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

[GroundPounder]

so, no piece of the light pole ended up remaining inside the cab?

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Nov 3 2008, 05:46 PM

[lunk]

It's likely that cab never had a light pole ever in it.

I still wonder if the cab could be started up after the picture was taken.
I know Lloyd said it wouldn't start.

[GroundPounder]

the point i was trying to make (in an obtuse fashion apparently), is that a piece of the lightpole remaining in the cab strikes me as a requirement for the story to hold water.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

the point i was trying to make (in an obtuse fashion apparently), is that a piece of the lightpole remaining in the cab strikes me as a requirement for the story to hold water.

That's correct.

You should go to ThePentaCon.com and watch the presentations.

Namely the Northside Flyover and Eye of the Storm.

The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. That means no light poles were struck at all.

The plane flying on the south side of the Citgo should strike you as a requirement for the story to hold water.

[GroundPounder]

oh i'm totally onboard w/ the north side approach. the pentacon site was an eye opener. the photographs do show light poles down and the cab has a hole in it's windshield. somehow, those things were accomplished.

w/o the plane hitting the poles, some other means were obviously employed. even if an explosive charge dislodged a pole from it's base and managed to fall down and hit the cab, some piece of that pole would have been stuck inside the cab...or the cab would have dragged the pole down the road with it.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

oh i'm totally onboard w/ the north side approach. the pentacon site was an eye opener. the photographs do show light poles down and the cab has a hole in it's windshield. somehow, those things were accomplished.

w/o the plane hitting the poles, some other means were obviously employed. even if an explosive charge dislodged a pole from it's base and managed to fall down and hit the cab, some piece of that pole would have been stuck inside the cab...or the cab would have dragged the pole down the road with it.

Groundpounder,

We have covered all of this before. The cab and light poles were staged. That is why his hood was pristine. They more than likely drove the cab up there with the interior damaged and the windshield intact. When the plane went by they/he damaged the windshield.

The light poles were staged. Again, we cover this in the very feature this thread is about. Four of the five were in inconspicuous areas on the lawn/grass hidden by bushes, guardrail, and the human mind that is preoccupied with driving down the highway. Pole 1 (Lloyd's highway pole) was more than likely on the side on the shoulder there. It is the only one that needs to be staged live real time and we have pictures that show what would appear it and the cab being staged or at least the men that more than likely staged the scene.

The perps more than likely accomplished the pre-staging on 9/10 in the wee hours of the night. The poles were removed months in advance I am sure and on 9/10 Bush left from that heliport where the plane allegedly hit and was sheduled back on 9/11 at noon, at the same heliport. This allowed them the excuse to put men, "SS" or "Security detail", on the lawn and highway area with vans or trucks. This would allow them to plant the broken pieces. Bush's arrival at noon would make a good excuse to not allow anyone onto the lawn or sidewalk in front of the heliport.

Explosives cannot bend, twist, and pinch the "broken" light pole ends. They cannot cut near perfect symmetrical 'breaks' in the bases.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/203a.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/P9290029.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/polepinched4.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/pole5.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/polepinched22.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/polepinched33.jpg)

[Omega892R09]

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/polepinched4.jpg)

Another reason to consider those poles staged with phoney damage.

In the area of the bend and break one would expect to see much more varied marking and over a longer length. I just cannot see that a pole would bend and break in that manner when hit by an aircraft. It just would not snap off, it would tend to bend around the leading edge before cutting through the wing progressively a bit as it stretches more and progressively sheares as it meets other parts of the wing structure.

That sort of damage is simply not consistent with meeting an aircaft wing.

[dMz]

And like the thousands of tons of WTC steel that was shipped off to Baosteel by FEMA, PANY, and Rudy, or the serialized plane parts and CVR's, the evidence was destroyed/hidden years ago.

Nothing suspicious there though... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

@ Omega: You are right. It looks like those were crimped and then painted.

[dMz]

Aluminum can do strange things in the light, depending upon the surfacing treatment(s) and coatings.

That said, here's the first 2 "metallized" aerosol spray paints from a quick search:

http://www.filmtools.com/krdual1grsho.html

http://www.net4sale.com/Shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=123

[dMz]

I still wonder if the cab could be started up after the picture was taken.
I know Lloyd said it wouldn't start.

Although electrical problems look to be quite common in the Lincoln, lunk:

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f117824/48

We find this at the following:

http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00061.html
---------------------------
http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00061_1.jpg

The picture above shows the power distribution box of a '92 Town Car with the compressor relay removed and placed to one side, fuse "U" and the compressor relay pins labeled.

TESTING THE MODULE POWER FEEDS AND ON/OFF SWITCH>

Switch the air suspension off and disconnect the control module connector.

Switch testing

'90 - '94 Town Cars
Connect a voltmeter or test light to the Dark Green/Yellow wire and ground. You should get twelve volts when the air suspension switch in turned on, if not check fuse 1 or service switch/wiring to fuse 1.

'95 Town Cars
Connect a voltmeter or test light to the Dark Green/Yellow wire and ground. You should get twelve volts when the air suspension switch is turned on, if not check fuse U or service switch/wiring to fuse U. NOTE: There are two terminals with Dark Green/Yellow wires, both should test the same.

'96 - '97 Town Cars
Connect a continuity meter (ohms) between the Dark Green/Yellow wire and the Purple/Light Green wire; you should have 0 ohms with the switch closed and infinity with the switch open.

Other power feeds

'90 - '91 Town Cars
Check the Light Blue/Pink wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 4 and wiring.

'92 - '94 Town Cars
Check the Red/Yellow wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 8 and wiring.

'95 Town Car
Check the Light Blue/Pink wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 7 and wiring.

'96 - '97 Town Cars
There are three Light Blue/Pink wires. The ones on pin 1 and 15 will have battery voltage all the time, if no voltage check fuse U and wiring. The one on pin 16 will have battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 7 and wiring.
-----------------------
Ignition fuses, eh?

EDIT: Yowza, even the Lincoln mechanics are paranoid: "[browser] has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete." Hotlink removed

Reason for edit: Lincoln mechanics against 9/11 truth, I guess...

[lunk]

Are there any aerial or satellite pictures of the pentagon and surroundings taken just prior to 9/11?
It would be interesting to see if those poles were missing.

So, the sequence of events that must have occurred.
Poles were taken down and cut up with hydrolic sheers and cutting torches,
cab was damaged on passanger side and driven to the sceen,
fly over, windshield smashed and cut up poles placed in position.

how is that?

imo, lunk

[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...

[Janusaur]

Ok, I'd like to do some calculations relevant to Lloyd's story.

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) The damage doesn't even look coherant.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/lloydshood.jpg)
All of the radial cracks originate from the center of the windshield. If the base of the pole was resting on the passenger side of the car (like a '/') as required by the outer damage then the interior should be damaged in the back seat on Lloyd's side. But the interior damage is on the passengers side, which would require the base of the pole to be resting on Lloyd's side (like a '\'), but the damage to the windshield does not reflect this. The only way to reconcile this is to claim that the pole didn't even touch the dash, but this contradicts both the physical evidence (the bend in the dash) and Lloyd's testimony.
Here's the basic shape of the hole:
----------
Origin_|
|_|

/ Pole inconsistent with interior, consistent with windshield.
\ Pole consistent with interior, inconsistent with windshield.

2) It seems that if Lloyd skidded like he said he did, even if the pole was wedged between the two seats, the pole would have shifted around and boken up more of the windshield.

Is there any way one could calculate (a) the force exerted on impact and (b) the force exerted on the pole and windshield in the alleged 40 mph sliding skid?

Here's an interesting source for glass fracture analysis:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan...5standards7.htm

[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

[dMz]

So my 0.050" alumin(i)um sprinkler pipe wasn't such an off-base comparison then O892? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

P.S. Of course, we have yet another and entirely different "gauge" system here in the States... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wall.gif)

EDIT: The papers got into supercritical airflow and such business, but I'm working overtime to stay in the graces of Bill Boeing's corporate sharks here.

[lunk]

If a light pole was hit, by whatever, near the top,
It should have broken, from a whole, attached, light pole, at only one point!
NOT TWO!

From what I've seen ALL the light poles were broken at more than one location.
This, I think, is a physical impossibility!
If a single force was applied, the pole would only break at the weakest point.

EXPERIMENT:
Take a paper towel,
rip it into 3 sections (or more) but not all the way through,
now take the two corners and pull,
it will only break in one spot.

This means that the light poles, if hit by anything, once, would only break at only one location,
unless a secondary force was used after the initial break.

This alone may prove that the poles had to have been staged, in advance.

imo, lunk

[dMz]

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.

Funny, I don't recall NIST ever bringing this subject up. They certainly had a few "purty" pictures from their computer graphic in the one report- not really worth looking up the reference tonight in 10,000 pages and several .PDFs. I'm really not sure that NIST would be as qualified as some in this area either. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

They've got a really nice office in Boulder, CO though.

EDIT: Exploding B777 wings (~"154%" of presumably maximum design load limit)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746641

Boeing 777 Wing Load Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o

[dMz]

Off topic, but here's a BEEFY pair of wings. The grapevine rumors of those "in the know" have this Fairchild brute designed to fly without one engine and most of one wing torn off, but I haven't seen it. That Ti "bathtub" was a pretty good idea too. I heard of one female pilot who managed to fly one back to base in Iraq, and no one could figure how she managed it. I believe that the Russians have had more female combat pilots and cosmonauts than the US, but the Soviets didn't exactly advertise certain things.

It's the Wiki, but the "other" sources are likely not too public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_cam..._damage_a10.jpg
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg)

Engine photo- but Smithsonian Institution can be as suspect as Wiki or worse for certain "historical" malfunctions.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=289

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...rcraft/a-10.htm

"The A-10's survivability in the close air support arena greatly exceeds that of previous Air Force aircraft. The A-10 is designed to survive even the most disastrous damage and finish the mission by landing on an unimproved airfield. Specific survivability features include titanium armor plated cockpit, redundant flight control system separated by fuel tanks, manual reversion mode for flight controls, foam filled fuel tanks, ballistic foam void fillers, and a redundant primary structure providing "get home" capability after being hit."

No "fly by wire" in those 'hogs- old fashioned cables in "manual" mode IIRC.

EDIT: For the layman, these were designed during the "Cold" War to destroy Soviet tanks, not light poles...