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
Light Pole Analysis

behind
post Oct 30 2006, 08:19 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



It is interesting... but that is what I belive would make sense... it is difficult for be to belive that they were design "to brake away"

But it is widespread all over the net... this "breake away" design.

But UT: How do you thing that he poles was connected to the ground... Then I mean there is a bolt there... but... well I dont know. (I yhink it is inportand to know that)... and it is very hard for my to belive that they are just bolted on the base... and the base is the connection to the ground (hope you understand me)



This post has been edited by behind: Oct 30 2006, 08:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Oct 31 2006, 12:10 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



What you see there in that picture is what's is left of the box section break away base.
The 'base' of the pole is bolted to the top of the break-away base, which is in turn bolted again to the concrete ground base proper.

I see these things every day on every street around here. The poles (even short walking sign poles) which are in a possible impact area all have the same fiberglass like breakable base.

Those poles which are not in a impact zone are exactly the same except they dont' have the breakable base.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 1 2006, 01:09 AM
Post #23


dig deeper


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



the bases are designed to breakaway when hit at bumper height. here is a good example:

animation video of bus crashing into breakaway base:
http://www.mgsquared.com/dotplug.htm
http://www.mgsquared.com/images/dotplug/Co...onal_Wiring.mpg
http://www.mgsquared.com/images/dotplug/DOTPLUG_Wiring.mpg


the base itself actually breaks away from the anchor bolts.


the problem i found when looking for info on the subject was that no one has done any testing regarding what would happen to the base, when a pole is struck high up.


here is a shitload of raw research that i gathered (sorry i never got the time to put into a cohesive essay):



search terms:
Breakaway Safety Bases meeting AASHTO requirements
NCHRP Report 350


http://www.dot.state.ny.us/cmb/consult/hdm...s/chapt_12.pdf
It is desirable to have the side slope prior to the breakaway base be 1:6 or flatter.
This is to ensure that the vehicle will impact the base at an acceptable height, which will allow the base to fail in shear, as intended, versus in bending. In addition, the height above ground of any portion of the anchor bolts or foundation should not exceed 100 mm. This is to prevent the bottom of a vehicle from snagging the foundationor base. Refer to section 4.2 and 4.5 of the "Roadside Design Guide" for a more complete discussion of the breakaway base concept


https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/s...9.6710--04.pdf
"Substantial repairs are defined as, but not limited to, repair or replacement of electrical wiring, conduit or any other equipment
located below ground and correction of lightpole knockdowns. Repairs and/or replacements shall be made in accordance with the National Electric Code,
the rules and regulations of State and Local authorities having jurisdiction over such work and according to the Maintaining Agency's specifications and standards."


Ny DOT:
https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/m...issuance-system


http://www.erl.dot.state.ia.us/Apr_2005/GS/content/4185.htm
"C. Breakaway (Transformer) Base.
Material for the breakaway base shall be cast aluminum meeting requirements of ASTM B 108, 356-T6 or B26, 356-T6 aluminum alloy. Transformer bases shall meet AASHTO breakaway criteria.
The breakaway base shall be designed to withstand an applied moment at the top equal to the design moment of the applicable pole, and not less than 35,000 foot-pounds (47,500 Nm). In addition, the transformer base shall yield to an applied momentum of 1,100 pound-seconds (4.9 kNs) when tested with an automobile or 400 pound-seconds (1.8 kNs) when tested with a solid mass. The tests should be conducted by the manufacturer and results certified to comply with requirements of current AASHTO requirements for breakaway luminaire supports.
The breakaway base shall be equipped with a weatherproof access door. Unless otherwise shown, the door opening shall not be less than 100 square inches (0.065 m<SUP>2). "

more indepth "REVIEW OF TEST MATRICES AND CONDITIONS":
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circu...C002/part2.html





pic of crane lifting pole:
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/warwic...ges/pollsup.jpg

video of same type of truck:
http://www.unionroadvfd.com/Video/MVA%20car%20vs%20pole.AVI

good road crew pics (look for "breakaway pole adapters" n "pole with skirt in place"):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D6EA9...ounding2005.pdf

The most common breakaway base used is a
MANITOBA SAFE-T-BASE: http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/docs/reports..._DOC/1510-1.pdf


t-base specs with diagrams:
http://www.generalstructuresinc.com/products/pdf/page34.pdf

breakaway bolt specs:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/ro...y/pdf/ls-33.pdf



breakaway bolt pictured:
http://www.dentbreakaway.com/Products.asp

coupling specs:
http://www.whitcopoles.com/pdf_files/area78_1.pdf
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/ro...y/pdf/ss120.pdf (description of Snap n Safe)

animation video of bus crashing into breakaway base:
http://www.mgsquared.com/dotplug.htm
http://www.mgsquared.com/images/dotplug/Co...onal_Wiring.mpg

full length guide "forgiving roadside":
http://geometricdesign.csir.co.za/PdfDocs/Chapter8.pdf


BOOK:
Breakaway and Nonbreakaway Poles Including Sign and Light Standards Along Highways by King K Mak & Mason, Robert L.

NTIS publications:
http://www.triodyne.com/ntis.html



light poles for sale:
http://www.millerberndmfg.com/html/mv.html
http://www.kwindustries.com/CoatingSystem.asp
http://www.thelightingcenter.com/products/*/*/1241
http://www.unionmetal.com/products/streetlighting.asp
http://www.oksolar.com/n_cart/search.asp?c...cat=Pole%20Base
http://www.novapole.com/test/ (lots of pdfs)
http://www.transpo.com/breakaways.htm (lots of pdfs)
http://www.generalstructuresinc.com/products/index.html

THE "pole safe system" with 3 step pic:
http://www.transpo.com/Transpo_Sheets_PDF/Pole_safe.pdf


typical cost and parts incurred:
http://www.stillwater.org/cc031300/sua0020x.htm

vdot webcam:
http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-mainWEbcams.asp



SECTION 1101 HIGHWAY LIGHTING:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/reginfo...52567a100735bfb

"Utility Poles, Description of Strategies":
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguide...strat.htm#162A3

directions for guardrail work:
http://www.virginiadot.org/BUSINESS/locdes...Manual/Text.pdf

more detailed page with specifics:
http://tomcat2.dot.state.ga.us/thesource/p...pecs/ss680.html

GLOSSARY OF TERMS: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/rfi/A...Attributes1.xls
OR here:
http://search.wsdot.wa.gov/search?q=cache:...ww&oe=UTF-8


MANYlinks to technical links:
http://www.click2engineers.com/resources/274
http://www.click2engineers.com/visit.phtml...oductzoomed=340
http://www.click2engineers.com/visit.phtml...oductzoomed=340
http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/i...shtml?E+mystore

Integrated Inspection and Light Servicing System For High Mast Light Poles:
http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/ProjDetails.aspx?id=140


THE ACTUAL POLE SCHEMATICS< FINALLY:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/CADD...s/S715-0001.pdf
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/CADD...s/S715-0003.pdf

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 16 2015, 02:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 1 2006, 01:13 AM
Post #24


dig deeper


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



oh yeah make sure to peek at these:

RUSTED pole breaks and falls onto car (video), note the big guy moving the pole WHILE it is hoisted using a bucket truck:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/6460546/index.html


shitty bases:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/9478492/index.html


crash downs pole - glass broken outward (video):
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/4306423/detail.html
http://www.officer.com/news/IBS/wdiv/news-2637863.html

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Nov 1 2006, 11:43 AM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



Impressive list of links.

This is the closet match for the base in question


QUOTE
Aluminum Frangible Base
Distributed by Millerbernd, these precision cast aluminum bases are ideal for retro-fitting or new highway construction. Versatile bottom design makes it possible to meet nearly any bolt circle requirement. Bases are robotic welded, breakaway approved and fatigue tested. Base selection is by pole height, total weight and bolt circle.


From http://www.millerberndmfg.com/html/bases.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Nov 2 2006, 05:27 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



Yes... it is a huge info from paranoja.

But... it is of cource coplicated, and I am not sure that I fully understand it... but from what I understand, then there is a 4 bolts inside the base which connected the base (the pole is bolted on the top of the base) to the ground... and it is designed to give away near the bolts (the bolts have special design, plate etc)... and I have not see yet that the poles are designed to "breake away" 23 inches from the ground.

animation video of bus crashing into breakaway base:
www.mgsquared.com
www.mgsquared.com/images/dotplug/Conventional_Wiring.mpg


But it is a little comlicated... every part of 9/11 is coplicated!

And the cast aluminium... that is another thing...

But to me ... it is just something wrong with how the poles clipped and breakes away but it is maybe hard to say what it is exaxtly.


(Base of the pole 4)

I mean... this base looked pretty strong to me, and very clean "breake away" (but the other looked not so clean cut and they broke higher.

This post has been edited by behind: Nov 2 2006, 05:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
O&A_Virus_XM202
post Nov 2 2006, 05:51 PM
Post #27


"Strategery"


Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 103



I say that base looks like it was cut with DET CORD... looks like there might be powder burn marks on the pole... I could be wrong.

dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 3 2006, 02:19 AM
Post #28


dig deeper


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



i had never seen any pics of the pole clean-up til i saw lytetrip post it over there. the pic behind posted (above) looks like a close-up i made of the base of that super suspect pole.

i dont think it was explosives though, i think it was cut by a either a torch or a plasma cutter. here is some research i did on the subject:

Cutting_torch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_torch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_torch#Cutting

"OXYGEN FUEL GAS WELDING PROCEDURES (scroll down to "11-18. OXYFUEL CUTTING"): http://www.fortunecity.com/village/lind/24...d_book/Ch11.htm



super-easy, efficient metal cutting: http://www.oxyfuel.com/highspeed.html

pics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cutting_torch.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Railway-cutting-2-a.jpg
http://www.nmri.go.jp/eng/khirata/metalwor...as/index_e.html

MUST SEE video - "cuts like knife thru butter" superquickness:
http://www.oxyfuel.com/video/highspeedcutweb1.mpg

more videos: http://www.oxyfuel.com/video/video.html

more videos: cutting using oxytorch :
http://www.oxyfuel.com/video/gougeweb3.m1v
http://www.cut-like-plasma.com/info_cutting_sheet_metal.htm
http://www.cut-like-plasma.com/info_cutting_thick_steel.htm

Portable Cutting System :

http://www.petrogen.com/PCS.html
http://www.petrogen.com/petrogen_doe.html

many many pics of torch cut metal (MUST SEE): http://www.apexvfd.org/photos/usar_apex_2004/torches.html

indepth page on oxycutting (scroll to pics at bottom): http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/band_3/jk50.html

helpful overview of welding/cutting techniques: http://www.millerwelds.com/products/basics_hints/

"Plasma Cutting VS Oxyfuel": http://www.millerwelds.com/education/faq/p...avsoxyfuel.html
videos of plasma cutting: http://www.millerwelds.com/education/video_library/

http://www.meg.co.uk/meg/app05.htm:
"Application: Oxy-fuel cutting can be performed on all plain carbon steels, but not on aluminium, stainless steels or cast iron."

http://www.welding-advisers.com/Cutting-torch.html:
"A special development of Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW or Mig) (see Arc Welding Process and Arc Welding Equipment), apparently discovered by chance while welding, shows that cutting can be performed if the electrode (bare steel wire) is made to penetrate the base metal plate.

By this method it was possible with the Cutting-torch to cut aluminum and stainless steel plates at high speed with a steel wire, using an inert shielding gas to protect the newly formed surfaces from contamination. The change from welding to cutting is only a matter of finding the proper parameters, wire diameter, wire feed speed and amperage."


now, some comparisons, using these:







continued on next post...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Nov 3 2006, 02:20 AM
Post #29


dig deeper


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



(note the carbonization or greyish soot near the cut area)





























(in response to the claim that metal develops burn marks when it is torn or bent):
lots of torn/bent metal, but NO "burn marks": http://www.oldradio.com/archives/warstories/WRAL.htm


NOTE: i searched endlessly to find pics of ANY torn or bent metal (especially aluminum bases), but really didnt find many examples. i think the burden now rests on those who claim the marks on the polebase were caused by ripping/shearing. I challenge them (whoever they may be) to post photographic evidence of a single piece of metal that shows soot/burn marks as a result of a collision and subesequent tearing/shearing.

the single link/photo i found of aluminum showing the same visual characteristics, was of metal that had corroded, NOT torn:

metal corrosion:
http://corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov/corr_control...el.htm#Aluminum


only Detroit (per link in earlier post above) has light poles in such shitty condition. the light fixtures in arlington (and all of) virginia are meticulously inspected, maintained, and serviced. Such corrosion could not have existed on the pole in question, due to the strict regimen of road fixture maintenance by VDOT.


CONCLUSION: im NOT saying i have figured out the entire light pole puzzle. the pole+base that was being loaded on to a flatbed, clearly shows traces of some sort of high heat applied to a confined region at its base. these traces are not a natural occurence in the ripping/shearing of metal. the residue seen on the base of the pole is indicative of some sort of cutting tool.

how that fits in to the bigger picture of the pole (chronology) puzzle i have not yet figured out. i do NOT have a hypothesis as to the exact scenario that took place and allowed the poles to be "found" (and photographed) in the exact locations seen, in the exact condition they were seen.

***curious note: i am surprised that russ picked up on a random scratch mark on the vdot pole, and made such a big deal of it, even using it to defend his idea that the plane's wingtip must have caused the damage, BUT he somehow has completely overlooked (and possibly ignored) these very obvious markings on the base of this pole. as a member/moderator on the new site, he has not once attempted to address the burn marks on this base (in the light poles were staged thread where i posted some close-ups of the base), though admittedly, i have never called him out on it (until now, here).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Nov 4 2006, 03:22 PM
Post #30





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



QUOTE (behind @ Oct 23 2006, 10:41 AM)

wow .. that is a interesting graphics ...
Is the 757 acuratly depictured in size?
I meen, it lookes like the object that knocked down the poles had to have a large wingspan. (asuming that it is a flying object that did it).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Nov 4 2006, 06:36 PM
Post #31





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



This lamp pole case is a loooong and coplicated story... in fact like all the Pentagon case.

For example one had to be a photograph expert and know all about telephoto lens etc to understand it smile.gif

Would you for example belive that the taxi in this three photos is in exactly same place ??







Well, it is very hard for me to belive it... but however, the experts say it is all about telephoto lens, perspectives etc.

More on this site...(wich points out the strange thing... but like I said before... the "experts" say it is all normal)
physics911.ca/org

...and in fact the top of the pole looks more bend in the first photo.

This post has been edited by behind: Nov 5 2006, 12:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Nov 15 2006, 03:43 PM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



The FDR data for AA77 clearly shows that the plane was not only too high to have hit the light poles, but also that the aircraft was not even directly above them! Therefore this suggests one of two possibilities:

1) The FDR data has been fabricated by the NTSB or some other agency, as it contradicts the "official" fligth path. If the data has indeed been fabricated, then they have done a sloppy job of this.

...or...

2) The official flight path is bogus and the "downing" of the light poles was caused by some other means, and not AA77.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Nov 15 2006, 07:39 PM
Post #33





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 15 2006, 02:43 PM)
The FDR data for AA77 clearly shows that the plane was not only too high to have hit the light poles, but also that the aircraft was not even directly above them! Therefore this suggests one of two possibilities:

1) The FDR data has been fabricated by the NTSB or some other agency, as it contradicts the "official" fligth path. If the data has indeed been fabricated, then they have done a sloppy job of this.

...or...

2) The official flight path is bogus and the "downing" of the light poles was caused by some other means, and not AA77.

Not only me understanding it that way - good tongue.gif

I wonder about one thing IndeX said, he said one place that he had shown the analysis to pilots that were not 911 truth'ers and they agreed on the analyses.

My question is: What is there to debate about the FDR and the analyses of it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Nov 15 2006, 07:41 PM
Post #34





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



QUOTE (Havey @ Nov 15 2006, 06:39 PM)
IndeX said ...

Well, I know he is not called Index, but I didnt remember when typing the post, so I just typed IndeX and wanted to corect, but fount out you cant correct tongue.gif

Sorry, JohndoeX tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 15 2006, 09:01 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



There are only 2 arguments that could be used against the FDR from what i can see so far...

1. It was completely fabricated (in which it is as alarming as it being accurate).

2. The NTSB gave us the wrong FDR and apologizes for misleading the public.. (in which case.. the BS flag is thrown up.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Nov 15 2006, 09:23 PM
Post #36





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Nov 16 2006, 01:01 AM)
There are only 2 arguments that could be used against the FDR from what i can see so far...

1. It was completely fabricated (in which it is as alarming as it being accurate).

2. The NTSB gave us the wrong FDR and apologizes for misleading the public.. (in which case.. the BS flag is thrown up.)

I totally agree!! From what I can see there is absolutely no way to reconcile the FDR with the official account.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Nov 17 2006, 08:07 AM
Post #37





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Nov 15 2006, 08:01 PM)
There are only 2 arguments that could be used against the FDR from what i can see so far...

1. It was completely fabricated (in which it is as alarming as it being accurate).

2. The NTSB gave us the wrong FDR and apologizes for misleading the public.. (in which case.. the BS flag is thrown up.)

Hmm .. my posts dont make it to the forum?

I posted questions to this:
One was what pilots that looked into the FDR case outside the 911 truth movement make of it? I remember JohndoeX talking about that, that they agreed on the technical part of the analysis but didnt buy into the 911 truth isue.

And I dont uderstand point 2. If NTSB gave a wrong FDR what FDR would that be?
I just dont see what this sugestion meens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Havey @ Nov 17 2006, 07:07 AM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Nov 15 2006, 08:01 PM)
There are only 2 arguments that could be used against the FDR from what i can see so far...

1. It was completely fabricated (in which it is as alarming as it being accurate).

2. The NTSB gave us the wrong FDR and apologizes for misleading the public.. (in which case.. the BS flag is thrown up.)

Hmm .. my posts dont make it to the forum?

I posted questions to this:
One was what pilots that looked into the FDR case outside the 911 truth movement make of it? I remember JohndoeX talking about that, that they agreed on the technical part of the analysis but didnt buy into the 911 truth isue.

And I dont uderstand point 2. If NTSB gave a wrong FDR what FDR would that be?
I just dont see what this sugestion meens.

My apologies Havey... i think that was my bad last night. I was relaxing with my favorite beverage and pushed the wrong buttons... cheers.gif

But to answer your questions,

1. Its not so much that pilots "agree" or "disagree" with the FDR. The FDR as presented is fact. It shows too high to hit the light poles.. period. There is nothing with which to disagree or agree. There are a few pilots (just like regular people), who shut their eyes to the facts and dont want to hear it. Then you get a few who use ridicule (such as, "Seen Elvis lately?") without even looking at the information and data... Then you get many others who say, "Did that really come from AA77? Wow! Good luck with the research...keep me posted.." and go about their business. Then you get some who join up and support the research. .as seen here. Two more added yesterday.. wink.gif

2. Wrong FDR - This is the only other excuse that i can see the govt using as to explain the FDR - since it conflicts with the official story. I have no idea what FDR that would be... I also don't think they will use this excuse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Nov 17 2006, 03:31 PM
Post #39





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



Ok. That makes sense to me, both answers, thanks.

btw, did you delete my post with the CNN 3D animation also? tongue.gif cant find it.
I was getting suspitios that if questions were posted the posts were deleted .. ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 17 2006, 03:35 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Its in the debate forum. Please review the board guidelines regarding official story propaganda.
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: 15th October 2018 - 07:22 AM