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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wings Broken By The Pole(s)? Or Poles Broken?, What happens if a comm. jet smashes into a pole ?

Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 5 2013, 03:01 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



What will happen if an ordinary B.767 hits a light-pole 40 ft high , with one of the wings? At nomal speed f ex while just landed? (not to mention very high speed as >500 Miles/hour) Am no scientist or pilot but I think the pole should be cutting the wing like o hot knife cuts a piece of butter.. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Nov 5 2013, 03:40 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



QUOTE (Biarra Audulfer @ Nov 5 2013, 07:01 PM) *
What will happen if an ordinary B.767 hits a light-pole 40 ft high , with one of the wings? At nomal speed f ex while just landed? (not to mention very high speed as >500 Miles/hour) Am no scientist or pilot but I think the pole should be cutting the wing like o hot knife cuts a piece of butter.. smile.gif



Hi Biarra. Surely the main wing spar would demolish any light pole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DonM
post Nov 5 2013, 10:51 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 34
Joined: 12-March 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 2,921



QUOTE (Skeptik @ Nov 5 2013, 11:40 AM) *
Hi Biarra. Surely the main wing spar would demolish any light pole.


It would be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)... yes, the pole would be knocked down, but the aircraft would INSTANTLY quit flying, and crash into the ground!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 6 2013, 05:10 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



QUOTE (DonM @ Nov 6 2013, 03:51 AM) *
It would be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)... yes, the pole would be knocked down, but the aircraft would INSTANTLY quit flying, and crash into the ground!


Ok, so it is theoretically impossible that "alleged" 757 or 767 could have still been flying, knocking down pole, after pole, after pole, still no crash, no marks at all of wing debris or engines (hanging under wings)? No damage made on the fragile Aluminium wings..All poles broke at base, no pole cut in two peaces? cut point about 15 - 20 ft above the grass if the wings "survived" all 5 poles...makes no sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 6 2013, 05:17 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



QUOTE (Skeptik @ Nov 5 2013, 08:40 PM) *
Hi Biarra. Surely the main wing spar would demolish any light pole.


Aha, do you say the wing can cut the pole and still be intact? Or cut 3 poles still operating = still flying?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Nov 10 2013, 02:42 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Biarra Audulfer @ Nov 6 2013, 04:17 PM) *
Aha, do you say the wing can cut the pole and still be intact? Or cut 3 poles still operating = still flying?


I'm no engineer so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand from my various readings about wings, their strength is mainly focused in an upward direction, to provide lift for the fuselage. I'm told they do this at the sacrifice of strength in the front to back direction. Thus it would appear to me that the wings should have very little ability to resist being severely damaged by a front to rear impact. In fact, we see where in New Jersey a jet aircraft crashed into a building at low speed. The nose of the aircraft punched a hole in the building, but the resulting deceleration tore off both wings, without them even having an impact at all.

I could easily be wrong but, I kind of think from my reading that, an impact with a lamp post would tear the wing completely off, since the main spar would not have much strength at all, to resist and impact from that direction. But it would have the strength to take the rest of the wing components with it when it failed. That just my guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phaeton666
post Nov 14 2013, 12:42 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 12-September 07
Member No.: 2,101



QUOTE (Obwon @ Nov 8 2013, 05:42 PM) *
I could easily be wrong but, I kind of think from my reading that, an impact with a lamp post would tear the wing completely off, since the main spar would not have much strength at all, to resist and impact from that direction. But it would have the strength to take the rest of the wing components with it when it failed. That just my guess.

At least at slow speeds (taxiing) the wings seem to be able to knock over a light pole.
See story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/s..._n_1242062.html

Of course the dynamics at high speed will be very different.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Nov 14 2013, 04:05 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 578
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (phaeton666 @ Nov 14 2013, 11:42 AM) *
At least at slow speeds (taxiing) the wings seem to be able to knock over a light pole.
See story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/s..._n_1242062.html

Of course the dynamics at high speed will be very different.


Good points. I think that lamp post was designed to break on low impact, as it
is near the jet way. Street lamps too are designed to break off on impact as well,
but I doubt they'd be as flimsy as a jet way lamp post.

In any case we're dealing with forces that have major differences to their
components. The aircraft in flight has already placed great stresses on it's
wings in the direction it was designed to resist them in. An impact from a
direction that the wing was not designed to resist impact from, is likely going
to be very destructive/disruptive indeed.

But wait... Wasn't there multiple light pole strikes? Hmmm...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 15 2013, 05:09 AM
Post #9


dig deeper


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



even the FDR path released by the ntsb has the plane too high to hit the poles:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

but thanks to multiple verified witnesses placing the plane at a completely different location than where the fallen light poles were, we can to a high degree of certainty assert that the poles were never struck by the plane. here is a graphic to depict the path that these documented witnesses drew (take note of where the light poles are):



for more info on the witness accounts used to compile the above graphic:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/of...interviews.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

-as a direct result of the flightpath there are other implications, but we can simply stick to the light poles since that is the subject of the topic: the plane never actually flew in a path (or attitude or altitude) to allow it to make contact with the fallen poles. this is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, so to discuss what would happen to a light pole if it was actually struck by a 757 at 500+ mph, would be speculative and at this point, unnecessary. that discussion/debate has already taken place literally hundreds of times (example example example old example old example old example old example) and to go there again would imho be taking a step backwards. if you are sincerely interested in learning the truth - at least with regard to the pentagon on 9/11 - please begin reading older posts in the pentagon section or use the search function here at P4T. if you do nothing else, at least check out any one of the four CIT links above please.


ps - welcome to the forum b.a.!
cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 17 2013, 11:22 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



QUOTE (paranoia @ Nov 15 2013, 10:09 AM) *
even the FDR path released by the ntsb has the plane too high to hit the poles:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

but thanks to multiple verified witnesses placing the plane at a completely different location than where the fallen light poles were, we can to a high degree of certainty assert that the poles were never struck by the plane. here is a graphic to depict the path that these documented witnesses drew (take note of where the light poles are):



for more info on the witness accounts used to compile the above graphic:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/of...interviews.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

-as a direct result of the flightpath there are other implications, but we can simply stick to the light poles since that is the subject of the topic: the plane never actually flew in a path (or attitude or altitude) to allow it to make contact with the fallen poles. this is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, so to discuss what would happen to a light pole if it was actually struck by a 757 at 500+ mph, would be speculative and at this point, unnecessary. that discussion/debate has already taken place literally hundreds of times (example example example old example old example old example old example) and to go there again would imho be taking a step backwards. if you are sincerely interested in learning the truth - at least with regard to the pentagon on 9/11 - please begin reading older posts in the pentagon section or use the search function here at P4T. if you do nothing else, at least check out any one of the four CIT links above please.


ps - welcome to the forum b.a.!
cheers.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 17 2013, 11:37 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



QUOTE (paranoia @ Nov 15 2013, 10:09 AM) *
even the FDR path released by the ntsb has the plane too high to hit the poles:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

but thanks to multiple verified witnesses placing the plane at a completely different location than where the fallen light poles were, we can to a high degree of certainty assert that the poles were never struck by the plane. here is a graphic to depict the path that these documented witnesses drew (take note of where the light poles are):



for more info on the witness accounts used to compile the above graphic:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/of...interviews.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

-as a direct result of the flightpath there are other implications, but we can simply stick to the light poles since that is the subject of the topic: the plane never actually flew in a path (or attitude or altitude) to allow it to make contact with the fallen poles. this is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, so to discuss what would happen to a light pole if it was actually struck by a 757 at 500+ mph, would be speculative and at this point, unnecessary. that discussion/debate has already taken place literally hundreds of times (example example example old example old example old example old example) and to go there again would imho be taking a step backwards. if you are sincerely interested in learning the truth - at least with regard to the pentagon on 9/11 - please begin reading older posts in the pentagon section or use the search function here at P4T. if you do nothing else, at least check out any one of the four CIT links above please.


ps - welcome to the forum b.a.!
cheers.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biarra Audulfer
post Nov 17 2013, 11:39 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 30-June 08
From: Sweden
Member No.: 3,641



Thank´s for links and the good work you guys have done. Ok you´re fed up with everlasting arguementation over and over again. Am sorry, did not read all of the lightpole links. Ok it´s unnecessary to go there when we all know the alleged plane did not hit anything there!


cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 24th January 2019 - 09:36 AM