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 )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Recently Reinforced Section Hit, Renovation nicknamed a 'catchers mitt"

rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2007, 09:13 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Im sure many of you have seen this youtube video i presented based on the FDR information provided by the NTSB where you see a specific maneuver performed to target a specific section of the pentagon... (Remember, this video was my very first. The updated version in PBB2 will be much more thorough, easier to understand, and highly incriminating to the govt story.)

I ran across this article on a so-called debunker site.. .combined with the above video showing specific targeting matched very well with the article below which nicknames the recently renovated section a "Catchers Mit". This 'debunker' site seems to feel its a 'stroke of good luck' that this 'catchers mit' was the one piece which took the impact. Typical of the poor excuses found on most 'debunker' sites.

Emphasis added. enjoy


QUOTE
Intact Pentagon Windows
Claim: Many of the Pentagon windows remained in one piece -- even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. The animation on www.pentagonstrike.co.uk claims the "intact windows" support the theory that "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" hit the Pentagon.

Fact: A number of windows near the impact area did indeed survive the initial concussion and ensuing explosions, because that's exactly what they were designed to do -- the windows in that section of the Pentagon are blast resistant.

The windows were installed just weeks earlier as part of a massive Pentagon modernization plan. The original windows were essentially standard commercial units from the early 1940s. The need for blast protection in the E and A rings -- the outermost and innermost rings, respectively -- became clear after the bombings of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

In a rare stroke of good luck on September 11, Flight 77 struck Wedge 1, the first section of the building designated for renovation. The first phase was five days from completion when the plane hit, and 383 new-and-improved windows were already in place. Weighing approximately 1,600 pounds apiece, the new windows feature laminated glass, in which a thin polymer interlayer is sandwiched between two or more panes of glass. The effect is that the windows will crack but not shatter, much like a car windshield. Because the Pentagon was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1992, the new windows were required to match the exterior look of the originals, so it is impossible to tell the old from the new from the outside.

But installing new windows would not have made much of a difference without corresponding structural improvements in the building around them. As a result, the designers engineered a complicated reinforcement scheme with the steel beams built into the walls around the window frames and bolted to the concrete floors slabs. The structure behaves like a catcher's mitt, absorbing the force of an explosion and shielding the people inside the building.

"It would have be imprudent and sort of counterproductive to have a window that was stronger than the wall," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Alabama-based company that designed, manufactured, and installed the windows. "The wall should be stronger than the window glass. If the window construction is stronger than the wall, it would eject the window from the unit and now you've got a flying missile. You want to design your windows and structure so that they fail in a certain order."

Hays declined to discuss the levels of force the Pentagon windows are designed to withstand, as doing so could jeopardize the security of the building. However, he say, the windows performed to specifications. "I personally inspected those windows, and anywhere a windows was not actually hit by the fuselage of the aircraft, the best we were able to determine was that if there was a glass missing, it was because of the subsequent fire burned the glass out."

Bill Hopper, communications manager for the Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program, confirms this account. The Pentagon Building Performance Report adds that the reinforcement around the windows kept the edifice surrounding the impact hole standing for 19 minutes. That was long enough to enable hundreds of Pentagon employees to exit the building before the damaged section of Ring E collapsed.

If the plane had hit an unrenovated section of the building, the damage would have been much more sever -- not only from the force of the blast, but also from fire. In Wedge 1, where a new high-tech sprinkler system had been installed during the renovation, the fires did not spread significantly and most were put out fairly quickly. When some fires spread to Wedge2, which did not have upgraded sprinkler system, they burned on and off for more than hours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2007, 09:38 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Sorry. .couldnt resist...



Dont kill the messenger.. i didnt call it a mit! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 09:50 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Just to the left of the 'catcher's mit', I see some "non-blast proof" windows that stood up to the boeing quite well...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2007, 09:54 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jan 6 2007, 08:50 AM)
Just to the left of the 'catcher's mit', I see some "non-blast proof" windows that stood up to the boeing quite well...

Thats if a boeing hit the pentagon...

The more i research.. the more i dont think a Boeing 757 hit that wall.

I will include 'possibilities' based on the FDR in the new film.. it is going to blow you away.. it did for Gideon..

(Gideon.. dont give it away.. wink.gif)

A big hint in is the trailer... watch the explosions closely.. they match pretty well.. huh? yes1.gif biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 12:21 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Jan 6 2007, 10:54 PM)
Thats if a boeing hit the pentagon...

The more i research.. the more i dont think a Boeing 757 hit that wall.

I'd certainly have to agree...

I should have indicated in that photo where the "plane" hit:



Anyone who's ever walked near a 757 will understand that there's nothing wrong with the way that image of a boeing is scaled to the photo - if anything it's a little small (I tried to be conservative). Actually the angle of entry is off, it supposedly (according to the official story) came in at a sharper angle and would have just missed those cars parked there, but I couldn't find a decent picture of a 757 that reflected that trajectory. Anyway, it gives you an idea of how ludicrous the claim is that a full size 757 struck the pentagon where it did with out doing much more damage to the facade, and/or without leaving any wing/tail wreckage lying around in front of the building, or even breaking those windows that are obviously still intact.

Look forward to your analysis, JDX, I didn't get the hint though - I'll have to wait for the next installment I guess. yes1.gif


The evidence is piling up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 6 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #6


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



Sanders,
Where did the info come from that the area to the left of the strike had not been upgraded with new windows yet??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 01:24 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



There was simply a photo that was up on Google Images that had the sections marked like that. I never questioned it until you just asked - I looked around for the original photo that I copied that info from but it's not on google.images any more. I found a couple of other little things that support it but not conclusively by any means. I'm still searching around. Not sure if I'll find confirmation or if I'll eat crow -

looking in to it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 01:47 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects-W1.htm

This picture is so small I can't tell - I asume the area marked in red is "Wedge 1".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 02:44 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/pentagon_911/fig3.htm
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/pentagon_911/fig2.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...novation.ng.wmv


From what I can tell, that dotted line is indeed the end of Wedge 1, the renovated section.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 6 2007, 04:02 PM
Post #10


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



Great research, unfortunately not conclusive that the new bomb resistant windows were or were not installed in Wedge 2 yet...

I wouldn't make the statement that an engine struck an older window.

Don't think I believe that bomb-resistant windows are also 20000 (?)lb., 500 mph, flying engine resistant though, I don't. If an engine made a direct hit there it would have gone right through as happened in the center hole... you know, perhaps the one made by the single engine?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 6 2007, 04:49 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (StevenDC @ Jan 7 2007, 05:02 AM)
I wouldn't make the statement that an engine struck an older window.

Agreed. I continued digging, and apparently the left engine would not have struck Wedge 2, though according to this set of renderings the wing tip would have.

Also, the picture was taken with a long lense and the lack of perspective effects makes it deceiving -
I found these renderings helpful:
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html

Regardless, the photo raises a lot of questions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2007, 05:09 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Dont forget no mark on the building facade where the vertical stab and wing tips would have hit should the aircraft have been a Boeing 757.



And why is there a column sticking down right in the middle of where the fuselage supposedly impacted. I guess we are to assume that single column can hold tight with a 155,000 lb aircraft barreling into it at over 530 mph? But a smaller landing gear strut shaped like a long cylinder can make this wide, clean round hole 3 rings deep?



Uh huh.. .sure... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 6 2007, 11:32 PM
Post #13


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



That column in the middle thing... puzzles me.
Looking through various pictures prior to the roof collapse in the highest res. I can find hasn't helped me. Some pics I see it in, some I don't. Maybe that's because of angles, perspective, lack of foam on it or something, I don't know. Mysterious. Anyway, here are some pics I rounded up, though I didn't find the exact original image for the one Jdx shows...
1. http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Apr1998/DF-ST-87-06962.jpg archive (the good old days- pre renovation)
2. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen...te-hte-def2.jpg archive
3. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg archive
4. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen...te-hte-def1.jpg archive



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 7 2007, 12:00 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



That post kinda looks like it's severed mid point and is just hanging there.


Related subject, from what I've been able to discern, the height of the 1st floor @ the Pentagon is 4.1 meters, and from the bottom of the engines on a 757 to the top of the fuselage is 5.5 meters. Those are just the best numbers I've been able to come up with, not gospel or anything. If anyone knows a good source where I can check either of those numbers I'd be super obliged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 7 2007, 09:18 AM
Post #15


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jan 6 2007, 11:00 PM)
the height of the 1st floor @ the Pentagon is 4.1 meters, and from the bottom of the engines on a 757 to the top of the fuselage is 5.5 meters. Those are just the best numbers I've been able to come up with, not gospel or anything. If anyone knows a good source where I can check either of those numbers I'd be super obliged.

I thought we had those numbers? Kind of a critical point b/c it cannot be argued that the engines did not plow a furrow in the yard. So what is the measurement from the bottom of the engine to the top of the fuselage? What is the distance from the flat "plane" of the yard to the top of the initial hole before collapse?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
StevenDC - I thought we had those numbers? Kind of a critical point b/c it cannot be argued that the engines did not plow a furrow in the yard.


The Pentagon wall is 77' tall.

With about 5 mins of searching google and working with paint...

757 is here...



With a little paint work and cropping from above...



Looks like from bottom of engine to top of fuse is about 22 feet.

I'll let you do the research on the wall Steve... its out there.. wink.gif

I think there are many arguments.. it can fit in terms of height... but not width...

Some say it cannot in terms of height with the bank angle (govt story has it in a left bank)... etc etc.

But. .its also interesting to note. .the Flight Data Recorder has the aircraft in a right bank which also conflicts with the govt story of the left bank needed for the generator damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2007, 01:42 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



A post from our resident Continental aircraft mechanic posted in "Engine Experts?" thread which seems appropriate to re-post here...


QUOTE
tocarm Posted: Jan 7 2007, 10:13 AM 


Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 103
Member No.: 329
Joined: 14-December 06

Warn: (0%)

Dear MuhammedColumbo,

Now then - BACK TO THE PENTAGON & BOEING 757/737 JET ENGINES

I'm quite certain that your photographic anaylsis of the HOLE IN THE WALL of the Pentagon where the alleged Boeing 757 (or 'your' Boeing 737) went entirely into (fuselage, wings, vertical & horizontal stabilizer, engines and nacelles and all) upon striking the Pentagon measures right at/around 16 feet in diamater.

And yes, it's true, that the fuselage diameter of a Boeing 757 is right at/around 13 feet making it a 'possibility' of fitting the entirety of a Boeing 757 (or Boeing 737 for that matter) FUSELAGE into and down its lenght into the Pentagon.

But I do want for you do notice the diameter of that hole not only 'across' by in its 'vertical' mode.

In order to preform that 'feat' of getting its 13' feet diameter fuselage into a 16' feet in diamater hole (measuring from THE GROUND and to the top of that hole), the alleged Boeing 757 (or Boeing 737 for that matter) would have to have been virtually flying about 1 to 1 1/2 feet ABOVE the Pentagon's lawn.

I trust that you will agree/concur with my personal A&P's dimensional assessment of the circumstances/flight conditions necessary for a Boeing 757/Boeing 737 to neatly and cleanly 'disappear' INTO the Pentagon's 16 foot diamter hole in its outer wall.

NOW THEN, my dear MuhammedColumbo - its is a PHYSICAL FACT that the bottoms of the TURBOFAN ENGINE NACELLES on Boeing 757s and Boeings 737s are 3 to 4 feet BELOW the lowest point of the very bottoms of their respective B757/B737 fuselage.

In other words, in order TO FIT either a B757/B737 fuselage 'neatly' into a 16 ft hole in the Pentagon's outer wall - one must BURY about 1/2 of the engine intakes INTO the Pentagon's lawn!!!
Do you see any B757/B737 RB211/PW2000 or CFM56 turbofan nacelle TRENCHES or SKID MARKS leading up to and/or into the outer all of the Pentagon???

Again, my dear MuhammedColumbo - there was NO AA COMMERICAL AIRCRAFT of any Boeing type used in the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon.

Yet everyone at the FAA (to include the FAA Director who appeared just the other night on a 'History Channel' 9-11 special) STILL PUBLICLY ASSERT 19 Arab terrorists were involved in the 9-11 attacks using HIJACKED US commercial aircraft at NYC, at the Pentagon and at Shanksville PA!!

Ditto goes for everyone at the DOD, everyone at FAA ATC, everyone at the FBI, everyone at every last mass media public outlet here in the USA - and MOST ASSUREDLY, that 'ditto' goes for EVERYONE in the WHITE HOUSE as well as in and throughout WASHINGTON, D.C.!!

There were NO US COMMERICIAL AIRPLANES used vs. the Pentagon. And FYI, there is NO LEGITIMATE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT as well. Both 9-11 and a Legitimate US Government are >>BOTH<< MYTHS!

- tocarm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 7 2007, 01:55 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Hmmm Tocarm's post seems to jive with my back of the envelope-calculations ... 5.5 meters is 18 feet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 7 2007, 02:04 PM
Post #19


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



You guys are good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 8 2007, 02:47 AM
Post #20


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (StevenDC @ Jan 7 2007, 06:04 PM)
You guys are good.

worthy.gif forum and members!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 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: 13th December 2019 - 06:36 AM