The Physical Damage To The Cab, let's look at it in context Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/citgogif.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/witness%20flight%20paths/allpaths.jpg)


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.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_ab.jpg)
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:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/approachgif.gif)

But let's not forget the dynamics involved with the cab coming to an immediate skidded sideways stop traveling around 40 mph:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/sliding.gif)
(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.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/driving.gif)

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!

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/DSC_0421.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/lloydshood.jpg)

[Omega892R09]

Thanks to ULTIMA1 and his #8 post in:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13453

specifically his link:

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/ph...pg?t=1223890645

we can see this:

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Graphics/767-bird5.jpg)

picture of the aftermath of a bird strike on a 767 wing leading edge.

Now we are supposed to believe that a 757 wing, which I'll warrant is not that dissimilar in this respect, would cause the damage seen in the above images of the broken light poles.

I really think that some wanted many people to doubt the OCT.

EDIT. PS. I have seen a military aircraft, Sea Vixen, return after flying through hail the size of tennis balls - radomes (GRP honeycombe) punctured but wing leading edges dented but not penetrated. We knew the size of the hail stones from the size of some of the radome holes and dents in the intake. So I figure that Boeing wide-bodies are not quite so tough. Having said that, US military pilots oft' expressed surprise that aircraft with the power of a Sea Vixen, Scimitar or Buccaneer only managed supersonic in a dive!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 5 2008, 03:46 PM

[dMz]

Now we are supposed to believe that a 757 wing, which I'll warrant is not that dissimilar in this respect, would cause the damage seen in the above images of the broken light poles.[?]

FINALLY! Some structural data on those Boeing transport wings, 7+ years later and courtesy of those 3 bird carcass holes.

EDIT: I've read some NASA? paper(s) on the B767 wing design being a "quantum leap" above the "obsolete" B757 wing, B777 and composite-laden B787 more so. Probably one large factor in the "tightness" of Boeing Co.'s lips.

EDIT2: I should add- that is the "beefy" section of wing between the turbofan pylon and the wing root...

[Omega892R09]

FINALLY! Some structural data on those Boeing transport wings, 7+ years later and courtesy of those 3 bird carcass holes.

EDIT: I've read some NASA? paper(s) on the B767 wing design being a "quantum leap" above the "obsolete" B757 wing, B777 and composite-laden B787 more so. Probably one large factor in the "tightness" of Boeing Co.'s lips.

EDIT2: I should add- that is the "beefy" section of wing between the turbofan pylon and the wing root...

Well 'quantum' leap or not, and that incidentally sounds like marketing speak to me, that looks like plain ol' aluminium alloy to my eyes. A fibre based material would have broken out in quite a different way. Now, a comparatively 'beefy' section it may be but the metal still looks quite thin to my eyes. I was used to seeing metal of the order of 14 swg and 16 swg [1] in those areas but then that was military applications where often the leading edge was almost another spar.

It should also be considered that much of the 'beef' of a wing comes from the spars and ribs which would be of stouter material section and/or more closely grouped inboard.

It is the existance of such ribs and spars that causes me to consider that the damage to the light poles could not have been done by contact with an aircraft wing.

Has anybody got dimensions - diameter and material thickness - of the poles at the breaks and a measure of the linear extent of the damaged section?


[1] I still have my Zeus tables here, and the 0-1 inch micrometer that took me about 15 weeks to save up the £5 cost of during the first part of my engineering apprenticeship. So 14 swg and 16 swg are 0.080 inch and 0.064 inch respectively. Now much aircraft structure, fixed wing, tended to be formed from 18 swg (0.048 inch) with stiffness added by stiffeners, flanges and lightening holes with the most commen material in my day being an Alclad L72. Alclad being duraluminium sheet with a pure aluminium coating on each side as a corrosion inhibitor. Aluminium when exposed to atmosphere and moisture forms a skin of oxide which is impervious to moisture. This of course requires very careful handling of the L72 when forming. Helicopters were a different game because of the need for a greater than 1/1 power to weight ratio and the low power of earlier generation, often piston, engines, with much thinner sheet material being used 20 swg (0.036 inch) and even 22 swg (0.028 inch) and of different compostion being magnesium alloy.

EDIT: tpyo

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 7 2008, 03:46 PM