The Physical Damage To The Cab, let's look at it in context
Oct 31 2008, 01:30 AM
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.
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)
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.
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!
Nov 1 2008, 12:51 PM
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
Nov 3 2008, 03:31 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045
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.
Nov 3 2008, 04:22 AM
Group: Global Mod
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294
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).
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...
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 08:08 AM|