The lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon is irreconcilable with the official reports and is strong physical evidence contradicting the 9/11 official story.
The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it's belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring.
QUOTE
The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first floor slab on grade and the second floor. pg. 28
They also suggest that the right wing of the plane had to have been tilted up to account for the generator trailer and the anomalous damage to the facade.
This illustration is figure 6.1 from page 35 demonstrating this:
With a finite amount of space between the bottom two floors and the required wing tilt that they report, the ASCE report illustrates that about half of the left engine would have burrowed into the foundation of the building:
Here is an RB-211 for scale:
The engine is about 6 tons and would necessitate an incredible amount of kinetic force attached to a 90 ton jet traveling 535mph.
Yet the ASCE report does not list any significant damage to the 1st floor slab and it appears relatively untouched in all photographs all the way through to the C-ring hole.
All of these images from the FEMA site were taken by Jocelyn Augustino on 9/21/2001 just 10 days after the event:
Here is an example of what a plane crash would do to a ground slab:
What underscores this irreconcilable anomaly is that the topography and trends reported in the FDR prove that the alleged aircraft would have had a noticeable descent angle as depicted in these images created by Pilots for 9/11 Truth based off trends in the final values of the 2006 released NTSB black box data:
Based on the descent rate provided by the NTSB in the FDR data, due to the G loads required for that vertical speed; it is aeronautically impossible for this aircraft to have pulled out of that dive instantaneously and be level with the lawn as depicted in the 2002 leaked and 2006 released Pentagon security video.
Further, the FDR does not show and has not recorded any positive load required to pull out of this dive. In fact, it shows less than 1 G for that segment which represents a "pushing forward" motion on the yoke, as seen in the animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB (See Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77), instead of a "pulling level" motion required.
Based on the descent angle, vertical speed and G Loads observed in the FDR data, descent and vertical speed required due to topography, the 90 ton jet would only compound the damage to the first floor slab if the plane hit the building where it meets the ground as reported.
The physical evidence at the Pentagon is anomalous on many levels and irreconcilable with the official reports. The DoD itself called the damage "counter-intuitive". The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likey due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures.
Questions like this are why so many who research 9/11 initially had issues with the Pentagon attack. The anomalous damage and lack of parts recovered -- which were never positively identified as having come from American Airlines Flight 77, nor will government agencies release such information via FOIA, giving unlawful excuse to withhold this information -- is just as observably questionable as the collapse of WTC 7.
Some researchers have abandoned the Pentagon attack primarily due to the mainstream media published eyewitness accounts of a plane. However, when analyzed, many of the witness accounts vary from what Mainstream Media has published. Witness list has been analyzed here.
When considering the eyewitness reports and on location research of Citizen Investigation Team and the Flight Data Recorder analysis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, there can be no other conclusion than that both sets of data are irreconcilable with the physical damage to the building. Government agencies refuse to comment, mainstream (and some alternative media) refuse to report it.
Although it is disquieting that we had to wait 6 years before acknowledging that Thierry Meyssan was totally right in 2002 in exposing in perfect detail the Big Lie concerning the Pentagon attack and the fact that there could not be a plane involved but a missile, it is still not too late. Time is ripe to corner the liers and criminals at the highest level of this government, who staged this massacre as justification for horrors that followed, and to bring them to a kind of justice they deserve. Death penalty is still the rule of the land in Texas.These criminals are sure mentally deranged and the American public has to come to grips with the fact that they are being governed by gangsters and immoral psychopaths.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 346 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 12:44:27 PM
While we have a significant amount of evidence proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon we could find nothing in support of a missile.
So while Meyssan seemed to be asking the right questions we believe his conclusion was incorrect.
At this point the evidence suggests that a real plane was used as a psychological tool to fool people into believing it hit the building while the damage was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives similar to what happened in New York.
But clearly they didn't plan on completely demolishing the Pentagon which is likely a big part of why they didn't want to risk the uncontrolled damage this would have incurred.
Visit our webiste for more hard evidence exposing this military deception.
www.ThePentaCon.com
by
Craig Ranke (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:26:30 PM
Haven't talked to you since the good ol' days at ATS!
Anyway it should be clear that the examples were not meant to be a scientific or forensic comparison and were merely meant to demonstrate in general how a plane crash would leave at least SOME damage to the surface on which it collides whether or not it's blacktop or concrete.
Unless of course you are trying to argue that the concrete 1st floor slab of the Pentagon would be impervous to a 90 ton Boeing slamming into it at 535mph I'm not sure why your question is all that relevant to the informaiton presented in the article.
by
Craig Ranke (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:17:45 PM
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. 32-year Army career. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon."
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Former Member of the Staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski was an eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. ... The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."
For statements from more than 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11, please visit http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com
by
Alan Miller (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:32:55 PM
Something which seems to be ignored in this debate is the bright white flash seen in the video just before the red fireball appears. This clearly indicates a very powerful explosive has been detonated. Further evidence for explosive is the fact that pieces of debris can be seen falling near the video camera.
If the plane had been flying a few feet higher than shown in the diagrams above it would not have gouged the foundation. If it had been disintegrated by explosives it could have still fitted in the space available.
by
gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 138 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:37:00 PM
The security video was controlled and released by the suspect so it is automatically invalid evidence in an investigation into government involvement.
Within the context of this investigation there is no valid evidence that an aircraft was on that flight path at all and there is an overwhelming amout of independent verifiable evidence that it actually flew north of the citgo and therefore could not be what you see in the security video.
The official reports are contradicted by the physical evidence.
This is 100% clear.
The cookie cutter plane shaped yet anomalous damage to the facade could not have happened from a plane that expoded pre-impact.
It was created with precision explosives.
This composite image gives you a realistic look at the full initial pre-collapse damge:
