| 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 (1,124 Views) | |
| Michal | Dec 14 2008, 01:35 PM Post #26 |
|
JFK's answer was good enough for us all ... but I can add something more to it: Regardless the object hitting the pole, regardless the route of the plane (most probable far away from light poles) … every single man attending strength of materials course knows, that the light pole being torn away will never leave that straight brake off line. This is due to homogenounity of the material … therefore there is no point discussing if it was a car or train or a submarine … |
 |
 
|
| pguillory | Dec 14 2008, 03:27 PM Post #27 |
|
If what you said is 100% true, then you have proven that 9/11 was an inside job. Is there anything you can do to alert people of this indisputable evidence? What is your next step? |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 14 2008, 04:16 PM Post #28 |
|
Homogeneity just means the material has the same properties in every location. It doesn't make your argument. Edited by Grit1645, Dec 14 2008, 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
| pguillory | Dec 14 2008, 04:32 PM Post #29 |
|
Oh crap! I thought we finally had proof that the poles could not have been damaged by a plane. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 15 2008, 04:00 AM Post #30 |
|
That is correct, but I do not know why do you think it does not make my argument? I gather you did not attend strength of materials course and therefore you are not aware of the implications... Edited by Michal, Dec 15 2008, 04:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 15 2008, 04:30 AM Post #31 |
|
Well, I am from another country, another continent, located circa 4k miles away from the ground zero. Therefore all I can do is to observe and advice you with my best knowledge. I can tell you what would I do if I was an American citizen. First of all I would be very ashamed that my government kills its own people, because this was something that they were accusing other governments ... like Polish communist government not that long time ago ... well, I come from Poland and I can tell you of the general mood here. Bush administration is not considered to be on the good side of the world. Almost everyone here do not believe in the official theory of 9/11 events anymore. If I was American, I would protest and demand official, independent enquiry, putting the responsible on a trial and to jail if guilty ... Edited by Michal, Dec 15 2008, 04:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 15 2008, 07:16 AM Post #32 |
|
Explain what you think the homogeneity of the material has to do with why it can't fail in a straight line, Michal. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 15 2008, 09:33 AM Post #33 |
|
Every material (steel, concrete, aluminum, etc.) is not homogenous to some degree. This factor decides of the quality of the material but also effects with unequal internal properties. Different internal properties mean different internal strength and resistance. This is why you will never get the straight brake off line. There are other phenomenons making the brake off line/plane uneven (such as internal stresses, shape of the mass, etc.), but this would be like getting into unnecessary details. On my university (during my studies) we were testing different types of materials with different homogenous standard. Obviously the higher standard, the stronger material is and more plain/straight the brake off line/surface is. For example when testing the concrete cube for stress you will get two cones with common pick at the time of failure. You will never get the perfect cones though as the concrete is not homogenous. This is the same with other materials. One more thing, there are materials with almost perfect homogeneity, but this is in development/laboratory stage as you need to get into nano-scale (nano-engineering) down to a single atom. Best to my knowledge this materials were not implemented yet on a production scale, certainly not for the light poles in Washington … |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 15 2008, 02:13 PM Post #34 |
|
Ok, so now you are saying that it is because the materials are inhomogeneous. Maybe the term you want is actually anisotropic, meaning the properties are not the same in every direction. However, aluminum (if that is what this material is) does not have a clear anisotropy (like wood or reinforced concrete), and these breaks are not so smooth as to preclude such effects as are evident on a microscopic scale. In your laboratory testing did you test samples under dynamic loading as well as static and/or quasi-static loadings? |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 15 2008, 03:15 PM Post #35 |
|
first of all, I am Polish and I am sorry for my poor English, having some trouble with professional language. Thanks for correcting me. We did some dynamic tests as well, without detailed investigation though. in my view it does not change the main part of my thought ... it will never brake the way as shown on the picture. There is no deflection on the base at all. Impossible in real world, we all know that … |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 15 2008, 05:19 PM Post #36 |
|
Well, I disagree with your conclusion, but I sympathize with your language struggles. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Dec 15 2008, 05:33 PM Post #37 |
|
Grit, it would be great if you could explain how the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo and downed the light poles. Been waiting on that. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 15 2008, 05:46 PM Post #38 |
|
EDIT: inhomogeneous is the adequate word at this occasion, anisotropic is related with other properties of the material (as you mentioned)
... and I would like to read why you disagree with my opinion. Why there is no sign of fracture on the base of the pole (I mean on its sides)? Why the brake off line is so straight? if the pole gets torn away, than you get the near brake off line sides stretched and pulled inwards ... you can not observe this at this occasion ... every expert will tell you that. Edited by Michal, Dec 15 2008, 05:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Dec 15 2008, 07:19 PM Post #39 |
|
These photographs are not such close-up shots that you can determine exact fracture angles. In an impact load, the material can fail differently than it would under a static loading, as you know if you have done experiments to this effect. There was a large shear force applied to the base, as well as the overturning moment, so without a more exact analysis of the combined forces and taking into account the large shear force and the impact loading, I don't see how you can arrive at such a conclusive statement from a couple of photographs which are not even close-ups. I see no reason whatsoever why the bases could not fail as they did. Why not take the photos to one of your old Strength of Materials teachers, and without telling them what they are, get their opinion on whether such a failure was possible? Aldo, why don't you tell us why we should believe that you have given us ALL the interviews that CIT did with Pentagon witnesses? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Dec 15 2008, 07:39 PM Post #40 |
|
Why can't you just answer the question without trying to misdirect in an accusatory fashion? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Dec 15 2008, 07:50 PM Post #41 |
|
I think it is sad how your "type" keep moving goal posts, rather than focusing on the witnesses who are adamant and definitive of their position of the plane. Stop being a coward, Grit. Contact them if you can't believe their accounts, laid out on video, on location so as to allow for no misinterpretation. I don't know why the hell you are accusing us of holding back witnesses as if it even fucking mattered if we did. The plane approached on the north side. Other people saw it too Grit. Other officers. This is no secret. You can't move a plane. You are the assholes hiding behind your screen names, casting doubt on people who were there, on us, calling it a "theory" because you simply can't accept what happened out of your own childish fears. In fact, you will only believe the flight path if someone(and not one op or alleged witness has the balls to do it) places the plane on the south side. you ever notice how sickening and desperate you and your ilk are? You actually try and create flight paths, positions, and POV's from the same 7 yr old accounts that have been sitting online. But we get crucified for going out there and speaking with witnesses, on camera, on location, getting them to reenact the moment, establishing an exact PoV or position. But AW Smith's 'fro havin ass can take a fucking gif of Ed Paik and arbitrarily tell us "where he was really pointing" ignoring the fact that he drew where the plane flew (heading over the Navy Annex and to the Noc) and the fact that the plane CANNOT cross over the north side of Columbia Pike according to the official story. You people are repulsive. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 16 2008, 12:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 16 2008, 03:42 AM Post #42 |
|
ok, let us take a look once again ... a closer look   as I know and as you probably can feel, the bigger forces and torque, the bigger deflection/damage you get - this is why the bases could not fail as they did ... I was about to suggest you the same "survey" ... but OK, why don't we both go with the photos … me to my university and you to the nearest high rank university and ask for judgment ... fair enough? |
|
|
|
| pguillory | Dec 16 2008, 12:02 PM Post #43 |
|
Michael, would you say that there are thousands of people in the profession or education who would know if what you are saying is true? Wouldn't there be people all over the world that could look at these pictures and come to the conclusion you have? Why has no person anywhere in the world come forward to state, with absolute certainty, that these poles were not damaged by a plane hitting them? Are we to believe that everyone in Iran, Russia, China, Iraq, etc, with knowledge of how metal breaks etc., is helping the US gov keep this a secret? Don't you think people would be lined up to expose the US for what you are alleging? Does it make sense that someone on the internet can look at pictures and know without a doubt that the poles were faked, but professionals fail to see it? We are talking absolute proof here. You are saying that there is no way the poles were damaged according to the official story. You could be a hero, by exposing this obvious evidence. I just don't believe that everyone else would miss it or keep quiet about it, if it is so obvious. |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Dec 16 2008, 12:43 PM Post #44 |
|
The "professionals" you speak of have an interest in keeping that info to themselves. As for everyone else, they don't care about what the poles look like. They don't have an opinion on them. they think the plane hit them and then hit the building. They don't know that the plane DIDN'T actually hit the building. It's kind of a critical bit of information eh? So your whole AWESOME post to belittle Michael shows you basically as a troll. You know all of this. We've been through this before. There should be repercussions for what you do here. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 16 2008, 12:44 PM Post #45 |
|
This is what proves your ignorance on the matter. This photographic evidence of the close up of pole 4's base compared to the similar example on the road would not be in the public domain or known at all if it weren't for CIT. WE are the ones who brought it to light if you will. Details about the light poles were not included in ANY official report. There is no forensic analysis of the plane hitting the light poles etc. The VDOT would not even provide maintenance records acknowledging their location. Funny how you think the rest of the world should have done the analysis that the U.S government failed to do. You are not a skeptic. You are a boot-licker. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Dec 16 2008, 02:05 PM Post #46 |
|
[edit] Edited by JackD, Dec 16 2008, 02:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
| pguillory | Dec 16 2008, 05:46 PM Post #47 |
|
So you have the evidence, but no one is interested in looking at it? You think I'm brainless? If you had a photo of a gunman shooting pres Kennedy from the grassy knoll, would you keep it confined to a messg board or would you make it public? You sit here and claim to have incontrovertible evidence of a govt. deception, yet you call me stupid and a troll for questioning it's relevance or accuracy. |
|
|
|
| pguillory | Dec 16 2008, 05:53 PM Post #48 |
|
If I had a picture of an alien shitting in a park next to his spaceship, I should put it on a messg board and hope someone comes along and discovers it? Why is your evidence confined to this messg board? It is not ignorant to ask that question. You are claiming proof of your life's work and you are stumped as to what to do next? If it is as you say, it won't be ignored, unless everyone except the truthers are in on the plot. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Dec 16 2008, 05:59 PM Post #49 |
|
From now on you may troll in the skeptics forum. |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 16 2008, 06:02 PM Post #50 |
|
You are disrupting and derailing the thread with foolish logic. The crime in question was a world wide psychological black operation of deception. Yes there was a cover-up. The fact the crime hasn't been publicly exposed is not proof there was no crime. You are pushing an argument from incredulity to derail a thread about physical evidence. Sorry but faulty logic does not refute evidence pseudo-skeptic. You do not contribute productively to this forum. IMO you should be limited to the skeptic forum. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
12:35 AM Dec 2
