Strange Building Damage Patterns on 9/11

[spooked911]

Four buildings on 9/11 suffered strange, inexplicable damage: WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the Pentagon.

WTC7 of course was not hit by an airplane, but collapsed in an apparent incident of controlled demolition.

WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes of course, but their collapses were strange and not clearly explained by the airplane damage or fires.

The Pentagon was apparently hit by an airplane of some sort, but the extent of damage to the Pentagon does not make any sense at all even if flight 77 (a Boeing 757) was what hit. Take a look these pictures and read the accompanying text:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/innerrings.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/057.html http://www.pentagonresearch.com/058.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/061.html

This web site apparently by DU member "Christophera" http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
has some amazing info and an incredibly interesting theory to explain the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses (and by extension the WTC7 collapse).

The theory here was that the central core of WTC1 and WTC2 was pre-loaded with C-4 plastic explosives during the buildings' construction. As strange as this might seem, the theory has very strong explanatory powers for why the towers collapsed as they did. The idea, I think, was that there was some desire to have a pre-packed way to demolish the buildings if there was need to do so. The key evidence for this theory is a documentary on the construction of the core of the WTC towers.

He writes: "The actual slowdown in construction was when it was revealed by the government agency constructing, and the videographers had to pry for this information, that there was a special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure. The coating was flammable and special precautions were to be taken, meaning the government would handle the butt welding of the 3 inch vertical bar prior to regular crews running the horizontal minor steel that is tied with wire.

A special crew with armed escorts outside visual screens removed the coating from the bars, beveled the bar ends, welded the bars (welders working on the main steel couldn't be used because they didn't have security clearances) and x-rayed them. After each tier of concrete was poured the welding had to be completed before the concrete forms could be built again.
(snip)
the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core columns and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4. This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate. Attempting to apply explosives to the exterior of the concrete would have created too much external explosion and made the demo obvious..."

Okay, got that?

Now, we know the Pentagon was recently renovated where it was hit by "flight 77".

What if the contractors did some sort of special rebar on the Pentagon also using C-4 explosive in the walls?****

I have to think this pre-packed explosives theory could explain the damage pattern of the Pentagon better than saying that a Boeing 757 crashed into the outside wall, exploded and disintegrated outside, but what was left of the plane still managed to punch through multiple inner walls of the building and then punch out a 10 foot "exit hole" through a thick brick wall as well as blow out two other doors and several second story windows on the A-E drive. (not to mention some of the other problems with the 757 hitting the Pentagon theory)

Thus-- was having an airplane hit the Pentagon a test of this pre-packed explosives system?

What I can say for absolutely sure is the damage pattern of the Pentagon does not make sense unless additional explosives are invoked.

At least one Pentagon worker said he smelled explosives, there was a shock wave similar to what would be produced by explosives, and there is the damage that only makes sense by explosives-- particularly the "exit hole".

But one couldn't have high explosives just laying around in the Pentagon offices could you? Same for the WTC towers, in fact.

But what if the explosives were BUILT INTO these structures?

THAT could explain what happened.

**** as for WHY they would do this, I can think of two open reasons:
1) to have the Pentagon be able to "self-destruct" in case of some unusual emergency,
2) explosives were pre-planted to mimic an attack on the Pentagon in some sort of planned terror drill (and these explosives were co-opted by the 9/11 planners)

[gbwarming]

1. Show us some evidence for a concrete core.

It's hard to choose, but this is probably the least well supported hypothesis to come along for a while. The core story comes from where? Memory of a documentary seen 15 years ago? Not buying it.

[Christophera]

2. Solid Evidence & Conclusion Here. Core Was Concrete

If I hadn't seen the documentary I would not be able to unravel the puzzle.

I notice your post has no evidence supporting it at all and I've posted a great deal of evidence here as well as the url to my site

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html


Here is the situation with redundant evidence and the consequences of ignoring it;

A. sand and gravel is not known for it's significance.



B. image of the standing core of WTC 2 is not used in conjunction with the fact of sand and gravel volumes and gravel presence.


C. fine rebar comb of WTC 1 is not known as a major structure NOT shown in the FEMA tower structure diagram that can ONLY work with A, B & D to show a steel reinforced concrete core.


D. The top of the WTC 2 core falling upside down inside the exterior steel framework.


E. total lack of ANY image whatsoever showing the core FEMA claims is NOT seen as conclusive to A, B, C & D showing the presence of a concrete core.

are NOT respected for what they mean, THEN, we never get the blueprints or anything else. Kiss it ALL, and I mean A LOT more than 9-11, OFF! The secret government wins.

Realize that there has also been NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ANY ISSUE the secrete government has subverted the national elections totally without consequence.

[gbwarming]

3. When did this core construction coverup begin?

If you go back you can find descriptions and photos of the WTC tower design dating to 1964 like this one copied from "Engineering News Record", a construction periodical. I've located many of these articles in the University of Michigan library.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm
(snipped heavily for fair use)

HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS

For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
...
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.

Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.
...
Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above.
...
Fig. Framing plan calls for open-web steel beams spanning between closely spaced columns along the exterior and large, A36-steel columns around an elevator core.

April 2, 1964

[Christophera]

5. Videographers Of Documentary Noticed Secrecy Around Core

The videographers didn't go so far as to say there was secrecy but implied that it took quite a bit of prying to get information from engineers and they actually had better results talking to contractors or their employees.

The video too 3 years to make and came from original 16mm shot by camerapeople inthe employ of architects and contractors.

One such instance is the difficulty in finding out exactly why the butt welding of the 3" high tensile steel rebar created such a slow down. Their inquiry was evaded by engineers inthe beginning, then contractors told them it was the special "anti corrosion & vibration resistant" plastic coating on the rebar that was also flammable. After that the engineers provided some information.

Plans had to be checked in and out on a weekly basis during the construction and had warnings on them regarding making copies. Contractors were upset because they couldn't get data to use convienently for bidding.

The security on the site was intense.

I feel as though the secrecy existed from day one.

[spooked911]

8. So, can we verify this info any other way than from your recollection of

the video?

Have you tried contacting the channel where the documentary aired to get the video?

How convinced are you that C-4 was used in the core anyway?

[Christophera]

41. Photos Verify By Analysis Of Towers Falling & Ground Zero

My feeling is that PBS, the producer of the documentary would have re aired the video if the were inclined to release it at all. So far I've met 3 people, 1 a structural engineer, who have seen the footage that shows the concrete core and remember the narration accompanying the video. PBS is a bureaucracy and only a mass of constituents pursuing accountability of the government empowering the bureaucracy can hope to get the video released. I'm hoping that this will be seen within the world of 9-11 activism and people start asking others, anyone, if they saw the documentary and remember the core was concrete.

Two of the 3 I've met had seen the film and new, but they didn't know FEMA says it was multiple steel columns. We have to ask people, everyone.

C4 COATED REINFORCING BAR IN THE CAST CONCRETE CORE:

We have a fixed and absolute set of conditions at the end of what was called a terrorist attack. There are photos of it and certain facts have very high veracity. There is no doubt that the basement was full of sand and gravel. There is no doubt that the FEMA design uses NO gravel in the building above the ground.

The volume of light weight concrete shown in the FEMA plans only HALF fills the basement.

Here is the clincher;
Since the concrete was there, how did it get turned into sand and gravel? There were no big chunks of concrete seen anywhere at ground zero. The entire 80 x 120 x 1200 foot tubular core was turned into sand, gravel and cement dust.

Do you realize how much energy that takes and what kind of distribution is needed to do that and expose ALL the concrete to the needed pressures?????


Add the factor of free fall and it is impossible that the C4 WAS NOT THERE in creating what we saw!!!

[OneMind]

9. Rebar

The images that include, what is clearly rebar, are principal and compelling.

If there was rebar, there was concrete.

[Christophera]

12. People Remember The Video: We Must Bring Them Together

OneMind says it with the rebar statement. If a major structural component is present that is not shown in the plans, you've got the wrong plans. Of course while we see that we do not see what is supposed to be there.

I've met 2 people that remember the video and the concrete core. One is a structural engineer. He is too afraid to sign a legal declaration, I may yet get the other person to do that.

The official structure cannot explain freefall withn what we saw.

Then the sand and gravel MUST be explained

Then the image of the standing core of WTC 2 in conjunction with the fact of sand and gravel volumes and gravel presence.

Then there is the top of the WTC 2 core falling upside down inside the exterior steel framework plainly visable while NO heavy core columns are ever visable.

These factors are conclusive to presence of a concrete core.

Most importantly, with C4 coated rebar inside cast concrete, you can remove the bearing ability of the structure instantly and that removal pushes your steel structure outward ripping the joints apart. All of that makes freefall possible.

With steel core columns you have to cut EVERY one in order to get it all falling at freefall. That is nearly 500, 80 foot long pieces of big steel falling. We would see some, we do not. FEMA lies.

[LARED]

14. I'm fascinated with this idea

C4 coated rebar inside cast concrete,

Tell me more. How do you coat a piece of rebar with C4? How do you maintain a shelf life of the C4 while encased in a concrete tomb? What's the explosive force of a thin coating of C4 on rebar? How do you detonate a C4 coated piece of rebar? How do you get the concrete to stick to the rebar with a coating of C4?

Please tell me more.

[Christophera]

26. C4 Coated Rebar Cast In Concrete Of Tower Cores

"Tell me more. How do you coat a piece of rebar with C4?"

Use a solvent to dissolve the C4 into a light slurry. Dip the rebar then allow the solvent to evaporate.

"How do you maintain a shelf life of the C4 while encased in a concrete tomb?"

C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

The 10 year shelf life is the life of the plastic package. Encapsulated in concrete, the C4 will remain viable as long as it is not exposed to air.

"What's the explosive force of a thin coating of C4 on rebar?"

The thickness of the coating can be controlled by the viscosity of the slurry. The required amount of C4 for complete pulverization can be calculated from the thickness of the concrete. The rebar diameter, the rebar grid and concrete thickness can be varied so that the explosive force is very well controlled.

"How do you detonate a C4 coated piece of rebar? "

Leave an access port in the concrete filled with paraffin, dig out the wax and attach a blasting cap or det cord to the exterior of the coated bar and initiate.

"How do you get the concrete to stick to the rebar with a coating of C4?"

Rebar has uniform deformations. As long as the thickness of the coating does not have a taller profile than the deformations of the bar, the shrinkage of the concrete and encapsulation of the bar makes the fact that the concrete is not directly adhering to the rebar negligible in the strength calculations.

Some rebar is normally coated with PVC plastic when construction is done around marine environments. The lack of adhesion is not an issue because the profile of deformations holds the concrete in position around the bar.

[demodewd]

28. glow

How do you explain the light golden glow observed at the end of the towers' collapses?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

13. This is not "rebar".

[Christophera]

27. Image is Interior Box Columns: HERE IS REBAR

The image you've posted shows two interior box columns joined by floor beams falling from the tower. The exploding core has ripped the fastners from the steel and launched the assembly through space.


Here is the rebar.



The photo is taken at a distance of 7,500 feet and a single 3 inch rebar is not visable at that distance. In the image above we have maybe a hundred of them viewed at an angle to the line they form making them more dense and very visable. The bar was set on 4 foot centers.

In the photo the coating on the bar standing did not detonate. The horizontal bar attached to it did which removed the concrete and left the high tensile bar standing free at perhaps 150 feet in height.
The documentary I saw in 1990 actualy mentioned that some bar which remained exposed through bad weather had deteriorated and its "special plastic coating" had lost its protective qualities. Since it was already cast into the core, construction continued.

NOTE: The tapered, sloping tops of the bar was also mentioned in the documentary and was an engineering requirement. The butt weld of the bar and concrete joint were NOT to be in a level series. The bar and the concrete formed joints on a slope that was going in opposite directions on opposite sides of the buiding to get the maximum strength

[spooked911]

4. Yes, I know the evidence is tenuous. But I think it has good explanatory

powers-- particularly for the pattern of collapse of the WTC where there was so much powder flying out.

And I don't know how else to explain the complete picture of damage to the Pentagon without invoking pre-planted explosives.

[LARED]

6. powder flying out

Are you aware the every external column was filled with vermiculite between the column and the aluminum facade?

If I recall, there was 8 million pounds of vermiculite used in this process.

[spooked911]

7. I did not know that. Thanks. But why was it there?

[LARED]

10. I would assume fireproofing.

Each exterior column had to be fireproofed in some way. Vermiculite is one typical materials used for that purpose.

[gbwarming]

11. The vermiculite was for fireproofing and insulation

It wasn't supposed to be loose, but it may have been fragile as indicated by the reports of spalling due to weather during construction. Here's another article from the site of ENR reports I posted earlier (google cache since the site exceeded its quota for today).

It's a pretty interesting article about how the aluminum panels were attached. The photos show the special forklift holding a column cover on one of the unfinished floors. The fireproofed floor trusses and core columns are somewhat visible. (The photos weren't scanned for that article in the site linked below but I happen to have a photocopy - quality isn't very good from my photo of it)




http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:ZOKiBFyYZlwJ:guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm+%22Walls+resist+wind.+In+designing+the+record-height+towers+against+wind%22&hl=en
(November 5, 1970)
...
Each panel is ultimately fixed with eight ¼-inch diameter bolts. The anchor castings are so effective that at the time of installation only two bolts are needed to secure the panel. The others are put in later by a crew that properly aligns each panel. While the structural steel has tolerances of 1.5 inches, the wall panels must not deviate more than ¼ inch from vertical within 12 ft and corrections must be made through three floors so that variations cannot be seen.

Complex procedure. Before the panels can be installed, however, there are several other operations to be completed, not the least of which is the installation of steel liner adapters and the application of fireproofing. The liner adapters are welded, with the aid of jigs, to the structural steel columns. They form a rough window opening and they also serve as guides for the fireproofing, which must be applied with unusual precision.

If the fireproofing extends outward too far it will interfere with the placement of the column covers. If it is too thin it will not be in contact with cover baffles and will at least partially negate the effectiveness of the pressure equalization system. It will also fail in one of its primary functions, that of providing a thermal factor needed to control column temperature. By design, the temperature of the structural steel columns is limited to a minimum of 50 F with an interior temperature averaging 70 F and an outside temperature of 0 F.

So the fireproofing is important. It has also been troublesome. Some of the material applied last winter froze and spalled off with the first thaw. This called for the removal of several floors of column covers and the reapplication of the fireproofing. The time lost from this was not as great as it might have been, however, because it came at a time when New York City banned use of fireproofing containing asbestos and forced contractors and suppliers to find other materials (ENR 5/7 p. 21).
... (more)

Edit - I don't know who posted these articles - in one of those "plate of srimp" moments, I found the article in the library Friday and found the site today. Weird.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

15. LOL!!

Thats what the pyroclastic clouds flowing down the streets of Manhattan were, Vermiculite! LO-fuckin-L!!

It wasn't the roughly 110 acres of 4" concrete decking per building, the tens of thousands of computers, desks, phones,and chairs,the plumbing, ductwork, tiles,carpets,the 1100+ victims who vanished without a trace- etc etc etc etc etc--All turned to micron sized particles--No it was vermiculite from the mostly intact perimeter columns :eyes: Your killin me lared!!
How many miles does that Ol' spinning machine have on it nowadays anyway lared??

[LARED]

16. No where did I indicate

vermiculite was the only source of dust.

Haven't we been down this micron dust sized particles road before. Are you the one that seems to believe the entire building was reduced to micron sized particles?

I recall that was a fave fantasy of PlaguePuppy.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

17. Livin in a fantasy

"The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives." Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel."

"According to Lung Chi Chen and George D. Thurston, professors of environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine, more than 95% of the mass of the dust particles consisted of particles larger than 10 µm and more than 50% consisted of particles larger than 53 µm."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[OneMind]

19. "dust"

In the words of Engine 7's Joe Casaliggi: "You have two 110-story office buildings. You don't find a desk; you don't find a chair; you don't find a telephone or a computer... . The biggest piece of a telephone was half of a keypad."

"There was nothing left of those buildings BUT DUST."

[demodewd]

24. calculations?

What's your calculation of gravitational potential energy of the Towers? And would this energy be sufficient to pulverize all non metallic materials into the fine dust and produce a dust flow expanding to three times the diameter of the building in five seconds at thirty mph?

[AZCat]

18. Not pyroclastic

Pyroclastic means volcanic (or mostly volcanic) in origin, and a pyroclastic flow is a rather nasty occasional result of a volcanic eruption.

There were no volcanos involved in the events on September 11th, so the use of this term is incorrect.

[carlvs]

25. True, however...

in the recently published book, Ghosts of Vesuvius, author Charles Pellegrino mentioned that when he and other scientists studied the aftermath of the fall of WTCs 1 & 2, they were surprised to find that the behavior of the clouds generated by both collapses duplicated the effects they had found from pyroclastic flows generated by the collapse of a volcano's eruption column. The only major differences were that of temperature (compared to what a volcano generates, these clouds were relatively cool), and distance covered (only the blocks immediately surrounding collapse site experienced these effects; after that, the clouds' force was mostly spent.)

So while the term itself may be incorrect, it does give one a feel of what was going on in the immediate area of the collapse of both towers (at least those of use who are volcano "buffs.")

As for what caused this to happen, that's where we have to disagree... :evilgrin:

[Lavachequirit]

40. Pyroclasis for the uninitiated

Perhaps in a technical sense the term pyroclastic flow refers only to the productions of volcanic eruptions, but the definition fits very closely (except for the "pyro" part, since it was not nearly as hot as a volcanic cloud)the dust clouds created in the WTC tower collapses. The key feature is that a fluidized mixture of particles and air that behaves as a discrete, denser fluid within the surrounding medium. Some cool pix:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Images/pyroclastic_flows.html

Something exactly parallel happens underwater, in what is called a turbidity current. These typically happen at the edges of a continental shelf when sediment breaks loose, mixes with water and flows rapidly down the slope, very much like an avalanche. These have been well documented thanks to their tendency to break transatlantic cables in their path, which in some cases has allowed very accurate velocity measurements.

The key point is that a large volume of particles has to be created (in the case of a volcano or the WTC) and simultaneously mixed very rapidly with air for such a cloud to be created, something that is intrinsically an "explosive" process, however you may wish to explain it.

Even if he's not here to defend himself, it's nice to see that Plaguepuppy's "fantasies" about the dust cloud are supported by the facts - though Lared seems to have a "Clinton obsession" thing going about the Pup. When in doubt, demonize someone who can't reply!

[LARED]

42. PP is gone???

I'm pretty sure he's still here with just a different moniker(s).

I'm a bit surprised you of all people would think he's gone.

BTW, what part of PP's dust cloud fantasies have been supported by facts? I must have missed them.

Also I don't have an obsession about PP I just had many a good debate with him and thought he is an interesting fellow. He is intelligent, articles poster that sounded like he knew what he was talking about. He is a classic case showing the power of being articulate trumping knowledge. I even left a comment on his web page once admonishing him for telling people he was a engineer after finding a bunch of 9/11 webs that indicated PP was an engineer. Somehow the comment did not last long. Go figure

[demodewd]

43. re: PP

PP was using his plaguepuppy moniker on another forum just recently. If he were still posting here,why would he change his moniker? He isn't posting here. That's my informed opinion.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. Have you learned nothing here?

this is NOT a new theory, old, rehashed and stale, but not new, and still just as stupid.

[spooked911]

21. To Re-iterate, what accounts for the damage to the Pentagon ?

This is what "flight 77" had to go through to make the "exit hole" on the A-E drive, if you count all the walls from the outside to the exit hole : 6 feet of regular concrete, 5 feet of steel reinforced concrete, 16" of brick and 6" of limestone. This is a conservative estimate.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/057.html

Considering the plane pretty well blew up when it impacted the first outside wall, I say that there is no way in hell that flight 77 made the exit hole-- or blew out the other doors and windows on the A-E drive, for that matter.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/innerrings.html

So-- what accounts for this damage??????

Please tell me-- I'd love to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(sorry to be so stupid)

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. Just to Clarify

This thread was regarding the WTC buildings being pre-rigged for demolition.

I did not say you were stupid, just that idea.

[spooked911]

29. Actually the point of the thread was that the WTC AND the Pentagon were

pre-rigged for demolition.

I know you weren't calling me stupid, and I understand why you think the idea is stupid.

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. Regarding the Pentagon question

1. The aircraft did not "pretty well blew up when it impacted the outside wall". That wall was good and penetrated by the fuselage before the fuel began to ignite. The wings were certainly intact before they impacted.

2. The igniting fuel did little to dissipate the mass and momentum of the airframe, and substantial components such as the engines and landing gear.

[spooked911]

30. Okay, but you did not answer my question:

How did "flight 77" penetrate so far and do so much damage?

You have to admit that the plane was substantially damaged upon impacting the outer wall of the Pentagon. How did it retain enough mass and energy to do the other damage?

This is what "flight 77" had to go through to make the "exit hole" on the A-E drive, if you count all the walls from the outside to the exit hole: 6" of limestone on the outer wall, 5 feet of steel reinforced concrete in the outer wall, almost 6 feet of regular concrete in the inner walls, and 16" of brick in the exit hole wall.

The overall distance from the outer wall to the exit hole wall is over 300 feet.

Not only did the explosive event blow out the exit hole on the A-E drive, but it also blew out double doors and a single door on the A-E drive as well as second story windows on the A-E drive.

[spooked911]

31. Also we need to add in dozens of steel reinforced concrete columns that

would have broken up "flight 77" very effectively before it hit most of the interior walls.

So WHAT exact part of the plane penetrated through all this concrete and brick?

Please don't tell me the landing gear.

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. those Steel I-beams

shredded much of the airframe, and many of those supports were knocked out, hence the collapse.

Certainly the engine was sufficiently dense to make the 300' trip, as was the landing gear. Remember the gear assembly is one of the most robust pieces of equipment on the aircraft, it must support many times the weight of the aircraft upon landing, and takes quite a pounding.

[spooked911]

34. Are you really saying it was the engine or landing gear that knocked out

the "exit hole"?

Funny how there was no trace of an engine or landing gear outside the hole.

Also, do see any thing close to a linear path here:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/045.html


through which the engine or landing gear could have traveled to hit the back wall on the C ring?

[vincent_vega_lives]

37. Of course it could

Also, do see any thing close to a linear path here:

Are you kidding? No linear path? Try from the center of the collapsed area to the hole in the wall. Note all the RED columns. It doesnt need to be an object 9' in diameter, just objects that hit the wall in a group that size.

Note all the RED colums at the point of entry. Based on the scale of this graph, that is very close to the width of the aicraft between the engines (where the wings hold fuel) Coincidence?

[demodewd]

35. no evidence just wild speculation

If this is so...where is the engine and/or landing gear parts in the A-E drive? Not to be found.Though an engine was found but not in the A-E drive.

And if it were the engine..why would the b-ring wall not show some damage? Considering the incisesiveness and largeness of the hole(implying speed and volume) it seems very possible that your engine would have continued on to hit the b ring wall. But all we see is minor smoke damage.

I don't think the odds play in your favor on this one as direly as I know you need them too.

Another pertinent question in reference to your thesis. If the airframe and wings tore out so much of the columns north of the entry point,where is the expected fire damage? The c-ring wall adjacent to the A-E drive has little if any. Where's the fire in that area? I don't think your airframe made it into the building..or very little of it. The center of the fire is at the very fore of the building's facade stretching out into the lawn.This is due to the explosion that occurred just a nanosecond before the plane engaged the building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. Sure "wild" speculation on my part as I wasn't there

I have seen pictures though, and there were aircraft parts outside that hole.

I agree that the size of the whole implies volume, velocity, but could have been made by a shower of smaller objects rather than a single large one.

You misunderstand my "thesis". I don't "direly need" to answer any questions, all I have to do is refute claims of the impossibility that the hole could have been made by aircraft parts. That claim requires substantially more evidence than my "thesis".

Where is the fire damage? are you kidding? Sure the point of ignition was the outside wall, but the wall was already penetrated by the fuselage and momentum would have carried much of the flaming fuel into the structure.

[demodewd]

38. further explanations

That hole was created by a concentrated force directly in line with the plane's angle of entry. There just is not enough "parts" in the A-E drive to explain it,to my satisfaction. All bets are off that enough plane material caused that hole after it was exploded at the very fore of the building.

You have no evidence which puts you on a par with everyone else.

momentum would have carried much of the flaming fuel into the structure.
Just my point. Examination of impact photos shows a surprising lack of fuel damage north of the planes entry point. Particularly in the b and c ring. One would think that the plane's "momentum" would bring plumes of flame into these areas but it apparently did not. There is extentive fuel damage in the A ring and floors above,and south of the entry point there was lots of fire damage. On the facade,obviously the fuel was slattered extensively and there was much fuel that splattered over and onto the roof.

I contend that there was an initial blast prior to the fuel explosion that created a buffer zone north of the plane's entry point and created the fire characteristics witnessed.

I believe the explosion point to be premature and that the fuselage (though it would have been severed)without preset explosives would have penetrated far deeper into the north area before exploding similar to what was witnessed at the WTC. The plane exploded too quickly in my opinion.

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. I'm not sure what data you are basing your conclusions on

And it's not a lack of evidence, it is a lack of knowledge of that evidence that puts us on a par.

The detailed conclusions your are reaching would have to be based on

a. detailed knowledge of the crash site far beyond what is available on the internet.
b. Extensive experience with air crash science.

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. Not directly but I obliquely

How did "flight 77" penetrate so far and do so much damage?

F=MA

The "substantially damaged" aircraft did not lose much mass upon impact with the outer wall. It was disipated during it's trip through the building with indivudual peices retaining much of their momentum.

"The overall distance from the outer wall to the exit hole wall is over 300 feet."

That is only twice the length of the aircraft, which was traveling at least half the speed of sound.