Light poll placement question

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!

Light poll placement question; please look at this but no attacks
Topic Started: Feb 11 2008, 11:14 AM (198 Views)
look-up	Feb 11 2008, 11:14 AM Post #1
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	I'm not deciding for sure what I believe regarding the light polls just yet, but part of making that decision, at least for myself, is determining how the polls should have reacted if they were in fact hit by a 757. Give me your thoughts and findings on the following, please. 1. How far from the bases did the poles travel after being hit? 2. How fast was the plane travelling when it allegedly crossed this path? 3. How much does the plane allegedly weigh? Does anyone know how to find a calculation (or familiar with this sort of calculation) that will tell us, based on mass of plane, kenetic energy of plane at this speed, and how far it should have projected the polls based on the mass of the polls? In my imagination at least, which although is not a scientific simulator but IS based on logic, it seems that thes light poles would not have been massive enough to simply by knocked over and/ or sliced. It seems that even if the energy of the wings simply sheared the poles, that those pieces of pole, in most cases, depending on exactly how they were struck, would have been found MUCH farther from their original positions. Think of how far the engines of the planes at the WTC travelled... I believe on of them was ejected through the other side, after impacting building contents etc... and possibly some of the building's structure itself. If one of those engines can be ejected so far, why would these poles simply be knocked over, more or less? Thanks. pictures for reference> Edited by look-up, Feb 11 2008, 11:24 AM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Feb 11 2008, 11:29 AM Post #2
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	I am also wondering how much of an effect the light poles would have had on the plane's pitch as well. If a plane hit a light pole at a lower speed (thus not acheiving as much lift), I think it would be reasonable, knowing some basic physics, to conclude that the light pole, attached to the road/ground with strong bolts, would pull down on the wing as it impacted. Picture this happening many times to the "plane", and then wonder why the lawn was virtually unscathed. One explanation would be that perhaps the plane was travelling fast enough so that the pitch was not altered as much as it would have been if it was travelling slower. That is possible. I think it is just becoming very clear now that a plane did not impact the pentagon. If one did, it would have had to have a path "cleared" for it beforehand, otherwise it might not impact at the exact location that was needed to both test the bomb-reinforced section's success at repelling a missile, and both keep the rest of the mammoth building from being destroyed, since unlike the WTC, there was no real financial reason to destroy the towers, and many of the people within the building (pentagram) were high level military and their lives were not considered as expendable as the civilians in New York.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


SPreston	Feb 11 2008, 05:36 PM Post #3
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	look-up Feb 11 2008, 11:29 AM I am also wondering how much of an effect the light poles would have had on the plane's pitch as well. If a plane hit a light pole at a lower speed (thus not acheiving as much lift), I think it would be reasonable, knowing some basic physics, to conclude that the light pole, attached to the road/ground with strong bolts, would pull down on the wing as it impacted. Picture this happening many times to the "plane", and then wonder why the lawn was virtually unscathed. One explanation would be that perhaps the plane was travelling fast enough so that the pitch was not altered as much as it would have been if it was travelling slower. That is possible. I think it is just becoming very clear now that a plane did not impact the pentagon. If one did, it would have had to have a path "cleared" for it beforehand, otherwise it might not impact at the exact location that was needed to both test the bomb-reinforced section's success at repelling a missile, and both keep the rest of the mammoth building from being destroyed, since unlike the WTC, there was no real financial reason to destroy the towers, and many of the people within the building (pentagram) were high level military and their lives were not considered as expendable as the civilians in New York. Excellent points. I have attempted to visualize a 757 flying the official flight path as you suggest, clipping the light poles at 530 mph, impacting the Pentagon wall to slide under the 2nd story floor slab, somehow missing the polyethelene cable spools directly in its path, sliding through the 1st floor rooms and columns and somehow maintaining its kinetic energy throughout this alleged massive destruction, and finally emerging through a reinforced brick wall and through a 9 ft round hole only to entirely disappear in the corridor beyond. I cannot. The entire scenario is just too ridiculous and dependent on faith and not logic and scientific laws of physics to be perceived. The alleged light pole hurler. In this computer simulation video produced by Bush Regime OCT defenders Integrated Consultants Inc, the #1 light pole is knocked straight ahead by the right wing and allegedly into the taxicab windshield. But the taxicab is not located under the aircraft. The taxicab is located north of the aircraft coming south down the roadway at 40-45 mph (or about 66 feet per second) and allegedly took 40' to stop (less than a second? Unlikely. More likely about 100' or about 2-3 seconds to stop since Lincolns were known for poor braking ability-Stopping Distance Calculation) after the light pole allegedly crashed through the windshield into the back seat. To make their dumb propaganda flick work, they have to rewrite the official story. This happens much too often with these Bush Regime apologists. Integrated Consultants Computer Simulation ignoring the official facts 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 Edited by SPreston, Feb 11 2008, 05:40 PM.



look-up	Feb 12 2008, 03:01 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	thanks... to me it seems like the pentagon got wind of this 9/11 plot, either through legitimate intel, or through dark network channels, and decided to integrate a test of the building's new renevations on the same date. "well, since this is happening in NY, why can't we do the same thing to the Pentagram and then we can t est how missile resistant the thing is!". This could also be backed up by the fact that Hanjour did such a crazy maneuver that made absolutely no sense if maximum damage was his goal. Instead, he makes a ridiculous (allegedly) turn to hit the one spot that is reinforced and it field-tests the ability of that part of the building to missile strikes. Just another string of coincidences, I'm sure. The whole "setting a pentagram on fire" aspect of it is just too real and too sick to be dismissed too. It likely had some ritualistic significance to SOME OF THE PEOPLE involved.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


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


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »