Re: Domande sul Pentagono e sui pali dell'autostrada
Inviato da Emanuela il 24/1/2006 17:57:58
Citazione:
Ciao,
spero di poter essere di una qualche utilità...
Dopo aver letto questo post mi sono quasi convinta che probabilmente il boeing al Pentagono c'era...
Quelli di physics911 ( http://physics911.net/omholt.htm ) però dicono che i pali caduti non sono compatibili con il danno provocato da un grosso aereo...
Notice also, in the picture above, the light pole lying to the side, behind the railing. Certainly, the fire is an early picture. There has been no opportunity for the pole to be moved out of the way - for any reason. Yet, it lies to the side - not propelled toward the building. Its location is even incorrect. No damage to the railing is shown, as though the pole could somehow have been 'propelled' into place; tripping over the railing, in the process. Notice that the light pole is lying on another piece.
-------
Look at this next picture, below. The pole is still nicely stacked upon it's broken section, with a third piece nearby. Notice the incongruity of the pile damage. There is no motion-related trauma to the lawn.
There is no "300-Knot" damage to the pole - or any of the "downed" poles. For that matter, there is no "300 Knot" damage in any image of the 9-11 Pentagon! NONE! If it's to be believed - at all - the security camera video shows the missile flying at very low level; too low to simply "clip" the top of the pole.
-----
Later pictures of the "struck" light-poles show them adjacent to their mountings – not radically bent and propelled forward by the velocity of a jet. Their mounting plates are not damaged from the mounting bolts being “pulled through” from an impact. The poles don’t show any predominant “strike” damage. The only “bent” pole was hit by a taxicab, far from the alleged 42-degree angled path. There is no damage to the side of the cab, nor to the top of the hood. In all likelihood, it "fell" from the back of a truck.
- regolare i pali 1-5 e quello a pioli come se fossero tagliati da un aereo
Ciao,
spero di poter essere di una qualche utilità...
Dopo aver letto questo post mi sono quasi convinta che probabilmente il boeing al Pentagono c'era...
Quelli di physics911 ( http://physics911.net/omholt.htm ) però dicono che i pali caduti non sono compatibili con il danno provocato da un grosso aereo...
Notice also, in the picture above, the light pole lying to the side, behind the railing. Certainly, the fire is an early picture. There has been no opportunity for the pole to be moved out of the way - for any reason. Yet, it lies to the side - not propelled toward the building. Its location is even incorrect. No damage to the railing is shown, as though the pole could somehow have been 'propelled' into place; tripping over the railing, in the process. Notice that the light pole is lying on another piece.
-------
Look at this next picture, below. The pole is still nicely stacked upon it's broken section, with a third piece nearby. Notice the incongruity of the pile damage. There is no motion-related trauma to the lawn.
There is no "300-Knot" damage to the pole - or any of the "downed" poles. For that matter, there is no "300 Knot" damage in any image of the 9-11 Pentagon! NONE! If it's to be believed - at all - the security camera video shows the missile flying at very low level; too low to simply "clip" the top of the pole.
-----
Later pictures of the "struck" light-poles show them adjacent to their mountings – not radically bent and propelled forward by the velocity of a jet. Their mounting plates are not damaged from the mounting bolts being “pulled through” from an impact. The poles don’t show any predominant “strike” damage. The only “bent” pole was hit by a taxicab, far from the alleged 42-degree angled path. There is no damage to the side of the cab, nor to the top of the hood. In all likelihood, it "fell" from the back of a truck.
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=7&topic_id=536&post_id=8209