IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pentagon Damage Analysis, A closer look

onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:12 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



An Independent Column Damage Legend

If we follow the OCT damage trajectory from the Pentagon facade through to the alleged "punchout hole", using the visual evidence available, it will be shown that

(a) alleged debris could not physically be responsible for the C Ring hole

(b) the alleged impact would require the aircraft to break up at illogical points evidenced by intact columns along the OCT directional damage path

© visual evidence of damage to many columns contradicts the alleged OCT impact by a Boeing 757.

I've looked through and can prove through visual evidence that the ASCE Report purposely exaggerated damage. Even to the point of glaringly contradicting itself in the same breath.

Remembering that

(1) many images have been withheld

(2) that the majority of images that were released were taken weeks after the event (and it's been shown how quickly they deteriorated within hours and days)

(3) that any images in vital areas are of low quality and/or the columns were boarded up

...here's the real damage legend based on images available



The green lines in the following image represent where the OCT directional damage path should have been halted in its tracks. It's based on the highly unlikely but officially sanctioned assumption that the alleged aircraft followed these linear paths.





Columns 7D and 7G. Evidence of linear charges?

There are two columns either side of the OCT damage trajectory between the area between where the ASCE Report claims that the aircraft allegedly "slid" down entirely within the first floor (50ft into the building), and the point where it's claimed that the aircraft had allegedly desintegrated.

These columns were also within the area where a 300 square foot section of the second floor slab was "deflected upward".

Columns 7D and 7G



The image shows the trajectory of the fuselage just missing or skimming by Column 7D. This is absurd.

So how does this square with the OCT impact scenario?

First off, it's claimed that the aircraft had allegedly struck the facade, at an angle, in a tilt, at second floor grade level. The exterior preceding damage demands this.





The OCT would have the section of fuselage between the cockpit and wings as having ploughed through multiple columns as well as the facade and second floor slab...



...before the scenario whereby the entire aircraft allegedly "slid" down into the first floor (marked "50ft" in the above image).



The claim is that the aircraft allegedly instantly breached the facade. Visual evidence shows that the left engine would have had to have instantly desintegrated. That the entire left wing and section of fuel tank (and fuel within) had to have been sheared completely off within feet of the alleged breach.





Now look at Column 7D again. Going by the OCT, we've already had the cockpit, 279 square metres of fuselage skin, frame and contents allegedly breach the facade and possibly destroyed before continuing a further 50ft towards this column.

So what can physically explain the remainder of the aircraft from the central fuel tank through to the remaining 361 square metres of fuselage skin, frame and contents not only miss Column 7D but follow the narrow trajectory between this column and Column 7G?





This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 11:09 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:12 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095





The fuel, the fireball and evidence of explosions

Read this carefully..

QUOTE
The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings.The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the building.

Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.

Based on images captured by the Pentagon security camera, which showed the aircraft approaching and the subsequent explosion and fireball, it is estimated that about 4,900 lb (2,200 kg) of jet fuel was involved in the prompt fire and was consumed at the time of impact outside the building.This leaves about 30,400 lb (13,800 kg) as the estimated mass, M, of the jet A fuel that entered the building and contributed to the fire fuel load within the building.


ASCE Report


That is, the fireball allegedly occurred fully outside the building while the remaining fuel "contributed to the fire fuel load".

Problem?

(a) According to the visible damage, the ASCE Report had to conclude that the alleged aircraft had desintegrated at a point 160ft within the building (or the length of the alleged aircraft) because columns which were directly on the OCT directional damage path were still standing [Img57][Img58][Img59]
[Img60]
[Img61]

This would leave the alleged 30,000lb of fuel that "entered" the building to travel the further 160ft to the C Ring "punchout hole".

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LueZWCZOixk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So what happened to this alleged fuel load? None of it made it to AE Drive through the alleged punchout hole?





No inferno? No blackened walls?

(b) It's already been shown that there were explosions to the north of the alleged impact hole. What wasn't discussed is the debris field completely to the north of the lawn [Img62]
[Img63]
[Img64]
[Img65]
[Img66] while the south of the lawn was like a putting green [Img67]
[Img68]
[Img69]
[Img70].

According to witnesses concrete rubble was also blown on to Route 27 directly facing and to the north of the alleged impact zone.


© Even in the face of glaring external evidence for internal explosions (whatever the source), the ASCE Report insists that the internal damage was caused by "impact"[Img71]

One such example is the large section of second floor slab that was "deflected upward" [Img72][Img73]

This is discussed in more detail here but basically the ASCE Report's claim is that the aircraft had allegedly desintegrated before it had travelled the length of itself within the building and that the alleged aircraft began to "slide" (within 50ft of the facade) completely into the first floor. We have to remember that the first floor height is only 14ft. There is no room for manouevre or deviation for any alleged debris. Yet this "impact" somehow left columns on the floor. Unbent [Img74]?

One such contradictory column is 5E [Img75]. It is not within the OCT damage trajectory. An intact column which precedes it, 7D (marked as green) [Img76]. That and the fact that there are no signs of impact. It was straight [Img77].

Even the very nature of the damage to other columns in the vicinity of 5E, in that they were disconnected at the bottom and pushed upwards [Img78][Img79] while the OCT impact would have the aircraft and heavier debris penetrating at first floor ceiling/slab height, raises serious questions. That and the fact that beams across the first floor ceiling in the vicinity of Column 5E weren't even chipped [Img80][Img81].

All of this points to an explosive event. Why was the ASCE so reluctant to entertain what the visual and physical evidence pointed to?


An Isolated Event



Please note column line 11K,L and M slab/ceiling is marked as green ("heavy cracking and spalling") yet the surrounding area is marked as undamaged. An isolated event well off of the OCT directional damage path and adjacent to column line 3J,3K and 3L [Img37][Img38]?

The columns that run between these two areas (3J,K,L and the unexplained slab damage in the area of 11J,K,L — the latter of which are also adjacent to a utility tunnel)[Im39g] also throws up unanswered questions as to how they were damaged. And in one case, why the ASCE Report actually downplayed the visible damage, given the fact that they blatantly exaggerated damage to other columns.

The columns in question are 7K and 9K [Im40g]. The latter was shored up and no other images are available before this (AFAIK).

Column 7K is marked as yellow (heat damage), but on closer inspection there seems to have been damage from an unknown source [Img41] on the side opposite to the OCT directional damage.

There were multiple fatalities within the area mentioned above



Which housed the Navy Operations Center



I think that it would be very interesting to find out which Pentagon fatalities were housed in those two areas.



AE DRIVE

There is a strange feature to the damage pattern seen along AE Drive where the C Ring hole was actually located [Img1]

There are two other areas which experienced a "punch out" besides the well known C Ring hole [Img2][Img3][Img4]

What's curious is that the window frames above the C Ring hole, where the alleged culmination of a massive deceleration (30g) of a 100 ton aircraft and explosion is meant to have occurred, apparently were not subject to an explosive force [Img5]. While the other two "punch out holes" were [Img6][Img7]


If one looks at the layout of the building in relation to these punch out holes, the OCT impact becomes complicated. Particularly for "punch out hole 1"
[Img4]. How did this damage occur given that it is opposite the alleged facade breach/collapse zone [Img8]
and the fact that no damage was allegedly recorded along this linear path between the two areas?



And how was blast damage caused on the second floor when the OCT claims that the alleged impact occurred completely within the first floor?

The only explanation for me is that there were multiple events timed to coincide with one major event that carved out the alleged directional damage.


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 11:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:12 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095





The impossible "debris path"

Let's follow the alleged debris path...

Column 3H is the main spanner in the works [Img82][Img83]

Columns within the immediate area which were either intact or partially damaged (probably by heat), such as Column 3G [Img84] narrow this alleged debris trajectory considerably.

Column row 3 is where the ASCE Report was forced to claim that the alleged aircraft had completely desintegrated. But it also claimed that debris had allegedly continued for the same distance (160ft) through to the C Ring "punch out hole". How so? And how is the damage to columns in the vicinity of 3H physically possible? This would entail an almost 90° deviation while "hop, skipping and jumping" to avoid other columns completely.





Even more unlikely is the scenario whereby we're meant to believe that the alleged debris along the centre line of the fuselage/OCT damage trajectory did somehow make its way past the aforementioned columns and make its way in between Columns 1K North and South!




Even as the ASCE damaged column legend stands, certain areas were "protected" by a whole line of intact columns.




And before any alleged section of aircraft had supposedly reached column row 3 or 1, Column 13D [Img19], column 11E [Img20], column 7G [Img21][Img22] and column 5J [Img23][Img24] stand between the OCT directional damage and these rows of columns [Img25].


Now we come to a section of the building just before the alleged punch out hole into AE Drive to the north of Wedge 1.





The FBI withheld access to this area from the ASCE and I know of only one image that shows columns within this area and the alleged "punchout hole". I've numbered the relevant columns.



Having somehow made its way through Column 3H and managed to avoid a series of double columns with only a few feet between them, the OCT directional damage managed to miss another column. Column 3M North [Img7] but managed to shred another column that was off of this path. Column 5N North

A linear explosive event is the only explanation.

Remember the OCT — 100 ton wide bodied commercial aircraft, 540mph, 30g of deceleration, aircraft desintegrated within 160ft (its own length), debris travelled a further 160ft along with 30,000 lb of jet fuel that never made it through the alleged punchout hole into AE Drive.

There is no way through.

How could the "nosecone" make it this far never mind the majority of alleged "passengers"?



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 11:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:19 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Here's one OCT claim that impact theorists should look at.

Lee Evey, head of the Pentagon Renovation Project stated at a DOD media briefing

QUOTE
"The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive."


The same claim was made at the Massaoui trial by FBI agent Jacqueline Maguire (who was also in charge of the FOIA requests for multiple videos that were sequestered)


QUOTE
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/11/moussaoui.trial/index.html

"FBI Agent Jacqueline Maguire testified that the nose of the Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon penetrated to the building's third ring, known as the "C" ring. Photos showed a blackened, gaping hole in the outer wall"


And then there's this from a "government scientist" who was involved in the "bomb proofing" of the renovated section describing seeing the "nosecone" in the same area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwmjXiqr2hY...feature=related

How is that physically possible?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2013, 04:30 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Is the prospect of the Pentagon damage being the result of explosives a viable option?

Yes.


I think the problem is that people are stuck in a groove in that something must have struck when in reality a controlled, grounded event would have been more risk free and a 99% guaranteed successful effect on both witnesses and rescue workers/firefighters/Pentagon occupants.

QUOTE
A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon's surrounding network of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building's five concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well. According to Evey, "The Renovation Office recognized this shortcoming and was determined to address it effectively by incorporating improved personnel safety features into the overall renovation program." The blast protection task was included in the new design work for the first of the Pentagon's five "wedges" and is now a "template" for the follow-on renovation of the other sections.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Protective Design Center evaluated possible threats to determine a "most likely" bomb blast scenario, calculating dynamic, time-varying forces for various blast sizes and locations on the building's perimeter. From this analysis, the Renovation Office established blast resistance structural design criteria for the project. The next step in the process was to develop the design, incorporating the established criteria.


http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pe...on-retrofit.htm


QUOTE
The analyses assume that the Pentagon frame is sufficient to resist the loads transferred to it from the exterior walls. Evaluations of the original and retrofitted Pentagon structures were performed using the Antiterrorist (AT) Planner
software [1]. AT Planner is a PC-based computer code that assists installation-level personnel in analyzing the vulnerability of buildings and their occupants to the effects of terrorist vehicle bombs. The program also contains information to aid in developing protective measures.

AT Planner is being developed to present concepts and procedures for protecting deploying forces from terrorist/saboteur attack using expedient methods that require a minimum of engineer resources. Recent experience has shown that the demand for military engineering in support of antiterrorism has risen dramatically as the Army is drawn into a succession of operations other than war. In these situations, U.S. troops may be subject to attack by unfriendly civilian or paramilitary groups. AT Planner is a Windows 95-based application suitable for operation on a notebook computer by combat engineer officers, and draws on completed and ongoing research related to the protection of fixed facilities from terrorist attack as well as work on field fortifications. AT Planner is based on references 2-7. AT Planner provides standoff distance evaluations, structural damage and window hazard calculations, protective measures checklist for terrorist threats, and vehicle velocity calculations and barrier recommendations. When a vulnerability analysis from a terrorist bomb is calculated in AT Planner, blast pressure is calculated at the center of each structural bay on a structure.
Angle of incidence is considered in calculating airblast levels on structures, but clearing effects and shielding effects are not. AT Planner uses PI (Pressure Impulse) diagrams to allow a user to quickly estimate building damage from a vehicle bomb attack.


....

The PI curves presented above are used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and small truck bomb threats as shown in Figure 8 (the windows control these stand-offs).

To analyze the existing retrofits response to blast load, SDOF models of the wall and window systems were developed. The wall model did not consider the effects of window failure. The resistance of the wall included the strength of the façade, the masonry wall, and the tubular framing system (dominant contribution). The wall system model was used in WAC to generate RTE and PI curves and these curves were validated with FE analyses. The high level PI curves were used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and the small truck bomb threats. The custom PI diagrams for the window and wall retrofits of the exterior wall of the E-Ring were used for all walls. Damage plot in figure 9 are intended to illustrate damage to the outside of the E-Ring only.


http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/34/paper/63hall.pdf


QUOTE
Lt. Gen. Bob Flowers commands the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps helped design the Pentagon's new protection. The engineers studied past attacks, including the 1983 marine bombing in Lebanon, Oklahoma City in 1995, the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia and the US emassies in East Africa.

"at Khobar Towers, for example, most of the damage and casualties were caused by flying debris from the structure and the glass, et cetera," says Flowers. "and so based on that, we worked, designed, things to prevent flying debris and flying glass.

At Oklahoma City, the bulk of the casualties were caused by the collapsing structure. So one of the things we studied was how to put redundant capability in a structure to prevent it from collapsing if it was attacked. So by applying the lessons that you learn from doing those studies, you can better protect structures in the future."

It was a tough way to learn a lesson. But there is an easier way. The Corps is making a study of safer buildings by setting off its own bombs at a research center in Mississippi.

Reed Mosher is the technical director for survivability. They have developed a team of specialists that goes to these terrorist strikes as soon as they happen.

The buildings tell the team a great deal. "we want to find what performed well, what didn't perform well, try to characterize the size of the bomb, the blast," says Mosher.

Mosher also designs his own terrorist bombings in miniature with exacting scale models of reinforced concrete buildings.

Recently, Mosher's team tested a common interior wall, particle board, steel wall studs and sheetrock. The wall is set in a steel frame with instruments inside.

Then they set off a bomb. Mosher has done hundreds of these, in an effort to create new building materials. The corps of engineers runs these experiments through its super computer center, which is one of the most powerful in the nation. The computer can test various kinds of bombs against different buildings without breaking any glass.

In a special 3-d imaging room mosher showed how the super computers recreates the blast wave that hit khobar towers. It predicts the path of every shard of glass from a single breaking window.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/...ain319383.shtml


There it is in black and white. They knew how the structure would react to various sized blasts from different angles.

There was even a computer program detailing all of the possible damage patterns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 22 2013, 11:32 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Another physical debunk of this alleged debris, namely the "N" and "C" pieces would have had to have been expulsed, whether by the blast or the heat just as the explosion went off in any "impact" scenario. Why? Look where the "C" and "N" are situated on the left hand side of the aircraft:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...9/0/0982095.jpg

The ASCE Report claims that the fuel "rebounded" before "igniting".

Physics and logic would have any explosion occurring by "impact" when the central and wing fuel tanks make contact with the facade. So how could those two pieces have been blown out and away from the facade before the explosion occurred?

They couldn't physically have been "peeled off" on "entry" as there wouldn't be any lettering visible as the outer skin of the aircraft is only milimetres thick and would have been crushed beyond recognition. Blackened at least. That and the OCT speed would have the entire aircraft penetrating the building in 0.2 seconds.

Lastly, look at the lettering on the vertical stabilizer compared to the letters that were allegedly found! Where are they?


Edit: Spot the difference between these two images allegedly taken within 7-8 minutes of eachother

Allegedly taken "within minutes" of the explosion (composite image)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/47/riskuscomposite.png

Allegedly taken at 09:47am

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1545/wheelhouseimage.jpg

Where'd all of the mess on the helipad come from?



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 22 2013, 11:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Feb 22 2013, 09:56 PM
Post #27





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 22 2013, 05:32 AM) *

This photo goes back to the “Gate” film that shows that security car going to the helipad.

There really wasn’t much there at the time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 23 2013, 01:13 AM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 23 2013, 01:02 AM) *
Edit: Spot the difference between these two images allegedly taken within 7-8 minutes of eachother

Allegedly taken "within minutes" of the explosion (composite image)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/47/riskuscomposite.png

Allegedly taken at 09:47am

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1545/wheelhouseimage.jpg

Where'd all of the mess on the helipad come from?


Dear 'onesliceshort'

The second image you have provided, does not show the 'helipad', other than perhaps a very small portion of the rear left corner which just appears to be evident behind the tree in the right foreground.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Feb 23 2013, 01:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 23 2013, 07:21 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (23investigator @ Feb 23 2013, 06:13 AM) *
Dear 'onesliceshort'

The second image you have provided, does not show the 'helipad', other than perhaps a very small portion of the rear left corner which just appears to be evident behind the tree in the right foreground.

Robert S


Fair point Robert. Should have said heliport area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 23 2013, 07:36 AM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 23 2013, 02:56 AM) *
This photo goes back to the “Gate” film that shows that security car going to the helipad.

There really wasn’t much there at the time.


Exactly elreb.

The debris field suggests an explosion within the building directly behind the heliport.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807808

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807816

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807824

How can the alleged path of the aircraft across the lawn be so clear of debris? It allegedly squeezed its way into an area just 14ft in height, desintegrated within 0.2 seconds and nothing got blown on to this section of the lawn.

Yet sections of uncharred, milimetre thick, lettered fuselage situated at a point before the fuel tanks made their way front and center. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 23 2013, 07:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 23 2013, 07:49 AM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 23 2013, 08:51 PM) *
Fair point Robert. Should have said heliport area.


Dear 'onesliceshort'

The firefighter Wallace in his account of what went on around him after he grounded for cover having seen an aircraft heading towards the pentagon, says he was treading over an immense amount of debris around the immediate area of the 'heliport' and the firetuck parked to the right of it.

This was immediately after he got up off the ground.

Much of this debris he said was on fire.

The two guys running away from the building in the second photograph you have provided, were very likely involved in dragging some of the larger debris towards the building.

On the right of the firetruck there appears to be some sizeable pieces of debris on fire.

Wallace went to the drivers side of the firetruck, but could not gain entry due to debris against the vehicle.

It must have been pretty sizeable debris, to cause interference to access into the vehicle.

The rear of the firetruck also shows significant damage.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 23 2013, 08:23 AM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Robert please provide Wallace's direct quotes and images of what debris you're talking about.

The fire engine was damaged. In fact I was the one who pointed it out in the "Pentagon Lawn Images" thread. What caused the damage is the question. There's no object in the vicinity of the firetruck but there were explosions along the facade behind it

http://s1067.photobucket.com/download-albu...es/image-14.jpg

You're talking about an object having to strike the fire engine at the acutest of angles.

From the "Left Wing Damage" section

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807808

QUOTE
Exactly how the firetruck and the vehicle closest to it immeditely caught fire (and how the former was damaged), while the vehicle closest to the alleged impact area didn't catch fire or get damaged until after the collapse 40 minutes later is yet to be explained

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...cd89919751d.jpg

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...acd4d7d35e5.jpg



Edit added:

I don't see evidence for this "immense amount of debris" (a description which I don't think Wallace ever used) in these images

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/893/imagegpy.jpg

http://amhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/133_283.jpg

And an idea of what those scraps were around the heliport and lawn

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4549/route27fromlawn.jpg

Window blinds and tree. An explosive event from within the building.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 23 2013, 09:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 23 2013, 10:10 AM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
And an idea of what those scraps were around the heliport and lawn

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4549/route27fromlawn.jpg

Window blinds and tree. An explosive event from within the building.


Here's another image showing the debris on the helipad itself

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6919/he...rtfiretruck.jpg

And the earlier image discussed (with the SUV untouched)

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010015.JPG

And an idea of the angle that any debris would have to travel to strike the firetruck (the heliport is marked — the firetruck was closer to the facade)

http://imageshack.us/m/713/1102/pentwallaceheliport.jpg

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 23 2013, 03:48 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='onesliceshort' date='Feb 23 2013, 09:53 PM' post='10807859']
Robert please provide Wallace's direct quotes and images of what debris you're talking about.


Edit added:

I don't see evidence for this "immense amount of debris" (a description which I don't think Wallace ever used) in these images

Dear 'onesliceshort'

Just happened to be up at 5 am -(on a different time clock over here).

Will address your request later.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 24 2013, 02:21 AM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='23investigator' date='Feb 24 2013, 05:18 AM' post='10807861']
[quote name='onesliceshort' date='Feb 23 2013, 09:53 PM' post='10807859']
Robert please provide Wallace's direct quotes and images of what debris you're talking about.


Edit added:

I don't see evidence for this "immense amount of debris" (a description which I don't think Wallace ever used) in these images

Dear 'onesliceshort'

Most of the material placed on the internet, regarding Mr Alan Wallace, is still available.

By 'googling' Alan Wallace, pentagon or firefighter, the original material referred to, is still present.

Also, http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Alan_Wallace when typed in, brings up Alan Wallace -from 911myths, presented as a statement made by Mr Wallace.

Mid page 3, Mr Wallace says

It was probably at this time that I first noticed the damage to the Pentagon and the crash truck.
A lot of smoke was in the sky above the Pentagon. The rear of the crash truck was on fire with a large blaze. But most noticeable was that everything around the fire truck on the ground was on fire.
Also the west side of the Pentagon was on fire, from the first to the fifth (top) floor.
I ran about 30 yards back to the damaged truck, stepping carefully, not to step on the burning debris covering the ground.


By 'googling' Jeff Hill phone call with Alan Wallace.
A site, 9/11 Transcripts -- presents a transcription of the above phone conversation.

Mid page 3 Mr wallace says

Jeff Hill Yeah like you guys ran and dove behind the fire truck or something.
Mr Wallace No no no no no --[chuckles] we done that we'd have been done for.
Jeff Hill Yeah like I see a picture of a red fire truck, like it looks like it kinda smashed up and stuff, like-- the plane hit the fire truck?
Mr Wallace A significant part of the plane hit --They told us --it goes-- Another story goes into that-- one of those FBI drawings. That--they told us that the tail of the airplane had --told me-- I remember because I was getting ready to do my FBI interview there at Fort Meyer.

(This deserves further reading)

Top of page 3

Mr Wallace. A FBI officer said following further discussion, Are you aware of -- we think the tail of the airplane hit the firetruck.
Mr Wallace. And I didn't know that.

(This is an interesting consideration, as the impression left in the rear of the firetruck could well fit that of a small jet engine used for the auxillary power of bigger aicraft, or the single engine used on an aircraft such as the Global Hawk, which is also at the rear of the aircraft chassis. Mr Wallace may well not have noticed this in the urgency of further rescue attempts, which he carried out while what ever it was at the rear of the firetruck was seriously on fire. Mr Wallace was then removed from the scene, during which time the rear of the fire truck was extinguished, with video vision showing some thing that resembled a jet engine being dragged away closer to the large door in the pentagon building wall to the right of the firetruck)

Mr Wallace I had --this is only a couple of days later. That's where I got that--I remember that very well. To me the left wing would have been more likely, something from the left wing would have been more likely to have hit the firetruck. It ends up turning the left [inaudible] wheel of the truck, crushes the engine compartment, almost knocks the generator off the top of the truck, damages the fire station, which is beyond-- on the-- to the north of the firetruck. damaged the van that I crawled under, damaged the flight control tower which sat on the--on top of the fire station. And of course set that area of the building on fire as well. That help?

(There seems little doubt in the mind of Mr Wallace there was significant debris flung towards him and his co /firemen who as he intimated earlier would not have been around to tell the story if they had been any where near the fire truck. Video vision shows pieces of debris bouncing along the ground as far away as the northern gate house.)

Bottom of page 7

Jeff Hill. uh hmm What about like --like-- plane debris did you see a lot of plane debris after the attack?
Mr Wallace. Yeah i mean the whole area, from, in front of the firestation, you could not--Well I won't, I suppose that's what it was from. Part of it was parts of the building I'm sure. I didn't see any thing earlier on, that you would identify that there was a plane there. It was just-- I mean it was just nothing but burning trash. It was just everywhere. You could not walk in that area and no matter which direction you pointed your foot and not step on something.

Mid page 8.

Mr Wallace. I mean it was, I mean I knew if I slipped step on something that wasn't firm, that I was going to likely fall and get and be injured by this debris that completely littered the field, I mean material was blown clear across Washington boulevard over into Arlington cemetary as well, and that would have been 200 yards away.

It seems that Mr Wallace description fits the consideration of an "immense amount of debris" according to Collins English Dictionary--huge or vast--, but perhaps such language does not fit within the American expression.

If so, nonetheless Mr Wallace has left no doubt that there was a very considerable amount of burning debris around the area of the heliport and firetruck, immediately after, what he considered was an aircraft hit the Pentagon Building.

Robert S



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2013, 07:05 AM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Robert, I've answered most of what you say with images in my last two posts. I'm not denying that there was debris, just that you're insisting that it was aircraft debris. Wallace even says

QUOTE
Mr Wallace. Yeah i mean the whole area, from, in front of the firestation, you could not--Well I won't, I suppose that's what it was from. Part of it was parts of the building I'm sure. I didn't see any thing earlier on, that you would identify that there was a plane there. It was just-- I mean it was just nothing but burning trash. It was just everywhere. You could not walk in that area and no matter which direction you pointed your foot and not step on something.


And the damage to the firetruck engine casing is superficial. Even the lighter parts such as tubing and caps were intact!

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/893/imagegpy.jpg

And we're talking about an alleged engine deviating almost 90°.

The word "immense" was never used by Wallace.

That's the last I'm going toentertain the "A3 Skywarrior" on ths thread. It's about evidence vs the official story and to be honest I'm fed up entertaining subplots.

Cheers

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Feb 24 2013, 07:47 AM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2013, 08:35 PM) *
Robert, I've answered most of what you say with images in my last two posts. I'm not denying that there was debris, just that you're insisting that it was aircraft debris. Wallace even says



And the damage to the firetruck engine casing is superficial. Even the lighter parts such as tubing and caps were intact!

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/893/imagegpy.jpg

And we're talking about an alleged engine deviating almost 90°.

The word "immense" was never used by Wallace.

That's the last I'm going toentertain the "A3 Skywarrior" on ths thread. It's about evidence vs the official story and to be honest I'm fed up entertaining subplots.

Cheers


Dear 'onesliceshort'

So be it.

But suggest you check your angle out, it seems quite a bit off.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Feb 24 2013, 10:40 PM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



OSS,

Please explain the following:

The firefighter Wallace in his account of what went on around him after he grounded for cover having seen an aircraft heading towards the pentagon, says he was treading over an immense amount of debris around the immediate area of the 'heliport' and the fire truck parked to the right of it.

Was firefighter Wallace at the Pentagon before it was hit?

Why would he seek cover?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 25 2013, 05:57 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 25 2013, 03:40 AM) *
OSS,

Please explain the following:

The firefighter Wallace in his account of what went on around him after he grounded for cover having seen an aircraft heading towards the pentagon, says he was treading over an immense amount of debris around the immediate area of the 'heliport' and the fire truck parked to the right of it.

Was firefighter Wallace at the Pentagon before it was hit?

Why would he seek cover?


Here's my breakdown of his account

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2465112

Here's a challenge. He describes his partner Mark Skipper as having run out to the north of the lawn and away from the heliport area. See if you can spot him in the gatecam footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 25 2013, 12:54 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2013, 10:57 AM) *
Here's my breakdown of his account

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2465112

Here's a challenge. He describes his partner Mark Skipper as having run out to the north of the lawn and away from the heliport area. See if you can spot him in the gatecam footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA


For the record, I'm not casting aspertions on these firefighters (I actually think Wallace was one of the most honest in detail) but on the gatecam.

@Robert

I'll post more on what he described vs what you claim to see in the videos.

Peace.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2019 - 03:50 AM