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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Physical Damage To The Cab, let's look at it in context

Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 31 2008, 01:30 AM
Post #1





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



People who try to make excuses and suggest that the physical damage to Lloyde England's cab could have been accomplished in real time with a light pole or piece of a light pole are not looking at the information in context.

Examining images of the cab either immediately after the event or preserved under a tarp on Lloyde's 30 acres of woods for almost 7 years changes the frame of reference so this article will bring it back into context.

Before I elaborate I feel it's important to always remember of course that it has been independently proven many times over that the plane was nowhere near the poles to begin with.





But for those who for whatever illogical reasons are unable to accept the scientifically validated north side evidence, let's hypothetically place the plane on the south side and examine the physical evidence of the light pole and cab.

But I have to issue one more disclaimer. I need to stress how the following scenario is extremely hypothetical since we also now have mathematical proof that the final descent required due to the topography and obstacles physically proves the plane could not have hit the light poles as reported. This is due to the fact that the required G forces at the reported speed of 535mph have been proven impossible. The plane would have broken up over the highway.



All relevant calculations available in this 13 minute presentation from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Moving along....

If it was hypothetically possible for the plane to hit light pole 1 as reported we must consider the incredible amount of kinetic energy the light pole would absorb from the approach of this 90 ton Boeing:


But let's not forget the dynamics involved with the cab coming to an immediate skidded sideways stop traveling around 40 mph:

(imagine the pole is in the windshield as Lloyde clearly claims and the interior damage to his cab requires)


But wait!

I'll admit I don't have the exact formulas to calculate this but here is what I would suggest from a layman's perspective: the fact that the 40 mph car and the 535 mph passenger jet would be coming TOWARDS each other would multiply the kinetic force of the pole on the car significantly.


Correct?

Anyone disagree with this?

Now let's take a closer look at the physical damage to the cab.

It's been completely established how there is no damage to the hood and how it in fact looks freshly waxed!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 31 2008, 01:31 AM
Post #2





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



But we should not overlook the fact that the windshield frame and roof of the car are also completely undamaged.

Let's take a look at another look at this hypothesized sideways skidded stop:


Let's once again consider the sheer length of the pole.


Specs from the VDOT:


Ok so the notion that the hood, roof, and windshield frame could remain undamaged during such an ordeal is actually quite silly.

But let's look at the interior.

Lloyde said it went through to the back seat and that the dash held it up over the hood. He even pointed to a dent in the area just above the dash and just under the hood.


But let's take a look at this dent from inside the car. We can see that it is directly underneath the lip or edge of the hood which is also completely untouched like the rest of the hood.



So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum and the other would be the back seat.

There have never been ANY known images of the back seat of Lloyde's cab until our examination.

The images we took of the cab were taken almost 7 years after the event so there is nothing to prove the following damage was created on 9/11. But obviously the LACK of damage is still strong evidence as there is obviously no logical motive for Lloyde to have fixed only the back seat.

The back seat damage we observed and photographed obviously leaves honest people in a ridiculous position to suggest that it represents anything that could remotely account for suspending the heavy base end of the light pole in mid-air over the hood AS the car allegedly came to a skidded sideways stop much less when it allegedly came to rest sideways on the road.





Clearly the blunt bent end of this light pole did not impale the seat in any way whatsoever.


And we know the floorboards were completely intact because they were holding water!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 31 2008, 01:31 AM
Post #3





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



So could Lloyde be innocently embellishing his story about the long pole, the silent stranger, and falling down while removing it and a small piece of pole 1 or 2 be what really caused the damage to his cab?


Once again the physical damage foils this argument.

While there is not enough damage to account for the long pole there is TOO MUCH damage to the interior to account for any small piece.

Damage to the dash on image allegedly from 9/12/2001:

(damage to the dash is shown the same in a news video from 9/11/2001 on highway)

Images from 2008:



Unhinged passenger seat on image allegedly taken 9/12/2001:


Images from 2008:



And of course the already mentioned back seat damage.


So once again, while being completely irreconcilable with a large pole, it's clear that this was meant to be the story as the interior damage is certainly irreconcilable with a small piece as well.

The notion that Lloyde is simply embellishing an otherwise true story or random chance experience on his part is not a logical or rational option in light of the available evidence.

Conclusion: there is no scenario that can account for this physical evidence other than pre-fabrication and staging.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Nov 1 2008, 12:51 PM
Post #4





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



Well, a partial skid mark can be seen in this blow up of Lloyde's neighbors picture.



Edit - Which brings up the question Which lane was Lloyde in when he was hit with the pole ?

This post has been edited by JFK: Nov 1 2008, 12:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Nov 1 2008, 01:13 PM
Post #5


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 (JFK @ Nov 1 2008, 12:51 PM) *
Well, a partial skid mark can be seen in this blow up of Lloyde's neighbors picture.



Edit - Which brings up the question Which lane was Lloyde in when he was hit with the pole ?

How can that be a skid for that car? The back tires would have been skidding sideways at a much greater speed and they did not leave a mark.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Nov 1 2008, 01:34 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



Assuming Lloyde is telling the truth,

That mark is from the right front wheel... The pole hanging out the front of the car would have reduced the weight on the rear end of the car thereby reducing further the skid marks produced by the back wheels.

The antilock functions of the braking system would likely not lock the other 3 wheels up because they still had the opportunity to turn whereas the right front in that picture was actually going sideways in relation to the wheel hub.

Even so, the left front should have left a mark as the majority of the weight would have been there.

And there may in fact have been skid marks produced by the back wheels, but the image is too coarse to prove that one way or the other.


Does anyone know which lane he was in on impact ?

This post has been edited by JFK: Nov 1 2008, 01:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 1 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Learning to drive a car, I remember being told to turn into the skid.
I don't know why I was told to do this,
as it seems to be the only action to take,
in a skid, anyway.

Regardless, I wonder are the cab tires pointing the right direction,
to recover from a skid?
They may be, not sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 1 2008, 11:45 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 1 2008, 08:35 PM) *
Learning to drive a car, I remember being told to turn into the skid.
I don't know why I was told to do this,

I know why lunk- you live in Canada, where there is a thing called ice for much of the year, plus coefficients of friction (you all really should do a bit less curling up there IMHO, but I'm down with the hockey wink.gif ).

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.fall2000.w...on/Homepage.htm

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

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/00223214.html

I learned to drive a 2-ton dump truck in the sub-zero winters on "roads" that were never plowed, loaded with hay, sometime before age 10 and years before a drivers' license, without power steering, a heater, or power [and often any functional for that matter] brakes. It is much easier in a car, and they told you correctly.

Then around age 11, I graduated to a 1970 Pontiac GTO muscle car with 4 on the floor and two 4 bbl. carbs that likely would have done all the maneuvers claimed for Lloyd's cab (sans pole of course) plus a few more, but there would have been a LOT more rubber on the road. wink.gif

Either way, steering into the skid is solid advice. yes1.gif

EDIT: Here's a song that nearly killed several of us on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS back in the day:

Stroker Ace- Charlie Daniels Band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAn-lsHyCc#

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 2 2008, 08:15 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If we assume that Lloyd is being less than completely honest about the event...
and the damage staged...

Was the cab skidded into the photo shoot, and then damaged?
How was the damage to the cab done, if not by a flying light pole?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 2 2008, 02:50 PM
Post #10





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



a little camera footage could answer a lot of questions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 2 2008, 05:37 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 2 2008, 01:15 PM) *
Was the cab skidded into the photo shoot, and then damaged?
How was the damage to the cab done, if not by a flying light pole?


Nothing skidded.

The damage was staged in advance.

They probably drove it there with damage to the interior pre-fabricated and simply busted out the windshield when they go there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 2 2008, 08:54 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2008, 01:37 PM) *
Nothing skidded.

The damage was staged in advance.

They probably drove it there with damage to the interior pre-fabricated and simply busted out the windshield when they go there.


Lloyd said that the cab wouldn't start after the "crash".
So either "busting the windshield" disabled the car, or
Lloyd knew the car really would start,
and was just saying this, to cover his story.
In other words, the pre fabricated damaged cab must have been drivable,
if it was driven there.

I wonder if that cab would still start now...
Buy the cab off of Lloyd, and see what caused it not to start, if anything at all...

Just an idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 3 2008, 03:22 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



I'll speculate that TF "hears them engines moan..." wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Nov 3 2008, 03:31 AM
Post #14


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 (JFK @ Nov 1 2008, 12:51 PM) *
Which brings up the question Which lane was Lloyde in when he was hit with the pole ?

One of two lanes.



IF that pole had hit that windshield as alleged, the small end would have passed Lloyde's head in the driver's seat at a speed of 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) plus the speed that the aircraft allegedly hurled it. But the OCT defenders all believe that the aircraft impact at 535 mph just gently laid the 337 pound light poles down, at the same time tearing the truss arms and light heads violently off the main poles and tearing some of the poles in two. Aren't 9-11 physics laws just great?

Where light poles fell - red dots are original bases


Assuming for the moment that Lloyde was actually driving the taxi, and not sitting in it up on a flatbed truck, and assuming also that Lloyde was not weaving from lane to lane like a drunk, the light pole would have flown at Lloyde at an angle from its broken off base, when allegedly struck by the outer portion of the right wing, to the hole in the windshield.

757 wingspan 124 feet 10 inches


The closer Lloyde was to the aircraft, the greater the angle to the windshield would have been. There is no possible way that light pole hit the passenger seat through that hole in the center of the windshield. If Lloyde was anywhere beneath the alleged aircraft or left wing when allegedly struck, then the small end of the pole and the glass fragments would have struck Lloyde directly in the head and ruined his seat.



However Lloyde and his seat seem to be just fine. But the 9-11 defenders with their sudden love for 21st Century 9-11 physics, think the 200+ pound 33 foot long pole levitated there somehow in some magical fashion, floating there patiently waiting in Lloyde's lane for Lloyde and his windshield to arrive.



That will not work. Lloyde was supposed to be driving along at 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) when he claimed the long light pole smashed into his windshield. Then after Lloyde gathered his senses, he hit the brakes, and skidded to a sideways stop after allegedly going 40 feet. So the principle of levitation will no longer work, and we have the big problem with the trajectory of the pole and Lloyde's poor head. The alleged aircraft had to hurl the light pole towards the windshield at least 40 feet or more. Right at poor Lloyde's head.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 3 2008, 04:22 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SPreston @ Nov 3 2008, 12:31 AM) *
The closer Lloyde was to the aircraft, the greater the angle to the windshield would have been.

One's old physics professor would talk about the "dot, or scalar" product at this point (HINT: -cos ("collision" angle), usually in radians for most calcs/computers).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/vsca.html#vsc1

Then we'd need to get into normal surfaces, normal vectors, centers of mass, and moment arms: all subjects that one of the recent trolls here seems to have skipped in our light pole "dialogs."

EDIT: The troll did mention center of mass a couple of times [cough * picked up from an online forum * cough] but didn't ever provide coordinates, units, or other details on where that lightpole center of mass lived...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Nov 3 2008, 07:04 AM
Post #16





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



imho, we have an apples and oranges thing going here

if the aircraft didn't hit the light pole, then the 'mechanics' of the fall might boil down to a simple rotation (pivot) about the base.
of course that would depend somewhat on how the pole connections to the base were severed.

the mechanics of a plane hit, would most definitely involve some momentum transfer from the plane to the pole and would be delivered as an impulse. then or course, there is the strength of the bolts, how high up the pole was hit, is there deformation etc.


i'm guessing the pole was carted off and 'recycled' w/o ever having been analyzed for aluminum residue, paint and what not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 3 2008, 10:08 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 3 2008, 12:04 PM) *
i'm guessing the pole was carted off and 'recycled' w/o ever having been analyzed for aluminum residue, paint and what not?


Quite correct.

This was confirmed with the VDOT direct.

However we also know that they were left laying around for a few weeks after the event for photo ops.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 3 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 3 2008, 07:42 AM) *
I wonder if they planted a light pole with a top end style such as this to explain the smooth curve?



I had thought the same thing way back in fact, they do make the same style metal poles with bends in them. But they also could have used a pipe bending machine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 3 2008, 02:29 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



IMHO these light poles smell as fishy as our Electoral College/Diebold voting polls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 3 2008, 05:05 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 3 2008, 07:08 AM) *

Well that last one looks like an aluminum pole to me (where 247 lbs would have suggested galvanized steel).

According to a phone call with these guys, we can compare 100 feet of 0.050" thick 4-inch diameter aluminum irrigation pipe weighs 73 lbs (3" pipe is 54 lbs per 100 feet). They're rated for 150 psi fwiw.

http://www.mairrigation.com/products/alumi...e/aluminum.aspx

Cattle and horses routinely destroy that aluminum irrigation pipe without tools or opposable thumbs. I have decades of firsthand experience in the above.

Have we been lied to again? wink.gif

EDIT: According to SPreston's graphic, we've got "1/8" thick aluminum" for the VDOT poles, although I'd expect a tapered thickness myself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 18th November 2019 - 05:54 AM