If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:08 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by SPreston

SP. have you NEVER seen a streetlight that had a curved 'trunk', with the accompanying light fixture at the end??

Has ANYONE????

Back to the OP....HOW IN THE HECK could anyone wish to stage this sort of thing????

I'm not talking about NYC....I'm talking about the Pentagon, a place I live near, and I do NOT for a minute believe this kind of BS could be perpetrated upon ALL of the First Responders, nor on the Families.....

FIRSTLY.....there wew civilians KILLED in the Pentagon, so don't try to cloud this issue with 'military duty'....

SECONDLY....there were numerous civilian responders, all local firefighters from the Arlington, VA, area....and if anyone thinks they would stay silent, after all these years, then you live in FantasyLand....

THIRDLY....I felt, from MY HOUSE, the 'tremor' as the upper floors of the Pentagon collapsed....and it was several minutes AFTER the intial impact of AA 77....in fact, it was at about 10:15-10:20 EDT, to my recollection.

You see after the WTC collapses, our local news (falsely) reported an explosion in Downtown DC....so I went to a window in my stairwell that faced in the directon of DC....THEN I felt the shake. Later, I learned, that the Pentagon had been hit. The timing seemed to be when the structure collapsed, not when the airplane hit....

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:09 PM by SPreston

posted by weedwhacker
A few frangible light poles, even as they damage the wings leading edge

Except the wing tanks were allegedly half filled with jet fuel and each aluminum light pole weighed 337 pounds at impact and there is no sign of fuel leakage anywhere on the road surfaces or lawn.

Also the impact of the wings of a 90 ton aircraft flying at an official speed of 535 mph (Pentagon Building Performance Report) hitting each light pole can be equated to a golf club hitting a golf ball with tremendous impact; yet none of the light poles were driven into the ground with great force nor were any light poles driven in the direction of inertia a great distance. They all essentially fell over near their bases.

Light pole #1 was allegedly impacted by the far right angled back leading edge of the starboard wing and hurled sideways past the starboard engine, past the fuselage, and past the port engine and up the road into the windshield of a taxi coming south towards the aircraft at 45 mph. A strange violation of normal physics laws.

[edit on 12/18/08 by SPreston]

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:18 PM by SPreston

posted by weedwhacker
SP. have you NEVER seen a streetlight that had a curved 'trunk', with the accompanying light fixture at the end??

The five light poles laying on the ground were standard straight main pole light poles for the Pentagon area with 6 foot truss arms and breakaway bases as shown in this diagram from the VDOT yard.

Standard dimensions for VDOT light poles in Pentagon area

YouTube Link

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:31 PM by SPreston

posted by weedwhacker
Then, it seems SPreston, that the light poles in and surrounding the Pentagon Parking Lot were, as most Light Poles, designed to 'shear' on any impact. It appears you have verified this fact.

Yes but the breakaway base would not shear at the end where it was strongest nor would it shear in a perfectly straight line. It would shear in the center most likely in a jagged line such as this non 9-11 broken off base.

This #4 base seems to be cut off, most likely with a plasma torch while it was laying across a flat bed truck or in a shop.

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:34 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by SPreston

SPreston....NO, the two Main Tanks (wing tanks) would have been fully fueled....for a trans-con flight from Washington to Los Angeles....there would also have been fuel in the center tank, an amount that you should investigate, since you seem to know so much!!

What is more, the Center Fuel pumps are, on the B757 and B767 designed to have a higher pressure output, so the fuel will be burned from the Center Tank first. (for aviation nerds, we turn on ALL pumps, but Center Pumps' output will keep check-valves open for them, until tank exhaustion, on the respective side, allows Wing tank pumps priority, to provide continuous fuel pressure to the Engine Fuel Control Unit.....(FCU)

A trans-continental flight will need more than what just the wing tanks provide....so the center tank will be fueled, and will be burned off first, it is a parameter to be met because of weight and balance requirements, and airframe restrictions.

American Airlines 77 was fueled properly....and, after only being in flight for about one hour, STILL had full wing tanks, and a large quantity of fuel in the center tank (the 'center tank' is situated roughly where the wings attach....that's why cargo is loaded fore and aft....fuel is in the middle...)

Now, having educated the audience a bit, let me address the OP....

I dare anyone to explain how a wing, even if it contains fuel, whilst traveling at over 500 MPH, then impacts a frangible series of poles....and within less than a second impacts a concrete structure....is going to 'ignite' when there is no ignition source until impact, with the aformentioned concrete structure WHEN the heat source (the engines) is introduced as the entire airframe (along with both engines) is destroyed by the impact sequence.

Oh, I anticipate the obvious next question....'Why no smell of jet fuel on the ground'???

Um....I refer THAT questioner to Newton, and allow him/her to figure it out for him/herself.

reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 11:55 PM by pteridine

reply to post by SPreston

Why would you expect leakage from the fuel tanks? Hitting the breakaway poles broke them away as they were designed to do. Is the leading edge so weak that breakaway poles would penetrate to and rupture the fuel cells? I wouldn’t expect any of the poles to be driven onto the ground the aircraft was moving parallel to te ground. I would expect them to be sheared and blown around by the jet exhaust and ground effects or just bent over. Maybe the exhaust and ground effects, along with the angular impact are what seems to be “a strange violation of normal physics laws.” After all, this isn’t golf where an elastic ball is struck at 100 mph by a flat surface designed to move the ball. It is more like a sickle cutting grass. Non-elastic collisions and other forces that are at play make it impossible to intuitively predict what would happen to the lightpoles. They would be like straws in the wind.
As to the possibility of a fuel leak, 535 MPH is 784 feet per second, so there wouldn’t have been time for much to leak out before impact if the fuel tanks had been broached. If it had leaked, would it have been noticed in all the burning fuel, anyway?

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:41 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by pteridine

Whilst I appreciate your help, I don't need it....

The wing tanks of a B-757 and the B-767 are not 'fuel cells' --- as in, in some airplanes fuel is in large rubber bladders...

Nope! The wings themselves are the actual tanks. See, it only goes out a few meters, the compartments in the wings allow a bit of 'slosh'....it all depends on gravity to supply the pumps, which are strategically placed by the designer and manufacturer into to lowest points, so as to pump out the best quantity....

Funny thing about Jet Fuel....did you know???? It is lighter than water, which means water will flow down first....hate to burst your bubble, but I happen to know the reason jets still work.....

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 06:47 AM by SPreston

posted by weedwhacker
Funny thing about Jet Fuel....did you know???? It is lighter than water, which means water will flow down first....hate to burst your bubble, but I happen to know the reason jets still work.....

Burst my bubble? I'm sure your little chest is just bursting with pride, what with your ability to feel distant tremors, which might simply be gas pockets trapped in your toilet trap.

Perhaps you did not notice; but this is a staged light pole #4 thread and not the jet fuel bladder thread. It is your 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY bubble which has been burst.

YouTube Link

Since #4 light pole was allegedly one of the 337 pound light poles which the 9-11 script writers claimed was struck by the left wing, it is still on-topic. Three light poles are claimed to have been struck by that 535 mph port wing; #2 #4 and #5. If a bird were to strike that wing at 535 mph, there would be a hole through the aluminum. Not too many birds weigh 337 pounds, nor are they as stout as 1/8 inch wall thickness extruded aluminum.

The alleged dive down the hill from an official altitude higher than the roof of the Naval Annex at the far right. Of course the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo renders this fantasy scenario IMPOSSIBLE.

At 535 mph, those wings would have taken a tremendous battering from the light poles. It is likely one or both would have broken off. Since the alleged Flight 77 was supposed to be in a steep dive down the hill, it would have to pullup from the steep dive with high G forces after the light poles in order to fly the official level flight inches above the lawn (Pentagon Building Performance Report). That too should have ripped the wings off the aircraft.

This aircraft example is plotted directly to the alleged impact point. In order to actually strike the light poles, the aircraft must dive much more steeply and pull up with greater G forces. The 5 light poles are located to the far right between the overhead highway signs. The official aircraft must also pull up to level flight inches above the lawn in order to impact the Pentagon 1st floor area and not damage the building foundation.

The high G pullup combined with the light pole battering rams should have crippled the aircraft causing it to crash into the lawn short of the Pentagon wall. Of course we all know there was no such aircraft flying through the light poles, because the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, far from the light poles. Correct?

IF the sturdy 337 pound light poles had severed one or both wing tanks, the fuel would have been splattered in all directions, eventually landing on the lawn. I doubt that splattered fuel contains adequate mass to maintain its 535 mph inertia all the way to the wall. IF there had been an aircraft there and IF there was fuel landing on the Pentagon lawn, then there would have been big patches of brown grass because jet fuel tends to burn grass in the sunlight. But there were no patches of brown grass out on the lawn were there? Does that help you with your extreme confusion?

Question: Since you are such an outstanding aircraft expert; how did that alleged damaged starboard turbofan engine produce so much smoke in less than one second? Doesn't that seem impossible? The #3 light pole allegedly damages the engine causing a fuel or oil leak, which then starts to smoke providing a heavy trail of smoke, which is visible from the El Cheapo parking lot security video cameras several hundred yards away; all in less than one second. Nah that is not possible is it? More BS from the 9-11 perps? The very same video cameras by the way which could not make out the aircraft which is too small.

[edit on 12/19/08 by SPreston]

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 08:58 AM by guinnessford

excellent point. and why are all of these light poles, being that theyre aluminum, not bent to more of an extent? i know! theyre made of the same super strength aluminum the fuselage was! you know, the beer can thick part that went thru all the concrete walls? because if they were made of the same steel ant titanium that both the jet engines were, we all know they would have just vaporized, and they wouldnt be laying on the ground virtually untouched.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 10:22 AM by Anonymous ATS

I believe the polls were cut to make room for emergency workers and vehicles, actually. Why not just write to the Pentagon and ask?

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 11:42 AM by pteridine

reply to post by weedwhacker

If the tanks only extend out a few meters from the fuselage, then it is probable that few, if any of the impacts were on them. If one was ruptured, forward, then airflow at 535 mph could have prevented any noticible leakage during the second it took to travel to the building. It was my impression that the leading edge of a wing is structurally strong and that the wing would be able to survive breakaway light poles for the distance required.
The engine destruction could have been ingestion of metal light-post parts or over stress as part of last minute maneuvering.
All the evidence points to an aircraft and not any sort of a missile strike followed by a Byzantine conspiracy that would require far too many conspirators and would accomplish nothing. As I have posted previously, a fuel laden commercial aircraft is a far more formidable weapon than any non-nuke cruise missile.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 01:24 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by pteridine

I agree....when we are discussing an unprecedented airliner 'accident' event, we find that earlier 'models' of previous events simply don't match up.

Other than the 'alleged' suicide dive into the ocean on Egypt Air 990, there had not, prior to 11 September, 2001, been a confirmed example of a suicidal crash of a large commercial jet.

So, all of this speculation seems irrelevant....because comparing the debris and the aftermath devastation to previous large commercial airplane ACCIDENTS is missing the main point: MOST aviation accidents are NOY intentional. They are a result of a chain of errors.

SO, we cannot use the data...well, actually we CAN include data from the 9/11 incident at the Pentagon...but ONLY if it is put into perspective.

The Light Pole? Well, as far as I know, and as I've already stated, most light poles are designed to be 'frangible'.

(to protect the occupants of the car that might hit them...)

An airplane travelling far faster than any car, only a split-second away from impacting a building....and you expect FUEL to gush out???

Suddenly, Newton's Laws are ignored, and Jet-A immediately pours straight down, at the impact point of the Light Pole?

NO, the leading edge of a modern commercial jet is WAY forward of the part of the wing that contains any fuel.

Next time you fly, look and see....you will observe the devices (the 'slats') that will extend for take-off, and landing. Behind them is a spar, one of the main structural components of a wing. Behind that, possibly a sub-spar (depends on the design) and behind THAT, will be the compartments IN the wing that hold fuel.

Hope this helps.....

reply posted on 6-5-2011 @ 12:10 AM by CUBD1

Looks just like the lightpoles got knocked down by a plane.

But how do I or anyone know for sure? We don't. It's never happened before in any documentable way.

Nothing you present here proves anything to the contrary. Looks like the poles just got snapped off and flopped around, as I'd expect them to. I wouldn't expect them to be shot into the ground like a bullet. They'd just snap like twigs.

All of the staging that would be required for a no-plane missile/bomb and fly-over seems completely overdone when you just ... fly a 757 into the damn building.

Now was it Hanjor the awful pilot? That's another question. Did Barbard Olsen make the phone calls? Despite the claims of her one "0" second call, it appears there WERE air phones on the plane, and it's not inconceivable she could ask someone for a credit card. The FBI still says four total calls were made to Ted Olsen.

And as plane going that fast into the Pentagon, I can see it disintegrating. It conflicts with our idea of plane crashes, because it's rare something goes that fast directly into another object; often pilots are able to slow the plane down as much as possible.

The lack of much wreckage and the deep penetration into the building is odd... but, it's not enough.

The security camera also shows a tail and seemingly the body of a plane. And the eye-witnesses.

I give it 85% the 757 hit, and 15% it was a missile/small jet accompanied by a fly-over.

reply posted on 6-5-2011 @ 12:46 AM by loveguy

reply to post by SPreston

Hi.
I see a peculiar anomaly in this pic, besides the incorrect date...
See the shadows cast by all the objects in the pic? I'll have to find the vid and try to capture the shadow of the approaching "plane." It is being hidden by what is that that looks like a book depository?

As I see it now, the "plane" has no distinguishing shadow. I bet a shadow from a missile would be consumed entirely by that book depository box, eh?

Do any of you OS supporters want to provide some clarity?

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 07:01 AM by Cassius666

The poles look kinda bent too. Maybe they were sawed for easier transport.

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 07:52 AM by jeanne75018

reply to post by BornPatriot

Yeah, if a plane had hit the light poles, it would have cut its wings immediately like butter and it would have crashed immediately.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 05:53 PM by Cassius666

Doubelwhammy

edit on 7-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: whoops

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 05:53 PM by Cassius666

Doublewhammy

edit on 7-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: whoops

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 05:57 PM by Cassius666

While we are talking about the pentagon. Can somebody look into this picture?

An incredible lucky photografer or photoshop?

EDIT: It kinda has a fake feeling to me, given the distance isnt the explosion a tad big?

edit on 7-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 06:05 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jeanne75018

A video of a 1950's-era Connie in a controlled, planned crash where they WANTED the wings to burst open, in order to document the distribution of the fuel, what pattern it makes....has NOTHING to do with a modern Boeing 757 travelling at over 480 knots, in flight, hitting roadway light standards that are designed with frangible bases!!!

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^