Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[R.Mackey]

Oh, but you do.
No upward force and the pole hits the ground. If the impact was near a cliff or in outerspace, then you could have a full caber-like rotation (though technically that's not the best description since throwing a caber implies a vertical force).

No.

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.

Having said that, it is also possible for the collision to be significantly inelastic. At impact, the upper part of the pole may deform and actually catch on the aircraft. From there it's anyone's guess as to where the pole goes -- whether it merely gets swept along before buffeting or rebounding free, or if the deformation means the leading edge actually lifts it up like a dustpan under a chunk of FOD.

In a caber toss, there is really very little vertical force applied anyway. What happens instead is the throw is done after the caber starts to lean. This creates a force couple, with the (vertical) force at one end and gravity pulling down in the middle. This rotates the caber, but rarely lifts it much. One gets good caber distance by timing the rotation properly to get it to topple in the right direction after it hits the ground. One does not throw it upward very far, unless one is absurdly strong...

Please stop trying to lecture me about physics. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are embarrassing yourself. This will not help you learn in the slightest.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

No.

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

Having said that, it is also possible for the collision to be significantly inelastic. At impact, the upper part of the pole may deform and actually catch on the aircraft. From there it's anyone's guess as to where the pole goes -- whether it merely gets swept along before buffeting or rebounding free, or if the deformation means the leading edge actually lifts it up like a dustpan under a chunk of FOD.

Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation.

In a caber toss, there is really very little vertical force applied anyway. What happens instead is the throw is done after the caber starts to lean. This creates a force couple, with the (vertical) force at one end and gravity pulling down in the middle. This rotates the caber, but rarely lifts it much. One gets good caber distance by timing the rotation properly to get it to topple in the right direction after it hits the ground. One does not throw it upward very far, unless one is absurdly strong...

But the vertical force is key. You can't get it to do that without hitting the ground unless there is a vertical force.

Please stop trying to lecture me about physics. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are embarrassing yourself. This will not help you learn in the slightest.

Actually, I think being embarressed by errors is a major factor in helping one learn- or were you never embarressed by your errors?

By the way- what is wrong with Mike Wilson's case study? Pointing out his errors may help me spot any of mine.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.

And that's not including the air vortexes about the wing that could easily lift a pole into the air after it has been severed.

 

[Corsair 115]

The path to impact requires 83 degrees of bank...

I suspect they don't understand what an 83° bank actually means. Much as they don't seem to understand that knowing an aircraft made a 330° turn actually tells us nothing about how hard or soft that turn was.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Really? Go ahead and explain it then bright guy.

I'm with loner that it can be predicted, but with Funk in the sense that it involves lots of guess work and is not worth the time. I don't know how, but I know it can be done. It's very boring I'm sure.

ETA: I see we've already discussed it more than it's worth. I guess it's good for keeping your brain working, like crossword puzzles.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),

but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

Nothing that shows it any closer than app. a mile away from the poles and impact. Possible connection? Nah, just ignore...

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

I'll do all these things for you, Turbofan, if you meet my challenge. I'll debate you on phone, recorded, I have no witness videos. and I'll show you a hole at the Pgon that a 757 in fact DID fit through. All this if you first bake me two dozen cranberry muffins. I'm serious. Do you accept my challenge or will you run in terror? Is the truth not worth a bit of baking, packaging, and mailing? I'll get you my address, if you ain't too chicken.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.

As Funk said:

You should know the answer to this, if you do not then you should not be posting about such matters.

Balsamo knows it, has had it explained many times. In case he's not helping you out, here... THIS is the map that was rotated wrong. No one has claimed any other "map" was rotated, so THIS is what we're talking about. Inside the red here, see it? Where in this image is the runway?

Waiting for the muffins, turbo.

 

[TC329]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

 

[gumboot]

I suspect they don't understand what an 83° bank actually means. Much as they don't seem to understand that knowing an aircraft made a 330° turn actually tells us nothing about how hard or soft that turn was.

As I'm fond of pointing out, a Super Tanker can make a 330° turn.

 

[TC329]

hey gumboot,

find a pic of a lightpole in the street not near lloyds cab yet?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

Wrong, because as the top end of the pole strikes the ground, the pole still has angular momentum. If the turning moment produced by the fact that the pole's centre of gravity is offset from the point of impact (and hence the line of action of the reaction force) is insufficient to reduce that angular momentum to zero by the time the pole has reached the vertical, then the pole will continue to rotate. It's trivial to demonstrate that this will be the case for any sufficiently large angular velocity of the pole. In layman's terms, if the pole is spinning fast enough, it won't stop spinning just because one end hits the ground.

TLB, I think you need to check your simple mechanics again. This is high school stuff.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

What would a pole strike look like in the FDR data? What sensor would it trip? How would it do so if the FDR was not recording at this point?

 

[funk de fino]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

It would only be there if it damaged the engine. There are no pole sensors on the wing. Even if the engine showed any fluctuations the FDR data that would show this, is missing. this further debunks PFT.

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

Some people say it from the damaged engine.

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

Possible engine damage from pole.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.


Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation..

Lets do a little experiment shall we, hell we'll even call it a contest!

Take a pencil, stand it upright, lightly holding the top with your finger. Using your other hand, gently approach the pencil, and then BRISKLY give the pencil a flick with your fingers anywhere above the middle of the pencil >>p-chuwwww!>>> Off the pencil goes tumbling end over end! My first time, I got 4 revolutions! The second time, 2.5 revolutions before it hit my chair.

The first one to get more than six get $1 Brazzilian Truther Bucks!

Oh science, we have ever so much fun with you!

 

[TheGrunion]

Oh, but you do.
No upward force and the pole hits the ground. If the impact was near a cliff or in outerspace, then you could have a full caber-like rotation (though technically that's not the best description since throwing a caber implies a vertical force).

The pole is going to hit the ground anyway due to gravity, which is a vertical force.

In addition the pole will be subjected to a significant moment force that will cause it to rotate.

This explains moment forces very well. Unfortunately, I suspect that its a bit over your comprehension level. There is a couple of sentences in section 4.4 that you might be able to understand though.

http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en3/notes/Statics/moments/moments.htm

 

[R.Mackey]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

No.

At the speeds the pole is getting hit, gravity may affect it "slowly" -- there is enough force for a full rotation before it falls more than a few centimeters.

The center of gravity of some poles is above the midpoint of their length, owing to the mass of the light and crossbar. If this is the case, then even an ideal purely horizontal force can easily lead to a full rotation, before the now free end recontacts the ground.

Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation.

No. I've already explained to you that the pole will deform on contact, and it may spring away in various directions. The plane need not be ascending, that's totally stupid.

I also should remind you that you are now subtly attempting to change the subject. I don't know whether the pole would perform full rotations before recontact or not -- it might, it might not. It's too chaotic to estimate. What you actually said, boiling it down, is this:

you don't need an upward force to cause the pole to rotate.

Oh, but you do.

This is wrong, plain and simple.

But the vertical force is key. You can't get it to do that without hitting the ground unless there is a vertical force.

No. See above.

Actually, I think being embarressed by errors is a major factor in helping one learn- or were you never embarressed by your errors?

It doesn't seem to be working for you, so try something else.

Take a pencil, stand it upright, lightly holding the top with your finger. Using your other hand, gently approach the pencil, and then BRISKLY give the pencil a flick with your fingers anywhere above the middle of the pencil >>p-chuwwww!>>> Off the pencil goes tumbling end over end! My first time, I got 4 revolutions! The second time, 2.5 revolutions before it hit my chair.

Exactly. This is such a remarkably simple concept, I'm just going to leave it here. If you can't understand this, you have an obligation to figure it out before claiming absurd things based on your own ignorance.

 

[Shalamar]

hey gumboot,

find a pic of a lightpole in the street not near lloyds cab yet?

In fact, yes. There were pictures posted of Lightpoles, on the ground, not near a lloyds cab... IN THIS THREAD.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4042374&postcount=157
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4042382&postcount=159

(Of course.. I hold they were brought down by rogue Canadian lumberjacks. It is as valid as anything the trooth movement has.)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

1) as already explained before you asked, the FDR data stops before the plane reaches the light poles. Also, the traffic light pole collision sensors may not have been working right.

2) Most likely engine damage from hitting a light pole.

3) One of the engines after striking a light pole.

 

[uruk]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

Two reasons. 1.The FDR dropped data before the plane reached the poles.
2.The wings have no sensors that are designed to pick up that kind of an impact, as far as I know.

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

One of the engines in all probability ingested a light fixture. One of the light fixtures from the downed poles was never found.

One missing light fixture + video image of smoke coming out of planes engine = missing light fixture entered engine.

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

The foreign object damage to the engine caused, in all probability, a ruptured oil or hydrolic line and the heat cause the fluid to produce smoke.


The pole impact dynamics could be simulated by computer, but like dice throws, the end results will vary depending on all the differenty factors and variables involved. You could run the simulation all week long and never get the poles to end up where they did on 9/11. You might get close though.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bump for Turbofan and my debate challenge. Looking forward to some muffins.

 

[CurtC]

To a limited degree, the behavior will be more or less the same -- the pole will rotate when hit, and probably acquire horizontal momentum as well, probably flipping end over end a few times like a caber.

I disagree pretty strongly with that. The wing sliced through each pole, and would have done so in something like a couple of milliseconds. There was a large force required to cut through, but for just a couple of milliseconds I don't think there would be enough momentum transferred to flip it end-over-end.

Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

OMFG - who taught you physics?