BTW I would think that Bobert's obsession with revealing personal details about me and constant inane personal attacks wouldn't be tolerated. Is that really the type of member you guys want here? Clearly he has nothing intelligent to contribute to this forum.
Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Tch Tch Tch Lyte
You claimed that the aircraft should have damaged the foundation.
For your information, the foundation is the section of load bearing wall footing which carries the weight of the building down to a suitable strata, usually a firm clay. In a building such as the Pentagon one would anticipate it to be in-situ reinforced concrete, although masonry would also be possible. It will typically extend to depths of 450 to 1200mm below ground level. The excavation trench will be backfilled, either in selected as-dug material or in a suitable hardcore.
Now, if something impacted the foundation the first question would be what happened to all the earth (and other material) encapsulation it in the first place? Would it have absorbed or disappated some or all of the impact? The second question would be the extent to which the material to the rear of the footing would have prevented severe deformation of the foundation. And of course we'd also want to look at the strength of the founds.
Now go away and do your homework properly, before pretending to be an engineer.
You claimed that the aircraft should have damaged the foundation.
For your information, the foundation is the section of load bearing wall footing which carries the weight of the building down to a suitable strata, usually a firm clay. In a building such as the Pentagon one would anticipate it to be in-situ reinforced concrete, although masonry would also be possible. It will typically extend to depths of 450 to 1200mm below ground level. The excavation trench will be backfilled, either in selected as-dug material or in a suitable hardcore.
Now, if something impacted the foundation the first question would be what happened to all the earth (and other material) encapsulation it in the first place? Would it have absorbed or disappated some or all of the impact? The second question would be the extent to which the material to the rear of the footing would have prevented severe deformation of the foundation. And of course we'd also want to look at the strength of the founds.
Now go away and do your homework properly, before pretending to be an engineer.
1. The analogy is not irrelevent. My analogy is to show you that a thin (compared to the concrete foundation) concrete wall standing (ie the walls of the pentagon) would suffer significantly more damage than the foundation, sitting atop the earth. My reference to the Sandia thing was only to demonstrate that the THICKNESS of the concrete is directly related to the amount of damage it will suffer when struck by a high speed object.
2. Your photo evidence is blurred, from a distance, and in most cases barely shows the foundation itself. I would put good money on seeing significant scraping and gouging, as well as some cracking in the foundation, if proper, good photos were available.
TAM
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
In your investigation to discover the real truth did you attempt to contact:
- any of the people involved in the recovery and identification of the DNA?
- any of the first responders from the fire departments of Montgomery County, MD. and/or Fairfax County, VA? No appointment necessary, all you had to do was go up to a firehouse and ask.
- any of the first responders from the Metro D.C. police force?
- any of the people involved in the recovery and identification of the DNA?
- any of the first responders from the fire departments of Montgomery County, MD. and/or Fairfax County, VA? No appointment necessary, all you had to do was go up to a firehouse and ask.
- any of the first responders from the Metro D.C. police force?
Our investigation focused on actual eyewitnesses to the plane.
This is what uncovered the smoking gun that it flew on the north side of the gas station.
We did however go to the Arlington County Communications Division to have the police and fire dispatch tapes played for us.
We were even more interested in hearing the 911 calls but they were confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI.
The director of that division was not very pleased about that.
And yet amazingly only you can see this. All these architects, engineers, crash investigators, witnesses, journalists, sceptics, everyone...all fooled?
Jings, is there no beginning to your talents?
well then, for gods sake, go to the media, go to someone with your PROOF, your undeniable, absolute proof. Society deserves to know...
Go, go on...I'll wait here.
TAM
You are mixing two unrelated events and not making any valid points. If the engine dug into the ground as the ASCE report claims there would be visible damage.
Huh?
Those pics are pretty close up and detailed.
Here are a few more:
The foundation was undamaged.
There is one major difference you are not taking into account. The vector of the forces involved is completely different in these two cases. In the Sandia demonstration, the force is directly into the wall; at the Pentagon, the force is at an oblique angle to the foundation. At the Pentagon, the force is directly into the outer wall, of course, and that certainly shows the damage we would expect. And of course, if the damage was caused by the sort of bomb you seem to think (judging from your "up and out" comment), there would most certainly be force directed down toward the foundation, and there would be more damage than your photograph shows. Look at any of the news photos of IEDs in Iraq, and you will see craters in roads, dirt, buildings, etc.
I think your photo demonstrates quite clearly that the forces involved are inconsistent with the sort of bomb you are proposing. They are, however, consistent with a crashing airplane.
That all depends on how the bombs were used and where they were planted.
"Powder Monkeys" as they are called can do just about anything.
You don't get that type of flexibility with a plane.
When you look at these images of the alleged right wing damage do you REALLY think that the damage is consistent with a right wing passing through the building as the official story asserts?
Or are you at least willing to admit that clearly Purdue got it wrong?
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
I believe this has already been pointed out to Mr. Trip, but I think it was ignored.
Hardly.
It was totovader that thought the foundation was the same as support columns.
That prompted me to post the link and image from wikipedia.
Sure enough good old wiki was talking about the same thing I was.
I don't doubt there are more technical terms and variations but whatever terminology you use doesn't change the point that it would be damaged after having a several ton jet engine dug into it at over 500mph.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Well, I remembered you showed a picture of a concrete slab (in a housing development, IIRC)??
That is considerably different than the foundation for a building similar to the Pentagon.
Architect can explain the difference better than I can.
Last edited:
Against my better judgement I'll make a post in this thread.
Yes Purdue got it wrong.
There was a generator hit before the building.