Can I convince PF's resident 'Truthers' that AA77 hit the Pentagon? - Take Two

So what?

supported and floppy are irrelevant!

Think of a little birdie that becomes a bullet at that speed.

Faster means more instantaneous force exerted against the wing by the pole not less force as you seem to think.

yes they are THIN SHEET METAL nonetheless.

If you were correct then THIS would be impossible



However a little birdie that weighs only a pound went through the front and out the top.

the idea a pole would not slice the wing off at that speed is more backwards fizikz.

his blog pretends a huge pole like this will do no damage and the plane hit 5 of them





POLES ARE 400 POUNDS WITH 60,000 POUNDS YIELD STRENGTH!


Everything except the side of a mountain yields to lateral stress with enough force.

 

I am not an engineer or physicist with the detailed knowledge needed to analyze the performance of these assemblies in a high speed collision. Are you? Further, do you have detailed knowledge of just what hit what, and when?

Assuming the negative, neither of us are in a position to make authoritative statements regarding this question. But I note poles can be and are knocked down by cars travelling a small fraction of 500 mph, so the thing seems far from impossible to me. I note that at very high speeds, seemingly odd effects can take place, like the famous straw embedded in a tree, etc. But all that said, continuing this argument will just be ignorance striving with ignorance, and strikes me therefore as pointless.

You have an agenda, a reason to argue a particular view. I do not.

Tell yourself you win. You haven't convinced me or anyone, but hopefully you had a little bit of fun, or whatever it is you get from this activity.

 

Pyroclastic flows are flows of super-heated and vaporized rock. It would have taken all the paint off of every vehicle it touched. Turbidity flows are made up of tiny particles suspended in a fluid. Like concrete dust in air.

 

Not to anybody with an IQ over 90 who has seen a pyroclastic flow and a turbidity flow.

 

He never said pyroclastic. He said pyroplastic. Which is completely different, of course. Since pyroplastic flows are 'plastic,' they can look like anything. This makes them useful to the CIA for deceptive purposes.

 

So stop with the silly-ass gifs. You can see that that prop job sliced off one of the wooden poles.

I asked you three or four pages back to show me the evidence on the lawn that there was an explosion inside the Pentagon. You claimed there was rebar on the ground. Show me.

 

I dont have an agenda, this is really simple (*)(*)(*)(*).
So you dont know anything about physics or engineering and after viewing the evidence you are not convinced? Im shocked. Good thing this site has plenty of experts to tell you what to think huh.

so you presume I am as ignorant as you in engineering and physics? Interesting.

So how does one convince anyone who has no engineering or physics background of anything that requires an engineering and physics background to understand?

Seems to me like you expect engineers and physicists to perform miracles?

 

eureka! thats it.
the self proclaimed experts have no engineering or physics background.
No wonder they dont "get it" and fail to acknowledge material evidence.
Its (*)(*)(*)(*)ing meaningless to them.

 

Of course you have an agenda. Your agenda is to be provocative on the interweb, and then insult anyone who dares disagree with you.

 

I demonstrated their scenario is a fantasy, that is not insulting anyone.

they made counter claims and will never support them.

that and you do not need to know every detail to understand that it is impossible.

Hell you could balance the damn pole with no base what so ever and it would still rip the wing off LMAO

 

Not a true statement there. And you still need to show me some debris to support your lame-ass theory that there was an explosive charge inside the Pentagon.

 

we know there wasnt a 757

 

And I should believe you why? Are you in fact an expert on aircraft structures and high speed collision effects? An engineer or physicist indeed? Can you tell us what degrees you hold and where you obtained them?

 

Everybody who saw anything describes something similar to a 757 and the ere were parts consistent with a 757 inside the building and there was a 757 missing.

A 757 is thus more likely than a truck bomb, right?

At any rate, there is not one thing to indicate an explosive munition or demolition charges.

(Are you going to show me the rebar?)

 

Well, I have a unique talent that many others do not have. Polar opposite to one of my professornators I have the ability to reduce extremely complex university level problems down to the point they are simple enough that young children are able to conceptually grasp and functionally understand them. Obviously it takes a few years of cipherin for them to catch up later.

That said I will reduce this problem the very same way for the people here who need someone to help them work through the extreme complexities of real physics.

First like I said earlier you do not need to have a base for that pole at all.

you can use bubble gum, just enough to balance it upright, or charge admission and put it on your nose if you like, as long as you keep it upright so that alleged plane can allegedly hit it.

See none of that breakway (*)(*)(*)(*) matters. Its a total bs red herring and voodoo trougher fizdicks that you see so much of out here.

Sometime earlier in the thread one of the troughers posted the yield strength of the pole at 30tons, yes TONS! I have no idea if they were correct, dont care, its their number so I use it.

So we have an upright pole and standard weighing at about 400+75 for the lights blah blah blah.

Ok now, that leaves us with 2 options, that pole either has to be accelerated up to 735ft per second (another trougher number btw), which is the speed of the alleged aircraft instantaneously, or the other option it must simply break in half.

Starting to see how easy setting this problem up really is? NO? ok... lets continue...



Now that said lets start with what we know for facts.

We know planes are made with very light weight sheet metal:





we know their basic construction that they have a thin leading edge

see they call it skin.





See planes are built for vertical lift and outboard of the engine the spar gets continually lighter and weaker and its strength is vertical NOT lateral. (the direction of pole impact would be lateral the *weak direction)



you can see the general placement of the wing tanks right behind the front spar, between the front and rear spar generally.



here is a picture of a typical fuel tank inside the wing, however most use a bladder version but there is only a couple thin layers of sheet metal between all that gas and incoming objects that can puncture that fuel tank.




Next we can see that at cruise speed a little ole 3 pound bird went right through the leading edge sheet metal and out the top of the upper sheet metal.

That means that the mass of the bird was 3 pounds and it only took 3 pounds to go clean through the sheet metal!





Which brings us back to our pole.


Now using trougher data, they said that the yield strength of the pole was 30 tons. 30 TONS!

Since by simple observation we can see the pole is bend right in half. Its in 2 pieces on the truck. See that? 2 pieces?




Since the pole is broke in half, allegedly by the plane, we now know for a fact that the alleged plane would have had a force applied to the leading edge of the wing of 30 TONS!

Oh oh oh wait TIMES 3 on the left and x2 on the right. If it had to break a box away that 30 tons and change!!!! <-- (thats a joke, and change! get it? lolol)

Ok so now where have we seen this before? Oh yeh the military and faa did tests on a the constellation to show how poles cut through the outer wings of a plane like butter!!!





So thanks to our little birdie we can use 3 pounds as a reference, they usually run about 2 to 2.4 pounds but I used 3 pounds to be really generous to get ultra conservative numbers, then some quick mentalating cipherin to normalize it so we are comparing apples to apples,

[T]hat means the pole exerted approximatorily 450 times the force upon the leading edge of that wing than the burdie that went right through it did!

well time 3 left and 2 right.

...and that means its generally 100 TIMES MORE than the hydraulics machinery in the wrecking yard that can apply up to approximately 4 ton of force at very LOW speed and as you can see the wings are HOLLOW NOT BUILT LIKE A TANK and it rips through the wing and that plane like warm butter on a hot summer day.




so there you have it, a childs level explanation that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt (when you have 450 times the force at reduced iimpulse time), that those wings should have been shredded upon first impact.

450 times the force of that bird and only one additional layer of thin sheet metal that is had to punch for the alleged plane to burst into flames. Thats right it was white smoke instead! LOL

Maybe thats why rummy said it was a missle LMAO

Anyway that should help several people better understand how real physics works.

- - - Updated - - -

when witness testimony does not match forensic evidence courts ALWAYS go with forensic evidence. witnesses are a dime a dozen.

 

We have not seen any other than the ability to think up a grand lie in a matter of minutes.

That is really dumb, considering that the pole's center of gravity would not have been directly over the base. Every construction laborer in the world who reads crap like this probably doubles over laughing at you.

Whose numbers are you using? Link, or you have just delivered another sack of compost.

But anyone with an IQ of more than 70 can see that the aircraft also chopped another pole off at the base and kept on going with the outboard engine still in place.

Actually, it is because Rummy is as smart as a sack full of balsa wood sledge hammers.

[
QUOTE]when witness testimony does not match forensic evidence courts ALWAYS go with forensic evidence. witnesses are a dime a dozen.[/QUOTE]To people not afflicted with Alzheimer's or other mental short-coming, the forensics match the accepted narrative.

 

KOOKOO...exactly what is your claim? No one is saying the light poles may not have caused any damage to the plane so, what is your claim?

Facts we know based on the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses:

A plane crashed into the Pentagon
The plane was an AA Flight 77
The plane clipped light poles just before it crashed into the Pentagon

So, exactly what is you claim???

 

I believe it's very important to you to believe that....

Your unique talent has led you astray here. You've oversimplified. There are more than two options.

What if the pole accelerates, but not 'instantaneously?' Then there will be a set of things happening. I see for basic categories in this 'set of things.' Let's list them:

a. There will be energy transferred to the pole that results in acceleration and movement of the pole.
b. There will be energy transferred to the pole that results in deformation/damage to the pole.
c. There will be energy that goes into deformation/damage to the aircraft structure.
d. There will be energy the changes the speed and direction of the motion of the aircraft.

No need to continue. Your oversimplified analysis is clearly inadequate from this point forward. There are endless possibilities left out of your "2 options." Basically, here's how I see the problem at this point:

1. Energy goes into all four of the basic categories I mention.
2. This process continues UNTIL the pole is 'knocked out of the way.' Then it stops. This may be well before the pole is accelerated to the full speed of the aircraft.
3. How much energy goes into each of the four categories is a complex question, requiring expertise I don't possess to solve.
4. Solving such a question requires knowing just what bit of the aircraft impacted each pole, where the pole was hit, the angle of impact, and much detail about the physical properties of the aircraft, especially at the impact site, as well as of the pole.
5. Neither you, I, nor anyone will ever have all the data necessary to do the analysis referred to in 4.)
6. There is no way to state with certainty that this or that result SHOULD be in evidence from the aircraft hitting poles.

But poles were knocked-down. We have the pics of poles lying around. Something did that. If not an aircraft, what? A shock-wave from an explosion at the Pentagon? Doesn't seem plausible to me. A shock-wave that could knock down a narrow-cross-section structure like a light pole would also toss around cars and do other obvious damage at the same distance, I would think, and we don't see that.

Seems to me the knocked-down poles, which you can't deny exist, are strong evidence of a low-flying plane. If a plane didn't knock them down, what did?

 

Very good!

Ok so lets have a pop quiz!


If you have a pole that will withstand 30 tons per square inch before it breaks;

Q1: What is the approximate maximum kinetic energy, in units of tons per square inch, that can be applied to the pole before the pole snaps in half.

 

mmmmmmmmmmmm....what pole broke? Weren't these pole snapped off at their base?...the breakaway base?

 

This is an evasion and an attempt to change the subject. It does not matter how much force it takes to break a pole in half. Ir is only imposrtanat how much force it takes to knock it over. The pole you keep showing us was broken in half AFTER the plane knocked it down. Any metal worker, even an amateur, can see that.

Now why have you not shown me the rebar you say was blown out of the building? I suspect that it is because you took a look at it and realized that even you would be embarrassed to be caught trying to call whatever you were looking at "rebar."

 

um..... all of them

some with multiple breaks!!!

 

All of them broke from impact with the ground. That happens a lot when you hit a breakaway pole at the top and break it loose from the ground.

Now show me the rebar you said was on the ground in front of the building.

 

I don't necessarily accept that '30 tons per square inch' is completely accurate as to any stress the pole assembly might experience at any point. But it doesn't matter.

If it was broken by a plane strike, must have been enough. Or maybe it was broken on striking the ground, or maybe in some cases the poles were broken up by workers to haul them off.

I never claimed to be able to quantify any energy transfers. My claim, I will remind you, is

 

lalalalaliar



try again