Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pentagon Damage Analysis
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > Pentagon
onesliceshort
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
onesliceshort
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



= 8.21º

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 10º 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 0º allegedly just before "impact" if there was allegedly 8-10º 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".
onesliceshort
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"

onesliceshort



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?




onesliceshort
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 .
onesliceshort


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.


onesliceshort
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.
onesliceshort


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.
onesliceshort
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:

onesliceshort


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.

onesliceshort
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?





onesliceshort
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.
onesliceshort
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?
onesliceshort
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]
onesliceshort


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".
onesliceshort
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].
onesliceshort


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?


onesliceshort
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).
onesliceshort


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?
onesliceshort


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.
onesliceshort
An Independent Column Damage Legend

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering that

(1) many images have been withheld

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

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

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



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





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

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

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

Columns 7D and 7G



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

So how does this square with the OCT impact scenario?

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





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



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



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





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

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



onesliceshort


The fuel, the fireball and evidence of explosions

Read this carefully..

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

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

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


ASCE Report


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

Problem?

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

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

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

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





No inferno? No blackened walls?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


An Isolated Event



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

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

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

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

There were multiple fatalities within the area mentioned above



Which housed the Navy Operations Center



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



AE DRIVE

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

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

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


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



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

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


The impossible "debris path"

Let's follow the alleged debris path...

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

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

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





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




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




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


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





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



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

A linear explosive event is the only explanation.

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

There is no way through.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

How is that physically possible?
onesliceshort
Is the prospect of the Pentagon damage being the result of explosives a viable option?

Yes.


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

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

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


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


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

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


....

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Allegedly taken at 09:47am

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

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

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

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

There really wasn’t much there at the time.
23investigator
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 23 2013, 01:02 AM) *
Edit: Spot the difference between these two images allegedly taken within 7-8 minutes of eachother

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

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

Allegedly taken at 09:47am

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

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


Dear 'onesliceshort'

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

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

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

Robert S


Fair point Robert. Should have said heliport area.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 23 2013, 02:56 AM) *
This photo goes back to the “Gate” film that shows that security car going to the helipad.

There really wasn’t much there at the time.


Exactly elreb.

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

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

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

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

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

Yet sections of uncharred, milimetre thick, lettered fuselage situated at a point before the fuel tanks made their way front and center. rolleyes.gif
23investigator
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 23 2013, 08:51 PM) *
Fair point Robert. Should have said heliport area.


Dear 'onesliceshort'

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

This was immediately after he got up off the ground.

Much of this debris he said was on fire.

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

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

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

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

The rear of the firetruck also shows significant damage.

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

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

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

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

From the "Left Wing Damage" section

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

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

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

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



Edit added:

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

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

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

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

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

Window blinds and tree. An explosive event from within the building.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
And an idea of what those scraps were around the heliport and lawn

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

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


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

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

And the earlier image discussed (with the SUV untouched)

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

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

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

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


Edit added:

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

Dear 'onesliceshort'

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

Will address your request later.

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


Edit added:

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

Dear 'onesliceshort'

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

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

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

Mid page 3, Mr Wallace says

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


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

Mid page 3 Mr wallace says

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

(This deserves further reading)

Top of page 3

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

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

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

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

Bottom of page 7

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

Mid page 8.

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

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

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

Robert S



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

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


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

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

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

The word "immense" was never used by Wallace.

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

Cheers

23investigator
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2013, 08:35 PM) *
Robert, I've answered most of what you say with images in my last two posts. I'm not denying that there was debris, just that you're insisting that it was aircraft debris. Wallace even says



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

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

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

The word "immense" was never used by Wallace.

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

Cheers


Dear 'onesliceshort'

So be it.

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

Robert S
elreb
OSS,

Please explain the following:

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

Was firefighter Wallace at the Pentagon before it was hit?

Why would he seek cover?
onesliceshort
QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 25 2013, 03:40 AM) *
OSS,

Please explain the following:

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

Was firefighter Wallace at the Pentagon before it was hit?

Why would he seek cover?


Here's my breakdown of his account

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA
onesliceshort
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2013, 10:57 AM) *
Here's my breakdown of his account

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

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

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


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

@Robert

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

Peace.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2013, 05:54 PM) *
For the record, I'm not casting aspertions on these firefighters (I actually think Wallace was one of the most honest in detail) but on the gatecam.

@Robert

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

Peace.


From Alan Wallace's testimony —

Regarding the 90° angle of the fire engine to the alleged impact zone


http://web.archive.org/web/20060225201958/...xts/Wallace.txt

QUOTE
Mark, Dennis, and I had our turn-out gear either on the crash truck or in the station. About 0830 I decided to pull the crash truck outside of the fire station and place it in a position more accessible to the heliport landing site. The truck was then parked perpendicular to the Pentagon with the rear of the truck 15-20 feet from the west wall of the Pentagon and the truck facing west, towards the heliport pad. The right side of the truck was approximately 30 feet from the fire station’s apparatus door opening. (I forgot to mention the Ford Van we normally use for transport between Fort Myer and the Pentagon. It is a 15 passenger vehicle which was parked west of the fire station facing north, with it’s rear about 10 feet north of the apparatus end of the fire station, approximately 6 feet from the side of the fire station.)


Wallace and Skipper statement on the alleged impact

QUOTE
So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible.



The gatecam contradiction (note - if it were a resolution issue with the camera, the figures seen running along the path beside the facade in the gatecam contradict this)

QUOTE
At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)

[....]

At this time, I noticed a lot of heat and decided to crawl to the end of the van. Very soon the heat was unbearable and I decided to get out from under the van and get farther away from the impact site. It was then that I saw Mark Skipper to my left – out in the field 50-75 feet away. He was standing, looking back to the impact site and seemed to be swinging his arms. I immediately ran over to him to ask if he was OK. He said he was, and then said, “I’m glad you saw the airplane!” I said, “Get your gear on – we have a lot of work to do; I’m going to the fire truck.”


The engine of the firetruck was still operational - after allegedly being hit by an aircraft "engine"?

QUOTE
I ran about 30 yards back to the damaged crash truck, stepping carefully not to slip on the burning debris covering the ground. I arrived at the right cab door, opened it and climbed in. I grabbed the radio and put the headset on, then jumped over the radios and into the driver’s seat. I immediately pushed the 2 engine start buttons and the engine started, to my amazement. I thought if I could pull the fire truck away from the Pentagon and put it in a left turn, I could direct the roof turret nozzle into the impact site using the foam and water on board the truck. I then pushed off the emergency brake and pulled the transmission selector into the drive range and tramped on the accelerator (I still couldn’t believe the engine had started).


The alleged suspicious activity around the fire engine - was actually Wallace

QUOTE
I then began to assist the fire fighting crews. I got a larger nozzle tip for the attack team and got 50 feet of 4 inch hose off Engine 161 so we could move the deluge closer to the Pentagon. Another project I undertook was to begin removing all equipment off the crash truck: the 3rd SCBA, all the extra air bottles, power cords, flood lights, all the 1¾ inch hose (200 feet of it), tools and fire extinguishers.


elreb
QUOTE
Alan Wallace usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport.

Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning.

After a quick breakfast, the 55-year-old firefighter moved the station's fire truck out of the firehouse.

President Bush had used the heliport the day before: he'd motorcaded to the Pentagon, and then flown to Andrews Air Force Base for a trip to Florida.

Bush was scheduled to return to the Pentagon helipad later on Tuesday

Let me get this straight.

Bush was scheduled to land at the Pentagon on 911 Practically next to the alleged crash site.

So where were all the enhanced security measures? [At breakfast?]
onesliceshort
QUOTE (elreb @ Feb 25 2013, 10:21 PM) *
Let me get this straight.

Bush was scheduled to land at the Pentagon on 911 Practically next to the alleged crash site.

So where were all the enhanced security measures? [At breakfast?]


Exactly. This was Bush's (over exaggerated) alibi IMO.

"How could it have been me? I nearly died." rolleyes.gif

From the same link above

QUOTE
As I said, we were expecting President Bush about Noon, which would be a Code One Stand-By. In such situations, one of the problems I see at the heliport is that there are too many people there. Plus, there are many vehicles, including Secret Service, Pentagon SWAT, U.S. Park Police, D.C. Cops on motorcycles, and the two Presidential Limousines. And, some of these vehicles even park in front of the fire station apparatus door, blocking the fire truck from exiting the building! That is why I wanted the crash truck out of the station and parked in a good location, for easy access to the heliport in case of an emergency.


Roosevelt Roberts, the "second plane in South Parking" witness, was on his way to the heliport for Bush's alleged arrival.

Sean Boger who was actually in the heliport tower above the station recalled a "dog and pony show" in the area the day before the event. The day before, the generator trailer was also changed of position.
onesliceshort
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 click on the same link again.
onesliceshort
From another thread but very much related to the damage analysis:

QUOTE
There's another problem with the "passenger strapped to the seat" scenario (bar the claim that people were actually allowed inside a highly unstable area that was also close to collapse and which was intermittently ablaze for 72 hours).

AFAIK aircraft seats are framed in groups of two and three.



As for the alleged victim remains accumulated at the "punchout hole" this is the earliest image (that I know of) of AE Drive after the explosion



I also had a look through those gore sites where human body parts can be seen and even the recently released images of the aftermath in Manhattan on 9/11 show flesh and blood over the sidewalk and streets hundreds of feet away from the towers. I've seen no evidence of body parts or blood at the end of the 320ft path the Pentagon aircraft allegedly took.


The area where the majority of parts were allegedly found (C Ring) was also where the ASCE Report had allegedly recorded temperatures of up to 1000°C for over an hour — cremation point. And DNA was extracted from these alleged tissues in this area?


And the claims about planting or manipulating evidence is in no way unfounded (you've hit the nail right on the head P IMO). Apologies beforehand for the copy and paste fest but I had to dig hard to find these notes!

QUOTE
"Chad Stamps is a firefighter with Rescue 104 of the Arlington County Fire Department. [National Fire and Rescue, 5/2002] Along with his crew, he has been fighting fires on the second floor of the Pentagon's outer E Ring. With fires burning around him, he is astonished to see another crew walk past, carrying two packs of hose line, apparently on its way to fight fires elsewhere in the Pentagon. Describing this incident, authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will point out: "Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you. Yet there they went." Seeing the crew passing by, Stamps thinks, "This is totally disjointed." [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137] The odd behavior of this crew is perhaps notable because there is at least one reported incident of fake firefighters being caught at the Pentagon following the attack there: On September 12, three people will be arrested who are not firefighters, yet who are dressed in firefighting gear (see September 12, 2001). [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]]



September 12, 2001: People Disguised as Firefighters Arrested at Pentagon
The Defense Protective Service (DPS)--the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon--arrests three people at the Pentagon who are dressed in firefighting gear but are not firefighters. Further details of who these people are and why they are at the Pentagon are unstated.
[Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]..



"Johnny" - Arlington firefighter Bob Gray is introduced by his colleague Bobby Beer to a man wearing a hard hat. Beer introduces the man only as "Johnny," and adds, "He's our go-between with PenRen [the Pentagon Renovation Program], and he knows some of the military guys too." Although "Johnny" is not wearing any identifying badge or ID, he seems knowledgeable, appears "taut and serious, with a purposeful military stance," and even introduces Gray and Beer to a couple of friends of his who say they work for Special Forces. Johnny says if Gray and Beer need anything from the military, he can help. As a security perimeter has now been set up around the crash site, Gray assumes Johnny must be there officially. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 367-368]

Sept 14
Johnny's disappearance appears to follow an error he had made after firefighters discovered two bodies inside the Pentagon's E Ring. Johnny mistakenly called the truck used to remove bodies to the temporary morgue prematurely, before FBI agents had the chance to photograph and document the remains. Gray and Beer start to wonder if Johnny in fact had no official standing, and was an impostor]


Police Battalion HQs (503d MP Bn) from Fort Bragg, NC (and two active military police companies from Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Bragg, NC). Active duty units remained in support of DPS beyond December 2001.
Another unanticipated problem which arose was the number of occupants who felt a need to get back into their areas to retrieve professional papers and personal effects. Some groups tried to circumvent the security officers to get back into their offices. Several people, including one general officer was taken into custody.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. "...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long....
They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says.


Subsequently, FBI photographer Jennifer Hill finds the cockpit voice recorder in a stack of rubble while assisting searchers. Thirty minutes later, a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expert locates the flight data recorder in the same area. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 396-397 and 400-402].


But Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who helps coordinate the emergency response at the Pentagon, later claims he had “found the black box,” which, he says, he had “stepped on… by accident.” [GW Magazine, 3/2002; Popular Mechanics, 3/2005].


Washington FBI agent Christopher Combs says, “Somebody almost threw [the black boxes] away because they didn’t know what they looked like.” [Disaster News Network, 10/30/2002]


The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. "...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long.... Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" (PBS - Sept 14).
However, The ASCE Building Performance Report and a new book published by the Dept Of Defense claims the FDR was found at the exit hole in the C-Ring. "[FDR] found in the building near the hole in the inner C Ring wall leading to A-E Drive."
Why are there conflicts in the government story of where the FDR was found? Further, where are the pictures of the '"intact cockpit seat [and] floor" where the two black boxes appeared? Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders are located in the tail of an aircraft. Not the cockpit. Where are the pictures of the "black boxes" laying in the rubble prior to being removed as is with every other aircraft accident investigation?
onesliceshort
QUOTE
This was a memorial service a year after the Pentagon attack at Arlington Cemetery for the "remains of the unidentified" attended by family members amd heads of state.









What's wrong with those pictures? The casket was empty.

QUOTE
Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that was driven into the Pentagon by terrorist hijackers, said she was confused by the report. She said she attended a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery at which unidentified 9/11 remains were buried in an engraved casket.

“They were treated with great respect and great ceremony,” Burlingame said. “The Department of Defense was exceedingly sensitive and treated those unidentified remains with great respect. ... I would want to know more.”

The Abizaid report primarily focused on management reforms to a “dysfunctional, isolated” Dover mortuary chain of command. It cited the 9/11 matter while explaining the history of problems at Dover that came to light last year through complaints from whistle-blowers who revealed the mishandling of war remains.

The practice at Dover of cremating partial remains and sending them to a landfill began shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the report said, “when several portions of remains from the Pentagon attack and the Shanksville, Pa., crash site could not be tested or identified.”


The terrorist-hijacked airliner that slammed into the west side of the Pentagon killed 184 people, and the plane that crashed in a field near Shanksville killed 40.

The Abizaid report said that in line with Dover’s policy, “cremated portions were then placed in sealed containers that were provided to a biomedical waste disposal” company under Air Force contract. “Per the biomedical waste contract at that time, the contractor then transported these containers and incinerated them.” The report said Dover authorities assumed that after incineration “nothing remained.”

But a Dover management “query” found that “there was some residual material following incineration and that the contractor was disposing of it in a landfill.” It added that use of the landfill was not disclosed in the waste disposal contract. “We don’t think it should have happened,” Abizaid told reporters.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/201...11_victims.html


One very real possibility is that an already corrupt, under extreme pressure (and more than likely infiltrated) forensics lab such as Dover was ordered to take some steam out of the pressure cooker by claiming a near 100% success rate in "identifying" alleged passenger remains that in all likelihood never existed. And that the honest, blue collar employees went with the "let's ease the family pain" angle with the only necessary planted items being "personal belongings" and/or charred remains beyond recognition which could very well have belonged to the Pentagon occupant victims.

Remember that it was claimed that no alleged passenger remains had been identified until after the FBI had taken over the process. Not so much a mass planting of body parts and tissue but a pass the buck manouevre in case the shit hit the fan. The "National Security" card.

Just look at those images above. Imagine making the claim that the casket was empty before the admission was made. It's all a facade.
onesliceshort
Just goong to bump this for the heck of it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.