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, 09:42 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



This is a study of the damage done to the Pentagon building on 9/11.

The Pentagon OCT has been torn to shreds by both CIT and Rob Balsamo in that witnesses place the aircraft nowhere near the necessary trajectory to cause the damage in the first place and that the work Rob and Pilotsfor911Truth have done on the alleged FDR and aerodynamic impossibilities speaks for itself.

This thread will concentrate on the visual damage itself from the facade through to the alleged "punchout hole".
Links and images may overlap and repeat but it's necessary to click on each to get a feel for the outlay of the building.

Edit added imageshack is pissing me about already. If you want to see hi res or larger images that are linked to, click on the link, click off and then on again.

(1) The "Right Wing Damage"

(2) Column 18AA

(3) The Stabilizers

(4) Column 11A

(5) The "Left Wing Damage"

(6) The Collapse Perimeter

(7) Column 13D

(8) Column Row 11DEF

(9) Column 7D

(10) Column 7G

(11) Column Rows 7-9

(12) Columns 9F and 9G

(13) An Explosive Event The Broken Slab

(14) Directional Damage vs The Broken Slab

(15) Column Row 5

(16) Column Row 3

(17) Column Row 1

(18) Wedge 2 and the "Punchout Hole"

Conclusions

(1) The ASCE Report is as deceptive as the NIST Report

(2) An Independent Column Damage Legend

(3) The fuel, the fireball and evidence for explosions

(4) The impossible debris path

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 1 2013, 12:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:44 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



THE "RIGHT WING DAMAGE"

The damage to the Pentagon facade to the right of the alleged "impact zone" has been claimed to have been consistent with the right wing of a Boeing 757.[1]

Here's the damage pattern in question precollapse:

Pentagon Facade Precollapse

The ASCE Report admits that the facade shows no marks from the outer third section of the right wing and actually claims that it struck the floorslab between floors 1 and 2. The visible damage contradicts the claim that the right wing of an aircraft caused this.

On the ASCE Report claim that the "wingtip" somehow "separated" before reaching the facade, the alleged lightpole damage via the alleged official trajectory requires that the right wingtip be connected until the aircraft reached the lawn area.[2]

And there is no visible debris along the OCT path across the lawn in the immediate aftermath of the event.[3]

So, it's claimed (because the ASCE Report has no choice) that this section of wing "separated" at an illogical point a fraction of a second before "striking" the facade, but that the forward momentum wasn't enough to carry this section forward to actually mark the limestone facade.

The ASCE Report used the following image to demonstrate the right wing tilt necessary to correspond with the visible damage to the generator trailer and the facade:



QUOTE
Gashes in the facade above the second-floor slab between column lines 18 and 20 to the south of the collapse area suggest that the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left as it entered the building. The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line 14.

ASCE Report


A closer look.

The ASCE Report is very flippant with it's theory (for that's all that it is) on the facade damage and we'll see why.

Here's the OCT alleged impact damage scenario from trajectory through to alleged internal damage:




Here's a pretty accurate dimensional depiction of the aircraft vs the facade in the alleged OCT impact scenario







And the official depiction of the alleged interaction with the generator trailer (without the tilt):






PHYSICAL SPECS


DIMENSIONS OF SPOOLS, GENERATOR AND FENCE:

I've built up a fairly accurate scale of the area, including obstacles and building/aircraft specs

Spool height (min. 2 metres)

Spool height v Generator damage v Generator fence

Spool v Generator damage (different angle)

The alleged generator trailer "gouge"


Note: What mustn't be forgotten is that the generator damage "height" is more than 2 metres above the ground because:

1) The "bend" that can be seen was mainly due to the high heat and/or the linear bend doesn't necessarily mean that this is where the generator was allegedly struck.

Discussed here.

Generator shell exposed to high heat.

The linear "bend".

2. The front end of the generator was originally on a raised level.

Generator rear (raised)


FLOOR HEIGHTS:




BOEING 757-200 DIMENSIONS




Height from base of fuselage/engine nacelle to wingtip according to above specs (feet and inches)

= M(15-4) - D(8-1) = 7-3

Distance from nacelle to nacelle:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4518/757specs1.gif

= 42ft

If we assume the minimum height of the generator trailer damage to be 2m (6ft) and we know the wingspan of the (alleged) 757 along with the distance between nacelles, we can work out what angle the aircraft had to have "tilted" (the ASCE Report also claimed that the left engine struck at ground level)

First the nacelles @42ft



= 8.21

The same trig applied to the length of the wingspan (124ft) to give us an estimate of the area of the facade the right wing should have struck:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4576/75786ftbmp17ft.png

Ground level to the wingtip = 17ft 4

...but the sweep of the wing must also be taken into account using the same specs outlined earlier [4]

Wing sweep from base of fuselage to wingtip = 7ft 3

Total = 24ft 7

NB: the wing sweep measurements are based on "on the runway" measurements and not an aircraft allegedly travelling at cruise speed pulling multiple gs, so this would be the minimum height of the wingtip in relation to the facade.


The Facade

According to the OCT trajectory and alleged tilt, the right engine nacelle (center) is at 6ft above the ground and allegedly would have struck between columns 16 and 17 [5]

The first two floors are @26ft from the base to the 3rd floor slab and the wingtip should have reached a height of 24ft 7 at a minimum.

In my personal opinion (given the former), the tilt would have had to have been at least 10 to correspond with the generator damage. The base of the right engine would have had to have been 7-8ft agl to clear the obstacles on the OCT right wing trajectory just before (chain link fence) and after the generator (spools).[6][7]

7ft agl

8ft agl)

The corresponding heights for the above have been marked in relation to the facade here:




For the sake of argument I went with the minimum estimate. 6ft agl. (Please note that even the limestone facade is unscathed) and that the wing misses the pulverized 2nd floor slab [8]

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7916/co...llapsemarke.jpg


Here are the corresponding marked areas of the facade which were totally unmarked by this alleged right wing "impact":

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/440/dsc0431rightwing.png


Again, what also stands out is the damage to the slab between the first and second floors and the pulverized debris below it, between columns 18 and 19.

How could the damage be so selective?




Other visual aspects of this proposed right wing damage are not as clear cut as some make out.


The missing vertical window slab on column 20, second floor (seen in the next image) is non-conclusive because the same damage pattern is visible at the opposite end of the facade (north) that was destroyed:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7595/column20column8.png

The apparent facade damage/hole between columns 19 and 20 on the second floor is also non-conclusive because the same damage is visible just below it on the first floor.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8043/ri...gfirstfloor.png

Seen here (post collapse):

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2332/dsc0461w.jpg

And here (also note the pulverization of the second floor slab section):

http://i.imgur.com/CZ3hx.jpg


The questions are..

1. How could the middle third of a swept back Boeing 757 wing cause the visible damage, while the inner and outer third (after the engine) don't even remove the decorative limestone facade (an example of which is seen here)?
And how could the middle third of the right wing actually pulverize an allegedly recently reinforced wall in the first place? And miss Column 18AA and the slab above it when the section of wing closer to the fuselage would have struck the facade first [9][10]?


2. How could the middle third of the right wing cause the damage to the floorslab between the first and second floors when the alleged tilt angle doesn't line any part of the wing up with it?
In fact, if one tries to line up the hypothetical right wing to correspond with the facade damage, there are contradictions at every turn.


3. How could a forward moving object (the outer third portion of the right wing especially or any portion of it for that matter) allegedly travelling at 540mph, and subject to an allegedly massive deceleration, have actually avoided striking the facade? [11]



4. Why does Warren Stutt's alleged bank data show a steady shallow right bank for the final 6 seconds levelling out to 0 allegedly just before "impact" if there was allegedly 8-10 of bank to cause that damage?

5. Of course, not forgetting these people who place the aircraft on a trajectory which completely contradicts all of the visible "damage".


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 1 2013, 03:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:45 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



COLUMN 18AA

Column 18AA and its implications as per the alleged right wing damage can be seen in context here.

This section deals with the actual visible damage caused and how it has been portrayed.

The ASCE Report and some 9/11 "researchers" have marked this column, which is to the south of the alleged impact area (where the right wing was said to have struck), as blue [1][2][3]
[4]

QUOTE
Impacted. Large deformation with significant impairment in function


Wrong. On both counts.

Precollapse [5][6], this column stands out like a sore thumb. And as discussed in the "Right Wing Damage" thread, it raises questions on multiple levels and obviously contradicts the claim that an aircraft wing caused the damage in this area [7][8]


Conclusion:

Column 18AA should never have been marked as blue. It should be marked as grey. Undamaged. This narrows the alleged impact zone considerably and the columns beyond it should be reevaluated.

18AA marked as "grey"



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 10:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:46 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

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






THE STABILIZERS

The lack of vertical nor horizontal stabilizer damage to the facade aren't explained. At all.

Suffice to say that the ASCE Report itself admits that "severe impact damage did not extend above the third floor slab" (referring to the vertical stabilizer) and images show this to be true [Img1][Img2]
[Img3][Img4]



Conclusion

1. There are no visible markings on the facade above the alleged impact zone, precollapse. The ASCE Report acknowledges this.

2. The alleged speed of 800fps would hypothetically have the vertical stabilizer making contact with the facade 0.2 seconds after the nosecone reaches it.

3. Given this 0.2 second timeframe (800fps/155ft length of 757-200), the lack of recognizable debris on the exterior and the necessary complete penetration and desintegration of the aircraft within the length of itself [Img5], how could the vertical stabilizer physically avoid striking the facade? And not even remove or crack the decorative limestone cladding?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:48 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Column 11A

The ASCE Report marks 11AA as red (missing) and 11A as pink

QUOTE
"Within collapsed area. Presumed to have significant impairment"




ASCE image:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1300/column11a.jpg

11AA appears to have been missing in any images I've seen but there is a major flaw in the OCT regarding this area concerning the alleged and necessary "tilt" [Link1].
[First Floor Slab]

Here are a selection of images of this column. Note the gradual desintegration from a recognizable column, although damaged, until it's completely stripped to the wire.
[Img1]
[Img1Source]
[Img2]
[Img2Source]
[Img3]
[Img3Source]



Although in early images, it was hard to make out, the column rebar was still connected to the floor:


Original


Yet this rebar somehow got pushed inwards (from what was almost an upright position) and stripped of cement as time progressed
[Img4][Img4Source]
[Img5]
[Img5Source]


Column 11A Composite


Conclusion:

1. The ASCE Report and the OCT trajectory would have us believe that this section of the facade was where the left engine weighing
almost 12000lbs, the left half of the central fuel tank and of course the inner third of the left wing, smashed it's way through this section of the facade yet caused no damage to the foundation. And somehow failed to completely sever not only this specific column (11A) but a row of columns within this proposed area along the same OCT trajectory (namely Columns 9A, 9B and 9C)
[Img6]
[Img7][Img8]

Even the horizontal stabilizer is alleged to have passed through this point
[Img9]


2. The ASCE Report claimed that the cockpit "desintegrated essentially upon impact, but in the process opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building".

So, they are claiming that the entire 50ft of fuselage between the nosecone and wings had penetrated the facade at column 14 through to column 12. That the facade had been breached before reaching column 11A. That the 12,000lb left engine and inner third of wing and fuel within, travelling at the OCT 540mph somehow had less effect and had essentially desintegrated within several feet within a fraction of a second on an already breached, weakened facade.


3. What also has to be remembered is that not only is it being proposed that the aircraft wing, engine and horizontal stabilizer
passed through these columns but the renovated section of the facade itself which was allegedly held together by a web of steel and kevlar had to have been pushed through the same area.
[Img10]
[Img11]


The columns have had their concrete stripped but the rebar remains mainly intact on many within an area that was supposedly subject to a massive kinetic force. 11A specifically would require all of the above mentioned material (engine, wing, facade debris, etc) to have dematerialized within a fraction of a second. The damage is non conclusive as to an "impact" occurring. This is just an example of the inconsistencies to be found throughout the alleged damage path.

Couple all of the above with the fact that the Pentagon lawn was virtually debris free within the context of an alleged Boeing 757 crash and complete penetration .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:50 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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





THE "LEFT WING DAMAGE"


Columns 11AA through to column 8AA, north of the alleged impact area is alleged to have been where the left wing of the aircraft penetrated the facade. Columns lettered "AA" are those outermost on the facade.

The span of the left wing through to the wingtip would hypothetically have reached Column 6AA:

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...2000c211d11.jpg

The extended columns in question can be seen marked in the following image between the alleged impact zone and the heliport where vehicles were burnt out:

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...737d892c360.jpg


The windows were blown out up to 100ft away from the furthermost point to the north/left of the alleged impact area. [1][2][3]


Note: 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. [4][5]


The reason for this will become more apparent as we go on.


There was also a 2-3 metre fence that ran between the vehicles and the facade at this point that was blown out and away from the facade towards the vehicles. [6]


Remember that the left wing was alleged to have reached the area in question.

There was also a forklift truck along the official path just in front of the facade. It was also blown away from the building. [7][8][9]


The height of forklift can be garnered from this image:

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...c6e30b8494f.jpg


The visual and physical evidence points to the source of the blast as coming internally from the section of the facade north of the alleged impact zone that runs towards the heliport area.

To expand on this, it's been claimed that the exterior damage to the north of the alleged impact zone seen on the facade was caused by the left wing. Again, according to the OCT trajectory, the wing would have reached around the Column 6AA area.


The alleged extent of this damage can be seen here:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3886/dsc0495a.jpg

A closer look:

Wedge 1, which ran to the doorway beyond the tree seen in the above image had allegedly been fitted with blast proof windows.

The damage to this section of the facade actually extended through to column 1AA (where wedge 2 starts) which is around 50 ft from column 6AA (there is a 10ft gap between the outer columns).

The blast damage to windows in the unrenovated section extended to beyond the heliport area. Note that the aforementioned doorway can also be seen.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg


The windows are blown out and debris internally piled against them suggesting an outward blast.

The following image shows window blinds strewn beyond the helipad (wrongly referred to as "aircraft confetti" by some) which also indicates this outward blast:

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


Back to the alleged "left wing" damage.

Given that the left wing would have hypothetically reached Column 6AA, the damage seen beyond this area is claimed to have had to have been caused by the force of the wing hitting this section of the facade. [10]

There are multiple problems with this claim. Keep in mind the alleged damage caused by the "right wing" and how limited and irregular it was (in relation to the wingspan of a Boeing 757). And how the ASCE Report was at a loss to explain the lack of damage in line with the alleged trajectory and dimensions of a Boeing 757.


First off, Column 9AA contradicts the alleged trajectory of the alleged OCT impact. [11]


This column can also be seen deteriorating over the following day or two (Columns 9AA/9A)

Notice also the reinforced metal window frame beside Column 8AA which can be seen in its intact form here:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7546/pe...riorwindows.png

The same damage pattern can be seen almost 50 ft further north at Column 3AA (behind tree)

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/pho...N-3235P-009.jpg

Whether by actual physical contact with the facade, or the momentum carried,
how could the alleged impact of the left wing displace the reinforced concrete around this window frame yet not even chip Column 8AA?


Column 8AA throws up multiple problems for the alleged OCT left wing damage beyond this point.

It is unscathed.
[12][13]

Just as Column 18AA and the slab above it were unmarked prior to collapse.

We're meant to accept that the alleged left wing damage somehow "skipped" this column and proceeded to cause the uniform damage over a 70ft area?

As with the alleged right wing damage, there is an alleged illogical damage pattern from a supposed 100 ton wide bodied commercial aircraft travelling at 540-580mph.


As shown in the "Right Wing Damage" section, the missing exterior to Column 8AA, second floor, matches the damage seen to Column 20AA to the right of the alleged impact zone. [14][15]


There is a comparison to the damage caused, though on a smaller scale, with striking similarities. Both to the linear damage seen in the "left wing damage" area of the facade and the alleged "punch out hole" in the C Ring

A bomb was detonated within a Church in Kirkurk, Baghdad.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44141575/ns/wo...a/#.ToDfl-zmtlc


http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-17.jpg

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-18.jpg

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-19.jpg


Conclusion: At the internal midway point between the alleged impact and "punch out" zone, it's claimed that the first floor slab was breached by an explosion and that severe damage was caused to the immediate surrounding columns, rows 5 and 7 [16], and Row 9 [17] parallel to the facade where the alleged "left wing damage" was caused.

Column 8AA and the missing concrete around the window frame can be seen in the latter image (Row 9).


This explosion was the more realistic culprit based on the above. No doubt whatsoever.


Column 8AA is the spanner in the works of the entire OCT "left wing impact" scenario and the extended damage seen to the windows up to and beyond the heliport area.




This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 10:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:52 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



PERIMETER

Column 17AA is marked as red ("missing"). Which is true.

Column 17A is marked as green ("impacted, heavy cracking and some impairment in function")

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-57.jpg

This claim that it was "impacted" is highly debatable.

1. As shown earlier, Column 18AA was intact precollapse. What was also almost completely intact was the floor slab between the first and second floors, between columns 18AA and 17AA [1]

I've changed column 18AA from blue [IMG2] to grey (no damage)



This raises doubts that Column 17A could have physically been struck by the right wing in the alleged impact scenario.

How could the alleged right wing impact which was officially on a trajectory 37 degrees to the perpendicular of the facade actually strike this column having somehow missed Column 18AA and the floor slab beside it [IMG3][IMG4][IMG5]?






Physically impossible.


Column 17A runs along the profile of the collapsed area and there are no images of it until after the clean-up operation.
It's buried under tons of rubble to the south/right of the collapsed area where the floors are still connected to the building

[IMG6]
[IMG7][IMG8][IMG9][IMG10]

Column 17A Composite

Even if we were to assume that the right wing could have somehow kept its length and shape having passed through a reinforced wall (having avoided the floorslab), the damage to the column itself is perfectly rounded for the entire circumference at the top and partially stripped on the opposite side of the alleged trajectory [IMG11][IMG12]

What also has to be remembered is that many of the column exteriors were exposed to high heat over a period of days and were brittle. Examples of this iare shown in the ASCE Report [IMG13]
[IMG14.

Conclusion:

The visible damage cannot have been physically caused by "impact" and appears to have more to do with the collapse, fire and clean up operation. And possibly internal explosions.




COLUMN 15B

This column is also marked as green in the ASCE Report ("impacted").



The same problem arises for the OCT alleged impact scenario and Column 15B. The intact Column 18AA and the floor slab beside it [IMG15][IMG16] also contradict the claim that Column 15B was struck by any aircraft right wing on the OCT trajectory [IMG17][IMG18]


As with Column 17A, the "impacted" label is also highly debatable. Even more so because this would entail the right wing maintaining its integrity at this point and that the majority of concrete exterior is missing on the opposite end of the alleged trajectory of the aircraft.

As with 17A also, Column 15B is on the edge of the collapsed area and was not only subject to the fire and collapse but to the clean-up operation that followed [IMG19][IMG20][IMG21]

To further confirm that Columns 17A and 15B's damage were more likely due to the collapse and clean up operation, we only have to look at Column 15C which was just feet away from 15B, just beyond the collapse perimeter and which was virtually unscathed [IMG22]

What also stands out is that Column 15B is far more damaged than Column 17A which would have borne the brunt of any alleged airplane impact.

Conclusion:

The visible damage cannot have been caused by "impact" and appears to have more to do with the collapse, fire and clean up operation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:53 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

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





COLUMN 13D

Column 13D is marked as blue [IMG1]


QUOTE
"Impacted. Large deformation with significant impairment in function"


It is another column on the edge of the perimeter of the collapsed section [IMG2]

The alleged ASCE Report image of 13D is also accompanied by the following description:

QUOTE
Stripped to spiral reinforcement, bowed to Northeast


The first claim is a blatant exaggeration (although the alleged ASCE image would appear to back this description up). The second claim is false.

There is only one image that I know of which shows this column before it was shored up.


Source

You can see that some concrete is missing at the top of the column but it wasn't completely "stripped", as can be (just about) seen in the ASCE image. It appears to have all the characteristics of the columns that were exposed to high heat (as shown in the ASCE Report) [IMG3]

And the column is in no way "bowed to Northeast".


13D Composite.


Conclusion: The ASCE descriptions of this column are a blatant exaggeration and a falsehood based on the images shown before it was shored up. That it's claimed that it was "bowed" at all is a lie. To say that it was "bowed to the Northeast" (the OCT trajectory) shows that it's either a deliberate lie by the ASCE Report or that the column itself was manipulated. Either that or a completely different column was photographed and labelled as 13D.

Either way, it's wrong. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter. But this column was one of the most easily accessible and therefore identifiable [IMG4].

There are other examples of this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:55 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



Column row 11DEF


Columns 11D, 11E and 11F are paired columns and run just beyond the collapsed section [Img1]

11D is another column situated at the perimeter of the collapsed section and is also within the almost entirely unsupported 3000 square feet area discussed earlier [Link1]. It was also on the perimeter of 5 floors of debris [Img2]

If the OCT were to be true, Column 11D would be in the path of the right engine area [Img3].

At first glance, as with the entire alleged impact scenario, it could be argued that Column 11D shows all the signs of being struck by a heavy object and that it's on the official trajectory through the building. Or that the kinetic energy of the aircraft as it was breaking up could have caused the damage.

There are several problems with this.

Column 11D isn't shattered. This double column has the same repeated feature shown throughout the interior damage. The outer concrete has been neatly stripped from the entire length of the columns. Most likely due to heat [Img4]. The other problem is that if this column was struck by a heavy object, the rebar that encases the inner concrete should have been marked in some way. It wasn't. [ASCEImg][Img5][Img6][Img7]

The next problem with this scenario brings me on to the other two double columns, 11E and 11F [Img1]

11E has been marked as green ("Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment in function"). This is blatantly false. Even the image shown in the ASCE Report shows this to be untrue [ASCEImg].

As do FEMA shots [Img8][Img8Source][Img9]

There are only two shots of Column 11F (AFAIK). One contained in a FEMA shot posted above [Img10][Img11] and another (even more ambiguous) image posted by the ASCE Report [ASCEImg]

Column 11E, as with Column 18AA and Column 8AA, create major problems for the alleged impact scenario. How could an alleged 100 ton
wide bodied commercial aircraft travelling at cruise speed actually avoid these areas? Whether in the form of heavy objects or the force of desintegration and deceleration within a fraction of a second? Or both?

We've also seen that Column 13D which precedes both 11E and 11F on the OCT trajectory wasn't "impacted". So how could 11F be "impacted"?

Here's 11E marked as grey ("in tact"). As has Column 18AA.



11F in all likelihood, according to the image and preceding columns that weren't "impacted", was also "in tact". Grey.

And the reason why the OCT "directional damage" claims must be questioned:



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 1 2013, 04:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:58 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

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





Column 7D

QUOTE
Impact damage to the structure above the second floor slab did not extend more than approximately 50 feet into the building. This shows that the aircraft slid between the first floor slab on grade and the second floor slab for most of its distance of travel after striking the building.

[ASCE Report screenshot 1]


Here's the alleged OCT entry point and the trajectory of where the engines and fuselage would have travelled.



Remember, according to the OCT, the aircraft was allegedly travelling at almost 800fps. At this alleged speed, complete penetration would have occurred in 0.2 seconds (155ft Boeing 757 length/800).

It's also claimed by the ASCE that the "aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had travelled a distance that equalled approximately the length of the aircraft" and that "debris experienced an average dceleration of 30gs" [ASCE Report screenshot 2]

They cite Column row 3G, 3H and 3J as the point at which the aircraft had basically desintegrated, having "slid" into the first floor from a point 50ft within the building [Img1].

100 tons, 800fps, 0.2 seconds to fully penetrate, 30gs of deceleration, "slid" into the first floor and no recognizable/sizeable debris on the Pentagon lawn.



That's a difficult and very powerful scenario to try and imagine.

First we had the scenario whereby Column 11AA, just beyond the facade of the building, withstood the full on "impact" of the left engine, building debris and trailing horizontal stabilizer [Img2][Img3][Column 11A Composite]

Now we're faced with another scenario where just 50-60 feet beyond the area where the aircraft allegedly "slid" down into the first floor, two columns, 7D and 5D somehow avoided this chaotic event.






Column 5D is marked as yellow.

"Cracking and spalling but with no significant impairment in function"

Column 5D is actually described as "in tact" within the ASCE Report and multiple images prove this to be so. It should be marked as grey [Img4]


Column 7D is marked as green.

"Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment in function".

The ASCE Report itself describes Column 7D as "split by vertical crack that looks typically like thermal cracking" [Img5]

And based on the images I've found so far, this column should be marked either yellow or grey [Img6][SourceImg6][Img7][Img8][Img9]


In one direction, just @20ft away, is where a violent event occurred which pushed the first floor slab upwards [Img10][Img11]

In the opposite direction, @20ft away is a Column that the ASCE Report claims to have been "impacted", Column 7C [Img12][Img13]

If you look again at Img13 above, you'll see that the ASCE Report describes it as "spalled to spiral reinforcement" and as having "some concrete missing inside spiral reinforcement". They definitely weren't describing the column seen in that image. The description of the column the ASCE had allegedly seen compared to the column shown in the image shows just how deteriorated many of the columns had become due to heat and a violent event, or due to second hand, delayed information and access to the area.

Column 9C [Img14], adjacent to Column 7C [Img15] (seen in the background between the two first responders) again just 20ft away, and which was almost directly in the path of the OCT trajectory aircraft, gives an idea of what 7C originally looked like.

Column 9C would have borne the brunt of any aircraft on that trajectory for the entire length. At the point where the aircraft allegedly "slid" into the first floor.

What needs to be remembered is that the OCT and lack of debris would have us believe that the fuselage from the cockpit to the wings (50ft in length) had allegedly penetrated the facade and that the "heavier" objects and remaining fuselage would have reached the point where the aircraft allegedly "slid" into the first floor.

Column 7D (and to an extent Column 5D) sits out like a sore thumb in the middle of all of this chaotic scenario.

100 tons, 800fps, 0.2 seconds to fully penetrate, 30gs of deceleration, "slid" into the first floor and no recognizable/sizeable debris on the Pentagon lawn.



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 1 2013, 04:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 09:59 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Column 7G

7G is another controversial column. Both in the description and the ASCE Report claim that no images of it were available.



Wrong on both counts.

Column 7G, as with Column 7D [Img1] is situated in an area where alleged chaotic and extremely violent events were said to have occurred (discussed here - 7D). It's actually within the region where the first floor slab was lifted.



It's also in the area where the ASCE Report claims that the aircraft allegedly had become completely desintegrated (marked "160ft" at Column 3G) and roughly 60-70ft from where the aircraft allegedly "slid" down into the first floor (marked "50ft")


Killing two birds with one stone, there are images available and they do not show the alleged damage described.

"Severe spalling. Steel visible mid-height to top."




[Source]

What's the significance of this?

Apart from this column appearing relatively unscathed seeing as how it wason the alleged OCT trajectory within the building, it also, along with Column 7D, delineates the internal damage [Img1]

The area between Columns 7D and 7G is where the alleged "heavier debris" was meant to have passed through. There's about 50-60ft separating these two columns but the alleged OCT trajectory narrows that gap considerably.

Here's an idea of how narrow the gap is being proposed by the OCT (remember this image when you see unscathed columns):



So, apart from the obvious problems for the alleged impact scenario beyond this point, why was the face of Column 7G that was directly in the path of this alleged impact not marked?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:00 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



Column Rows 7 - 9

Beyond the OCT directional damage, the ASCE Report has made erroneous, exaggerated and false claims as to the extent of the damage to the columns.

Column rows 7 and 9 have mainly been marked as yellow

QUOTE
Cracking and spalling but no significant impairment in function


Basically, when marked as yellow, they are being described as heat damaged. The majority of columns throughout this entire section of the building can be described as heat damaged. Even through the upper floors. Marking these columns on the first floor is ultimately disingenuous as they in no way delineate the alleged damage trajectory.

Here's a breakdown of the columns in question.










Among these columns is Column 7G, which the ASCE claimed to have no available images of [Img1], and is marked as green

QUOTE
Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment in function.


This column is very important as it is one of two columns (the other being 7D) that delineate the internal damage [Img2]

The ASCE claims are false on two counts. The damage they described and the claim that there were no images available [Img3][Img4].

According to the images available, Column 7G should be marked as yellow too.


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 1 2013, 04:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:01 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



Columns 9F and 9G

The next two columns are 9F and 9G.

We've already seen how 7D and 7G curiously delineate the damage at a point where the OCT trajectory would have the aircraft at the point where it was claimed by the ASCE to have almost completely desintegrated.




Column 9F [ASCEImg] lies within an area not only adjacent to the apparently delineated damage path [Img1], but also beyond Column 11E [Img2] (on the OCT trajectory) which was actually intact.

On the OCT damage path trajectory beyond Column 9F were a series of columns that were also relatively unaffected (columns that were "blackened" or allegedly "spalled" by the heat).

More images are needed to confirm this, but Column 9F also appears to be "bowed" against the directional damage
[Img3] (Note where Columns 7H and 7J are in relation to Column 9F to delineate the alleged OCT trajectory and then look at the damage).

What also needs to be taken into account is that according to the OCT, the aircraft allegedly struck the building at second floor slab level [Img4]
[Img5], and was supposed to have completely entered and penetrated the first floor at this level, yet the primary damage is seen at the base of the column. A column which is just a matter of feet from this point (shown in the image above marked "50ft"). This is an anomalous feature throughout the damaged area.

How so?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:03 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



An explosive event the broken slab

The further we go into the internal damage the more scarce the images available (that have been released).

The next section is an area where there was obviously a violent event that broke and lifted the second floor slab above it. The ASCE diagram shows an area that was allegedly "deflected upwards" and covers a roughly 600 square foot area (20ft x @30ft) according to their layout [Img1]

Remember that from hereon in, bar several FEMA images, we are relying on the word of the ASCE (which has been proven by this research to have been at best inept and at worst dishonest) and the FBI.

I say "allegedly" when referring to the slab that was claimed to have been "deflected upwards" because the image shown in the ASCE Report shows only an area of approximately 10ft x 6ft



The columns within and around this area have been labelled and the column legend rotated:



Note: With regards to these column legend images, I'm not suggesting that the OCT impact scenario aircraft would maintain integrity so far into the building. Merely the trajectory if the OCT were true.

Again, we come across these problematic collections of columns that were damaged solely by heat or undamaged at all, in and around the OCT damage trajectory. [Img2][Img3]




There are no images of Columns 7E and 9E or the area they were in (AFAIK) and the ASCE Report provides very little detail on these columns [Img4].

As for Column 5E [Img5] (also see posted image above for placement), the columns immediately preceding it, specifically Column 7D, make any impact scenario by a solid object on the OCT damage trajectory impossible.

What's also peculiar in the ASCE image [Img5] is that the wooden shoring was allegedly built around the fallen column, that it lay within its original area and that (from what can be seen), it isn't buckled. It is more or less straight.



So how did it fall in line with the directional damage [Img6]?

If an explosive force from the fuel tanks at this point is to blame (which the ASCE Report contradicts - discussed later) or a deflection of debris (which the alleged impact scenario contradicts), how did Columns 5D and 7D avoid an event as violent as it was short lived [Img7]





Column 5F [Img7] requires another stretch in that the aircraft fuselage would have to be the culprit according to the OCT damage trajectory [Img8]

Column 5G [Img9] would also have to have been struck by the OCT trajectory of the fuselage [Img10].

Remember that the alleged OCT impact entails the aircraft striking the first floor slab of the facade [Img11][Img12] and that the aircraft allegedly "slid" into the first floor [Img13].

At the alleged speed and the full penetration scenario, this would entail the top half of the fuselage being literally shaved off and the heavier lower section (engines, fuel tank, landing gear) continuing its journey along the ceiling slab of the first floor.

Given the ASCE Report's claim that the aircraft had allegedly desintegrated before it had travelled the length of itself within the building and the point where they claim the aircraft began to "slide" (within 50ft of the facade) completely into the first floor [Img14], we have to remember to take into account the fact that the first floor height is only 14ft. There is no room for manouevre or deviation for any alleged debris.

A reminder.

The OCT 100 ton aircraft. Cruise speed. 30g of deceleration. No recognizeable or sizeable debris on the lawn. Complete penetration. In 0.2 seconds.

So how were these columns broken at the base?

5F[Img7][Img8][Img15]?

5G [Img9][Img10]?


Conclusions

Without more images (at times the total absence of), never mind timeframed imagery from different angles, it's difficult to reach a solid conclusion. But even with the scant images available of the area, coupled with the images of the area preceding it, there is definitely a cause to suspect that an alleged impact didn't cause this damage. And rather that an explosive event occurred.

[1] Column 5E [Img16] is the irregularity in the area of these other columns [Img16]. Columns 5D and 7D [Img17] preclude an impact as being the cause of its damage. Even the visible damage to the column contradicts an impact scenario.

[2] Even the very nature of the damage to the columns in that they were disconnected at the bottom and pushed upwards, 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 [Img18][Img19]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:04 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

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





Directional damage vs the "broken slab"

I kept this section separate even though it falls within the "Left Wing Damage" section.

What has to be understood is that there was a very important detail ommited from the ASCE Report concerning the damage to the Pentagon to the North/left of the alleged impact zone.

It's already been discussed how Column 9AA's appearance gradually changed as the days wore on

9AA legend

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-79.jpg

Composite

(Columns 9AA/9A)

The column next to 9AA, 8AA, threw up multiple problems for the alleged impact scenario in this area. It was unscathed
[Img1][Img2]

Yet the concrete around the window beside Column 8AA has been blown out.

What wasn't discussed was the breakage of the slab just above these columns.



Just how precarious this section was can be seen from another angle

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-81.jpg


This section of the building had to be held up on either corner:

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-82.jpg

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...tu/image-86.jpg

because there were apparently only two recognizable columns reasonably intact within a 30ft by @100ft (3000 square feet) section with four floors above it. Column 9AA and 9A [Img3][Img4][Img5]


The columns that remained in this 3000 square feet area, at the time the photos were taken, consisted of shattered concrete and rebar. [Img6][Img7]

It must be remembered that most images of the Pentagon interior damage were taken days and weeks after the event. And that those images taken soonest after and made available show that columns were rapidly deteriorating due to effects other than the alleged impact scenario as lain out in the ASCE Report.

Column 9AA, as already shown, being one example [Img8][Img9] and Column 9C being another [Img10][Img11][Img12]


Even the controversial image of Column 13D must have been subject to heat and the unsupported weight of this section of building
[Img13][Img14][Img15]

Column 7C's description should also be a clue as to how deteriorated these columns had become

"Some concrete missing inside spiral reinforcement"



"Some concrete missing"? Seriously?


This image of a heat damaged column should be very telling as to what actually happened inside the damaged area



Couple this with the weight of an unstable section of building on top and then you can look at the column and the "directional damage" claims in a new light.

There is visual evidence of this.

When I first saw this image I had thought that it was an unintentional optical illusion caused by the photographer, in that the slab above the columns appeared to be angled:



Remember that the slab is most definitely damaged [Img16].


There are a number of issues with this image. The shored up area with the American flag, for example. You can actually see how the top of it is angled in comparison with the flag.



There's a length of metallic stripping "conveniently" covering the wooden slat that also would have been useful to judge the angle.


Conclusion

1. Columns within this area were under severe strain.

2. As hours passed, columns were rapidly deteriorating. Those visible just after the event could be seen to have had their outer concrete more or less intact or at least appeared sturdy, yet within hours they were reduced to rebar and shattered concrete. There is visual evidence of this with several columns.

3. The severe strain that these columns were under, and heat, whatever the source of the explosion and a 3000 square feet area of unsupported 4 stories of the building, was the more likely culprit (or at least would have to be taken into consideration as being so) for what has been labelled "impact and/or directional damage".


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 10:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:06 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



Column Row 5

This deep into the building, we are basically relying on ASCE images and information. Even so, Column row 5, just beyond the damaged second floor "slab", throws up many contradictions.






Not included in the Column Row 5 legend is column 5H [Img2][Img3]


Column 5H is another anomaly in that it is virtually straight yet seems to have been ripped from the floor/ceiling (***link to slab) [Img4]


Beyond column 5H are a row of three columns, 5J, 5K and 5L [Img5] which are marked as green

QUOTE
Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment in function


The description of Column 5J is dubious according to the only image I've found so far. The ASCE image [Img6][Img7].

Columns 5J, 5K and 5L are outside of the delineated OCT directional damage path [Img8]

Column 5K (and this is why I've no confidence whatsoever in the ASCE claims) is also described as "in tact"[Img9]. It should be marked as grey. Not green.

Column 5L [Img10][Img11]
does appear cracked in that god awful image. We must remember how other columns have been proven to have desintegrated due to heat in other areas.
And that it was furthest from the OCT directional damage path [Img8] and that the column preceding it, 5K, was "in tact" [Img9]


Columns 5M and 5N complete this row [Img12].
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:07 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

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





Column Row 3

Column row 3 [Img1] is the area where the ASCE Report claims that the OCT aircraft had to have completely desintegrated to explain the extent of (or lack of) damage in this area [Img2[Img3].


Column 3E

is in tact [Img4]

Column 3F

is marked as yellow but is also in tact [Img5].


According to more detailed layouts of the building, there were two mechanical rooms bordering these two columns and the uplifted first floor slab [Img6]

There is also a visible hole in the ceiling directly above where these mech rooms were.






I had thought that it could possibly have been purposely made to allow light/air to enter (because it isn't seen in other images) but it's a two story section [Img8].


So what happened to these mech rooms?

As with Column 5E [Img9], they were even further off the OCT directional damage path [Img10] [Img11]


Column 3G is marked as yellow (heat damage) [Img12]. It also delineates the alleged OCT damage trajectory to within inches. Having allegedly smashed through Column 5F, this "force" somehow passed by it [Img10]

It could be argued that both the bulk of the alleged aircraft debris caused one significant path, while the kinetic energy/finer debris or fuel explosion/both caused the damage off of the OCT directional damage path but this will be shown to be nonsense when all of the (available) data is looked at as a whole.


Column 3H [Img13] is marked as blue.

QUOTE
Impacted. Large deformation with significant impairment in function


This column is directly on the OCT directional damage path [Img14][Img15][Img16]

What allegedly caused this damage [Img17] will be looked at in more detail when all of the visual data is collected.

What I will say at this point is that this column is just feet from an area on the OCT damage trajectory where a 600 square foot slab was allegedly lifted and columns knocked straight down. That columns beyond it on the exact same trajectory suffered worse damage. And of course the C Ring "exit hole".


Next on column line 3 there are three columns that ran along another mechanical room. Columns 3J, 3K and 3L [Img18]

Remember that the column preceding this area, column 3H [Img15] wasn't knocked over (though it is visibly damaged [Img17]), so no alleged debris passed through this point.

There are a number of columns along the OCT directional damage path that were more or less in tact and which contradict alleged impact damage along this path.

Column 13D [Img19], column 11E [Img20], column 7G [Img21][Img22] and column 5J [Img23][Img24] stand between the OCT directional damage and this row of columns [Img25].

Could the damage have been caused from the alleged debris being deflected and striking column 3H [Img15]?

Not only would this entail debris allegedly travelling 4-500 mph having to deviate to almost a right angle within feet of column 3H, but the damage to the columns also contradicts this scenario. Specifically the first column that would be on this path. Column 3J [Img18]. This column is apparently damaged (though heat could very well be the main culprit, but it's still standing [Img26]
[Img27]
[Img28].

Column 3K is marked as red ("missing") but the ASCE image is dubious as there doesn't appear to have been a column ever there [Img29]
[Img30]
[Img31].

Column 3L was stripped of concrete [Img32]
[Img33] but the image was taken after the shoring had went up, so may very well have been stripped by heat damage. It also appears to have the same damage as some columns within the "slab" area [Img34], particularly column 5F
[Img35]

In both areas, the second floor slab was damaged [Img36]



Finally columns 3M and 3N [Img37].


The deeper into the building we go, the less images available. And the images that are available are generally low resolution, void of timeframes and angles.
From what we can see, the damage that was allegedly caused by what was left of a supposed aircraft impact is contradicted by the necessary trajectory of any alleged debris to cause the visible damage.

How can a damage path on a specific trajectory be simultaneously precise yet totally random unless other explosive events were occurring?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:09 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



Column Row 1

Column row 1 is made up of double columns which divide Wedge 1 from Wedge 2.
Those which are in Wedge 1 are described as being to the south and those which
run along Wedge 2 are described as being to the north [Img1]

What's not depicted in the ASCE layout of the building are the mechanical rooms and stairs (shown in DOD plans) [Img2]

The first column along this row that is anywhere near the OCT directional damage path, and which is marked as "grey" (in tact), is Column 1F South. The only image I'm aware of is this one seen to the left of the column marked 3F [Img3]



The reason I mention this column is because there is a mechanical room and stairway beside each [Img4]

No signs of the mech room can be seen and none of the three columns that run along it were apparently damaged. Column 3E [Img5], for example.

As with Column 5E, which doesn't fall within the OCT directional damage according to the lack of damage to columns preceding it [Img6], the mechanical room which was also apparemtly destroyed point to an explosive event in this area [Img7], [Img8].


Column 1G is within the same stairway [Img9] as Column 1F [Img10]. There are no images of this column, nor the stairway (AFAIK), but Columns 1F and 1G are marked as "grey" (in tact), so I'm assuming that this stairway had to be relatively unscathed.

The above summation narrows down the trajectory from which the alleged damage to Columns 1H North and 1H South was caused [Img11], [Img12].

Columns 7D, 5D, 3F, 3G and the stairway between Columns 1F and 1G rule out the OCT damage trajectory as being the source



The only other source from an aircraft impact scenario is that whatever caused the damage to Column 3H, which is directly in the centre of the OCT directional damage path [Img13][Img14][Img15][Img16], had somehow split the directional damage into two distinct paths at a 90 angle to eachother. Without actually breaking the column in question.

Barring the fact that the surrounding damage (Columns 3J, 3K and 3L) and the allegedly undamaged stairway between Column 1F and 1G and physics of such an event contradicts this scenario, it also raises problems for the alleged "punch out hole" at AE Drive. If the alleged debris was deflected so dramatically and the column that allegedly deflected it wasn't knocked down, what caused the hole?


The next double column along this row is Column 1J South and 1J North [Img17] which were also relatively unscathed.
In fact, they are marked as yellow ("cracking and spalling" due to heat damage but are in fact described by the ASCE Report as "in tact and blackened".

They should be marked as grey.

Columns 1J North and South are on the ASCE Report damage trajectory [Img18], nestled amid two mech rooms and a stairway [Img19]. Even Column 3J, just 20 feet away, and also on the damage trajectory is contradictory to the alleged path [Img20].

What are these "in tact" columns doing in the middle of what was proposed by the ASCE as being the area where the aircraft had allegedly lost all integrity during a 30g deceleration at 540mph?

In fact, the OCT trajectory of the aircraft through the building, through the centre of the fuselage, which lines up with the C Ring "exit hole" contradicts the FBI and government loyalist claims that debris caused this hole [Img21].

Again, remember that Column 3H which immediately preceded Columns 1J North and South on the OCT damage trajectory wasn't knocked down even though it was directly in the middle of this path [Img14][Img16]

And that the undamaged columns preceding Column 3H, namely 5D, 7D and 7G [Img22] had already narrowed down this trajectory considerably.

The squeeze is certainly getting tighter for any alleged debris to make its way through.

Now we come to double Columns 1K North and South [Img23]. The ASCE Report has marked Column 1K South as red (destroyed or knocked over) which is allegedly true, but has marked Column 1K North as yellow (heat damage) [Img24], which is false, if the contradictory description and god awful image is to be believed.

QUOTE
Bowed to northeast.
Spiral reinforcement exposed at mid-height


These columns are directly on the OCT damage trajectory path. In fact, this path runs between them [Img25].

So what caused this alleged damage given the preceding damage pattern along the same path?

Namely, Column 3H [Img26][Img27], Columns 1J North and South [Img28] and Column 3J [Img30]

These columns were just feet away from a mech room that was apparently destroyed [Img31] and the beams above them on the second floor [Img32]. An obviously explosive event.

What also suggests a non-impact scenario is the actual damage caused to Column 1K South coupled with the second floor beam damage.



Other columns in and around the uplifted slab area along column lines 5 and 7 [Img33], were knocked down but retained their shape, and were acknowledged as such by the ASCE Report [Img34].

The damage of Column 5E in particular coupled with the second floor beam damage matches the visible damage to Column 1K South
[Img35][Img36] and the fact that alleged debris could not have been the cause of the damage
[Img37]


Next in this row is double Column 1L North and South which were also directly in the path of the OCT directional damage trajectory [Img38], yet is marked as yellow by the ASCE Report (heat damage) and although only one image was made available, both are also described as "in tact" and "slightly blackened"
[Img39]


Next are double columns 1M North and South. One is a horrible image [Img40] and the other has been withheld [Img41]. Both descriptions are based on the word of the ASCE who allegedly weren't allowed into this section of the building, and the FBI.

What's curious is how the column more central to the OCT directional damage was allegedly heat damaged (marked yellow) while the other was allegedly damaged (marked blue) [Img42].

They also fall within this secondary damage trajectory which falls outside the delineated path between columns 7D and 7G [Img43] and just beyond the point 160ft into the building, where the ASCE Report claims that the aircraft had lost complete integrity to somehow explain how Column 3H [Img44] wasn't destroyed.

There are multiple columns along the OCT damage trajectory that impede the alleged damage to these columns, specifically those which only suffered heat damage[Img45].


Remember the OCT scenario. 100 tons, 800fps, 0.2 seconds to fully penetrate, 30gs of deceleration, "slid" into the first floor and no recognizable/sizeable debris on the Pentagon lawn.




In line with this "hop, skip and jump" damage that is characteristic throughout the building, are Columns 1N North and South [Img46][Img47], details of which again consists of one terrible and one withheld image. 1N North is marked as grey (in tact) and 1N South is marked as yellow (heat damage).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:10 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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





Wedge 2 and the "punchout hole"

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.



What caused this hole? Debris? Explosives? Kinetic energy?

First off, the hole is precisely at the end of the OCT directional damage path line which runs through the alleged fuselage. The ASCE Report claims, and the visible damage pattern demands, that the alleged aircraft had completely desintegrated as a point 160ft (almost the length of the alleged aircraft) into the building. And that debris had travelled almost equal to this distance beyond this point around Column line 3 [Img1][Img2][Img3].

One of the columns along column row 3, column 3H, is a major spanner in the works of this scenario [Img4]. Yes, it's damaged, but still standing. How could any alleged debris follow this precise damage path?

We've already seen how irregular the damage path and secondary paths are leading up to this column. Including explosions evidenced by severe damage to columns off of the damage path. Preceded by non damaged columns.

The directional damage beyond Column 3H [Img4] is very narrow given the damage pattern (or lack thereof) to columns such as 1J North and South [Img5] which were in tact [Img6].

The fact that Column 3H was still standing, and that Columns 1J North and South were in tact, would preclude any alleged debris from the entire length of the left hand side of the alleged aircraft from travelling beyond this point.




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!



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



How?


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 10:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 19 2013, 10:11 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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





Conclusion 1

The ASCE Report is as deceptive as the NIST Report


Throughout this breakdown of the Pentagon interior and exterior damage I've used images which depict an aircraft penetrating the facade to give an idea of the alleged OCT directional damage vs the dimensions of a Boeing 757 ploughing through the building.

The OCT damage trajectory is very specific. But the visible damage contradicts the notion that an aircraft fully penetrated into the building at second floor slab level and "slid" into the 14ft tall first floor.

Here's the ASCE Report damage legend.



[1] The columns marked as yellow are allegedly heat damaged. They do not delineate any directional damage. In many cases, heat damaged columns have been wrongly marked to exaggerate the damage radius.

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...zpseceb35bb.jpg

These columns are an example of the recurring exaggeration (seen in the Row 5 section)

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...zps44d770a9.jpg

They were outside the damage path and a series of undamaged columns preceded them

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...zpsc08658b8.jpg

Even within the same report, one of these columns was marked as green (impacted) yet in another section was described as intact

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/c...zpse61875f7.jpg

[2] The columns along the facade of the collapsed section can be seen to have been missing/destroyed precollapse. Except one which the ASCE Report marked as blue ("Impacted. Large deformation, with significant impairment in function"). Column 18AA [Img1][Img2]

It should be marked as grey [Img3].

[3] The columns that run along the perimeter of the collapsed section within the building are marked as green ("Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling, with some impairment in function")

The problem with this claim is that not only was Column 18AA still standing but the floor beam between it and Column 17AA [Img4]. Thus physically impeding any proposed "impact" [Img5][Img6][Img7]

Barring the fact that the OCT would have us believe that the right wing allegedly maintained integrity where it had allegedly "broken off" on the facade and continued its journey within the building to strike these columns, the more likely culprit was heat, the collapse itself and the clean up operation [Img8]

[4] The columns within the collapsed section that are marked as pink are "presumed to have significant impairment". That is post collapse. I'm not ruling out the possibility that they were damaged, just that there is no evidence one way or the other.

[5] We've already seen how the ASCE Report has mislabelled Column 18AA. And how the knock on effect of this affects the legitimacy of the description of columns beyond it as having been "impacted". Now we come to another column along the collapse perimeter that has also been mislabelled. Column 13D [Img9] has been marked as blue ("Impacted. Heavy cracking and spalling, with some impairment in function") [Img10]. It also has the additional description:

QUOTE
Stripped to spiral reinforcement, bowed to Northeast


This is very important because in actuality before this column was shored up, it wasn't "bowed" at all. And it had most of its outer concrete intact [Img11][Img12]

It was heat damaged [Img13]

The same effect can be seen gradually occurring to [Column 9AA].

[6] The ASCE Report is at a loss to explain the lack of markings on the facade that should have been caused by the extremities of the alleged aircraft. Namely the outer third of both wings and the vertical stabilizer
[Img14][Img15]

No attempt is even made to explain the obvious lack of damage from the vertical stabilizer which is understandable given the visual evidence [Img16]
[Img17].

QUOTE
"severe impact damage did not extend above the third floor slab"
ASCE Report


The "explanation" attempted by the ASCE Report to explain the lack of facade damage as per the wingtips, in that they had "broken off" is not backed by visual evidence [a][b][c]
[d][e][f] nor by witnesses who were close to the scene within minutes of the explosion.

And on closer examination, the areas where the wings allegedly struck contradict an impact scenario. Particularly the Column 18AA area [Img19][Img20] and where the left wing had allegedly struck [Img21][Img22]

Another important point is that there actually is precedent to compare this alleged impact v facade. The impact holes in the two towers in Manhattan where the base of the vertical stabilizers and wingtips are clearly marked [Img23][Img24]
[Img25][Img26]

[7] More glaring contradictions with the alleged left wing impact and more specifically the alleged left engine can be seen through Column 11A
[Im27g]. Not only was it directly in the OCT path of the left engine, but the inner wing fuel tank closest to the fuselage and the trailing horizontal stabilizer
[Img28].

Remember that the OCT would have the 50ft of fuselage and landing gear fully breaching and penetrating the facade before the left engine and fuel tank had reached this area. So how could the rebar of this column, which was half stripped of concrete, maintain integrity
[Img29][Img30]?

How could the left engine itself avoid striking and marking the foundation in the same area given the necessary angle of entry and tilt required to correspond with the generator trailer damage
[Link 1]
[Img31]
[Img32]
[Img33]
[Img34]?

[8] the visible damage caused to the facade north of the alleged impact area [Img35] can be proven to have been caused by an internal explosion that blasted debris outwards. Not by the OCT directional impact of the left wing of a Boeing 757.

Firstly, debris can be seen to have been piled up internally against the windows as far up as the heliport area [Img36].
Secondly, window blinds, window frames and scraps of tree branches (wrongly described as "aircraft confetti" by some) can be seen strewn across the lawn in front of the heliport [Img37].
Thirdly, not only were spools the only obstructions for this alleged low level aircraft, specifically the left wing, but a forklift truck just beyond this area was blown away from the building
[Img38].
Fourthly, precollapse, two of three vehicles parked in front of this area caught fire. One was a firetruck, the other a Mitsubishi 3000GT. What points to the source of the fires/blast as coming from the building directly behind them is the fact that the third vehicle, a station wagon which was almost double the height of the other vehicle, and parked closest to the alleged impact area, did not catch fire until after the collapse almost 40 minutes afterwards.
Finally (for now), the placement of bodies allegedly found internally, just beyond the section of facade in question [Img40].

[9] The ASCE Report was guilty of omitting a very important piece of structural damage information which could very well cast doubts over many claims made in relation to the alleged impact scenario and the alleged directional damage.

The section to the north of the alleged impact zone was also on the point of collapse.

This is evidenced by the broken floor slab seen above Columns 9AA, 10AA and 11AA [Img41][Img42][Img43]

Just how precarious this area was can be seen through the gradual deterioration of Column 9AA over a two day period [Img44] and the obvious damage that ran along the collapsed area on the same floor slab [Img45][Img46]

There were apparently only two recognizable columns reasonably intact within a 30ft by @100ft (3000 square feet) section with four floors above it. Columns 9AA and 9A.

Some of the columns within this area were used to portray an alleged impact
[Img47] when the evidence points to an internal explosive event damaging this section of the facade (shown in Point 8)

The gradual deterioration of Column 9AA and 13D [Img47][Img48] may very well explain the damage seen in images days and weeks after the event. The "directional damage".


[10] When the ASCE description of columns is actually looked into, we've seen (even before we get beyond the facade and collapsed section) that there are multiple contradictions.

Is it due to ineptness? We know entry into certain parts of the building was restricted. They were fed descriptions of certain columns by the FBI. What about images that were actually contained in the report and a contradictory colour code was still given? Certain columns have been given colour codes to describe the alleged extent of the damage. These colour codes in some instances contradict the description of these columns contained within the same report.

They can't be so inept.

They've exaggerated damage in many areas and underplayed or completely ignored damage in other areas. Including damage to an entire section. This has and will be shown.

We've already seen how Column 18AA's description was incorrect [Img49][Img50]. And 13D [Img51]

Now we have 3 double columns just beyond the collapsed section. Columns 11D, 11E and 11F [Img52]. Straight off the bat, 11E is marked as green ("impacted") yet the image and description contradict this [Img53][Img54]

There are no clear images (available to us) of Column 11F, yet the blue label ("impacted...large deformation") looks to be highly exaggerated according to the only image I know of where the outline of the double column can be made out[Img55][Img56]

There's a reason for this. And it points to a dishonest approach by the ASCE.

13D, 11E and F trajectory



It becomes increasingly difficult to explain the damage allegedly caused by a 757 ploughing through this area when the above columns aren't damaged as the ASCE Report claims.


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 19 2013, 11:03 AM
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: 20th October 2019 - 05:49 PM