spent many hours on the pole impacts. I have never come up with anything I was satisfied with enough to publish as to impact height and flight path.

The problem is the radical variations in determining the elevation of each pole base. USGS, Google Earth and other sources I have tried are VERY difficult to reconcile. Part of this is the bridge mound.

I believe the only substantial way to accomplish this would be to somehow acquire actual current information on the MSL elevation of each pole base. But the following description does give you a visual estimation.

Pole 5 is the closest you can come to knowing the base elevation with much certainty because of its proximity to the original bench mark for the Pentagon foundation. From there you can estimate the height of impact of the wing's leading edge on the pole. Then take the height of the bottom of engine damage to the generator fence and determine the height of the leading edge of the wing there.

Find a good side shot of the overall scene facing north from the south of the bridge mound and extrapolate from the wing height at the generator back to the wing height at pole 5. Extend the line back to pole 1.

This is also useful to determine the height of the aircraft above the Pentagon lawn and how "level" the aircraft was between pole 5 and the generator (the area the security video shows the brief images of the plane).

Would you mind briefly elaborating on your goals and your general position on 9/11 regarding the big picture?

Russell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom