Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon

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!

Pages:
1
2

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon; New book intimately detailing Flight 77
Topic Started: Feb 20 2009, 05:56 AM (935 Views)
SPreston	Mar 11 2009, 07:26 PM Post #26
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Mick Mar 11 2009, 06:29 PM Craig Ranke CIT Mar 11 2009, 12:16 PM They are designed to break. They are cast aluminum. A sudden random force would not cause them to break in a perfectly uniform fashion leaving a sooty residue along the edge. Most importantly....the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near the poles: I get that they are designed to break. In my opinion that break you are talking about while much neater than the others is not perfectly uniform. The discoloration does not have to be soot. The break appears too smooth to have been cut with a torch, but too rough for a metal saw. As for it being evidence that it was not knocked down by an aircraft, it is not convincing to me. But it is interesting. You are deliberately dishonest. The cut goes through the bottom portion of the cast aluminum breakaway base which has strengthening ridges cast into it. The base is stronger there and it is not a shear point. That particular base was most definitely cut off by a plasma torch or saw. This angle shows the cut going right through the strengthening ridges of the base end. The base would never shear there and it is not designed to shear there.



JFK	Mar 11 2009, 08:28 PM Post #27
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Mick Mar 11 2009, 06:29 PM Craig Ranke CIT Mar 11 2009, 12:16 PM They are designed to break. They are cast aluminum. A sudden random force would not cause them to break in a perfectly uniform fashion leaving a sooty residue along the edge. Most importantly....the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near the poles: I get that they are designed to break. In my opinion that break you are talking about while much neater than the others is not perfectly uniform. The discoloration does not have to be soot. The break appears too smooth to have been cut with a torch, but too rough for a metal saw. As for it being evidence that it was not knocked down by an aircraft, it is not convincing to me. But it is interesting. That depends on the torch and the skill of the torch operator. You may want to watch this. http://www.millerwelds.com/resources/video_library/plasma.html# click "What is Plasma Cutting and Gouging"
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Mick	Mar 12 2009, 08:17 PM Post #28
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	SPreston Mar 11 2009, 07:26 PM You are deliberately dishonest. The cut goes through the bottom portion of the cast aluminum breakaway base which has strengthening ridges cast into it. The base is stronger there and it is not a shear point. That particular base was most definitely cut off by a plasma torch or saw. This angle shows the cut going right through the strengthening ridges of the base end. The base would never shear there and it is not designed to shear there. No need to be insulting. I am not claiming to be an expert on metal fracture or shearing, but there is nothing wrong with speculating or questioning something. Isn't is possible that those poles might break there at the bottom if the stress was applied from near the top of the pole and not the base? Has your research included opinions of the people who designed or manufactured the poles? I have seen thick steel cut with plasma and carbon arc torches, The thicker stuff had very sloppy looking cuts. Lots of slag and jagged cuts. I'm not sure how messy a plasma torch is on thinner aluminum or steel. The discoloration near the bottom could be soot or discoloration from a hot torch. It looks like it could also be the same crap that gets onto things when hit with a weedeater that is chopping through grass and weeds.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


JFK	Mar 12 2009, 08:21 PM Post #29
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Mick Mar 12 2009, 08:17 PM SPreston Mar 11 2009, 07:26 PM You are deliberately dishonest. The cut goes through the bottom portion of the cast aluminum breakaway base which has strengthening ridges cast into it. The base is stronger there and it is not a shear point. That particular base was most definitely cut off by a plasma torch or saw. This angle shows the cut going right through the strengthening ridges of the base end. The base would never shear there and it is not designed to shear there. No need to be insulting. I am not claiming to be an expert on metal fracture or shearing, but there is nothing wrong with speculating or questioning something. Isn't is possible that those poles might break there at the bottom if the stress was applied from near the top of the pole and not the base? Has your research included opinions of the people who designed or manufactured the poles? I have seen thick steel cut with plasma and carbon arc torches, The thicker stuff had very sloppy looking cuts. Lots of slag and jagged cuts. I'm not sure how messy a plasma torch is on thinner aluminum or steel. The discoloration near the bottom could be soot or discoloration from a hot torch. It looks like it could also be the same crap that gets onto things when hit with a weedeater that is chopping through grass and weeds. Obviously you don't know about the concrete pads which those bases are bolted to.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 08:11 PM Post #30
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	JFK Mar 12 2009, 08:21 PM Obviously you don't know about the concrete pads which those bases are bolted to. So the bottom of these bases can not separate from the rest because they are bolted to a concrete base?
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


JFK	Mar 13 2009, 08:33 PM Post #31
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Mick Mar 13 2009, 08:11 PM JFK Mar 12 2009, 08:21 PM Obviously you don't know about the concrete pads which those bases are bolted to. So the bottom of these bases can not separate from the rest because they are bolted to a concrete base? No. What I am saying is that there is no reason for a weedeater to get that close to a pole base as the pole base is bolted to a concrete pad, which weeds do not generally grow in.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 10:16 PM Post #32
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Then I will take a look at the bases then. What is with the rolling eyes?
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


JFK	Mar 13 2009, 10:50 PM Post #33
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Mick Mar 13 2009, 10:16 PM Then I will take a look at the bases then. What is with the rolling eyes? We get too many people here who have researched their material about as much as you have and attempt to present a flawed arguement based on that ( lack of ) research.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


bretwalda	Mar 24 2009, 12:49 PM Post #34
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08	Hehe...I always enjoy listening to the fake sincerity and inquisitiveness from the skeptics - as if they're fooling someone. Simple shear load physics here - stuff breaks at its weakest point when a force is applied - not the strongest. The bottom part of the base is the strongest because that is where the greatest loads culminate - not only from wind forces being applied to the other end, but also gravity exerted unevenly over the mass of the pole. These poles cannot stand up by balancing (because they are unbalanced). Hence those loads are transferred to bolts anchored deep in concrete via a reinforced attaching point at the base of the base. CIT has some other pics of the reinforced insides on their site I believe - essentially double wall thickness. The thinner, open expanses of the base are where they are weakest and also, except for on 9-11, where they will always break as they have been designed to. I had one guy arguing with me that the heat stains INSIDE the base were from a weed wacker. Edited by bretwalda, Mar 24 2009, 09:39 PM.
Posts: 202 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2