| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Poles & Bases: 9/11 vs. non-911; some comparisons | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 25 2008, 02:42 AM (1,106 Views) | |
| 22205 | Feb 25 2008, 02:42 AM Post #1 |
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. |
 |
 
|
| SPreston | Feb 25 2008, 08:11 AM Post #2 |
Patriotic American
|
Excellent critique of the light pole scenario. I concur that this event never happened in the manner the skit was written and the light pole pieces and taxi staged.  Plasma cut bases staged at Pentagon   Why oh why wasn't the hood scratched by a 32 ft long 220 lb light pole allegedly hurled into the 45 mph taxi windshield? 
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 25 2008, 11:04 AM Post #3 |
|
Very cool thread, 22205. I'm going to have to take some time with this. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 25 2008, 11:34 AM Post #4 |
|
the main point that you make that blows the official story out of the water, (as if it wasn't already blown out of the water) is that the poles should have been crushed on one side of the base. the only way that wouldn't happen, is if they were pre-cut and just resting on the bases waiting for Sept. 11th. Good post, and we all appreciate the level of detail!! |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 25 2008, 04:19 PM Post #5 |
|
Why would it damage the hood if that's not what it hit? Also, though the OP analysis is interesting, it's not very accurate to compare a pole broken by a car to one hit by a 530mph airplane. When you change that many variables, you're absolutely going to get different results. |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Feb 26 2008, 01:51 PM Post #6 |
|
"Why would it damage the hood if that's not what it hit?" Precisely. "Also, though the OP analysis is interesting, it's not very accurate to compare a pole broken by a car to one hit by a 530mph airplane. When you change that many variables, you're absolutely going to get different results." It's not the same thing, but physics are always in play right? Things like GRAVITY, you may have heard of it. So a pole that gets hit by a car or by a plane is still going to travel in the same direction as dictated by the laws of momentum. A force acts upon an item and it is carried in that direction. So the force can be a car or a plane. It's true the results are random.........but that is the point as well. The pole couldn't have done that small localized damage to a vehicle traveling in the direction it was, and NOT cause some other kind of damage like crushing the hood or putting a severe dent in it. Or if it was fricking swinging wildly as it should have, when it flew through the air, it should have cause other damage to the frame around the cab of the car. Imagine how fast it must have been going!! So when you see differences in poles that have been hit by cars or knocked down some other way than a blow torch, you'll see that the damage to the poles is not consistent with something actually impacting it, you should be able to come to the conclusion that the pole likely didn't behave the way it is shown in pictures. It doesn't add up. Also, the plane flew on the North side so........it DIDN'T hit any poles. That's the most important part. 22205, that was a pretty good post, well done! |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 26 2008, 02:00 PM Post #7 |
|
The law of momentum is not the only physical law that will affect the behavior of that pole. Two different poles hit by 2 different objects at 2 different speeds cannot be expected to react identically.
Source, please.
Your data shows that the damage is not consistent with a CAR hitting it, which I agree with. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 26 2008, 02:34 PM Post #8 |
|
no sevon, the data shows that it is not consistent with a car hitting it AND shows that it is not consistent with anything resembling a plane hitting it either. Because of the forces detailed in the OP, there is no way that the bases of the poles would not have been crushed on one side. You can't twist a lie until it becomes truth. |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 26 2008, 02:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Agreed.
? Of the data presented, were there any photos presented of light poles hit by "anything resembling a plane?" |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 26 2008, 02:57 PM Post #10 |
|
no but the data shows that the base would not perform in the manner that the available photos claim it did. for instance, that the bolts would not fail, but the walls of the base would fail. The only way for the base to be sheered off in the manner that is implied by the photos, is if was lifted off the ground exactly vertically, which absolutely no one claims. If the force was applied at an angle, which is what IS CLAIMED, then it would have compressed the leading side of the base. Since it did not, it was not hit at an angle, and since the plane would have done this if one was present, then a plane, present in the alleged flight path, did not cause the damage of the light pole. In otherwords, 9/11 is a huge cover-up, as if there wasn't already 1,000 other examples of this that you undoubtedly fully comprehend, yet attempt to ignore or disregard. |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 26 2008, 03:11 PM Post #11 |
|
Sure...if it was hit by a car. But that's not the kind of damage we're talking about here. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 26 2008, 03:31 PM Post #12 |
|
sevon, if the bolts are stronger than the walls of the base, then the base will tear every time, regardless of what hits it. it's like taking a pice of paper and nailing it to a wall. no matter what hits the paper, it will rip off from its supports long before any breakage of the nails. |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 26 2008, 03:33 PM Post #13 |
|
your evidence only shows what happens when a car hits it. Edited by sevon, Feb 26 2008, 04:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 26 2008, 04:43 PM Post #14 |
|
first of all, it is not MY evidence, and secondly, it does not only show what happens why a car hits it. It shows that the walls of the base, if acted upon by a large enough force, would fail long before that force could be extended to the bolts. it shows that the bolts, for lack of a better term, WILL NOT FAIL, PERIOD. It shows that the base of the pole is DESIGNED TO FAIL, to absorb more of the force of the impact, and to do less damage to the object impacting it. The only difference between the car and the airplane would be the area of the pole impacted. As illustrated, if hit near the top portion of the pole, the base would feel this impact before the bolts, and because they are weaker, would fail before the bolts failed, thus leaving damage not consistent with the available photos of the poles. You're wasting your time trying to skew the information in your favor. |
|
|
|
| sevon | Feb 26 2008, 05:11 PM Post #15 |
|
If the object were to impact the base, which is the case with car impacts, but would not be the case with aerial impacts.
Those must be some pretty strong bolts. I don't know of any bolts which can avoid failure under any possible circumstance.
And the speed of the impact, both important considerations.
Do you have an example of the damage which would be caused by a hit near the top portion of the pole? (or is this based solely on your opinion?) |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Dec 11 2008, 03:26 AM Post #16 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
a close comparison of a regular base vs. a specific one of the 911 bases reveals that the 9/11 base, appears to have been cut from inside at the 4 connections which normally keep the base flushly mounted using bolts mounted in a concrete foundation. this is one of the 4 female connections from the base that im referring to:  as you can see, all 4 mounting brackets are missing from the 9/11 base:      imo - the easiest (possibly the only) way to remove those female mounting brackets from a still standing pole, would be to open the cover, and from the inside (using an appropriate cutter, perhaps a plasma) cut away around each bolt, removing the 4 female mounting brackets:  by reaching inside and doing the cutting inside the base instead of outside, you shield any sparks or light from the view. this method could contribute to going undetected especially if such a task was being done at night, where any light emitted might attract unwanted attention. whatever the reason, its clear that the 4 mounting brackets all became COMPLETELY undone from base, and this is not consistent with the type of damage that should (imo) have occured. please scroll up to the start of this threadlook at the stuff i've detailed there, for an explanation as to what i think the damage should look like based on the kind of forces that were allegedly acting upon them. *** i also wanted to update this thread with some more "anomallies", like the ends of this pole not matching up:      also - for referrence - the above pole and its base:    a chunk of the base is missing, the 2 (foundation & base) dont match up:  maybe the missing piece broke off and is somewhere in the grass, OR maybe the pole/base lying there are not the originals that were once attached to that concrete foundation. clearly the 2 dont match up (one's jagged the other flat), so there is at least a piece of the lower base missing... *** unfortunately however, the technical aspect of this pole debate/discussion, is a MOOT point, because the plane flew NORTH OF THE POLES, and even the alleged-to-be-77's FDR puts the plane TOO HIGH and off course of the poles. so we can pick apart the pole irregularities, of which there are many (imo), or we can allow our understanding of the poles to evolve to the next level, meaning we stop debating in circles with pseudoids who dont wanna get it. before the actual path of the plane became clear, repeated (and necesssary) speculations and debates arose about these poles, because of the poles themselves. how they looked, where they fell, lloyde's impossible tale, these things stood out on their own as ridiculously unfitting to the incredible tale of 77's final moments. 500+ miles an hour into these poles and a steady level flight from a disappearing plane never made sense to begin with, and thats why collectively (all such threads added together from all forums), the light pole threads have been the most viewed of all pentagon topics to date. thus - on their own - the light poles fail to validate the claims attributed to them (plane impacting the upper masts), and if it pleases you guys, go ahead and keep going in circles about the physical damage to the poles. but the fact is that the pentagon light poles were staged, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT. the lack of doubt however, has more to do at this point (for me) with verified, validated, corroborated eyewitness recollections of the plane and its actual path, and less to do with why these 9/11 poles & bases look so uniformly and incorrectly broken. you see, something amazing and incredibly clarifying happened, at least for me: in person i listened to and watched over half a dozen people describe the actual approach path of the plane on 9/11 - without being led or coached, and all of them clearly and UNMISTAKABLY recalled seeing, hearing, and feeling the plane over their heads and above the edge of the ANC, NORTH OF THE CITGO, and FAR AWAY FROM ANY OF THE FALLEN LIGHT POLES. fortunately, thanx to video technology, what led to the epiphany i had, could be shared with everyone. yet strangely, some viewers can watch and listen to these same people i was privy to, and still dance around the truth. fortunately, the majority of objective minds can look at and listen to these same interviews and walk away realizing, understanding, AND accepting the implications. those of you who dont or chose not to (get it), well what can i tell ya? nothing. i've been trying for months and it aint happenin, and im actually cool with that. so please dont be confused, my aim is not to convince you psuedo-skeptical guests, but to enlighten fellow objective minds looking to have a better understanding of the evidence. all are welcome to read and even comment, but all pseudo-skeptical ring-around-the-rosies will be ignored (by at least me - but hopefully by others as well). |
|
|
|
| JFK | Dec 11 2008, 08:42 AM Post #17 |
|
This is indeed an extremely interesting picture. That cut does not look like a plasma or a saw cut to me. It looks more like a cut made by one of these :  Of course that does present a few problems as it would be a bit time consuming to make the cuts, would be rather noisy, and would require a decent air compressor to run the tool. Also it looks to me like that cut could not have been made with the pole standing judging by the marks left behind as the tool would have had to have been embedded in the concrete base to accomplish that. It is too bad we don't have decent pictures looking down at that concrete base as I suspect that the cuts may have been made prior to erecting the pole to work around an obstruction in the concrete. < shrugs > |
|
|
|
| m0n3yman | Dec 11 2008, 10:06 AM Post #18 |
|
Wow, this is a great thread. |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 12 2008, 10:56 AM Post #19 |
|
There would also be a shear force applied to the base by the horizontal force at the top. Why have you neglected that? You would have to include the shear force and the tension/compression from the bending moment in computing the principal planes of stress - and possibly even a torsion stress since the alleged impact was from one of the corners. In the cases which you describe as "random", which have failures at an angle, the failure planes are along or near the principal stresses, not totally randomly. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Dec 12 2008, 01:40 PM Post #20 |
|
Patriotic American
|
To me it looks like one huge slice was taken off the breakaway base, most likely while the pole was laying horizontally on a flatbed or something, while the base was sticking out over the edge. It still looks like it was cut with a plasma torch. 
|
|
|
|
| pguillory | Dec 12 2008, 02:30 PM Post #21 |
|
Having alot of fun speculating on the pole damage? It's a fun game, but let's add another level to it. Prove that the poles could not have been damaged by the plane hitting them. Looking at a picture and giving an opinion, based on looking at a picture, will send you back to the beginner's level. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Dec 12 2008, 04:20 PM Post #22 |
|
That has already been accomplished as the alleged plane was no where near those poles. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Dec 12 2008, 04:58 PM Post #23 |
|
So, correct me if I am wrong, but at this point, the debate is at this point 1. CONFIRMED -- 5 Light poles were observed and photographed, in various states of broken, including one lying next to Lloyd's cab. The photos are reasonably believed to have been shot on 9/11/01 during that day, not another day, and the photos are believed not to have been post-modified. 2. It was first thought that a hijacked AA77 was deliberately flown through the poles, and into the Pentagon, the most reasonable first conclusion. 3. Further analysis of the evidence, and an extensive witness canvass, fails to bring support for the plane-into-light pole hypotheses. Other witnesses inferred that poles were struck, none testify to seeing that event, and there are no video or camera images of the events. 4. The plane observed flying near the Pentagon, according to more than 12 independent witnesses, did not fly a path near, or through, the 5 light poles which were found in a 'down' position. In fact, witnesses place the flight path they observed well to the north of the flight path which would be inferred by "reverse engineering" from which poles were downed, and/or drawing a line back from A-E drive 'punchout' to 'entrance' hole in facade. 5. A mystery emerges -- 5 breakaway light poles are clearly in a down position, broken into pieces. But, damn, our prime pole-banging suspect, AA77, or for that matter, a 'large commercial jet' cannot be placed at the precise flight path necessary to knock the poles down. WTF???!?!?!?!? 6. Something stinks. at this point, throw out all our lightpole assumptions and start over.------ (if you are still convinced that AA77 flew south of the CITGO, I suggest you re-read many of the other threads here, first) here's my starting questions about poles, which 22205's lovely photo-filled post has already begun to answer: A. Do these 5 light poles each match the 5 bases? (little evidence -- see curved pole #1, which does NOT match the other straight poles, see mismatched bases, see poorly aligned bend/rip sites) -- is it possible that some, or all, of the poles laying broken did not, in fact, originate from the bases that they are next to>? B. What can we learn by observing the Pentagon pole pictures, the base, the cuts, the positioning, the dent marks on the grass, the eyewitnesses accounts? What is the evidence that each of these 5 poles can be matched with the 5 bases? C. What can we learn by observing known properties of similar light poles, the bases, bolts, weight, strength, etc? I agree with Sevon's comment that a car impact and a plane impact might affect the breakaway base differently. That's fine. At Pentagon, there is no evidence to suggest that a plane clipped the poles, other than by making INFERENCES which assume the truth of the thing you are trying to establish |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Dec 12 2008, 05:30 PM Post #24 |
|
I use a plasma cutter at my job every day and the edges on the base in this picture look like they were cut with a plasma cutter.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 12 2008, 07:38 PM Post #25 |
|
But this isn't one of the Pentagon light poles, is it? I thought this was one of 22205's personal pics of a different event? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
5:26 AM Nov 8
