It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lloyd The Taxicab Driver: The Mystery of the Undamaged Hood.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
As I said, I''ll look for some links later when I have time. Are you suggesting there are no experts who believe the official accounts?


No, but I am suggesting that if "they" are the basis of your argument that you can at least name... ohh... say... ONE?



www.popularmechanics.com...

This Pop Mechanic article cites many experts of various kinds. Thus, I have indeed provided a source for more than ONE expert.

Somehow, I have a feeeling you will come back and say my source doesn't count for some reason. Am I right?

I think this whole issue of trying to provide links to experts is a distraction. This accomplishes nothing. I could just as easily ask you to provide a resume for your experts and then ask whether they are seeking book deals or are getting some economic benefit from their activities in any way.

In essence, you claim it is "highly unlikely" the Pentagon jet could have knocked down any poles without sheering off wings or other major components. You claim that despite not providing a complete statistical base of all similar plane accidents thru history and instead you cherry pick ONE prior accident to make your analysis. You also claim that despite not providing a possible explanation why they would even want to manually knock down the poles before the attack, and how they could do that without witnesses--not to mention how those poles suffered so much damage. Also, why didn't Lloyd see any nearby suspicious activity or persons at the time his car was damaged by a piece of a pole?

This theory that the poles were taken down manually has no evidence or logical reason for them to have been taken down, because anyone pilot intending to hit the Pentagon would simply assume he needed to fly over the poles and all other nearby obstacles.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Can you agree the wing may not have hit the poles?


no. i've seen someone's excellent analysis of this (they were trying to prove the jet did or could have hit the lightpoles), and the poles are not in a line. they are spread out, some need to be hit by either wing, depending on which side of the flightpath they are on.
IF a plane knocked them down, it did so with it's wing.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
i linked to this fab page over on the infamous planei hit the pentagon thread....


Jack Elrod in his Mark Trail comic strip (2/27/2000) says "If an aircraft strikes a big bird at a speed of 500 MPH, the impact will be about 25 tons." He is pretty well on target, considering the above model for a headon collision with a medium sized bird.


duck physics

maybe those lightpole tried to duck, and broke themselves off at the base.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Can you agree the wing may not have hit the poles?


no. i've seen someone's excellent analysis of this (they were trying to prove the jet did or could have hit the lightpoles), and the poles are not in a line. they are spread out, some need to be hit by either wing, depending on which side of the flightpath they are on.
IF a plane knocked them down, it did so with it's wing.



OK, well that would be a sensible conclusion in that case (if what you say is true).

Of course, that in no way rules out one of these other scenarios:

- a 757 at high speed whose wings (and/or engines) clip the very tops of light poles (as opposed to the bottoms or midsections of the poles) might remain largely intact even while the poles are ripped from their mounts and damaged.

- a 757 at high speed might indeed have turbulent phenomena (as earlier proposed by someone else) that could cause poles to come loose and get damaged as they strike the ground.

- Though there is no way to determine whether this is true, the 757 that hit the Pentagon was in fact out of control after striking one or more light poles, and may have even had severe structural damage before hitting the Pentagon. Nevertheless, because of inertia, the outcome to the Pentagon made little difference whether the plane was fully in control or was starting to disintegrate in some fashion as a result of the pole strikes.

- other?


If you find that pole location map, please let me know. I would be interested in seeing it (and changing my opinions if hard evidence such as that were provided).



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Sometimes there's just the weirdness factor....

For example, I've got a glass bowl light fixture in my hallway. Now, this is 12' high from the floor to the mount mind you...

Somehow, this wasn't in tight or something, the glass bowl fell 12' and landed in such a way, that only a teeny tiny part of the opening where the washer goes was even slightly damaged. (about 1cm long of glass, and just mm thick). How in the hell did that happen? It just doesn't make any sense. Had I dropped it from even HALF that height, it would have shattered into a million pieces (hardwood floor). Yet, here it was, almost completely undamaged, after falling 12' onto a hardwood floor.

Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction, and this lightpole seems to be the same kind of thing.....



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Can you agree the wing may not have hit the poles?


no. i've seen someone's excellent analysis of this (they were trying to prove the jet did or could have hit the lightpoles), and the poles are not in a line. they are spread out, some need to be hit by either wing, depending on which side of the flightpath they are on.
IF a plane knocked them down, it did so with it's wing.



OK, well that would be a sensible conclusion in that case (if what you say is true).

Of course, that in no way rules out one of these other scenarios:

- a 757 at high speed whose wings (and/or engines) clip the very tops of light poles (as opposed to the bottoms or midsections of the poles) might remain largely intact even while the poles are ripped from their mounts and damaged.

- a 757 at high speed might indeed have turbulent phenomena (as earlier proposed by someone else) that could cause poles to come loose and get damaged as they strike the ground.

- Though there is no way to determine whether this is true, the 757 that hit the Pentagon was in fact out of control after striking one or more light poles, and may have even had severe structural damage before hitting the Pentagon. Nevertheless, because of inertia, the outcome to the Pentagon made little difference whether the plane was fully in control or was starting to disintegrate in some fashion as a result of the pole strikes.

- other?


If you find that pole location map, please let me know. I would be interested in seeing it (and changing my opinions if hard evidence such as that were provided).


Here is an interesting link regarding the light poles. I have no clue whether the opinions/facts here are verified, but they seem as good as most other 911 sites:

www.pentagonresearch.com...

...
"The poles were breakaway style on a 18 inch transformer style base. This means that at 23 inches off the ground the pole would be broken by a Volkswagen Rabbit traveling 20 mph.
....
At the speed of 345 mph which was recorded by the recovered AA77 flight data recorder, the leading edge of the wing could slice through the approximately 5 inch diameter pole (at that height) with .188 of an inch thick aluminum walls like butter. This would cause the top half of the pole to pop up over the wing and essentially fall straight back down, which is effectively what we see with all the poles in the photos.
.....
The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams."
....



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
Great job Tripper.
The people who are disagreeing in this thread are either close minded or they are paid disinfo spreaders. How can you not see something is fishy with 9/11 and continue to support the governments story?


That's just great. You don't understand how a plane could knock over a light pole without shearing off a wing, therefore anyone who says otherwise is just plain wrong period.

Here's a video of a remote controlled passenger plane shearing the tops from several hundred feet of trees before it eventually goes down.

This one goes through some fence posts...

This private plane's hit the ground and didn't even break, just buckled.

Seriously, before latching on to a pet theory, try to disprove it. Especially when it's one that doesn't matter, like bent light poles. If the plane whose debris was found all over the Pentagon didn't break the poles, give a viable alternate theory.


This almost makes me as mad as the paid actor/wives from yesterdays national broadcast, with fake tears and all, not to mention the wrong pronunciation of their own supposed husbands names.


Ignorance again rears its ugly head...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia


That's just great. You don't understand how a plane could knock over a light pole without shearing off a wing, therefore anyone who says otherwise is just plain wrong period.

Here's a video of a remote controlled passenger plane shearing the tops from several hundred feet of trees before it eventually goes down.


i see the plane hit the tree tops, and then disappear into the trees. i'm sure it was breaking up in the forest. this is not evidence that wings do not shear.


Originally posted by Astygia
This one goes through some fence posts...

Ignorance again rears its ugly head...



that one show the wing breaking off at the tip just before the explosion.

anyone here ever dived into water?

from 1 metre?
from ten metres?

when you jump off a ten metre diving board, the water feels like earth. ouch.
this is INERTIA in (lack of) action.

the poles have inertia, just like the freefloating duck in my above duck physics link. a breakaway base does not change this.

if, as some indicate, the pole which hit the taxi flew off without much resistance, then it would be travelling at near the speed of the airplane once it was freed from the base.

250 lbs. of lightpole hitting a car at 400+ miles an hour would cleave the car in two, nevermind dent the hood and rip the car seat leather.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Astygia


if, as some indicate, the pole which hit the taxi flew off without much resistance, then it would be travelling at near the speed of the airplane once it was freed from the base.

250 lbs. of lightpole hitting a car at 400+ miles an hour would cleave the car in two, nevermind dent the hood and rip the car seat leather.


Parts of the broken pole (i.e. the tip) may indeed may have moved at high velocity as the overall pole/arm fell to the ground nearby. It doesn't mean the whole pole was compelled by the striking wing edge to move at 400+ MPH.

The photos show the broken arms and poles close to one another, so clearly whole pieces weren't travelling at 400+ MPH. If the entire pole/arm was going that fast after impact, they would have been found at great distances from the initial impact location (and maybe indeed some of them did get ejected to great distances, though obviously the one's near the taxi fell almost straight down).

So, the piece that struck the windshield might have been going very slow, or it might have been the extreme tip of a length of pole or arm that was windmilling at high speed, though the entire piece was basically falling straight down to the ground.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
What are you, Mr. Lonely heart? I didn't say anything about lightpoles in my post, I was talking about the thread topic "Undamaged Hood". Why dont you disprove that, or why there isnt a single picture of any parts from a wing had it clipped a lightpole on its way into the Pentagon. How did the plane manuever so perfectly after having clipped a lightpole, and not once touching the ground?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
What are you, Mr. Lonely heart? I didn't say anything about lightpoles in my post....How did the plane manuever so perfectly after having clipped a lightpole, and not onc touching the ground?


billybob-

If a 250lb lightpole moving at 400 mph will slice clean through a car, then it should be no surprise that several thousand pounds of aircraft wing moving at 400+mph will fling poles outta the way.

I guess I should have expected the videos not to be good enough.



[edit on 12-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Parts of the broken pole (i.e. the tip) may indeed may have moved at high velocity as the overall pole/arm fell to the ground nearby. It doesn't mean the whole pole was compelled by the striking wing edge to move at 400+ MPH.


actually, it does. you can subtract some velocity for 'crumple zones', but anything moving away slower than the speed of the plane will have subtracted that much velocity from that side of the plane. if you hit something and it doesn't move, your hand hurts, but if it breaks and moves away at the speed of your hand, you feel little impact.
you can't have it both ways. either the plane's velocity and trajectory is affected by the lightpole, or the lightpole moves off it's base at the speed of the plane(seeing as the lightpole was not bent hardly at all).


The photos show the broken arms and poles close to one another, so clearly whole pieces weren't travelling at 400+ MPH. If the entire pole/arm was going that fast after impact, they would have been found at great distances from the initial impact location (and maybe indeed some of them did get ejected to great distances, though obviously the one's near the taxi fell almost straight down).


circular reasoning. you attribute effects to an 'accepted' cause, when it is the cause that is in question. i say the pole just fell over because it was cut at the base with explosives ot thermite, and if a speeding plane HAD hit it, THEN it would be travelling 400+ mph.
i say, IF the pole was hit by the plane, THEN the pole SHOULD have had IMMENSE FORCE, to the order of some 100s of tons. i also say, that this force would also necasarrily act on the plane IF a plane had struck any ONE of the lightpoles.



So, the piece that struck the windshield might have been going very slow, or it might have been the extreme tip of a length of pole or arm that was windmilling at high speed, though the entire piece was basically falling straight down to the ground.


sounds like you just made that up. the cab driver says it was the big piece that hit his cab. the cab driver says a guy stopped his van, came over to lhis cab, and helped him lift the pole off the hood. and then they turned and watched the plane hit the pentagon.
pretty speedy for an old guy a a good samaritan (in a plain white van, no less).



[edit on 12-9-2006 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by ResinLA
What are you, Mr. Lonely heart? I didn't say anything about lightpoles in my post....How did the plane manuever so perfectly after having clipped a lightpole, and not onc touching the ground?


billybob-

If a 250lb lightpole moving at 400 mph will slice clean through a car, then it should be no surprise that several thousand pounds of aircraft wing moving at 400+mph will fling poles outta the way.

I guess I should have expected the videos not to be good enough.



[edit on 12-9-2006 by Astygia]



Anybody home? Are you going to disprove or ignore questions all together? Where are all the bodies and luggage from this supposed plane? Why won't the Gov. release videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Why did the plane do # for damage to the Pentagon, only after collapsing was there anything noticeable?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Lloyd is the only human account directly linked to the light poles.


Not necessarily. Hundreds of unrelated witnesses on the ground near the area reported the plane clipping the lightposts.

Incorrect. There aren't even "hundreds" of witnesses of the plane in general! Only a handful mention the poles at all and I have yet to find one that claims they actually witnessed them being hit. Most simply saw the cab and the downed poles and simply deduced they were hit.


The light poles are the only damage that would pretty much HAVE to be the result of a 757 if they weren't staged.


No they wouldnt. There was the generator damage and the airplane wreckage at the pentagon.

Anything on the ground could have been easily staged with bombs etc. Only something with the wing span of a 757 could have knocked down the poles if they weren't staged in advance.


The David Icke book is merely a curiosity.


I suppose it could be seen as that.


The physical impossibility of his account is compelling evidence that the downed light poles were staged.


Not by a long shot. From one of your own links:


At the speed of 345 mph which was recorded by the recovered AA77 flight data recorder, the leading edge of the wing could slice through the approximately 5 inch diameter pole (at that height) with .188 of an inch thick aluminum walls like butter. This would cause the top half of the pole to pop up over the wing and essentially fall straight back down, which is effectively what we see with all the poles in the photos. The bottom half of the pole would have been driven forward with little resistance. If a VW Rabbit can break one at 20 mph 23 inches off the ground then it takes significantly less force with the leverage effect of being hit higher up. This may be why we have minimal wing debris on the ground.

This limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft, "FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot." (Source)

One of the most commonly reported features in the eyewitness reports was the aircraft impacting light poles. In conjunction with the reported striking of the poles many eyewitnesses mentioned a change in the sound of the engines. Some described it as the engines being "revved up" or the aircraft going to "full-throttle".

The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams.

The first pole impact occurred at approximately 1000 feet prior to the Pentagon wall. 345 mph is 506 per second. That means it would have been roughly 2 seconds with the aircraft being driven by momentum between the first pole and the wall. There would not have been the force or the time for the pole damage to cause a deviation in the flight-path.

The following video exemplifies evidence for an aircraft hitting the Pentagon including the poles. I spoke with the creator of this and clarified that they built their model and let what happened happen. The right engine ingesting the lamp head on pole number 3 was not programmed into their scenario, it was predicted by the model. This would explain the change in the engine sound reported by witnesses and the anomalous vapor trail at ground level seen in the DoD videos.


www.pentagonresearch.com...

Sorry, but the probability of them staging a bunch of falling lightpoles in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnesses is even more unlikely.

Yes that is from Russell Pickering's site who was on the trip with us. He wrote that before the trip. He was incorrect about the amount of witnesses to the poles. There are very few and they could have been plants or sensationalizing off what they deduced happened. I find it funny how you refuse to acknowledge the part of Lloyd's account that I am claiming is impossible. His undamaged hood. Even Russell agrees this would have been impossible.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
There are numerous examples of planes returning from missions with radio masts stuck into the wings... There was even a photo sequence of a WW carrier plane which on takeoff hit the water, bounced and continued flying.
There was a midair collision of Soviet SU-27 with Norwegian P-C leaving a large bit of proppeler in the Sukhoi's wing. Both planes made it back. There is even an example of that Israeli F-15 making it back without one wing after midair collision.
There are, OTOH, examples of a little bit of debris destroying an entire planes...
So... How can ONE example be imperative to every other crash of an aircraft with a light pole? Esp. when it doesn't tell us how did that pole look like. If it was like some of the steel heavy beasts over here, no wonder it managed to damage the wing.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResinLA
What are you, Mr. Lonely heart? I didn't say anything about lightpoles in my post, I was talking about the thread topic "Undamaged Hood". Why dont you disprove that, or why there isnt a single picture of any parts from a wing had it clipped a lightpole on its way into the Pentagon. How did the plane manuever so perfectly after having clipped a lightpole, and not once touching the ground?


Thank you.

For some reason the point of the thread keeps getting ignored.

Lloyd's account is physically impossible therefore this "evidence" for a 757 is extremely suspect.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If you take a sword and swipe it as fast as you can and cut a candle in two pieces, the top of the candle might very well fall straight down to the ground with little velocity.

Whether the same analogy can be applied to a jetliner and a light pole, I do not know. But I've heard nothing here to suggest that anyone here is an expert on these things.

So let me suggest that I do agree this matter can only be answered by an aircraft design expert or engineer or similar. Anyone here familiar with the engineering of aircraft wings and light poles?

Until such a person is provided (or an article written by such a person who addresses this issue is provided), I think it is presumptuous to suggest that explosive must have therefore been used (because of your personal opinion based on the physics of metal shearing). First, it requires witnesses. Second, reasonable people would assume you could simply fly over the poles. Third, overly complicating your attack plan might compromise it.

i say, IF the pole was hit by the plane, THEN the pole SHOULD have had IMMENSE FORCE, to the order of some 100s of tons.

I would imagine the pole at the very least would snap at the point of impact. The question is, would the wing?


sounds like you just made that up.

I was hypothosizing, hence the word "might". Everyone here is hypothisizing, including you.

the cab driver says it was the big piece that hit his cab. the cab driver says a guy stopped his van, came over to lhis cab, and helped him lift the pole off the hood. and then they turned and watched the plane hit the pentagon.
pretty speedy for an old guy a a good samaritan (in a plain white van, no less).


We all know how inaccurate witnesses often are. It seems you are trying to leverage his inaccuracies and confusions to support a hypothesis of explosives. That's because the only way that series of events could have happened is if someone used explosives on the poles. After all, had the jet instead knocked down the poles, Lloyd could not have possibly had time to get out of the car and remove the poles and then watch the jet hit the Pentagon.

But using explosives on the poles implies the person planting the explosives knew with a utter certainty of within just a few feet the path the attack pilot was intending to take. But that is absurd!

Your hypothesis that the poles were taken down with explosives in order to clear a path, would imply they had a highly skilled pilot in the cockpit so that the jet would fly straight thru the narrow corridor of exploded light poles. But then, if the pilot were that skilled, he would simply fly OVER THE POLES and no explosives would be needed.

Moreover, I sincerely doubt that a pilot in a 400+MPH 757 could discern the exact path cleared by the explosives. Things would be happening so fast and from from a wierd angle from within the cockpit that it would have been very difficult if not impossible to maneuver thee jet in a corridor that was exactly 120 feet (such that if the plane erred on either side by just a dozen feet or so, other light poles would have been knocked down).



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
There is no sign of explosives on any of the poles.


I suggest the original poles were taken down the night before and the pre-damaged poles were in nearby vehicles and planted just before or just after impact.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well even though I don't buy it and I don't really get the focus on the cab driver who could be credible or not (honestly, I think it doesn't matter with all of the other witnesses), but I do have to applaud the fact that you went on your trip in the first place.

Going to find the guy and interview him in the real world is definately above and beyond in the grand scheme of conspiratorial thinking.

I will always have doubts about issues and motives in all things, of course.


Still...heck of a job.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I find a few things just downright wierd about this whole account..

1) The person that helped pull the pole from his car had time to stop his car, rush to loyds car pull out the pole and then see the pentagon hit? Right.. some slooooww flying plane then eh?

2) A plane, going 500 mph flies so low it hits a light post on a highway, yet his 2 ton car is unmoved in anyway. The vacume from a plane going that fast that low should have rolled his car over, I have problems driving my car in a thunderstorm with strong winds let alone a 500 mph gust.


3) had a pole been struck by a plane going 500mph it would have been disinigrated (along with whateer part of the plane that struck the pole) if it did manage to survive, it would not be intact like the pictures suggest. Also, had the pole been hit and shot towards his car, I think the pole would have shot right through his car, it would have severly injured him and would have taken more then a little hole out of his windshield.

3) Whether or not you listen to Ike, which I do not believe a word he says, it is rather ironic that he was reading that book when the planes hit on 9/11. I think that to be more coincidence, an amusing one at that. His account for the day I think is far to shady to be usefull, I mean imagine you where right there when the pentagon got hit, you would account for every second, this guy seems to remember very little, doesnt even know what hit his own car, and could not account for the plane debris.

Good find, I find the photo analysis posts to be very interesting.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join