|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 5, 2006 15:39:10 GMT -4
I mentioned the "no-plane" hoax idea (it doesn't consitute a theory) to one and he just rolled his eyes.
[tinhat mode]But He didn't deny it either.[/tinhat mode]
Ouch my brain, how do people survive 24/7 in that mode?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2006 17:47:36 GMT -4
Light poles are designed to snap off at the base when hit by cars (I'm assuming this is to ensure they fall away from the car instead of on top of it). I imagine an airplane wing would knock the pole over rather than the pole slicing through the wing. From what I recall they are designed to do this since the altertnative is that they cause the automobile in question to wrap around the pole at its base. A larger car would be able to ride up the pole until the pole bends but a small car will come to a complete and rather sudden stop. Allowing the pole to snap at the bottom reduces the sudden decelerration otherwise experienced. Here's a thought for the CT in question. The wing is capable of supporting the entire mass of the aircraft, most of which is at the center of the wing. What is that load compared to the load of hitting a pole? As mentioned above there are many examples of air crashes in which the plane goes down in trees which snap off along the path of the aircraft. the best one would be the video of the Airbus 310(300?) that crashed while demonstrating its prowess to prospective customers. It settles into the woods snapping trees off along the way. At no time does while the plane is still visible does it seem to have any structural problems. No parts come off the plane, the only things moving away from the plane are tree parts. There are also other crashes in which the plane is visible in pictures taken from above the crash scene and the wings are still attached to the fuselage despite having come down through trees.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2006 17:54:58 GMT -4
In my experience most theories are just fine for a CT. They may not completely buy into one but won't discount it either. The odd thing is that many will discount the hologram plane idea but at the same time will not completely separate themselves from the folding paper money trick.
One such is our old buddy Foxx who will not agree that the folding paper money parlor trick is nothing more than coincidence. He actually believes that it MAY have some relevance in the workings of the Illuminati. As far as I know though, he does not believe that the hologram planes have any chance of being true at all.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Oct 6, 2006 15:46:38 GMT -4
From what I recall they are designed to do this since the altertnative is that they cause the automobile in question to wrap around the pole at its base. A larger car would be able to ride up the pole until the pole bends but a small car will come to a complete and rather sudden stop. Allowing the pole to snap at the bottom reduces the sudden decelerration otherwise experienced. I have seen another version of "safe" poles. Instead of snapping at the base, they crumble on impact and "wrap" around the car. The resulting deceleration was slower than in normal poles. Here's a thought for the CT in question. The wing is capable of supporting the entire mass of the aircraft, most of which is at the center of the wing. What is that load compared to the load of hitting a pole? That's an interesting point of view, but the CT is not open to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 10, 2006 18:42:40 GMT -4
Well the guy is claiming that the wing is so fragile that it could never take the load of hitting a light pole the diameter of which is much smaller than the thickness of the wing. This despite the FACT that said wing must support 100+ tons of aircraft and withstand all other forces such as would be experienced by acellerating down the runway or as tight a turn as it was designed to take. Here is the airbus crash. Wings took the impact just fine as far as can be seen. Here's another www.planecrashinfo.com/w900125.htmwings did not break until contact with the ground despite it coming down through trees.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 10, 2006 21:03:43 GMT -4
Here are my calculations, do they seem to be correct? According to a site which I would describe as pro CT but skeptical of the "no plane" theory: A 4 door automatic Rabbit (the heaviest Rabbit on the site) weighs 3137 lbs. autos.yahoo.com/newcars/volkswagen_...4xBSZzNAF?p=ext If we remember back to high (secondary) school and recall the principle behind leverage, the longer the lever exponentially less force is need to do a certain amount of work. Let assume the planes struck the tops of the actual poles (27.66 feet) not the tops of the masts (30 feet). 27.66 feet equals 332 inches 332 squared equals 110,224, 23 (the height calculated for the Rabbit) squared is 529, 110,224 divided by 529 is 208.4. So it would take about 208 X less force to break the base of one of the light poles at the top than at the height calculated for the VW. 3137 (the weight of the 4 door Rabbit) divided by 208 is 15.1. So a 15.1 lb objecting hitting the top of one those poles at 20 mph should be able to knock it down. Force of an impact is half of mass times velocity squared. The take off speed for a 757 is about 200 mph (I saw 185 – 250 mph cited on the Net) 10 x the speed calculated for Rabbit, 10 squared is 100. 15 divided by 100 is 0.15 or 2.4 oz or 68 grams about the weight of a small bird, the is about the force the poles would have exerted against the wings. If a 757 couldn't handle hitting 5 small birds it would be unsafe to fly.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 11, 2006 0:26:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 11, 2006 0:36:04 GMT -4
len , the plane was doing 400MPH when it hit the poles, not 200.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2006 3:02:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Oct 11, 2006 10:31:21 GMT -4
I think you're wrong about levers there, it's linear not exponential. But the point is still the same, takes much less force to break it free if you apply the force to the top of the pole.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 11, 2006 11:06:17 GMT -4
Anyone know how far apart the light poles were? Can we determine the wingspan of whatever hit the Pentagon based on the layout of the poles that were hit?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Oct 11, 2006 14:34:13 GMT -4
Thanks for all the links. Due to the intervention of a third-party, the CT has made a step forward in the discussion and provided some numbers to estimate the forces (by the way, the figure for the force of the impact was estimated in 32000 N, before the base of the pole breaks). Although we both agree that the pressure of the pole on the wing spar exceeds the critical load of alluminium in the initial instant of the impact, there is no agreement on what happens next. The CT is convinced that the initial pressure is enough to damage significantly the spar. I, on the other hand, picture the alluminium deform under the pressure, increasing the area of contact with the pole and reducing the pressure of the pole below the critical load of the alluminium. At this point, the pole cannot cut through the spar and is ripped from its base. The wing bends the pole because of the inertia of the two end of the poles, and the pole breaks. An open question is whether the wing spars are solid alluminium or a tube-like structure. I could not find authorative sources on this. At last, this should be an aerial view showing the positions of clipped and intact poles. EDIT to add: For lenbrazil, the force in an impact is estimated from the change in momentum, non kinetic energy. (See, for example, classical kinetic theory of gases.)
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 11, 2006 17:42:13 GMT -4
I know that the plane was at about 530 mph but I calculated for take off speed because I was responding to a post in a thread from another forum in which a CT talked about the wings of 757 being damaged by hitting birds on take off. But you guys are right I should have calculated for 530 mph too. Other than that do the numbers seem right? I found a better quality copy of the Airbus crash video video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8935298085756092337
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 11, 2006 17:44:51 GMT -4
I think you're wrong about levers there, it's linear not exponential. But the point is still the same, takes much less force to break it free if you apply the force to the top of the pole. Are you sure, I thought it was based on the length of the arc which increases exponentially??
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 11, 2006 17:49:01 GMT -4
For lenbrazil, the force in an impact is estimated from the change in momentum, non kinetic energy. (See, for example, classical kinetic theory of gases.) [/i] [/quote] Do you have enough data to do some calculations? Presumably the poles would have a negligible impact on the impact of the plane. Would the relative force of the impact be the same?
|
|