| Viewing Single Post From: Poles & Bases: 9/11 vs. non-911 | |
|---|---|
| 22205 | Feb 25 2008, 02:42 AM |
Arlingtonian
|
the following set of pics are from another knocked out base, caused by a car colliding with the base (witnessed by a friend who alerted me to take the pics):     
i just wanted to clarify, the bolts DONT breakaway, the base does. here is an example of what remains after a car has hit a base:  if the bolts ripped away, then the 911 bases would have been fully intact at the bottom:   so it is not the bolts that break away, but the bases themselves; and where they should break (tear actually) is at their weakest point: the walls. understand this for it is crucial: the mount points of the base are the strongest metal anywhere on the whole base:   the bottom base mounts are especially strong, for they have to hold the entire pole up. so if any momentum, but especially a horizontal or circular force acts upon the upper pole, the MOUNT BRACKET will not break off (nor will the bolts). the wall of base is the weakest point and will tear from being pulled on. the following is only an estimate, but we know the plane was NOT travelling in an intersecting 90 degree angle to the pole or the roadway. the wings were alleged to have hit the poles high up, but its direction where the base was concerened was roughly something like this:  we see (in earlier pics above) that when a car crashes into such a base, two events occur: EVENT #1- the vertical bolts in the concrete stay in place, while the base itself actually slides off and away from the grounded bolt. this is the section im referring to:  note how it did not tear, but simply slid off. also note that this is on the side OPPOSITE the impact, so the base could slip off the bolt. but on the side where the impact occurs, the bolt is not free to slide off, rather it slides INTO a solid section. this leads to - EVENT #2 - on the impact side, the base itself RIPS in to an UN-uniform or random pattern:  the bottom is anchored, so the weakest (random) point above the bolt(s) break instead. in the case of a car impact, the momentum is coming directly at the base from near the same level (bumper height), so the force is travelling parallel to the ground (almost parallel, it might vary if on a hill, but still it is a direct impact with the base). the car usually pushes the base out of the way so typically one of the four sidewalls of the base stays solid, cuz the other 3 have ripped free and/or been torn (or some combination of the two). but in the case of a plane hitting the top part of a pole, the momentum is different. instead of a horizontal momentum, there is a circular momentum acting on the bolts where some are being pulled upward, while there is a pushing downward (circular) momentum on the opposite side:  if the pole was hit at an angle as has been alleged, then this part (pic below) of the base should have ATTEMPTED to rip free of the mounting bolt, BUT because the walls of the base are designed to be WEAKER and BREAKAWAY, then a chunk of the base should have tore (in a random pattern) somewhere around here:  the metal attaching the base to the ground is SOLID and THICKER than that of the walls, that is afterall what the breakaway design consists of. the walls are intentionally made of a lightweight and porous aluminum, so that they can breakaway:  thus the side being pulled on, should have "given up" a corner chunk of the base. the bottom is thicker and sturdier, the weld area also stronger than the wall of the base, so its that wall that should have ripped away, in an un-uniform and assymetric pattern. the opposite side however, would meet would a circular downward force. on this "pushing down" side, the bolt is not bearing the brunt of the momentum, the sidewall of the base is. since the base is made of a material that does not bend but instead breaks, this side would fold on itself at anywhere along here:  more specifically here:  how it should be with the lloyde pole:  here is the problem i see with the 911 base: how did it shear BOTH at the top, and rip off at the bottom? in order for the top to tear (AND bend), the base would have to be attached simultaneous to when the top made contact with the alleged wing of an airplane. if the base failed completely upon impact, then the top should have bent around the wing and should have been carried a considerable/substantial distance, since there would have been nothing to hold it in place. (ultra crude depiction of it - sorry all i have is ms paint)  regarding the top of the pole: the only way for the plane to have sheared (like a sword) thru the length of pole, and still leave the top end anywhere near the lower part of the pole, IS IF the cut is swift and clean. the pole's base would have to hold fully thru such a motion, and in every way the wing would have to cut/slash out a piece of the pole so that the top part actually goes unphased/untouched by the actual horizontal surface of the wing. what im saying is that you look on the ground, you see both the top and the bottom of the pole, right? but now slow it down and picture the event: a 757's wing passed thru these two lengths of pole. that means the top piece passed ON TOP OF AND OVER the wing of a 757 doing 500+ mph per hour, yet it wasnt carried or thrown far away from the momentum on top of the wing. so the base would have to be in place and secure, while this plane made a clean slice thru the pole, so fast and so precise that the top part of the pole didnt land on or even touch the wing and get carried away:  but when you look at the break in this pole (of any of the pole lengths), the two pieces can connect to each other directly. there should be a 3rd piece of pole, as wide as the thickness of the 757's airfoil/wing, that should have been nailed and torn cleanly from the pole. one thing is for sure, what you would not end up with, is this:  (metal is torn downward, the cut is nowhere near clean. the top of this pole met with more than a horizontal force. it was pulled downward and sideways after an initial horizontal pinch) if the base failed only partially: then the top would have broken/tore into 2 pieces, BUT the base would still be connected at the bottom (at least momentarily, but at a very crucial moment since the total contact between wing and pole lasted less than a second). in this case the long pole section attached to this base would be at least somewhat anchored. therefore the pole should never have travelled anywhere upside down (per lloyde's claim). if i had to guess, i would say that since the base could NOT have gone far (remember its partially anchored), it should be found resting on the guard rail, while the top (pole length) should be tilted in to the roadway. kind of like this:  but at more of an angle towards the foreground (to match the angle of the wing's alleged path - sorry ms paint sucks for adjusting perspective). keep in mind the other 4 poles showed MINIMAL MOVEMENT from their original attached-to-the-base locations. so aside from the bases being suspect, the lloyde pole shows another major inconsistency: it travelled a subtantial distance to meet the cab, if lloyde's story is true. assuming for a moment that such an anomally occurred (in spite of the odds against it), then there is yet another very improbable event: the pole entered the car WITHOUT making contact with any of the pliars surrounding the windshield. in order to this the pole would have to be almost parallel to the car's direction of travel, even tho the pole was diagonal to the cab, and the plane intersected both the cab n the pole diagonally. i propose that if you could dangle a pole parallel to a road, and drive a cab under it at lloyde's alleged speed, then using a quick release mechanism, attempted to drop such a pole into the cab, you would NOT be able to do it without damaging the hood or pilar. mind you - thats cheating, to be accurate, you would have to fling instead of drop the pole into a moving vehicle. but lets suspend disbelief yet again, and assume that this improbabilty also occurred. we now have a pole that flew into a cab that was headed forward at 40+ miles per hour. the pole itself might be travelling at somewhere over 100 miles per hour (plane's alleged to be doing 500+). this pole jousts directly into the cab, avoided pilars, lloyde, and the seats (squeezed its way into an area less than a foot wide). this pole's top end met with the bottom rear of floor of the cab, where the rear passenger's feet would go. somehow this pole has lodged itself here enough to SUSPEND the other end of the pole up in the air over the hood, right? so how without mechanical aid, does and old man and a "friend" remove the pole? where do they find the strength and the leverage to lift the pole out and keep it in the air in some way that manages to keep the heavy end from suddenly dropping on them and the hood, once they have dislodged the "stuck" end? the lloyde pole requires you to suspend reason not once, but several times. each second of its 911 existence allowed it overcome normal probabilites (as displayed by 4 other poles), and find itself in the most unlikely positions, literally. its base cleared a guardrail (less than a foot from it), it flew 40 feet, managed to be more parallel and less intersecting (to the car's pilars), wedged itself deep enough to stay airborne and dangling thru a 40ft/40mph turning skid to a halt, and then after all of this, the pole was physically capable of being moved by an old man and a mysterious "friend". then you have the pole base itself showing some very unusual characteristics, ones that also contradict "normal pole behavior" (as explained earlier above). the "behaviors" displayed by the lloyde pole that defy "logic" as defined by the 4 other poles of that day. based on my own logic, i would say even those 4 other poles defy "reason", but then i would truly be speculating. so instead i suspend my own conjecture and simply look at how compared to the other 911 poles, lloyde's pole is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. for me there is no doubt that the lloyde pole did NOT meet with the fate claimed by the official story. |
 |
|
| Poles & Bases: 9/11 vs. non-911 · Pentagon | |
9:48 AM Dec 3
