Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Light Pole Analysis
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > Pentagon
Pages: 1, 2
rob balsamo
This thread is NOT to discuss the taxi cab pole. That I will post later and keep specific to the topic of that thread. This thread is to produce accurate data on the poles finally (my website is in error on this topic and will be updated later) and to speculate on if a plane could have hit them or if not, how they could have been faked.

The official story is 100% dependent on the path of mechanical damage starting with pole number one on through the fence, generator, construction trailers, tree, and the Pentagon wall. If it can be debunked then we have evidence that is valuable. It MUST be logically explained by US if any alternative theory such as no-plane or a flyover scenario is to be true. We CANNOT just say it's impossible without providing an alternative and have it be rational.

Merc, Lyte and myself actually physically examined the exact type and size of pole in the VDOT yard. We measured, lifted and photographed the components of the poles. We can now conclusively say what the details on the poles were.

As a bit of history, the poles were hauled up to the VDOT yard and stored there by VDOT personnel. They have two huge recycle bins that get picked up every 60 days or so. They were not treated as forensic evidence or examined by the officials. They were sitting in the yard and then unceremoniously thrown in the bin and hauled away to be recycled. The historical society called 3 or 4 months after 9/11 and wanted to preserve them for history sake. It was too late. This information is from in person communication with the supervisor in charge of this. The VDOT was very helpful and informative and opened up a lot of doors for us.



These are the replacement components of the poles. The original base varies slightly. The transformer style base is breakaway since the pole bolts do not go through it to the ground. The casing breaks away. There is another style of breakaway base where the bolts are designed to sheer. The standards created in 1985 require the bases to break with a 1979 VW Rabbit hitting it at 20 MPH, 23 inches off the ground. The higher up you hit the pole the less force it takes.



The poles are rated by the lamp head height. These were at 40 feet. Minus the 3 foot rise of the truss arm and the 18 inch base, the pole itself is approximately 35.5 feet.

I will post more general pole analysis later. Please keep the taxi pole thread separate!

Russell
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...pic=12480&st=0&
behind
"...also good to note.. those poles do not represent a 255,000lb plane hitting them. Im sorry.. but i just dont buy the fact they fell over a few feet from the base if they were hit with a 757 going 460 knots." (johndoex at Loose change threat)

Totally agree.

So... what I dont understand is how willing people are to belive so many strange thing ... just if it happened 9/11.

A B757 at 460 knots clipped a light poles... the lower part fell just a few feet from the base... and the upper part fell nearly on to the lower part... I am sorry but it just dont add up to me smile.gif
IVXX
NOTE: I posted this over on LC but that's becoming a waste of time so I will post it here.

OK here's my thing on the lightpoles.

If you went into a court of law with your evidence and said Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and Flight 77 did not hit the 5 light poles one question you will get is "What did hit the light poles?? How were they knocked down?" Simply saying they were planted is not going to be an acceptable explanation. Next you will be asked "How were they planted, by whom and when??" "How were they planted without anyone seeing it??"

I have trouble believing Flight 77 hit the Pentagon as well, however saying the light poles were planted just cause you don't believe Flight 77 hit them isn't an explanation. If you believe the poles were planted you also need to provide an explanation on how they were planted.

Again please do not confuse my post with "I believe Flight 77" hit the Pentagon cause I don't. I just don't have an answer for the lightpoles either.
rob balsamo
Who says the light poles were planted? Its just one of the many possibilities.

People also have to stop confusing this investigation as it pertains to a court of law. We the people want answers. The govt serves We the People.

Never forget that.
IVXX
Actually on the LC forum Lyte's thread is titled........

" The Downed Light Poles Were Staged., Therefore a 757 didn't hit the pentagon."

So how, when and by who were they staged??

I realize that the gov't serves we the people however that doesn't mean we don't need proof to support claims. If we want to see people held accountable for this it will more than likely be in a court of law so we best get our evidence to be presented that way.
IVXX
I also want to add I as I'm sure many other apperciate the research you, Merc, Lyte and others are doing. I'm just throwing questions out there. There will need to be a concrete explanation for the lightpoles just like everything else with the Pentagon. "Just because" isn't a good explanation if you know what I mean.
rob balsamo
We dont have to explain anything... the govt does.
rob balsamo
If enough people convince their congressmen to hold a hearing.. it will be held. This is different than a court of law. Once all the evidence and testimony is "heard", then the perps are charged and a criminal case begins.

Our goal is to get a new independent investigation with Senate Hearings. We dont need to explain anything. .the govt does.
behind
This is like to say: Where exactly was the bombs in the WTC, who planted them, how and at what time etc... if someone can not answear that... then the towers fell because of damage and fire.
rob balsamo
Google 9/11 Grand Jury's. They are being held all across the country.
IVXX
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 22 2006, 09:33 PM)
If enough people convince their congressmen to hold a hearing.. it will be held. This is different than a court of law. Once all the evidence and testimony is "heard", then the perps are charged and a criminal case begins.

Our goal is to get a new independent investigation with Senate Hearings. We dont need to explain anything. .the govt does.

OK this makes perfect sense. However I still say good to have all the bases covered. Like I said JDX I'm not rocking the boat just trying to keep us on our toes and on point.
behind
Yes, it is interesting to try to find out... how they exactly did it... but it just can be so many ways (my opinion)

But if I were going to prove to somebody that a huge airplane nocked it down... then I would have take more detailed photos of the clipped poles.

For example there is no photo really of the pole 2



It would be very interesting to see, how exactly this pole broke and clipped.
knightc6
Is it the distance the poles were found from their base that seems to be the anommaly? Where should they be if they were breakaway lightpoles and were hit?
I posted a crappy cgi recreation on the LC boards a few months ago, I'll see if i can find it.
knightc6
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 22 2006, 11:13 PM)
Yes, it is interesting to try to find out... how they exactly did it... but it just can be so many ways (my opinion)

But if I were going to prove to somebody that a huge airplane nocked it down... then I would have take more detailed photos of the clipped poles.

For example there is no photo really of the pole 2



It would be very interesting to see, how exactly this pole broke and clipped.

Im not sure how these help if any, but here are some closer pics of pole 2



behind
Yes. What we know is, that pole 2 fell sideways and backward (at least top of it)



And maybe is interesting to keep in mind that about the same part of the wing would have hit pole 2 and pole 5 (according to the official story)

And look at the pole 5



My opinion is that it is totally impossible this it is a result og B757 wing.

The lower part (of the pole) have fell onto the top part.

And the lower part is very unclean cut.

Then if we maybe say that a "plane" clipped it and nocked down.... then it is obvious that it would not have fell like that... so the photo is staged obviously. (and note the "cross form" of the two pole part in the photo)
JerryB9105
For a comparison accident involving an airplane and a lamp post --

Go here and click on the three photographs available; one is a light pole struck by an airplane, a Gulfstream-II jet -- notice how the post is bent like a soda staw // the airplane in question kills 3; was to pick up ex-president Bush:

http://www.cnn.tv/2004/US/11/22/texas.crash/

Monday, November 22, 2004 Posted: 2:16 PM EST (1916 GMT)

(CNN) -- A plane that had been scheduled to take former President George H.W. Bush to Ecuador crashed Monday morning in Houston, Texas, killing all three crew members
behind
There is maybe one thing... long time ago Mr. Pickering said this on another forum:
-----------------------------------------
I will try to catch up on a couple of questions here.

Yes the photos came from the VDOT.

The pole with the orange truck is pole number 4.

The pole cases are cast aluminum. They break in an irregular fashion. They are designed to break if hit at 20 mph, 23 inches off the ground by a 1979 VW Rabbit. These rules were established in 1985.

http://www.transportation1.org/aashtonew/

I will post as much detail on each pole as possible when time allows.

Russell
---------------------------------------
And he gave this link about that the polewas designed to break 23 inches etcwww.transportation1.org/aashtonew
... but I can not find anything on this link... and maybe what I am thinking is... if the pole was designed to break 23 inches off the ground... well at least pole 4 breake at the bottom of the base.
Truthseekers
QUOTE (behind @ Oct 30 2006, 05:28 PM)
There is maybe one thing... long time ago Mr. Pickering said this on another forum:
-----------------------------------------
I will try to catch up on a couple of questions here.

Yes the photos came from the VDOT.

The pole with the orange truck is pole number 4.

The pole cases are cast aluminum. They break in an irregular fashion. They are designed to break if hit at 20 mph, 23 inches off the ground by a 1979 VW Rabbit. These rules were established in 1985.

http://www.transportation1.org/aashtonew/

I will post as much detail on each pole as possible when time allows.

Russell
---------------------------------------
And he gave this link about that the polewas designed to break 23 inches etcwww.transportation1.org/aashtonew
... but I can not find anything on this link... and maybe what I am thinking is... if the pole was designed to break 23 inches off the ground... well at least pole 4 breake at the bottom of the base.

That is what I found funny. If a plane travelling at 500mph and weighing at a hefty amount would knock them only a few yards?. That don't make sense for a tiny VW travelling at 20 or so mph would knock them over. Based on the damage caused as is shown, and the claims a plane hit them, then that VW would have vaporised on impact.

What RP says makes no sense.
behind
yes I agree smile.gif

But I cant find anything on this link (maybe it is my bad english skill)

... and of cource the clipped and knocked down poles simply dont looked as a huge plane have hit them travelling 500 m.p.h. wink.gif
UnderTow
RP mixed it up a little I think.
The Base is designed to break upon a small vechile medium speed impact.
The Pole is designed to stand up, be weather resistant, etc etc.

If the Poles were desinged to break there would be no need for the special Base. imo
behind
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)

UnderTow
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.
paranoia
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
paranoia
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
UnderTow
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
behind
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.
O&A_Virus_XM202
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
paranoia
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...
paranoia
(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).

Havey
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).
behind
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.
Beached
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.
Havey
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?
Havey
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
rob balsamo
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.)
Beached
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.
Havey
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.
rob balsamo
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.
Havey
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
rob balsamo
Its in the debate forum. Please review the board guidelines regarding official story propaganda.
Havey
I supose you refere to: "Skeptics, who follow the official story are asked to keep their discussions in the Debate section, we do not accept the official conspiracy theory as evidence in other areas of the forum. Those looking for access to post in Debate forum, please review the Debate forum stickys for access."

Me posting the CNN animatin was not ment as official-story-propaganda, it is part of evidence to derive to correct conclution. If you want me to post critical questions to what is being said in the forum's at debate I can do so.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Havey @ Nov 17 2006, 02:54 PM)
Me posting the CNN animatin was not ment as official-story-propaganda, it is part of evidence to derive to correct conclution. If you want me to post critical questions to what is being said in the forum's at debate I can do so.

Evidence is an animation produced by the NTSB from the Flight Data Recorder.

You posted an animation made by some guy on the internet based on the official fairy tale. It is propaganda...
Havey
I agree with your point made in Debate, and I agree that CNN uses the animation in a manner that it is pure propaganda.
But I dont agree with you - if you say that the animation cant serve as evidence.
It cleard up a point ore two to me.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Havey @ Nov 17 2006, 03:37 PM)
I agree with your point made in Debate, and I agree that CNN uses the animation in a manner that it is pure propaganda.
But I dont agree with you - if you say that the animation cant serve as evidence.
It cleard up a point ore two to me.

The FDR animation can be used in a court of law...

The animation created by some guy on the net who believes in the official story and made an animation to tout the official story... cannot.

(well.. it can be used... it will be used to show how the official fairy tale conflicts with the Flight Data Recorder...)
THE_DECIDER
well, we know what that the NTSB doesnt think hit the lightpoles..
paranoia
so im driving home from pentgone city and right here (where the red line is):



i see a fallen light pole! there is guardrailing around it, so a car did not, and could NOT have hit it, nor did a plane knock it down. most likely it fell due to the massive wind gusts we had here most of last week. anyway, the area is highly patrolled by arl.cops, pentgon cops, and va state trooperz, so i couldnt get out and examine and take better pics of the pole. instead i had to settle for two shots, quickly taken with my car at a dead stop. here is what the base of a fallen pole looks like:

















NOTE: the irregularity of the breaking pattern, and the lack of any smokey residue in the above pics. also, even though its hard to see, the base of the pole is sitting pretty much on top of where it was once attached. i dont think a VDOT crew has moved this pole (or they would have most likely removed it from the scene), so its a safe bet the pole is laying exactly where it fell, which isnt far from the base at all (similar to the 911 poles, except wind, NOT A PLANE, caused this pole to fall).



now compare with these of the 911 pole:







NOTE: the jagged/rough surface all along the breaking point, and note the burned appearance of the metal. also note the clean break pattern, instead of a randomly shaped rip of the metal.



continued on next post...
paranoia
a closer comparison:






note both poles exhibit the dirt and corrosion on their outside layer. BUT only the 911 pole has the darker, sooty, burned appearance.i will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions, but i still contend the poles were torched and cut.


***

if possible i am hoping to contact VDOT to see if i would be allowed to witness and document the pole's clean up and the consequent replacement procedure. hopefully that might reveal just how heavy these poles are and how cumbersome they are to remove from any given location once they have fallen. i got my fingers crossed, but i am not holding my breath on that one, so we'll have to see...


pilotfly.gif
Truthseekers
I can guarantee you that the base of the poles in the 911 pics are weld cuts. That is the only way on earth those appear on any type of metal cut with a weld gun.
So, the situation regarding those poles would be that if they were hit by anything lightweight, damage would be as is seen. Even a hang glider would have knocked those poles down. A 757 would have taken them into the pentagon.

Global Hawk it is then.
shoon
I have a question.
In Japan I heard that light poles are made to snap out easily because a pole does not want to kill driver or passengers in case a car run into it. So can I assume a light pole can snap out easily in USA, too?

I used to think those light poles are fake but now I started to think it makes more sence if a missile launched form Fort Myer.
Because
1. Line up very well to Fort Myer
2. Angle or Height is too low if smothing come from sky.
3. If something hit top of the light poles, it would snap out very easily.
JackD
the theory that the poles were cut at base with welding torch would mean either they were ALREADY down on morning of 9/11, and no one noticed.

OR: that they were weakened, but standing, due to torch, and the shockwave of blast was sufficient to knock down only the sabotaged poles.

I do not subscribe to either of these theories -- just mental doodles.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.