NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

I've downloaded your pdf, and I'm looking at the opening between columns 50 and 70. It's so obviously a doorway that I can't fathom how anyone could possibly mistake it for anything else. It's got sharply defined vertical sides, and a sharply defined horizontal top. What exactly is your reason for believing that there was no such doorway?

Dave

Dave,

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left. The room layout adjoining that area also suggests it would make no sense to have a large roll-up door there, in that the room only has a regular door opening into the hall.

Dwain

 

[The Big Dog]

Dave,

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left. The room layout adjoining that area also suggests it would make no sense to have a large roll-up door there, in that the room only has a regular door opening into the hall.

Dwain

So you are saying that they framed and equipped something that looked just like an opening for a roll up door while the freaking Pentagon was on fire???

Wow.

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html

/by the way, Dwain just posted a graphic that contradicts his newly adopted theory that he got from Russell Pickering. Dwain just might be the worst truther ever.

 

[dadeets]

From your link:


Care to explain what the hell he's talking about (considering you're now basing your opinion on this)?

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.

 

[beachnut]

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.

What does NASA do to you at retirement?

E=1/2MV² Golly Gee, I found the Mechanism, golly gee, it is ... wait for it... wait...

... Yes, Physics. Gee, that was an extremely easy debunk. USAF, AFWAL scores, NASA for 911 truth, zero.

 

[sts60]

The idea that rescue crews blasted holes at the Pentagon is just idiotic.

Look, as a volunteer FF, I ride with guys who were at the Pentagon that day. What they did do was shore existing holes, and shore up ceilings, and pull out survivors and pieces of airliner and pieces of airliner passengers. What they didn't do was blast holes in a compromised, burning structure. And, for some reason, that was never part of my rescue training either.

As a (non-volunteer) engineer, I've worked with various NASA engineers, scientists and astronauts. I should point out that most of them weren't delusional. But there's one in every crowd.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

And he also starts out saying there is not a straight line between the facade and the hole, and THEN YOU GO AHEAD AND FREAKING POST A FREAKING DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS A STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN THE FACADE AND PUNCH OUT HOLE.

Seriously Dwain? Have you so utterly and completely abandoned any possible semblance of scientific skepticism that you will regurgitate not just garbage, but garbage that directly contradicts the other garbage that you post?

You traded on your NASA experience, and have proven yourself to be a punchline to a bad joke.

 

[DGM]

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.

What "reinforced concrete wall" or "24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade"? The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall. I suppose it doesn't sound as great to claim a plane couldn't breach a common masonry/limestone block wall, Huh?

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

 

[pgimeno]

/by the way, Dwain just posted a graphic that contradicts his newly adopted theory that he got from Russell Pickering. Dwain just might be the worst truther ever.

But didn't Russell Pickering already change his mind about the plane at the Pentagon, after his visit to the place?

http://web.archive.org/web/20061029212125/http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006203218/http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

By that date (2007) he was citing Jim Hoffman as a more reliable source about the "problems" with the Pentagon. By the way, Hoffman believes that Flight 77 crashed there in the flight path recorded by the FDR and refers to CIT as "Smoking Crack".

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

It seems Mr. Deets is going against the current, not to say against the common sense. One would say that he got late to the "truthy train" and is finding difficulties with keeping up. Good thing he has us to help him refine his claims, to take the absolute nonsense part away and leave only the part that is nonsense only after a more careful examination that most people don't bother to do. But I'm sure we'll be in the thanks giving section when he publishes a book.

 

[Pinch]

What "reinforced concrete wall" or "24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh "E ring façade"? The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall. I suppose it doesn't sound as great to claim a plane couldn't breach a common masonry/limestone block wall, Huh?

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

Deets has no idea what he is talking about. This is what really torques me off about these idiots - if they don't know something, they just make something up.

I would say something about "A NASA dude should know better" but we are way past that. Deets has provenm time an dtime again his own incompetence in these issues and has reinforced the long held belief that incompetence can rise to any level, and at NASA that is definitely the case. The wall that led to the A-E ring road was simple brick and cinder block. I worked there. I walked those hallways and worked in those offices. Dwaine Deets, I would wager, has never done either, so all he can do is make crap up to match his and PfT's crazy stories and hopes and dreams and wishes and speculation.

 

[Reheat]

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.

Nah, I suspect the Purdue team didn't mention the inner hole because they didn't consider it relevant to anything. Only twoofers ignorant of the kinetic energy effects of an aircraft crash into a building consider it important. Why do you think it is important? Gee, I can't wait for this.

 

[George 152]

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.

What shape is an aircraft fuselage?
Why it is 'perfectly' round.
So, if the aircraft is rammed into a wall it is going to leave a round hole at the entry point?
Yes..
Why can't 911 conspiracy theorists work that out for them selves?
You tell me!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am attaching a floor layout. The vertical line of columns passing through the tip of the big arrow consists of those beginning with the number "7". If you go to the top of the layout, the top of the NAVY area is the exterior wall of interest. As you can see, there is no opening between the "7" column and the "5" column, to its left.

What is the date of this drawing, and have you satisfied yourself that no alterations were made to the building between the date of preparation of the drawing and the 9/11 attacks? It seems to me that we have two possible hypotheses here: that an opening in the wall was made, either by rescue workers blasting a hole with a wall breaching kit, by overpressure from the airliner impact, or by charges intended to simulate aircraft impact, that had perfectly vertical sides, a perfectly horizontal top, and visible framing; or that the graphic was based on a superseded drawing. Only one of these hypotheses strikes me as sane.

Dave

 

[dadeets]

The hole was punched in a non-reinforced block wall.

Have you actually read the Pentagon Building Performance report?

The report says "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete.The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows." 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.

In at least one of the photos of the hole, reinforcing can be seen in the concrete.

Furthermore, an article http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1 addresses the problem of the reinforcing being too close to the surface of the concrete, and therefore, in need of refurbishment.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Bwahahahahaha!

You think the C-ring was made of reinforced concrete?

Bwahahahaha!

And you're the best the truthers have?

Bwahahahahaha!

 

[dadeets]

What is the date of this drawing, and have you satisfied yourself that no alterations were made to the building between the date of preparation of the drawing and the 9/11 attacks?

Dave

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

I would think that would have taken several months. I would think it highly unlikely they would do another move, including adding a roll-up door, in the six months or so leading up to Sep 2001.

Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm

 

[Dave Rogers]

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

Which says nothing as to the date of the drawing used for the specific graphic you have used.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Although, I haven't located a date, I did find a reference saying they started moving people back into Wedge 1 after the renovation in February 2001.

I would think that would have taken several months. I would think it highly unlikely they would do another move, including adding a roll-up door, in the six months or so leading up to Sep 2001.

Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm

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

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Considering he cites as sources CIT, Barbara Hoenniger and Russll Pickering (each of whom completely contradict one another) not only does he not know anything about how the Pentagon was constructed, he knows nothing about the Pentagon, and what he thinks he does know is laughably ridiculously wrong.

 

[dadeets]

Which says nothing as to the date of the drawing used for the specific graphic you have used.

Dave

There is a floor plan in the Arlington County Pentagon After-Action Report that agrees with the drawing I used, with respect to the personnel door opening into A-E Drive, as well as the absence of a large roll-up door along that section of the wall.

I might say, I believe the personnel door is shown in the wrong location on both drawings. I've contacted Arlington County Fire Dept. alerting them to this possible error in the After-Action Report.

 

[dadeets]

Maybe Mr. Deets is taking as "holes" the doors labeled here as "Single door" and "Roll-up Door":

More relevant pics here: [nfurl]stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinch-paisley-pentagon-worker-goes-on.html[/nfurl]

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.