More thoughts on the light poles

There seem to be three results of an aircraft wing hitting a light pole.

result 1. the wing is sheared into two pieces.

Result 2. The light pole is sheared into two pieces.

Result 3. Both the wing and the light pole remain in tact in one piece but the light pole is knocked down or bent so the wing can pass over it.

Now if 1 happened there should be large section of wings on the Pentagon lawn. Plus the plane should roll in the direction of the lost wing due to loss of lift on that wing which would create a rolling moment. Neither of these seem to have been the case.

Now if 2 happned we would see the poles sheared into two pieces. But that doesn't seem to be what happned either for rathr it sems that they were mostly just knocked down.

Well that posses a huge problem. For we have Newtons formula F=ma (force = mass x accelearation).

Thus the higher the acceleartion the higher of force required to make the thing accelerate. So if the poles were knocked down they would have to have huge acclerations where they accelerate from being at rest to the aircraft speed as the aircraft wing pushed them over.

Say if the aircraft is going 600 ft per second and the tip of the pole has to move say 30 ft to allow the wing to pass over it. That would mean it would have had to have moved that 30 ft in 1/20th of a second (30/600) else either the pole or the wing would have to have been sheared. Going from rest to 600 ft per second in 1/20th of a second requires a very high acceleration. Using the equation s=1/2 a t^2 (with s = 30ft and t =1/20 sec) that would give a= 60 x 400 = 24000 ft/sec/sec which would have required a very large force (24000 times what ever the mass (or moment of inertia for a pure rotation) of the pole.

Based on Newtons equal and opposite forces the same force would be applied to the aircraft wing. That would have put a large yaw on the aircraft plus probably a lifting force on the wing as the wing slides over the pole (as the pole pushes back on the wing).

Thus if a pole hit say the left wing the aircraft aircraft would rotate counter clockwise (to the left) and roll left wing up/right wing down. I would image this would cause the aircraft to loose control and crash at those low altitudes even with a good pilot and with just one pole hit not to mention multiple hits.

But with that large a force I would have expected that either case 1 or 2 to have happned and either the pole would have sheered into or the wing but the evidence seems to refute that.

Thus it sems the more likely explaination is that the poles were not knocked down by the aircraft moving at high speeds but were cut down the night before. Now I am an electrical engineer and not a mechnical engineer so maybe my reasoning is a bit off. Is there any ME's out there that can comment on this and check my reasoning and math?

[edit. corrected some spelling and typos]

According to the photos, the poles were bent, knocked down, and sheared:
All 5 poles:
http://screencast.com/t/GFsbZH3O


I am a mechanical engineer, but I have no idea how to calculate this, except in a very elaborate finite element simulation, for which the design of the wings would also be required.

But people are wrong if they think that everything is calculated in mechanical engineering, actually only very few things get calculated, and to find out what should be calculated, you need to develop a feeling for what will be the most critical points.

To create the above damage symptoms by shooting something through the poles (instead of pincing, bending and breaking them in a workshop..), I would estimate that a very high speed, maybe even supersonic, would be required.

But even with the official speed there is a big problem:
In the moment a pole would be hit, the upper part would be pulled downwards, onto the wing. Then it would hit the wing with a whiplash effect, and since the wing is very fast, the upper part would be flung away very far, maybe 50 or 100 meters.

Because of this it would be nearly impossible to keep the upper part in the vicinity of the lower part, at 10 or 20 m distance from the initial position.

Although I could imagine this to happen with a very brittle material, the deformations on the photos clearly show that the poles themselves are not brittle at all (although their bases probably are, since they broke without any deformation).

Therefore, particularly the photo of pole 5 can be added to the long list of 9/11 "miracles"..
Pole 5:
http://screencast.com/t/bzhoLnXd

Thanks for the reply and info!

I recently discussed the CIT evidence with a very active debunker in a German forum. He was was well versed in the WTC demolition and other aspects of 9/11 but almost oblivious to the CIT- material and its ramifications.
When I pointed out that the bases of the poles apparently had been cut because the rupture lines look too straight and orderly he replied:

"Of course the bases were cut! Do you really think they would let those stubs go on standing?"

"Of course the bases were cut! Do you really think they would let those stubs go on standing?"

Sounds like Paco..

It is Africanus

http://www.allmystery.de/themen/gg48759-295#id9551509