Video Of A Plane Hitting Light Poles Options

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

thoughts?

[SPreston]

In the case of the light poles, the 100 ton aircraft still had hundreds of yards before it reached the Pentagon wall and needed its wings and engines to maintain lift and thrust/velocity. As the light poles sliced into the aluminum wings and fuel tanks at 530 mph and destroyed the aerodynamics of the wing surfaces, the massive 6 ton engines at full throttle would have ripped the damaged wings off themselves. At the very least, fuel would have spilled out all over the lawn which there was ZERO evidence of. Without one or both wings, the aircraft would have crashed upon the lawn, and perhaps bounced into the Pentagon wall. But there is ZERO evidence of that.

Assuming these imaginary 757 aluminum wings did hit the light poles, how did the light poles accelerate to 530+ mph in an instant in order to be thrown free of the 530 mph wings? How does a 530 mph bat squarely strike a 247 lb ball and knock it only a few feet? Shouldn't those light poles have been plastered to those wings at that speed, if not slicing into the wings or slicing right through the wings as the aircraft crash shows?

Allegedly Flight 77 was flying much faster (OCT 530 mph) than the aircraft in the video, so the light poles acting as knives should have sliced off the aluminum wings more easily. Any other imaginary aircraft clipping the light poles with their aluminum wings would likely have gotten them sliced off also. But no wings or fuel from ruptured wing tanks on the lawn at all. No 100 tons of high grade aluminum 757 scrap metal lying around. No metal salvage company hired to haul it away. Nothing hit those light poles at the Pentagon because they were staged with slight of hand magicians' tricks. There was never any aircraft hitting the Pentagon. Just planted aircraft parts and planted DNA and staged events.

There is no doubt. An aircraft never hit those light poles. They were staged by hand. No Flight 77 757 crashed into the Pentagon. No smaller aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. Another aircraft flew the North of Citgo flight path and overflew the Pentagon. The light poles are critical to the OCT. The 9-11 planners trapped themselves into a corner. Their slight of hand magicians' tricks have been exposed and they have been outed as traitors.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

To be honest I think this analogy is not comparing apples to apples.

Just like the Sandia experiment is not an accurate comparison to the Pentagon attack because it was a much smaller plane against a much thicker wall.....you've got the same types of issues here.

The wooden telephone or electric poles would likely be buried pretty deep while the cast aluminum light pole bases at the Pentagon were made to break away.

That's not to say that we shouldn't still expect there to be at least some damage to the wings that would likely have been fatal to the plane perfectly reaching the building so low and level without hitting the ground at all.

But I simply don't see this video as a valid argument for this.

Especially without all the specs of the poles.

[dMz]

To be honest I think this analogy is not comparing apples to apples.

Just like the Sandia experiment is not an accurate comparison to the Pentagon attack because it was a much smaller plane against a much thicker wall.....you've got the same types of issues here.

Although the video appears to have been moved, Craig is correct on the apples and pears aspect here. Military fighter (say a McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom II) and bomber aircraft have completely different design criteria than passenger transport aircraft (say B757-200 or B767-200) (or small aerobatic aircraft for that matter). My sources would be hundreds of pages of DoD MIL-STD and HDBKs still in a previous employer's possession, but I think several members here can support what I am telling you.

[SwingDangler]

thoughts?

Hey Dom, which video is it? There are a number of videos on the Live Video site.

[dMz]

This (and subsequent posts) may need to be split to a "Sandia F4 Phantom test" thread, but let's put links to the original Sandia information and discussion here.

Original source
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video...lery/index.html

Footage of 1988 rocket-sled test

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.

http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image1.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image2.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg

[Bold emphasis above is mine, and the video links are available for viewing/download at the original source link.

Related thread is in Aircraft forum at:

McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom II, Vietnam era Fighter/Bomber
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18060

[DoYouEverWonder]

This (and subsequent posts) may need to be split to a "Sandia F4 Phantom test" thread, but let's put links to the original Sandia information and discussion here.

Original source
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video...lery/index.html



http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image1.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image2.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg

[Bold emphasis above is mine, and the video links are available for viewing/download at the original source link.

Related thread is in Aircraft forum at:

McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom II, Vietnam era Fighter/Bomber
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18060

Thanks for the link to the original video. I've never seen the whole thing. The link in the OP was to genghis6199 and now I feel like my computer needs a bath.

In regards to the video dmole posted, they show you the crash from every angle imaginable but they never show the results of the crash. Gee, wonder why not? Maybe because the concrete wall won and the jet lost big time? If you look carefully, you can see that most of the right wing extended beyond the wall and since it met no resistance just kept going. However the rest of the plane just accordioned in on itself, while the concrete wall remained intact, you can see the top of the wall in some of the shots and it doesn't move, change or show any effect from the crash, even though it seems the folks who put this video out, want you to think the wall blew up too.

Concrete - 1 Fighter Jet - 0

Actually, this video proves that a passenger jet would not travel through multiple layers of concrete/steel reinforced walls, no less one layer.

[tnemelckram]

Summing up what everyone has already posted, I think the video is meaningless.

The question is not whether some kind of plane hit some kind of light poles poles somewhere at some time and then could still hit some wall some distance away. It's whether AA77, a Boeing 757, was on a path to hit a certain five aluminum light poles several hundred yards from the "target" wall of the Pentagon building in Arlington Virginia on 9-11-01 at 9:37:44 AM. The only credible evidence says that it was not on the path to begin with and the rest is irrelevant.

Dmole correctly notes that the F-4 is military and requires sturdier construction. Here's a little more:

1. Military planes have hard points on the wings for ordinance mounts.
2. There were two general types of F-4's - one navalized and the other land based. The navalized version had beefed up wings and carriage to withstand the added stress of carrier landings.
3. The F-4 was a particularly sturdy and long-lived plane.

EDIT TO ADD: Dmole posted more about the F-4 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777034

Here's another twisted, irrelevant interpretation: The video doesn't disprove that although a fly over was intended, a plane could have been damaged by hitting the poles, which caused it to crash instead, which foiled the fly over plan.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Sep 23 2009, 12:17 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Summing up what everyone has already posted, I think the video is meaningless.

The question is not whether some kind of plane hit some kind of light poles poles somewhere at some time and then could still hit some wall some distance away. It's whether AA77, a Boeing 757, was on a path to hit a certain five aluminum light poles several hundred yards from the "target" wall of the Pentagon building in Arlington Virginia on 9-11-01 at 9:37:44 AM. The only credible evidence says that it was not on the path to begin with and the rest is irrelevant.

Dmole correctly notes that the F-4 is military and requires sturdier construction. Here's a little more:

1. Military planes have hard points on the wings for ordinance mounts.
2. There were two general types of F-4's - one navalized and the other land based. The navalized version had beefed up wings and carriage to withstand the added stress of carrier landings.
3. The F-4 was a particularly sturdy and long-lived plane.

EDIT TO ADD: Dmole posted more about the F-4 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777034

Here's another twisted, irrelevant interpretation: The video doesn't disprove that although a fly over was intended, a plane could have been damaged by hitting the poles, which caused it to crash instead, which foiled the fly over plan.

One more big difference here. The F-4 was riding on a track. No matter what it hit, it had no where else to go, except perfectly straight.

A plane in flight hitting multiple poles is another story.

[tnemelckram]

Hi DYEW!

One more big difference here. The F-4 was riding on a track. No matter what it hit, it had no where else to go, except perfectly straight. . . . . A plane in flight hitting multiple poles is another story.

I figure that assuming the plane hit the poles, then it would be damaged, its flight control impaired, its straight path intended interrupted, and highly likely to crash into the next solid object a short distance straight ahead that is at the same height of the poles. So assuming that, its fair to say that AA77 also had nowhere else to go despite not being confined to a track.

The real problem for the OCT is that the damage, impairment and interruption would result in a very messy crash instead of one with the neat head-on impact that it postulates and requires. Under those circumstances, it's ridiculous to say that the nose still lead at impact and the plane was at the exact height required to then believe that it neatly slipped inside without hitting the trailer and coils, leaving no major items of debris outside, and not gouging the lawn.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Sep 23 2009, 02:13 PM

[Maha Mantra]

The F-4 shows total vaporization of the airframe and also shows a flash at one point.

It would require more testing to determine what a Boeing would do at its possible speed at sea level when hitting a concrete, brick and otherwise reinforced building.

If we consider that the planes went right through 14" square steel tubular columns with at least 1/2" wall thickness and tons of loading from above at the trade towers, we can't think that light poles would do very much. To me, it is surprising that the planes took out so many of the perimeter columns at the towers. They no doubt could have taken out a lot of the floor trusses as well.

I don't think they could have deposited nano thermate however, or melted steel, nor caused free-fall disintegration of the towers.

Its hard to visualize without real testing what would happen between the wings and light poles.

I know that lead and copper bullets will penetrate steel easily at rifle velocities, but I figured it was a matter of the density of the lead and the short time at impact, which didn't give the lead enough time to splatter, and its density is greater than steels. Rather odd actually how velocity changes characteristics of metals. Shooting the same bullets at pistol velocities only produces splatters of the lead and copper.

A .223 will easily penetrate 1/4" of steel plate as will a 30-30. A 30.06 will penetrate up to 1/2" or more of steel plate if shot squarely. All with copper jacketed lead bullets.

Airliners fly at best about the speed of a .45 bullet from a pistol. Less than that at sea level.

I think we could see a great amount of disintegration of the plane against the Pentagon, with parts going through weaker points in the walls.
Without knowing how thw walls were reinforced, its hard to determine even subjecvtively, the mass of the walls versus the mass of the plane.

Still, I don't see how there would be round holes in six walls through the three rings of the Pentagon, especially with all the 2' square pillars inside. It doesn't make sense, you can't have total disintegration and total penetration at the same time.

To me, its peculiar that the planes that hit the towers, went right in, yet at the Pentagon, the plane vanished outside. And after watching all the Pilots for Truth DVDs, it looks more like nothing hit the Pentagon, or maybe a misslie combined with wall penetration charges.

I think its wise to look into any evidence that the light poles weren't there that morning. If somehow it proves that they were, then the mystery about eyewitnesses, black box recorders and all that has to be weighed again.

Another thing, is someone seeing a plane flyover from the other side of the Pentagon.

If someone faked the parking gate five frames and faked the black box recorder, then what we have is the damage, and the eyewitnesses, combined with the motive to fake those things. Then we have the light poles.
Its hard to discredit the eyewitnesses.
The scene at the Pentagon front is really non-conclusive.
The holes through the Pentagon are very odd.
The light poles are the key and are quite tricky.
Its between the light poles and the eyewitnesses. They tell two different stories.

[Paul]

Where is it i cannot find the video?

[rob balsamo]

The F-4 shows total vaporization of the airframe and also shows a flash at one point.

It would require more testing to determine what a Boeing would do at its possible speed at sea level when hitting a concrete, brick and otherwise reinforced building.

Here is a relevant study i came across on some forum a long time ago and saved copy/paste. Feel free to check the numbers...

Get ready for school.

The boiling point of aluminum is 4566 °F . This is the point at which it goes from liquid to gas.
Most of the aircraft consists of this. There are about 47 tons of it in this air frame.
The boiling point of iron - the primary component of steel is 5182 °F.
The engines and gear are made up of this.
There is about 13 tons of this in this air frame.

The maximum you can get JP-8 fuel to is 1796 degrees Fahrenheit.
4566 - 1796 =
2770F that need to be created by impact to vaporize the bulk of aluminum.

I know it has been a long time since chemistry class but you need this.

The heat required for vaporization is 294,000J per mol of aluminum.

Since 39% of this heat could be made up by the burning jet fuel. If it competly covered the aircraft and it was at max temperature. Which would require 5 times the aircraft's amount of maximum fuel to be aboard, but this I will overlook.

That only leaves about 177,000J of energy that needs to be made up by force of impact. Per Mol of aluminum.

There are 26.9815386 grams in a mol of aluminum.
So how much energy, in this case heat, does 27 grams make when it hits an object at 550mph? An immovable object for sake of equation.
Standard energy equation.
Energy = 1/2 mass *velocity (sq)
When your parents tell you that speed kills in vehicle accidents THIS is why.
.026 kilograms * 887 kph (550 miles per hour) squared = energy
.026kg * 786854 = 20,458 Joules created by impact at 550 mph
Which is not enough to vaporize any of the aluminum or any of the steel. Titanium is even higher on the scale.

So just like Mythbusters I will find how fast it would need to be going to vaporize on contact with an immovable surface.
177,000 Joules is required on top of jet fuel heat.
177,000 /20,000 = 8.85 times faster than that
So 550mph * 8.85 = 4867.5 mph which is roughly Mach 7 would do it.
This is if the jet fuel was applied evenly over the entire airframe and if the entire airframe came to the surface at the same time. If the nose hits first it slows down the fuselage some and reduces the energy that will be needed for the tail of the aircraft.
This is why all aircraft disasters produce wreckage.

[kawika]

Whoever hoaxed the Pentagon failed to take into account the trajectory. Any object hitting a surface at an angle will give up a lot of its energy. Hit it perpendicular and the energy is more compact, able to do more damage. How the hell can a flying object strike the Pentagon wall at an angle (a pretty severe angle we are told) and continue to strike objects within the Pentagon, while maintaining a striaght line? Hundreds of feet of this straight line trajectory. It is not possible!!

The Sandia test was dead on perpendicular. The fighter jet hit a solid wall, with no openings to weaken the wall surface. The Pentagon was not a solid mass of concrete. It was a flimsy mess of 60 year old masonry that crumbled to dust by the force of gravity, seen easily when the facade collapsed. It poured out like sand, for god's sake!!

Come on Sandia and NIST, give us a Pentagon wall simulation that makes first-year physics sense, will ya?

The Pentagon was accomplished, like the WTC demolition, using numerous techniques. I am convinced it was a trailer in the construction area that provided the specatacular explosion/fireball. The fireball was unafffected by any trailing vortex. It hurled small debris OUTWARDS into even the southbound lanes of Washington Blvd. Would a plane going the opposite direction do that? What is this, another JFK illusion: back and to the left? Give me a break!!

The interior straight-line damages were caused by a series of explosives placed to simulate an airliner passing straight through. The idiot who designed this forgot about the enormous sideways resistance that multiple 24" reinforced concrete columns and second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth interior concrete walls would provide. What about the edge resistance of the second and third level reinforced concrete floors? Surely this is one of the most durable elements in the building.

Outside, how come Mr. Wallace the firefighter miraculously escapes a debris field hurtling towards him from only 150 feet away? How come the two vehicles right next to the "hole" are simply set afire and not blown sideways? Because the trailer that exploded was more up, than out. How come we can't see the left wing and fuselage and tail screaming along the wall towards the heliport garage? Because they couldn't have huge pieces of a plane lying around needing to be hoisted onto trucks for everyone in the world to witness. They had to get in there but quick and tear out that section, cart everything away, just like NYC. The FBI was was there within minutes with hundreds of agents pressed into service to vacuum the area clean. I want to know about the bald-headed guy in the dress shoes and ties carrying off bits of evidence. Who directed them to do this?

[Maha Mantra]

I understand the melting points of metals, aluminum melts in hydrocarbon fires, I've seen it, but that wasn't my point in saying the F-4 vaporized, I should have said atomized. It looks like a high pressure gas blasting away from the concrete wall. Vaporization or atomization, to the layman is really an expression of disbelief that a plane could become an apparent cloud of fine particles. It is an error on my part.
The angle does make a large difference and the Boeing was going substantially slower than the F-4. I do agree that there should be more wreckage on the lawn.
The comment about how the wall collapses is a good one indicating the relative weakness of the Pentagon wall, although it is in a state after the explosion, not its original state.
The whole idea of the 320 degree spiral to come down to ground level is similar to the idea of Rumsfeld being on the lawn instead of doing something important during the attack, or Bush being in the school, it seems like poor story development by the planners, as it makes it seem easier to stage a frontal impact than a vertical through the roof impact, - hence the bizarre attack angle and path.

If you wanted to do it right, you'd simply crash the plane into the Pentagon and there wouldn't be any questions rattling about like there is, except about why/how the Airforce, Norad, FAA etc, totally failed in their proffessions/duties and many were rewarded for it.

I've gone both ways with the Pentagon front. I originally thought it was ridulous that there wasn't wings, tails etc. all over the lawn. After seeing the F-4 turn into a high pressure "dust cloud" hitting the solid wall, I backed off and have left it up in the air. OK, not a vapor, but nothing that looks like a plane, in the case of the F-4. I guess there may be water vapor full of pulverized metal particles, and some concrete "dust" as well.

I don't have any way to judge how different a Boeing hitting the Pentagon would look from the F-4 hitting the wall, so I can't put a lot of importance on the frontal pictures. To me, the more durable parts COULD have gone through the holes, and the more fragile parts could have become a lot like the dust cloud that was an F-4 in the test. I don't totally believe that, but right now I don't see the importance in that aspect just for me. I FEEL, that the mass SHOULD have pushed in the first wall, and there SHOULD be more debris around the area. The windows, even being one and a half inches thick of even Lexan, should have been blown in. To me, they would have bent inwards and came out of their mounting. If glass, they would have broken. Maybe they were clear steel from the future. Just kidding. Of course like I said before, I FEEL that the wings of the planes that hit the Trade Towers SHOULDN'T have taken out the perimeter columns all the way to the tips almost. So what SEEMS to me isn't reliable.

But for me, the eyewitness testimony and the light poles are very distinct differences.

If you took the F-4 Phantom and substituted Jet fuel for the water, it makes me wonder what the dusted aluminum would do in the heated environment. Not that I really care. It wouldn't vaporize, but if melting in such a high pressure situation, it would practically atomize to something resembling a high pressure mist. Just the heat of impact on a softer metal could be quite high. Of course the fine aluminum would cool into a dust, and that would take on a shape and maybe even be in piles.

What kind of got me about the Phantom was that even the tail was becoming a high pressure dust cloud and showed practically no sign of slowing down going into the solid wall.

Its a little like watching demolitions. many things crush into pulverized components just by falling, especially concrete cooling towers apparently, or smoke stacks. So the concrete in the Trade towers could have been pulverized by the fall, not explosives. I'm not saying that the fall can produce squibs 60 floors below the collapse zone as apperently happens, but there are things beyond our usual experience that seem stranger than they are.

I don't believe the Government's story. If true, these people's incompetence practically compares to their wickedness if it is false, meaning they represent practically the same amount of threat whether stupid, or evil. Possibly, they are equally both.

Carry on, truth seekers and truth finders.



Lead bullets powder at 500 MPH against concrete.

[FreshKills]

Where is the video that should have been in the OP?
I do not see any link to a video hitting light poles? Was it removed?

[paranoia]

this would have been the original video, but its uploader removed it:

http://vtap.com/video/flight+77+debunked/C...dzpmbGlnaHQgNzc


perhaps of some use, screencaps taken from that video, found here on this french site:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=clnk&gl=us

(IMG:http://i54.tinypic.com/a264uu.jpg)

-looks like an old test flight video, maybe you can dig around and find another copy...

[paranoia]

btw - judging by the screencaps, it appears that those are power or phone lines connected to wooden poles, so perhaps they are not analogous enough to compare the aluminum (with frangible bases) washington blvd light poles. and for the record, the "flight 77" never flew in to the wash. blvd. poles; making the whole poles vs. plane comparison a moot point in the end.

ps - note that this topic was posted almost a full year before the (anc) witnesses were documented, after which it became 100% clear that the plane flew NORTH of the poles, so it could not have hit them.

[FreshKills]

btw - judging by the screencaps, it appears that those are power or phone lines connected to wooden poles, so perhaps they are not analogous enough to compare the aluminum (with frangible bases) washington blvd light poles. and for the record, the "flight 77" never flew in to the wash. blvd. poles; making the whole poles vs. plane comparison a moot point in the end.

ps - note that this topic was posted almost a full year before the (anc) witnesses were documented, after which it became 100% clear that the plane flew NORTH of the poles, so it could not have hit them.

Understood, thanks for the info Paranoia.

[ronallen]

One thing that has always struck me as a telling feature of this particular event is those light poles. It has been my contention that the damage to the poles is completely inconsistent with the damage that should have happened as a result of a large aircraft striking them at 400+ mph, the final point of rest of the downed poles is also completely inconsistent, the damage done to the wings would have been severe, so sever as to significantly disrupt the lift of the wings and very nearly 100% certain that the lift would be disrupted significantly unequally between the left and right wings. This would cause the plane to start rolling, and as the plane was so close to the ground one of the wings would have struck the ground causing a very dramatic crash somewhat before it even reached the outer wall of the Pentagon. I think it would be not too terribly difficult to do a finite element analysis of the colision between a pole and a wing of the plane as both structures can be representred accurately in simple forms. all that would be needed is engineering data of both pole and wing.
Any thoughts on this?