Thursday, November 29, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 29 2007
working copy update 11.30 1 am

The first two light poles of the five downed in the Pentagon attack were along the west side of Route 27, about 1000 feet from impact. Note here (graphic quite approximate, will be replaced soon) three green dots along the width of the flight path: pole 2 furthest north, pole 1, then a VDOT traffic camera pole that was left standing but suffered a superficial 'smudge,' presumably from the right wing tip. Effective wingspan across this line is approximately 210 feet. My intent here is to determine what I can about pole 1 and 2 damage to help me determine effective roll (wing bank) at that point, or what the fakery was trying to show, take your pick.

Pole 2
First, let's look at pole 2, the least clearly seen of the five downed. Russell Pickering's analysis at Pentagon compiled the few shots with it visible, peeking out from behind the bushes on the left side of the bridge mound. As this montage I made of the avaiable shots shows, this almost looks slender enough to be the smaller truss arm that holds the lamp head, or more likely the pole itself – its narrow upper end. The left wing would have hit it, and much too low to have directly caused that bend – presumably a secondary effect. There are no photos I'm aware of showing the main damage anything like what the other poles show.

Update: A previously unseen photo I ran across later may hold a clue to this pole, and vice-versa.

Pole 1
The first pole downed, numbered 076, is the famous pole that is said to have speared Lloyd England's taxi windshield, covered in some detail at Pentagon There is much, much written about this case - the inconsistencies in Lloyd's story, the damage inside the car and to his windshield, the lack of corroboration for his take that this long pole segment was completley sticking out of his car and was then removed by himself and a silent stranger. Most people who look into the case decide the story does not add up, but there are different theories as to what actually happened and to the significance of this mystery.

Update: It seems by a closer look at the damage to the cab that Lloyd's story is not as unlikely as I had thought.

There are also smaller parts visible (top shot, left: truss arm and lamphead, as well as another small straight piece further to the left, but for now I'm interested in the length of this prime piece of history; the '40 foot pole' that could not have fit in the cab – how long is it really? Unfortunately I can only get a range on original pole dimensions; Pickering says 28 feet, other say 30, and some say 40. After measuring photos back and forth with different numbers, ratios, I’ve decided on these proportions as a best fit, though still approximate:
Pole height: 32 feet
Base height: 16 inches
Full height to cap: 33.333 feet
Pole diameter at base: 8 inches
I also found the proportions of 1990s model Lincoln Town Car, which this seems to be: 77x219.” With al this, rough ratios were set, roughly averaged, estimated, and the apparent length of fragment on the roadway is 20-23 feet - perhaps a bit longer - about 14-16 feet of that straight.

It's probably not even new, but I've decided the part of pole 1 seen by Lloyd's cab is about 20-23 feet long, missing perhaps ten feet off the top, including the parts where the truss bolts down. Where that top part wound up is something I haven't looked into, but they could be simply the pieces on the road nearby, depending if the straight piece measure out right. It's also possible that a sizable chunk disappeared into the jet's engine (see below), causing the gray smoke visible trailing behind Flight 77 at impact.

This graphic, based on another light pole in the area, shows two impact scenarios that geometrically could explain the damage seen, including that unique bend, and the separation of the two parts. I'm not sure kinetically and forensically if either makes sense, just throwing it out there.

Attack Profile: How The Poles Fit In

Putting pole 1's damage into a larger framework that's half-done. While pole 2 is inconclusive, pole 1 damage - a curve and a shear - fits other clues as to the plane's altiude and right-high bank at that point. effective wingspan cutting across Route 27 – 205-215 feet – poles about 140 feet apart – I placed the light poles approximately into a graphic I was working with – between the camera mast scuff and tree damage alone I had a pretty good image of the plane. As it turns out a scaled 757 profile does fit. And the poles don't really mess it up. Perhaps I placed pole 1 a bit wrong, or underestimated the perspective a tad, because the bend of the pole also corresponds roughly with the engine's lower edge. All these points line up to have pole 2 clipped by the outer left wingtip 14-16 feet above ground, and give the plane about the same bank recorded in the damaged facade one second later as well as the generator, fence, retaining wall, and possibly foundation damage between.


Craig said...

Where is the missing 10 feet?

If 10 feet of the top part of the pole were hurled completely out of view then how did the lamp and lamp arm end up laying perfectly right in front of the top of the pole?

And the FDR has the plane too high to hit the poles Adam. Where are you getting your "altitude" and "bank" values from that "fit other clues" if not the FDR?

Of course you continue to ignore Lloyd's testimony.

You guys are classic.

Farmer ignores O'Brien when considering the C-130 flight path and you ignore Lloyd when considering what happened to the cab.

And everything somehow fits perfectly with all the "clues".

Imagine that.

Caustic Logic said...

IF the plane hit the poles, then where it actually was when hitting them is a pretty good clue to its altitude, and bank, no? Better even than the FDR that stopped recording (truncated, something) a few seconds before that.

I'm ignoring nothing, just haven't had the time yet to see how this all fits together. I just decided this things is that long, not what that means. So do you contest the length? What did you find when you measured this smoking gun piece of evidence?

Craig said...

>>>>What did you find when you measured this smoking gun piece of evidence?

That it is longer than the cab and that more than half of the HEAVIER
end of the pole would be out over the hood with the dash as the fulcrum according to Lloyd.

Do you contest this?

Caustic Logic said...

Nope, that's still right. His drawing had the base - says it's the one on the ground. Car is 18'3", pole segment 20-23. It's now less unlikely a story, but I still don't think it adds up. So we're wjere we were - and I still say his story not adding up proves only that his story doesn't add up. There are different possible reasons for this.

What we do have is reason to stop saying 'a pole' went through his windshield and instead a fragment did, or was said to. Was it the big fragment that's most of a pole? Or the other piece Russ thinks is from pole 2, and it looks to be perhaps 10 feet long, like the rest of this one? I don't know enough to venture a solid hypothesis yet.

Craig said...

Lloyd DOES claim to know. He points out the long pole, says the heavy base end was out over the hood. He even describes the bend in the top part "flipping" as he pulled it out causing him to fall. Did you forget about that?

Clearly he would not need the help from a silent stranger if it were the small piece of two (which is nowhere to be seen anyway) PLUS the damage to the inside of the cab is completely irreconcilable with this.

PLUS you say the cab is 18 feet but so what? What is the distance between the back seat and the dash?

Maybe 6 feet max? That leaves 14 to 17 feet of the HEAVY end of the pole over the hood even by your calculations.

Plus that graphic you made with the plane and the poles is so insanely deceptive. The engine and tree match up "perfectly" for you without the angle don't they? That all changes when the reality of the angle of approach is factored in.

But it doesn't matter because Lloyd's account and the physical damage is completely irreconcilable no matter how you slice it.

Oh yeah and the plane was on the north side of the citgo.

Craig said...

Also....pole two is clearly bent too but only much HIGHER at the top of the pole which makes no sense whatsoever with your graphic and the plane tilt.

You know this which is why you have dismissed it as "inconclusive".

What you really mean is "irreconcilable" with your analysis.

Caustic Logic said...

I'm aware that Lloyd claims a story that makes little sense. So we need to step around him and look at the evidence for what actually happened. I'm behind on the issue, but it's clear you guys are obsessed with PROVING his story a lie because you think this somehow illustrates your case. "But it doesn't matter because Lloyd's account and the physical damage is completely irreconcilable no matter how you slice it. Oh yeah and the plane was on the north side of the citgo." If his story of how his car was damaged is wrong, this does NOT PROVE the poles were planted or anything else in particular. In the context of your other dubious findings of course this makes sense, but otherwise it laughable.

"Plus that graphic you made with the plane and the poles is so insanely deceptive. The engine and tree match up "perfectly" for you without the angle don't they? That all changes when the reality of the angle of approach is factored in."
?? Nope, they wouldn't. Magnetic heading/ground track true is the reason the sillhouette is stretched wide - about 210 feet, not 124. THAT's why it fits so well. Meause it on an overhead map. And for wing angle, that is what I was trying to find - not level, but rather about the bank seen in the impact damage.

Caustic Logic said...

I covered that. Yeah it MIGHT be a problem. I would suspect it's a secondary effect from the pole hitting somethig else. The reason it's inconclusive is beacuse we have not seen anything but this top end. If you find a photo with no damage about 14 feet up, lemme know. Until then....

Craig said...

You are reaching and you know it.

The damage to the exterior of the cab is irreconcilable with the long pole and the damage to the windshield and the interior of the cab is irreconcilable with a small piece.

Lloyd's account is not only impossible it demonstrates fabrication because of all the explicit details that he gives. He isn't hazy about what pole. He has explicit details about pulling out the pole with the bend on top flipping causing him to fall. These can not be simple embellishments.

His wife backs him up on what pole indicating his story has been the same since day one.

The fact that you choose to "step around" him even though he is the ONLY one who could know these details is quite telling. You are choosing to ignore the body of evidence in order to make a case that the Pentagon wouldn't have been able to use some blue prints and a ruler to plan for the physical damage to "line up" similar to how you are with images after the fact. Why do you think you are more capable than the suspect who has unlimited resources ,technology, and access?

YOU and your approach to 9/11 truth is infinitely more "dubious" than the case we have for the north side.

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks again for the opinions friend. So tell me, if I were to decide to quit stepping around the Lloyd issue, and tackle his dishonesty up-front, how would I do that? The way he describes things is a total lie. Therefore... what? Let's see your non-dubious approach in action - show me how to decide what it all means instead of being all wishy-washy.

BTW, did you ever have Lloyd draw a flight path for the plane? He almost seems to be a rare south path witness, like the kind you've never found.