IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Brought Down The Light Poles?, merged

Leslie Landry
post Oct 17 2008, 08:20 AM
Post #41





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 17 2008, 12:47 AM) *
Here's another one to ponder:





P.S. Lloyd drew the photo incorrectly. The picture indicates the pole made it into the rear seat, but the interior taxi pictures tell otherwise.



Lloyd also states that the pole was bent...well that pole is looking pretty damn straight to me. I don't know if that should matter or not, but if you ask me, i think it should..as every remembered detail should. just thought i would point that out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 17 2008, 10:19 AM
Post #42





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Stopping distance is definitely an issue as is the notion that all the poles would be laying so close to their bases after being hit by a 90 ton Boeing traveling 535 mph.

But of course the biggest issue is that we have hard proof the plane was nowhere near those poles anyway, particularly pole 1.

Which most certainly was bent on top Leslie.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 17 2008, 02:10 PM
Post #43





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 17 2008, 10:19 AM) *
Which most certainly was bent on top Leslie.


Hi Craig...in case there was any misunderstanding, i was referring to the drawing which appears pretty straight..not the actual light pole smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 30 2008, 04:08 AM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 13 2008, 09:45 PM) *
Predictions?

To finally answer aristo, SPreston, and TF's collection of posts, let's take a look at the NASA Dryden [1984 remote B720] Controlled Impact Demonstration (from the pinned UA175 drone feasibility thread):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10700

Be sure to notice the "wing cutter" caption and check several photos there:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID.../EC84-31806.jpg

"Moments after hitting and sliding through the wing openers the aircraft burst into flame, with a spectacular fireball seen emanating from the right inboard engine area."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

No, it's not a B757-200, but yes it was a modified commercial Boeing 720 transport drone. Yes it was deliberately "crashed" into steel "wing cutters [or openers]" by NASA. Cost economy and the 247 lb "not light" [for lunk wink.gif ] weight would suggest steel light pole construction. Furthermore, aren't the OGCT-loyalist trolls the only ones who believe that any "collision" took place at the I-395 on 9/11/2001 ("perfectly inelastic" or otherwise rolleyes.gif )?

EDIT: Spreston's graphic above has the VDOT lightpoles at 1/8" thick aluminum of unknown alloy (0.125")
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 30 2008, 12:30 PM
Post #45





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 28 2008, 07:08 AM) *
To finally answer aristo, SPreson, and TF's collection of posts, let's take a look at the NASA Dryden [1984 remote B720] Controlled Impact Demonstration (from the pinned UA175 drone feasibility thread):

Interesting.

I have seen the like before with a 707.


You would have thought that after practicing with 707s they would have been able to manage a head on strike the wing/tank cutters are the prominent fixed structures on the crash area:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIgCcdCq78w...feature=related


There were cameras inside that thing to record events inside as shown in longer versions of that video.

If somebody would care to embed that then please do.

Edit: tpyo

This post has been edited by dMole: Oct 30 2008, 12:42 PM
Reason for edit: Embedded video- the Wiki link above has B720 videos too
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 8 2008, 05:49 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



If anyone really wants to calculate pole load limit, deflection, etc. we would need some physical dimensions at the "breaks." The one photo above has the thickness at 0.125" and unspecified aluminum alloy. We would need the poles' Moments of Inertia first:

http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/s...are_case_12.htm

More resources on round tube and poles:

http://www.abirdshome.com/pm/structrl.htm

"'Modulus of Elasticity' (E) is usually a good indicator of how strong a material is... The higher a material's modulus number, the stronger it is. This number is usually constant for a given material.

(E) for Aluminum is 10.3x10 to the 6th power (10,300,000psi)"

http://www.mnhpva.org/tech/frame_tubes.html

http://www.mnhpva.org/tech/tubes_mark.html

The Structure Engineering Handbooks (8) Aluminium Structures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3608015/The-Stru...nium-Structures
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 8 2008, 06:18 PM
Post #47





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



alright, so who has Finite Element Analysis software and is proficient in it's use?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 8 2008, 06:28 PM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



OK, so I've got the CAD and FAE software (not installed now), but I usually was more interested in the thermal and fluid flow aspects. I'd go with passable rather than "proficient" personally, too. We would still need the applicable pole dimensions before I really wanted to jump into all that business, since we'd need a pole model constructed first.

For up to 1300 nodes, LISA is free (or $50 CAD full-version):

http://www.lisa-fet.com/download.htm

CAE Linux is open-source and will run from a Live DVD Linux system also:

http://caelinux.com/CMS/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 8 2008, 07:18 PM
Post #49





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



we can probably guesstimate a good deal of the pole specifics from the photographs.

given the weight, thickness, material density, whether there were any welds in the aluminum (eliminates some alloys).

of course design specs would be nice ( what kind of wind resistance were the fasteners supposed to withstand etc)

i downloaded 'lisa' and 'impact' as well ( not sure what one gets for free). lisa is supposed to be able to import dxf files which would be helpful. would probably simplify the task to 'rough' the base mount instead of trying model what i would guess is the standard 4 bolt connection

this could be fun!


addenda: links to various light pole

one

two

three

four

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Nov 8 2008, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 8 2008, 07:34 PM
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



LISA didn't like the .DXF and .DWG that my supposedly AutoCAD compatible software output when I tried modeling the WTC core and perimeter columns thermally. I tried several export formats and never got a LISA import that worked. Then my computer crashed...

Here are a bunch more FEA choices though:

http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Sof...ement_Analysis/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 8 2008, 07:56 PM
Post #51





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



i've had import problems w/ some home design sw like that.

diggin through an old statics and dynamics book, it looks like we are dealing w/ 'application of the principle of impulse and momnetum to the three dimensional motion of a rigid body'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 8 2008, 08:30 PM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



We have a winner with impulse- GP found the low-dangling fruit I left that one of our trolls missed so many times. My bet is still on no actual impact though.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/T...MomTheorem.html

The Wiki actually looked fairly good on this apolitical page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse

EDIT: Well this was interesting from GP's link "one" above:

http://www.hapco.com/Faq.aspx

"WHY ALUMINUM INSTEAD OF STEEL, CONCRETE OR FIBERGLASS?
Benefits of Aluminum: Aluminum is rust/corrosion free. Has better breakaway performance. Can be direct buried. Proven longer life (50+ years). Lower life cycle costing. Recyclable with financial return. Lighter in weight making it easier to install. Easy removal from accident sites. More and more decorator styles are being introduced and there is an unlimited spectrum of colors. "

EDIT: The problem with impulse though- "dt" for the alleged impact is what interval?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 9 2008, 07:19 PM
Post #53





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



my reasoning for dt proceeds as follows:

assuming 500mph (since i don't remember the actual speed) for the aircraft, the lower bound for the impulse is the time it takes the aircraft to travel one inch (probably enough distance to de-couple the pole from the base) ~.00014 seconds

i'm going to assume the wing hits above its c.o.g of the light pole. not necessarily a bad assumption, otherwise the engines probably would have plowed the highway. while i'm assuming, i'll say it hits midwing (why not, since the plane didn't hit the poles anyway).

at midwing the chord should be ~16ft. there should be deformation in the light pole producing some loose coupling with the leading edge of the wing. in addition, since the pole was hit above its cog, the pole's base would rotate upward toward the trailing edge of the wing.

the upper bound is tougher. my first thoughts were along the lines of time to traverse the chord length. ~.02 seconds. however, it may be an order (maybe several) of magnitude greater still if the pole doesn't fall away.

of course the closer to the cog, the less rotation and the more coupling. and what happens if the pole melds itself to the damaged leading edge?...maybe gets carried across the amazing pentalawn...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 10 2008, 07:28 AM
Post #54





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 7 2008, 10:19 PM) *
...and what happens if the pole melds itself to the damaged leading edge?...maybe gets carried across the amazing pentalawn...

I figure this is where I was going with my #35 and #38 posts in page 2 of this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....15410&st=20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 10 2008, 07:24 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 9 2008, 04:19 PM) *
assuming 500mph (since i don't remember the actual speed) for the aircraft, the lower bound for the impulse is the time it takes the aircraft to travel one inch (probably enough distance to de-couple the pole from the base) ~.00014 seconds

Here you go GP, from my post #30 above:

"p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]"

Yes I know, my calculator pastes many digits- feel free to round or truncate (but unlike the IRS instructions, I usually never do that until the very last steps for accuracy reasons rolleyes.gif )

I'd also like to point out that for the light pole, delta_p = p_linear + p_rotational +p_unknown

Now at what point did the "lamp" boom separate from the veritical "pole" and how? Is it getting messy yet? Also, does anyone know where that "lamp" boom allegedly ended up? I haven't seen it.

That is the SSFDR "lightpole velocity" that Rob, I, and the GL's used for argument's sake, I believe.

EDIT: The Coefficient of Restitution is covered at post #36:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755951
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 10 2008, 08:20 PM
Post #56





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



been messy smile.gif it's a total swag regardless....a futile exercise since the plane didn't hit the poles

while we're speculating, however, momentum must be conserved. the pole or its parts could achieve 529.xxxxxxxx mph base on your 530 speed

sure, the pole fracture causes an insignificant momentum loss in the plane (~ 1/10000), but the more interesting point (imho) is that the KE of the plane is concentrated in a tiny area hitting the pole.....i would love to see a slow motion close-up video of something like that actually occuring!

edit: not sure the restitution coefficient is really needed since it's probably very very close to unity

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Nov 10 2008, 08:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Nov 11 2008, 12:18 AM
Post #57


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (dMole)
Now at what point did the "lamp" boom separate from the veritical "pole" and how? Is it getting messy yet? Also, does anyone know where that "lamp" boom allegedly ended up? I haven't seen it.

Half of the #1 pole truss arm is right here on the left side in line with the main pole and the lamp head.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aristo
post Dec 3 2008, 02:58 PM
Post #58





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 22-September 08
From: Germany near Munich
Member No.: 3,840



A Boeing 757 did not hit the light-poles.

The 757 wingspan is 38,05 meters.

The distance between Light-Pole 1 and 2 is
more than 40 meters, i think.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 3 2008, 04:29 PM
Post #59





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



The effective distance changes due to the angle of trajectory.



So the wingspan is sufficient but you are correct that the plane did not hit the poles.

We know this because it was on the north side of the citgo.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aristo
post Dec 3 2008, 07:21 PM
Post #60





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 22-September 08
From: Germany near Munich
Member No.: 3,840



Craig Ranke CIT wrote....

QUOTE
The effective distance changes due to the angle of trajectory.


Hi Craig,

yes, that correct. But, please look on the photo again, please.

[/url]

The position of pole 3 is different to your photo.

I think, the position in my photo is correct. So, the "Boeing" could only one hit, pole 2 or pole 3

The pole 3 in your photo, is pole 4 in my photo.

QUOTE
We know this because it was on the north side of the citgo.


Right, i think so too.

If my photo correct, than it shows crystal clear, no Boeing hit the poles.

Please, verfy the pole position, may bei i am wrong.

Thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by aristo: Dec 3 2008, 07:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th November 2019 - 07:47 AM