NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[beachnut]

The 4th and 5th photos down are clearly roll-up doors. Note that they have a horizontal beam over them, I think called a lintel beam.

Now, in the 11th photo down showing the large opening in the wall, there isn't a lintel beam. Thus, I would say that is NOT the opening for a roll-up door.

Have you alerted the FBI flight 77 never impacted the Pentagon?

 

[The Big Dog]

The 4th and 5th photos down are clearly roll-up doors. Note that they have a horizontal beam over them, I think called a lintel beam.

Now, in the 11th photo down showing the large opening in the wall, there isn't a lintel beam. Thus, I would say that is NOT the opening for a roll-up door.

And you are basing that on photos taken after the reconstruction? Wow. You sure you are a scientist?

When you called Arlington County Fire Dept, did you ask them how they managed to install a nicely framed, perfectly square opening in the wall while the building was on fire? I'm sure that would have went over like gangbusters, huh Dwain?

 

[pgimeno]

Here's a better resolution copy:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2yI/RkpZmGPC6AI/AAAAAAAAA5M/rb-MAVUpYVQ/s1600-h/alley+shot++3.jpg

I have to admit that there seem to be bricks on the floor, and no trace of a roll-up door.

 

[excaza]

You don't know anything at all about the construction of the Pentagon, do you?

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

 

[Drs_Res]

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

It's obvious, there are 2.

Inside and Outside.

 

[Reheat]

I wonder if he knows how many sides there are?

It's obvious, there are 2.

Inside and Outside.

Good gracious, are you people trying to deceive someone? You must examine all of the evidence to reach a proper conclusion. If you are lying on your back there are two more.......top and bottom. That makes a total of 4 sides, not 2. Geesh, the audacity of ssssome people!

 

[dadeets]

I have to admit that there seem to be bricks on the floor, and no trace of a roll-up door.

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

1. It contains materials out of scope and not even a part of their study, given the team comprised of building professionals. i.e., anything about an airplane. The team was not given access to the premises (other than a very cursory inspection by the chairman) until anything and everything that may have been involved in the cause of the damage was removed.
2. It is inconsistent in what it presented, in that it does not show some notable things (such as the large hole in the wall between South column lines 5 and 7 opening onto A-E Drive), whereas it shows a somewhat similar large hole between North column lines 5 and 7. (Note: the South column lines are in Wedge 1, and the North column lines are in Wedge 2.)
3. It offers no explanation as to cause of the large hole between North column lines 5 and 7. (If they weren’t going to offer an explanation, why show the hole in the first place?)
4. It makes no mention of the fire and, one would think, structural damage in RING B.

 

[Locknar]

The post below caused this thread to hang and had to be deleted; below is the text as posted. My apologies to Beachnut for having to delete the post in question.

Posted By: Locknar

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:



It contains materials out of scope and not even a part of their study, given the team comprised of building professionals. i.e., anything about an airplane. The team was not given access to the premises (other than a very cursory inspection by the chairman) until anything and everything that may have been involved in the cause of the damage was removed. ...
A big lie. Why do you tell lies? Do you hate your fellow government employees and other people enough to make up this claptrap?


Volumes of information exist regarding the original construction of the Pentagon and its current renovation.The Pentagon Renovation Program Office assisted the BPS team in accessing the essential data for the purpose of this study. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/11PentagonPer.jpg
You made up nonsense. Why?
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html


The BPS team’s analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002. The members of the BPS team inspected the site as soon as was possible without interfering with the rescue and recovery operations.


You said The team was not given access to the premises Not true.


On the morning of September 11, 2001, as part of a terrorist action involving four hijacked aircraft, a commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon.That afternoon the American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team of volunteers to examine the structural performance of the building in this catastrophe. This study follows a similar examination of the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building, in Oklahoma City, and parallels a study of the September 11 World Trade Center terrorist attack.
The purpose of the study was to examine the performance of the structure in the crash and the subsequent fire for the benefit of the building professions and the public.This does not imply that buildings should be expected to survive such events. However, this examination of the Pentagon reveals some useful information about the ability of structures to survive extreme forces.
In fact, the Pentagon structure survived this extraordinary event better than would be expected. Observations comparing and contrasting the construction of the Pentagon to current standards are made where they are pertinent to the observed behavior. Recommendations are also made for studies that could lead to an increased understanding of such phenomena.

The fact is 77 impacted the Pentagon and the building performace was not to verify that fact. The DNA is all over the Pentagon. Your claims are fantasy.



... It makes no mention of the fire...

From the report...
...
they investigated the residual frame capacity and the structural response to the fire.

... Gerald Haynes, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer ...

...
6.2 Fire Damage...................................................41 ...

...
One hundred eighty-nine persons were killed and
a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire ...

Team members possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. ...

Thermal analyses showed that the ensuing fire could have sufficiently weakened some damaged frame members to result in collapse within an hour of initiation. ...

The ensuing fire weakened a number of other structural elements. ...


Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E. -
Specialty: concrete structural and fire engineering ...

The purpose of the study was to examine the performance of the structure in the crash and the subsequent fire ...

The impact and the fire initiated by the fuel in the airplane that immediately spread widely in the structure took the lives of all 64 people aboard the aircraft and 125 occupants of the Pentagon. ...

Over 100 more references to fire http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html

And you worked for NASA? Now you are reduced to a anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist spreading false information.



... anything about an airplane. ...
Oops, an airplane and fire did the damage.

The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building
(0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial
photograph modified graphically to show the approaching aircraft).
The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the

 

[dadeets]

Locknar "... It makes no mention of the fire..."

You took this out of context. Please include the all important ending words, "...in RING B."

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

You suffer from a paradoxical, oxymoronic condition, Dwain. (With an extra helping of "dull".)

At one & the same time, you exhibit a deplorable excess of imagination (where the ability to control it would serve you well), AND an equally deplorable lack of imagination (where a functioning one would serve you well).

For any competent engineer, this combination would be professionally fatal. Which means it'd push the owner from being a real engineer into being a "PowerPoint dweeb", Dwain.

Gee, I kinda like that alliteration…

First, your misplaced overactive imagination:

… breaching it in a perfect circle ...

Here's the hole.

The "perfect circle" is all in your overactive imagination, Dwain…

There ain't nothing "perfect" about it. It is exactly as "imperfect" as one would expect from an energetic collision.

All of the pieces & parts failed along weak points. That means that the row of bricks at the top of the hole failed along a straight line. Circles, especially "perfect" ones, don't have flat, horizontal tops & jagged edges, Dwain.

You'd do well to not confuse smoke discoloration for a "hole".
___

… I take the wall in question to be one of the "nearly all remaining exterior walls." It doesn't say if the 10 in. concrete is reinforced or not.

Engineers don't need others telling them what to think. They open their eyes, look at the evidence & decide for themselves.

BTW, since "rebar" means "reinforced bar", the patently obvious rebar sticking out of the concrete in the photo above proves that the concrete at this point was, in fact, "reinforced". Regardless of "what anyone said" about the matter.

Presumably you've actually looked at (at least once) the single most important image that pertains to this "gotcha" that you're going on about…?!

The rebar didn't help it any, of course. Nor does it change the following comments in the slightest.
___

Now, for your dearth of imagination...

I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

Most people, even non-engineers, could easily think of at least 2 mechanisms.

1. Assume It takes kinetic energy E1 to break thru the E ring wall. Assume further that it takes kinetic energy E2 to break thru the next inner wall.

Any mass of debris with an energy above E1 but less than E1 + E2 will break thru the first wall but not the second.

Or, the more likely scenario…

2. Assume that a single massive piece of debris alone has sufficient energy to breach the wall, perhaps assisted by an overpressure from detonating fuel in a semi-confined space. This would provide an exit hole, and any additional debris that happened to arrive at that hole with even a tiny amount of energy would simply & easily pass thru the hole.

And with little energy, all that debris would very likely "fall to the ground within 20-30 feet."

Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it...?

See, Dwain, sometimes a working imagination (tempered by a rigid subservience to objective evidence) is a tremendous asset.

Sometime a vivid, unrestrained imagination is a huge liability.

You seem to have yours installed backward.
___

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either.

Nah. They weren't as incompetent as some NASA bureaucratic dweebs.


tfk

 

[BasqueArch]

Believing without thinking

I think he is saying there isn't a mechanism associated with aircraft debris that can create that hole. I can’t think of a mechanism either by which a kinetic energy blob (a mass of airplane parts) could strike a reinforced concrete wall, breaching it in a perfect circle, AND THEN, once thru, be so depleted of energy, that it falls to the ground within 20-30 feet.

I don’t think the Pentagon Building Performance Team could think of any mechanism either. That, I think, is why they were silent on the subject.

That's your problem right there.
An over 100 ton airplane traveling at high speed damages the walls it hits. Pieces of it and passengers were found inside.

"The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon." -Gage
As a member of AE911truth, have you informed Gage that he's part of the Conspiracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

To put this is a larger context, here are four troubling points concerning the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

[*]It makes no mention of the fire and, one would think, structural damage in RING B.
[/LIST]

Someone does not know how to read the "scope" section of a technical article.

NASA Engineer?

Anyway, waiting for the explanation why you believe three contradictory theories about the Pentagon... CIT, Babs, and Russ.

 

[A W Smith]

BTW, since "rebar" means "reinforced bar", the patently obvious rebar sticking out of the concrete in the photo above proves that the concrete at this point was, in fact, "reinforced". Regardless of "what anyone said" about the matter.

Presumably you've actually looked at (at least once) the single most important image that pertains to this "gotcha" that you're going on about…?!

The rebar didn't help it any, of course. Nor does it change the following comments in the slightest.
___

That may not be reinforced concrete, Looks to me like a wire lath and cold rolled channel plaster system standing off the two wythes of the limestone brick wall. Which was common in buildings built in the forties. check the illustration on page 5 showing a typical wire lath and cold rolled channel stud partition.
http://www.nationalgypsum.com/literature/gypsumconstructionguide/LathPlaster.pdf

There would be no need to harden an interior ring wall.

 

[Dragon37]

You would be surprised at what a pressure wave will do. I washed my car on a cold day and parked out front of my building. A few hours later I went outside to drive to my job. I opened my car door and then realized I forgot something inside. When I shut my door my back windshield blew out. There was a almost perfectly round hole at almost dead centre and the glass was blown out 3-4 feet. The only thing that I could think of is that when I had washed my car earlier that very cold night I had changed the pressure inside when I opened the door the pressure rose quickly and when I shut the door it forced that pressure directly out the back windshield. So am I surprised that a pressure wave could blast out a large hole in a brick wall? Nope.

If you are wanting me to think that that hole is from a missile? lol that is one hell of a big missile and if it had enough thrust to burst through that wall then why did it not keep right on going to the wall opposite and explode in the opposite wing of the Pentagon?

 

[The Big Dog]

Someone does not know how to read the "scope" section of a technical article.

NASA Engineer?

Anyway, waiting for the explanation why you believe three contradictory theories about the Pentagon... CIT, Babs, and Russ.

bump

 

[tfk]

That may not be reinforced concrete, Looks to me like a wire lath and cold rolled channel plaster system standing off the two wythes of the limestone brick wall. Which was common in buildings built in the forties. check the illustration on page 5 showing a typical wire lath and cold rolled channel stud partition.
http://www.nationalgypsum.com/literature/gypsumconstructionguide/LathPlaster.pdf

There would be no need to harden an interior ring wall.

Thanks.

It does look like it's really close to the surface.

I'll defer to anybody with appropriate construction experience.

I'll stand by my point that, given photos like the one posted, consultation with an experienced construction worker, especially one knowledgeable about the construction techniques of (whenever this section was built) should be sufficient to determine the issue.

BTW, I don't believe that there was any reason to reinforce my patio & carport, but when the concrete guys did the prep work, they used a ton of rebar. I figured that putting the concrete in residual compression reduced cracking. I really figured that I hired professionals & I should let them do their job without 2nd guessing.

They did a great job.

 

[dadeets]

Mr. Deets,



You suffer from a paradoxical, oxymoronic condition, Dwain. (With an extra helping of "dull".)

tfk,


This analysis is based on the assumption, that for any impacting airplane, the leading parts of the airplane would take out primary building structure, opening a path for other airplane parts following from further back. These following parts will continue on until they strike some primary structure deeper into the Pentagon. By noting the placement of columns that remained standing, these can establish the points at which aircraft parts couldn’t have continued along the paths they were on.

This analysis traces parallel straight-line paths, approximately 6’ feet apart. Each path begins at the external face of the E-Ring across the area approximately 96-feet wide on the 1st floor where columns are missing. A set of 15 parallel paths are drawn at 1-degree increments over a representative range, measured as the included angle to the normal to the Pentagon external face.

The paths are projected into the Pentagon until encountering a remaining column as documented in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

In those cases where a path touches an edge of a column for the first time, the path is continued on with the assumption the column did not deflect an aircraft part. However, if the path continues on and again touches the edge of another column, but this time, the column is on the opposite side of the path, the path was stopped at that point. The rationale for doing this is, should the aircraft part be slightly deflected at the point where the path touches the first column, the deflection of the continuing path would be in the direction to more solidly strike the second column.

The second figure shows the penetration path for 40 degrees, the angle of greatest possible penetration. This penetration would be about 86% of the way to the wall. (Insufficient to reach the wall.)

The first figure shows the maximum penetration for a range of angles, where penetration is measured along those paths that could reach the “exit” hole, had they not been stopped by a column.

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

 

[The Big Dog]

tfk,


This analysis is based on the assumption, that for any impacting airplane, the leading parts of the airplane would take out primary building structure, opening a path for other airplane parts following from further back. These following parts will continue on until they strike some primary structure deeper into the Pentagon. By noting the placement of columns that remained standing, these can establish the points at which aircraft parts couldn’t have continued along the paths they were on.

This analysis traces parallel straight-line paths, approximately 6’ feet apart. Each path begins at the external face of the E-Ring across the area approximately 96-feet wide on the 1st floor where columns are missing. A set of 15 parallel paths are drawn at 1-degree increments over a representative range, measured as the included angle to the normal to the Pentagon external face.

The paths are projected into the Pentagon until encountering a remaining column as documented in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

In those cases where a path touches an edge of a column for the first time, the path is continued on with the assumption the column did not deflect an aircraft part. However, if the path continues on and again touches the edge of another column, but this time, the column is on the opposite side of the path, the path was stopped at that point. The rationale for doing this is, should the aircraft part be slightly deflected at the point where the path touches the first column, the deflection of the continuing path would be in the direction to more solidly strike the second column.

The second figure shows the penetration path for 40 degrees, the angle of greatest possible penetration. This penetration would be about 86% of the way to the wall. (Insufficient to reach the wall.)

The first figure shows the maximum penetration for a range of angles, where penetration is measured along those paths that could reach the “exit” hole, had they not been stopped by a column.

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

Wow this is an idiotic analysis. Dwain, knowing that you know literally nothing about the Pentagon, from where did you get this No Planers idiocy?

 

[Reheat]

Consequently, there is no mechanism by which aircraft parts can pass through the columns, assuming the columns that remained standing were also standing when the alleged aircraft parts came their way.

Well, do say!

How did all of this stuff get there?

 

[dadeets]

Wow this is an idiotic analysis. Dwain, knowing that you know literally nothing about the Pentagon, from where did you get this No Planers idiocy?

This isn't a no planer argument, it is a "no plane parts reached the C-Ring wall during an impact into the Pentagon" argument. If plane parts are photographed out side the wall (in A-E Drive), then someone moved them there.