COOKIE IDENTIFICATION TEAM

COOKIE IDENTIFICATION TEAM
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 13 2008
updates/edits 5/14 1am

Semantical note: To avoid any misunderstanding as has happened in the past, over interpretations of the ‘normal’ meaning of various key terms, I am taking ‘cookie-cutter’ as meaning an unnaturally similar shape between the damage and the damager and ‘cartoonish’ as similarly meaning unrealistic, in defiance of normal principles and dynamics of the alleged event. Examples: Ranke dismissing my “sarcastic little list of cookie cutter yet anomalous damage” that “means nothing” in the face of their growing list of “evidence” against the impact. Ranke again: “Now we know why the physical damage is so anomalous and questionable yet cookie cutter in many ways.” [source] Proceed.
---
The image below has been offered about lately by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) for the ‘anomalous’ impact damage at the Pentagon’s façade. This useful and pretty accurate resource, based on a montage by Pier Paulo Murru (who also did their famous flyover animation), clears the smoke and debris to let us see the structural situation. CIT has improved on it with their red outline that seems to denote the intact structure, but ignoring the first floor columns and non-columns entirely.
CIT’s Craig Ranke noted beneath it at one post ”Just looking at the initial anomalous and admittedly "counter-intuitive" damage to the building (and lack there of) and it becomes clear that it was not caused by a missile or a plane.” CIT, at least, feel the evidence is counter-intuitive because it’s absolutely wrong for a 757 impact and a better fit for on-site (or in-site) explosives. In the past they’ve argued it doesn’t match a plane impact at all in key ways, like with the lack of tailfin damage, or foundation damage, which they assert. When others point out how the traces of what happened in fact line up quite well with such an impact, CIT do admit that was the intent of the operation and that it was somewhat successful. Aldo and Craig will not tell you about the 16-foot hole, and they do admit to some plane parts inside (pre-planted). In fact in some cases, which we’ll look at here briefly, the problem with the evidence seems to be that it matches the impact story too well. There’s always something wrong.

The damage shown above is what CIT ally Avenger meant when he said “the plane supposedly flew into the Pentagon wall diagonally, but that cleanly cut impact hole is NOT diagonal.” [emph. mine] I’m guessing by ‘diagonal’ he meant with a wing bank, but indeed, the damage seems all horizontal – almost like weak panels removed from a building with a strong horizontal frame. Craig praised him anyway: “Leave it to Avenger to cut to the chase with pure, basic, factual knowledge! This is the most simple and brilliant point that virtually everyone ignores. Particularly the 757 impact "scientists" who say that all the physical damage "lines up perfectly". It does NOT. Sure it's in a straight line but it is ridiculously cookie cutter and anomalous.” [emph. mine - source] I still can't fully understand what this statement means, but it does appear surreal, or rather fragmented and cubist, almost like something was breaking the realistic damage up into rectangular areas of varying destruction – extremely low Atari bit-rate in the op planning blueprints? Or steel-reinforced columns and beams?

The best part is when we get to talking about the faked or so-called engine damage, thee manifestations of which were compiled by Ranke as seen at left (with engine face and words added by me). He has focused most intently on the famous spot where the left engine chipped the retaining wall of the ground-level vent structure just before impact (top photo). “If you accept the notion that this damage was caused by an RB-211 you open up a whole host of other problems with the physical evidence. First consider the cartoon like curvature of the damage as if it was perfectly punched out by the bottom of the engine” [emph. mine] I’m not exactly sure what sort of realistic shape he’d expect here where a heavy, fast-moving, round object is said to have impacted a weak concrete wall. A jagged triangle with spirals of rebar? Are we sure it wasn't just the very edge of the engine, and the shape of the damage was even larger, determined by the concrete itself? What more does Ranke know about this than I? It seems to me of all things hit, this is the most likely to behave like a cookie, considering the conceptual similarity of dough and concrete.

A while back he expanded the theme to include the bottom photos; “It seems the perpetrators (and some 757 impact conspiracy theorists) expected us believe that similar cartoon like curves were created by the engines on the fence to the generator trailer AND the tree up by the light poles: Unfortunately for the official story this cookie cutter anomalous damage raises more questions than it answers.” It does raise questions like was the tree (middle) chopped by the right engine’s turbofan blades, or burned by its heat or both? Or why would the fakers do it too cartoonish like that? The tree damage is a supiciously perfect fit; relative to the probably irrelevant/easily-faked VDOT camera pole damage and approximate height and nature of damage to light pole 1, a wingtip and engine placement like this is illustrated, matching the official story with cartoonish precision you might say. Another good question raised by this alleged damage is why did they tear the fence in such a perfect curve (bottom)? Everyone knows that actual chain-link fence damage is jagged and angular,like this, causing the fence to lose tensile strength and slump into nice smooth curving shapes like this. Oh, wait… now who exactly has ever said that curve was caused directly by the engine?

The diesel generator trailer said to be impacted by the high-banking right engine just before impact also bears the stamp of Disney. It was featured prominently in Integrated Consultants’ animation of the official scenario, as seen above, with the engine just punching a nice curved hole in it like it was a block of tofu. I doubt that many really believe this is what happened - it's a cartoon. But the photos of the generator (below, bottom photo) do look a bit like this, with a very large deformation on a scale of an airliner engine and with a curve reminiscent of one. CIT co-conspirator Aldo Marquis explained why this was not evidence for an airliner engine: “Did you ever watch the video of the trailer on fire before it was put out and left the damage you see? If not you should. Look at the damage, it reflects the thin metal sheet of the trailer MELTING into [an] even bend. So the plane did not cause that, the resulting FIRE DID.”[source]
At the time I conceded that the actual curve seen in this metal could not be caused directly by an RB-211 engine unless it was dropped from above, but maintained it was apparently centered around some extensive pre-fire damage that might be compatible with an engine impact. I saw the Pugh video of the raging fire, and even one better – a photo from even before the blaze got bad, taken by Steve Riskus within five minutes tops of the event (middle). It shows a missing area and a damage profile that’s actually quite similar to the post-melting photos, if rougher and shinier, like fresh torn metal. (Note also the large piece of debris off to the left - is this part of what was removed in the collision?) It started out rectangular (top) and even before the fire took hold was knocked out or pre-fabbed almost the same as it looked later when it appeared to many that an engine passed through it like butter. In short: the fire did nothing to this damage but soften it. But as Craig once simmered it down, "the bend in the top corner to the trailer was likely simply caused by the raging fire melting it. […] the damage to the generator trailer and the cookie cutter curved damage to the fence going all the ground makes even less sense."[source]
And finally, another cookie-cutter anomaly that I discovered and that Craig and Aldo have glossed over: the vent door panel beyond the chipped wall, bearing another improbable cartoonish curve. It would seem these doors were propped and locked open at impact and remained so afterwards, but in a different position and with one side swept down severely at the corner, roughly on the scale of a RB211 engine. How convenient! In fact it looks almost melted, like a lot of energy was transferred into it suddenly by some massive physical force. Pure Hanna Barberra.

So among the reasons to dismiss evidence of a 757 impact we find “the fact that the curvature in the fence, retaining wall, and tree is clearly cookie cutter and anomalous showing blatant signs of pre-fabrication.” [source] And of course there are the other problems that don’t match, the wrong data that rules out something, and the fact that the plane flew north of the Citgo and wherever else radar didn't show it, and flew over instead of impacting, and the choice is clear. If the cutter fits, you must acquit.
---
Cookie Identification Team: "Yes we had a cookie cutter seen in the vicinity, at least five cookies of the right shape, and many witnesses who saw the cutter press into the gingerbread, at least for the final cookie, before their very eyes. But these gingerbread men are too perfect and cartoonish, which indicates they were prefabricated, and a few witnesses saw that cutter over by the sink as the dough was imprinted. Therefore it’s been proven the cuts were done some other way with advance means that can’t be proven or even narrowed-down. Culinary deception is proven!"

VENT STRUCTURE DAMAGE

VENT STRUCTURE DAMAGE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 1 2008
Updated Jan 15, 1am

Among the low-lying evidence of a 757 strike at the Pentagon, as illustrated in this graphic from the ASCE's Building Performance Report, is a 50x30 foot ventilation/exhaust structure, presumably just renovated along with the rest of wedge one it was set about 75 feet away from. Joined to the building by underground tubes, and populated with multiple sub-structures, this area was directly beneath the left engine's purported low-level path of destruction. The vent structure is recessed, set into a slight hillock of that curiously unmarked lawn, so it might seem odd this is where the one part of the plane truly inches above the ground would leave a mark. It is effectively invisible in many long shots except as a pair of doors propped against each other, as in this Jason Ingersoll shot below. The area is surrounded by a low concrete lip, perhaps two feet high at its east side, and having suffered damage to the south wall (the left side above, the remaining portion visible as a wedge near the cable spool).
Up close and prior to foam application, in this cropped section of a Darryl Donley picture, we can see the south wall more clearly. The missing portion of wall is not inconsistent with the bottom edge of a 757-scale engine. To its left is the broken helicopter locator light, one at each west corner of the structure, and apparently both broken. Much of what lies beyond that here is in the further background, but the squared metal structure piled with burning debris is worthy of note - it almost looks like a miniature dumpster already filled with debris.

This valuable photo presented by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins (white labels are his), taken days later during the clean-up, and seen from above shows the south wall damage, lack of something, a naked squarish footprint surrounded by plywood at the entry corner (lower right). It also shows the lack of a back (west) wall, although it seems to cleanly gone, and I'm wondering if there ever was one. The 'doors' are still propped open but the whole unit at a different overall position and angle than seen earlier. The side facing the camera, on its far end, seems to be missing a corner, or is perhaps curved. Keep this in mind. Also note the labeled pile of debris to the right, including it seems that dumspter-ish thing also moved from its initial post attack position, and possibly piled with more debris from elsewhere. I've drawn on a sample plane trajectory (not verified as 'official' but it'll be close) that helps illustrate how both were moved, first by the plane/event, then again during cleanup. The possible limited foundation damage I've located, a foot or three below this, is also along the same line implied by the damage within the vent structure.

Here are some useful very close-ups of the doors, from three Ingersoll shots, in which it's clear they are propped open by a rectangular object off-cenetered between them (green-gray). Note different lip styles on each door, apparently designed for inter-locking, and a long section of black molding hanging off the left door at a smal bit of missing far corner(?). Note the hinge arm thing and possible power cables hanging under the right door. Hinge arm, unclear half-tube shape and more cables hanging under the left. In the top shot note also in the background a tipped Bobcat dozer/forklift, a possible clue to what was going on there at impact time. In the bottom shot note a pile of dark stuff on the right door, the 'grime line' previously discussed, and faintly the broken, bent section of lip, which is revealed as well in this Jocelyn Augustino photo from September 17. Note that with the object propping the unit open removed, the left side seems to sag at an odd angle.


This Ingersoll shot from after the collapse at 10:15 shows the doors or whatever exactly that structure is, the tops of the intact structures, and what seems to be the top of another higher structure, its right half pushed down and its edge twisted.

Steve Riskus' shots fail to clear this point up, and all shots I've seen show only edge and none show its top. All I can say is it seems to have a top of some size, its edge seems to be bent there, it's set far from the south wall, and at about a 45 degree angle between the two walls rather than square. Shots from as early as the night of September 12 show only the concrete footprint of it bracketed with the wood railing seen during cleanup, and so this photo I found (not sure who took it) seems to be from the late afternoon of 9/11 itself. Though washed out, it offers a unique view of the vent structure where we can see under this lid and also see the edge of its footprint (perspective is tricky here).

Using this and Ingeroll's best shot of the lid edge, I made this composite:

Again the overhead shot with more photo comparisons. Perspective issues can be tricky, and also remember things are moving around in the days after.
The new shot I located showing both the 'scorched debris' and the bent 'door' is a Jocelyn Augustino photo (index no. 1890, available at this link), cropped to save space. Looking at the metal, note the coloration, the perforrated square panels, relatively weak construction, griills and flap - ventilation material, warped and burnt. Then compare the boat-looking panel with the overhead shot of the doors - overall shape, size, color, the curved section, the 'grime line' and upper lip, the angle of a scrape across it leading to the broken, bent lip, all present and proportional. It's unclear if the right door/other half of this structure, or its base, is even there in this shot, but that's the one and that's the curve we have to work with.

I certainly have not seen any reasonable non-plane fakery explanation for this point. concrete, one structure apparently bent and scraped out, and anpther structure spun aside, one of its doors severely deformed. There is certainly no simple bomb that will do this, this would have to be arranged elaborately in advance.

TWISTED ORANGE TRAILERS

TWISTED ORANGE TRAILERS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 18 2007
last update 1/2 1am

I'm still working out my analysis of the trailers-in-the-impact-zone situation: were they exploded to string airliner-ish confetti across the lawn and helipad as some have speculated? Were they removed entirely before the event as satellite images (see left) suggest is quite possible? Attack witnesses Micheal DiPaula gives a picture of an amptying but not empty construction zone: “we were in the process right prior to September 11 cleaning out the area. We just – we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building. And we had one trailer left, which was the – we had the Singleton trailer out there. And – and then we had some other trailers over here. So that’s the lay down area, were the plane actually came over.” So it seems possible there were trailers right there, and gone after, presumably removed by the plane on its way in. Are there any photos of trailers inside the Pentagon? What constitutes a trailer exactly? Why the hell am I still wasting time on things like this? These are the questions I've been tackling for the last three days.

In this case just the graphics and a few notes and links should suffice. Thanks to John Farmer for bringing up this issue again and spurring me with his post The Trailer (redirecting at the moment). Until I read that, I'd been baffled by the melty cheesy form seen in the construction area just north of impact, by the burning SUV (see below), seeing an orange tarp - or something - though others had previously identified this as some type of trailer. More accurately, as Farmer proposed, I'd consider it a steel cargo container, the angle from it being tipped over by the left wing, and the warping mostly due to fire that gave it the rust color. It seems it may have been ON a towable trailer, judging by the floor remaining beneath it and apparent wheel axle. This graphic represents what I feel is the most likely style matching the Pentagon sample, with various matching features highlighted.


Doesn't look quite right? For comparison, see these sample images of cargo containers subjected to explosion and fire aboard the M/V Hanjin Pennsylvania, which burned for four days off the coast of Yemen in November 2002 after a nasty fireworks mishap. The twisted shapes are those that fell to the bottom of a massive container cell that collapsed. Note the different appearance of corrugated vs. bare-ribbed walls, perhaps different styles of container. The pictures and info were found at this site.

Compare again to this stray scrap photographed from at least two angles, found just inside the Pentagon. It appears to be neither part of the plane nor of the building. In fact it looks kind of like somethinng from the Pennsylvania. Below are the shots these are from, the second (by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino) I've labeled with the likely column assignations. There are no supports on line 10 in this area, and by looking at the photo index in the ASCE's Performance Report, I've pegged this snake skeleton of a remnant as that of column 9B.
Below is the ASCE's column damage pattern laid over a rendering of the September 7 satellite image (lined up along expansion joints, in black). The trailer location on the right (the plane's left) corresponds roughly with the tipped and melted trailer seen above. The one on the left more closely matches the position to have wound up at column 9B given the 'official' 757 trajectory (red arrows represent approximate angle and impact points of engines and fuselage).

Therefore I speculate that we're dealing with two similar cargo containers in the spots where containers and trailers had previously been seen. One remained outside, the other inside, battered, and invisible in the available photos but for this good-sized scrap (and possibly others if I dug deeper). The intact one shows no sign of exploding to scatter debris, being as it is intact. The other possible container or trailer would have had to undergo a peculiar directed explosion to put it inside the building while leaving no similar traces I've seen in the other direction, away from the building. So while both possible trailers are possibly compatible with a plane strike (no detailed forensics yet), neither seems to make sense from the explosion and fakery hypothesis.
---
Update: Two more pictures of a rather shiny looking warped trailer, near the same construction scaffolding seen in other photos of the trailer.
These are close-up crops of Jason Ingersoll high-res photos provided by CIT. Another from that batch also has background details useful here, from later in the day, after it dried up:

COLUMN 9AA - WARPED BY THE LEFT WING

COLUMN 9AA - WARPED BY THE LEFT WING
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
September 10 2007
last updated 9/11 early am

In assessing the outer column damage upon impact, I had been hazy for a while on the status of column 9aa (aa meaning the outermost position on a column line). It would have been two columns over to the left (north) of the collapsed portion, and officially impacted by Flight 77’s left wing but left intact. In error I had included it as part of the columns-removed area, which I had taken as too wide. This has now been updated. Although I was focused on the right-hand side and didn’t see or wonder about this non-controversial support. It was usually listed as intact though deformed and impaired, and no-planers hadn't made any noises about it I've heard. But finally I have looked into it and found a few early (pre-shoring) photos that show it – barely. Column line 9 is roughly highlighted in each of the below to help locate it




By coincidence, these four shots rotate, zoom out, and clear-up if looked at in sequence. The first, least clear shot is pre-collapse, less than 20 min after impact, seen close and from the left and obscured by smoke. The second view is further out, just after the collapse, and somewhat clearer. The third view is off to the right from behind the smashed generator, with all up-front fire extinguished, and the final view is a long shot from the far right. Note how the curvature of the columns seems to shift with perspective – it bends to the left when seen from the left, appears straight seen straight-on, and curves to the right when seen from that side. This shape consistently indicates in inward bend.


Column 9 is also visible in figure 9 from FEMA’s Shoring Report (above), again seen from the right, post-collapse, post-fire, but pre-shoring. It’s the “damaged column,” one of the many that necessitated the bracing that report documented. Other photos of column 9 in the report, once the wood went up, are taken head-on and show no evident lateral curve. Figure 16 (left) shows the first of the supports being finished the night after the attack, with the space to the right still left hanging.

The close-up photo used in the American Society of Civil Engineers’s 2002 Pentagon Building Performance Report shows a column displaying “triple curvature” (shown from the right). Besides three remnants of its original square-sided casing, the angular concrete is gone, the column “stripped to spiral reinforcements.”

Regarding the evident curve, its clear inward orientation is seen elsewhere in the building with other columns, in what appears to be a bowing by Boeing. The fulcrum of appears to be in its upper portion, about 2/3 of the way up from the foundation. This is presumably the impact point of any type of wing in the area. The ASCE’s report listed the column as “5 to 6 inches out of plumb.” By the photo below, showing the column and its bend in its stabilization period environs, it seems visibly at least that misaligned at the top end in particular, further indicating a high impact.

But this graphic used in the ASCE’s report seems to disagree, with the left engine centered just to right of column 11aa with columns 10, 9, and 8aa visible to left. In addition to there being no evidence of the left engine entering well below ground level as shown, the wing crosses low on column 9 in this mock-up, almost certainly too low to have created the bend seen above. It might seem presumptuous of me to question the ASCE's graphic placement, but it seems warranted by this evidence to venture that we have an inaccurate graphic here.

They seem to have placed the right wing correctly given the building damage at that location, but neither the left wing or engine seem marked properly. Perhaps they were trying to avoid an overly-complex explanation as to how the wings could impact at differing angles from each other, and just dropped on an intact 757's profile stretched to account for the angular impact. This is about the same reason I've done the same and am still not explicitly reconciling the wing discrepancy here. But the key to seeing how this is possible is to keep in mind that the plane impacted at such an angle that the right wing/engine and much of the fuselage were scattered inside the building by the time the left wing or tailfin ever touched the facade or outer columns. I intend to post this theory in the near future, but for now, I propose a correction like this:

My green rotation, compared to the ASCE's in red, accounts better for both the column warping seen here and for the lack of an engine burrowed six feet under the floor slab. It does seem the engine was likely low enough to have impacted the building’s foundation, if glancingly, and also possibly just high enough to have cleared the floor. This ambiguity is interesting for another study of Citizens’ Investigative Team's undamaged foundation claims by possibly making their point moot.

THE OUTER WALL: HOW MANY INCHES OF WHAT?

THE OUTER WALL: HOW MANY INCHES OF WHAT?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Updated August 5 2007

Many questions have been raised about whether a Boeing 757 could have breached the imposing “steel-reinforced,” and just-upgraded, walls of the Pentagon. As 911 In Plane Site and others have explained, each wall of the five-floor, five-side bunker of five nested rings was 18” of solid steel-reinforced concrete, giving 9 feet total the plane would’ve had to pierce to plow through three rings as alleged. Of course this is ridiculous, but in fact, besides the inner C ring wall where the small and odd punch-out hole occurred, a majority of the plane only passed through one major external wall, on the outer E ring where the plane entered through a gaping 90-foot-wide hole. So I set to figuring out how that wall was constructed - how many inches of what?

Wedge one, the southwest fifth of the building, had just been renovated against terrorist attack, with work one day away from completion when Flight 77 plowed into the ground floor of the strengthened zone. This curious fact has attracted much attention among skeptics, but the ASCE’s Pentagon Building Performance Report notes “structurally the renovation was not major,” and makes little mention of the changes other than to note “the exterior walls and windows were upgraded to provide a measure of resistance to extreme lateral pressures.” [1] There was also the addition of a new fire suppressing sprinkler system, which did little good; [separate link], new windows (to which we’ll return), and several less noteworthy upgrades. But the main issue here is the outer wall of the massive office-bunker that was breached.

According to the Performance Report, “the original structural system, including the roof, was entirely cast-in-place reinforced concrete using normal-weight aggregate." [2] This frame is comprised of columns supporting beams, girders, and floor slabs. The report illustrated "the typical members" in the impact area (left). The reinforcements in these columns are vertical bars, typically six, wrapped with a welded rebar that spirals from top to bottom. This cage is filled and covered with concrete, all told measuring 21” square. [3]

Spanning between these sturdy columns, the impacted exterior wall of the E ring was “mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.” This consisted of “5 in. thick limestone […] backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick.” [4] Apparently most of the surface area encountered was only masonry, just over a foot of it. This is not too imposing. But just after noting the weakness of the outer walls, the report mentions that “in some areas the backing is a cast-in-place concrete wall.” [5] I had been looking at a photograph that looked like that to me, and became confused as to how much concrete structure there really was in the wall that the 757 slammed into. I’m now in agreement with Russell Pickering, who decided:

“The exterior columns were 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone facade. In panels with windows it had the 6 inch limestone facade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh. In panels without windows it was 8 inches of brick and 10 inches of concrete.” [6]

This sounds good, and I see evidence for this distinction. As an article passed on by Jim Hoffman noted:

“The idea of supporting the brick infill walls with a reinforced concrete wall "backing" was rejected as a "typical" approach because of the Pentagon's extensive fenestration (although this design was accepted for "blank" wall panels with no window openings).” [7]

The one place I was seeing concrete backing was a damaged non-window panel on the second floor, thought to be the impact point for part of the right wing. Note what seems a third layer of brick is actually stained on the concrete, which fades to gray at the bottom where the backing was smashed to cobble exposing the 2-layer rebar.

I felt like making a model of the solid slab as seen above. I’m going with the Performance Report’s limestone width of 5,” making the sturdy non-window panel 23” thick. 10” of concrete backing 13” of masonry.

[right click - open in new window to enlarge]






In general, however, this is not the type of wall the 757 impacted. “In panels with windows it had the 6 inch limestone facade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh.” Another part of the renovation was the Kevlar cloth, the material in bullet-proof vests, stretched between the columns along the back side of the unreinforced spans of outer wall. This sturdy netting didn’t add any real strength, and was in fact an admission of the very weakness of this panel type; Architecture Week reported the idea as being “holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.” [8] The Kevlar did little good, however, when the bricks were followed in by an exploding, full speed, Boeing 757 that took out the very columns the mesh was anchored to.

As a side note and because I numbered it in my graphic below (area 1), here is a portion of the unrenovated first floor just north of impact, with the old windows and no Kevlar backing. These panels are missing the window panes and limestone facade from the sills up, exposing the frame and unreinforced brick infill. (note the numbering – Columns 7, 6, and 5.)

Straddling the renovation line, the damage would have presented an excellent before-and-after comparison for future study, but for the collapse, twenty mintes after impact, of the upgraded half of the picture. The majority of façade damage as the worst of the structural impairment was in the renovated section, from column line 11 south. Right on that dividing line, briefly, one of the more interesting aspects of the renovation was made visible. One article explained how the window frames actually added structural integrity, according to a renovation plan for “erecting structural reinforcements around the windows, anchoring at the top and bottom to structural concrete floor slabs [which] accepts blast forces from the walls themselves and transfers both window and wall loads into the horizontal slab diaphragms.” [9] Here are two panels exposed on the second floor, between columns 11 and 13, directly over the northern half of the worst of the airliner damage. Facade, brick, and presumably Kevlar seem to be removed, while the columns, window truss framing, and even the glass panes are intact. (the number 2 refers to placement on the graphic at bottom of page)
At the risk of dropping free advertising to the makers of these windows, all sides seem in agreement over how well they held up after the attack. Architecture Week noted “the blast-resistant windows […] remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.” [10] Ralph Omholt noted “the general good condition of the windows,” correctly deducing “this wasn’t a major impact zone of a B-757.” [11] The "major impact zone" is in fact just beneath that, where there are no windows at all or wall panels for over 100 feet.

Here is a graphic I just finished showing what was encountered and destroyed. For the most part, it seems quite plausible for a 757 with its massive, bullet-shaped fuselage and dense, speeding engines, and hardy wing roots to have done all this. Weaker window panel removal accounts for most of the missing outer wall, while intervening column removal was more uniform, in my analysis, than widely believed. Notably on columns 15-17, I’m in disagreement with the ASCE who listed these as present but impaired.
The big “X” panels were the strongest – backed with 10” of concrete - and yet were removed, despite being hit by neither fuselage nor engines. This is one of the things that I’d classify as counter-intuitive about the Pentagon evidence. Take the one on left; a non-window panel – not renovated, so perhaps not 23 inches of material, totally destroyed by one of the weakest parts of the plane – its outer wing. And to its immediate left, a much weaker panel totally intact but for its lost facing and windowpane.

The X on the right is even stranger. The question mark to the right of this mystery spot seems to be one of three doorway, somehow enlarged, and above that, a final weak window panel removed. But the “X” marks the mystery I can’t answer yet. It’s immediately beneath my highlighted area 3, and presumably the same panel type as analyzed above – again, totally missing. What hit this panel, concrete backed, and removed the whole thing? The wing itself hit higher it seems, looking at that line of second floor damage. The under-hanging engine was a ways to the left, and yet this first floor panel was apparently removed completely by nothing in particular.

It might help to recall the wings hitting objects like light poles and a large generator on the way in. Some accounts imply that the wings were possibly exploding even before impact, with parts flying in on the blast cloud only approximating a plane’s profile. Maybe a major wing element impacted here at just the wrong angle and took out the masonry and all its reinforced concrete backing, uniformly.

In summary, let me revisit an old question raised by Dave Von Kleist in 911 IPS and passed on in Loose Change and elsewhere; “Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage?" The answer is that it didn’t need to. Most of the “bunker” surface it pierced was 13 inches of brick reinforced limestone, explaining the 110-foot span of eliminated panels (and 90 feet of removed columns) it created and into which the vast majority of wreckage “disappeared” on its own inertia. But I guess the answer he was looking for was more like “of course not – only a missile could do that.”

sources:
[1] Mlakar, Paul F., Donald O. Dusenberry, James R. Harris, Gerald Haynes, Long T. Phan, and Mete Sozen. “The Pentagon Building Performance Report.” American Society of Civil Engineers. January 2003. ISBN 0-7844-0638-3. PDF download link. pp 3.
[2], [3] Ibid. Text pp 5, graphic pp 6.
[4], [5] Ibid. pp 11.
[6] Russell Pickering. "Exit Hole." Pentagon Research. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html
[7], [9] Biscotte, Michael N., P.E., and Keith A. Almoney “Retrofitting the Pentagon for Blast Resistance.” Structure magazine. July/August, 2001. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm
[8], [10] Novitski, B. J. "Pentagon Battered but Firm." Architecture Week. Undated. http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html
[11] Omholt, Ralph. “9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE: The Pentagon. Part One of An Online Journal of 9-11.” Physics 911. Undated. http://physics911.net/omholt

PUNCH-OUT HOLE “EXPLAINED” BY OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS

PUNCH-OUT HOLE “EXPLAINED” BY OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 22 2007
Last updated/edited July 25

Official Dodginess:
How exactly Flight 77's trajectory through the building wound up giving us the exit hole we’ve seen is left a bit vague in the official record. The American Society of Civil Engineers' Pentagon Building Performance Report shows a photo of the hole but gives no adequate explanation. Its terse summary: "there was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2. The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building," [1] The Arlington County After Action Report noted “the damage extended all the way through the inner wall of the C Ring, a distance of approximately 285 feet,” and showed a photo of the hole captioned “penetration through the inner wall of the Pentagon’s C Ring.” [2] An account of FEMA Urban Search and Rescue shoring/bracing of the building is the most detailed of these three reports. It explains that "a nine foot diameter exit hole was created in the wall of C ring and the remainder of the debris from the impact ended up in the alley between C ring and B ring known as A & E Drive," and elsewhere shows a photo of the "'exit wound' where the plane debris exited the C ring." [3]

These three reports, a few early press conferences, published eyewitness accounts, and a handful of photos constitutes the body of evidence on this hole. While it’s been widely seen and commented on, it has not yet been explained with any useful precision, and contradictory theories dominate to an unsettling degree.

Impact Energy Waves?
In October 2004, the National Geographic Channel program Seconds from Disaster proposed a novel theory by which shockwave pressure from the impact cause the punch-out hole. By this model, plane debris and heavy, exploding jet fuel, perhaps along with explosions of things in the building, gave off shockwaves that reverberated and crossed through the building’s first floor. Having no other exit point, these somehow directed themselves and whatever was in front of them to focus on that precise spot, punching the neat 9x11’ hole we’ve seen. [4] While this explains both the improvised exit and the lack of any major evident airplane parts, the official story has generally maintained it was physically caused by the plane, or some part of it, though which part has been widely contested.

Engine?
Military District of Washington’s news service reported two weeks after the attack, mentioning that “an aircraft engine punched the hole out […] on the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon." [5] Though the quote has been widely republished, no other official sources support this claim. No debris seen there looks like engine debris.The piece’s author got the “second ring” part wrong (whether one counts A-E or E-A, C is the third ring), so maybe identifying an engine was an error as well.

Fuselage/Nosecone?
As widely noted, Pentagon renovation spokesman Lee Evey explained implausibly during a September 15 press conference “the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft." [6] As Killtown wondered “how could the fragile nose of Flight 77 penetrate all the way through 3 reinforced concrete/steel hardened rings and punched out a hole through the inside wall of Ring C and leave no evidence of itself outside the punch-out hole?” [7] This seems unlikely, even given that the “hardened” walls from impact to exit really totaled only 22” of unreinforced brick and limestone [link forthcoming], but spanned between by about fifty damaged support columns and only one plane fuselage to absorb the other end of these blows.

What survived this was not precisely the nose cone, but more likely some element(s) of the nosecone assembly – landing gear, landing gear door, cockpit panel or cargo door – some tattered portion of the forward fuselage. As Jim Hoffman explained, in such an impact, “only the parts of the aircraft with the greatest density and total mass, such as the lower third of the fuselage, could be expected to penetrate far into the building. That part also has a small frontal profile - approximately the size of the punch-out hole.” [8] Of course there is no piece of debris anywhere near the size of the hole seen in any of the available photos, but the illustration is helpful. The fuselage had a lot of mass, tens of tons, and though it was under great stress, it didn’t simply disappear on impact.

Landing Gear?
It stands to reason that as the plane disintegrated, the densest parts of aircraft wound up at the deepest point of penetration. For example, the flight data recorder from the tail end of the plane was reportedly found just inside the punch-out hole. [9] The heavier elements from the front end would also come to rest around this point. The book Debunking 9/11 Myths identified the landing gear. The book cited Paul F. Mlakar, ASCE team leader and lead author of the Performance Report, who “saw the landing gear with his own eyes” during his early onsite inspections, for its explanation that:

“The hole was not made by an engine or the nose of Flight 77 pushing through the building’s interior - or a missile - but by the crashing jet’s landing gear, which was ejected beyond the bulk of the wreckage. […] As one of the heaviest and most dense parts of the plane, the landing gear flew farther than any other item in the wreckage and was responsible for puncturing the wall in Ring C.” [10]

Other photos and accounts seem to back this up by recalling or even showing a wheel, a tire, and even a massive landing gear strut, near the hole. But there are some serious problems with this theory as well, like the ASCE’s own Performance Report not identifying this alleged hole-puncher as such, which noted that "the landing gear" (all three sets?) were in fact found inside the building, hardly the best place to be after exiting through the hole into the AE Drive. [13] These questions will be summarized more fully in a [separate post].

ASCE and FBI Secrecy
Mlakar's ASCE study team “went to great lengths of detail down to individual columns” in the plane’s path, Russell Pickering noted, providing their own photos and personal damage assessment of nearly all of them. Yet they danced around the cause of the punch-out, as Pickering wrote, offering “not a single explanation for the exit hole.” [14] The three columns nearest the breeched wall - 1N-North, 3N-North, and 5N-North - remained un-photographed and listed in the report as “damaged per FBI.” [15] Pickering suspects falsification of the status of these three columns to hide inexplicably severe impairment. [16]

He speculated that “the building team […] weren't allowed back at the exit hole for some reason," and noted how "they indicated in the report why they didn't have photos of those columns and who gave them the damage report on the columns - the FBI.” The one photo they published of the exit hole itself was not one of their own, but also credited to the FBI, further indicating this area had special investigative significance to the bureau, although this could have many possible reasons. [17]photo of the hole used by the ASCE, credited to the FBI (lower right, very small print.) [18]
---
Sources: forthcoming
[1] Mlakar, Paul F., Donald O. Dusenberry, James R. Harris, Gerald Haynes, Long T. Phan, and Mete Sozen. “The Pentagon Building Performance Report.” American Society of Civil Engineers. January 2003. ISBN 0-7844-0638-3. Page 28. PDF download link
[2] Arlington County After-Action Report. on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon. PDF downloaded from http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire/edu/about/FireEduAboutAfterReport.aspx. The report bears no publisher or copyright info – it was compiled by Arlington County and Titan Systems Corporation, and released July 2002 according to this story: Weiger, Pam. “Pentagon report: After-action.” NFPA Journal. Nov/Dec 2002. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200211/ai_n9114927/pg_1
[3] Titus, Leo J. Jr., P.E./Virginia Task Force One Urban Search & Rescue Team. “A Review of the Temporary Shoring Used to Stabilize the Pentagon After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001.” May 3, 2002. Pages 9, 12. PDF download link: http://www.aesvn.org/resources/Pentagon-Shoring.pdf
[4] Seconds From Disaster – season one episode 12 “Pentagon 9-11.” National Geographic Channel. First Aired October 26 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_From_Disaster
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/seconds/episodes.html
[5] Military District of Washington. Press Release. (9/26/01) original url: http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Commentary-Remembering_the_honored_dead.html. Accessed at: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
[6]

SUPPORT COLUMNS {Masterlist}

Update on the Pentagon's Support Columns thought by some to disqualify a 757
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated 9/10/07 mid-day

According to the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, “the original structural system" of the Pentagon "was entirely cast-in-place reinforced concrete using normal-weight aggregate." [2] This means the frame, comprised of columns supporting and connected to beams, girders, and floor slabs. The report illustrated "the typical members" in the impact area (left). The reinforcements in these columns are vertical bars, typically six, wrapped with a welded rebar that spirals from top to bottom. This cage is filled and covered with concrete, all told measuring 21” square. [3] These were evenly spaced at intervals of roughly ten feet (I'm not sure exactly).

As seen above, many impacted columns inside the building exhibited a pronounced inward bend, what seems to be a bowing by Boeing. At least one column on the outer wall seems to bear this mark: Column 9aa - warped by the left wing"

Assessing initial, pre-collapse damage to support columns is problematic; after the impacted section collapsed about twenty minutes after the 757 attack, the initial plane imprint was invisible beneath a heap of masonry, with only a few published photographs taken of the in that window of time. There was little if any video of the elusive original wound, and of course no up-close studies conducted. While most of the photos are of the best quality, it was still a violent and chaotic scene and a little hard to read, but often all investigators, even official ones, had to go on.

In assessing a “hole,” we can talk about superficial damage like removal of the building’s limestone façade and windows, and structural damage to the building’s frame and support columns. Missing outer wall and windows are generally agreed on when addressed on both sides of the debate – this is all evident. But not everybody agrees on the state of the columns in the 757’s alleged flight path.
For example, take the roughly 16 foot wide "hole" apparent on the second floor; the ASCE reported "on the second floor, the facade was missing between column lines 11 and 15. However, windows and their reinforcing frames were still in place between column lines 11 and 13," thus leaving the impression of less damage there. [1] One photo I've seen shows what seems to be a column running down the middle of that hole where 14 would be - but all other shots show no column in that spot. Through the magic of selectivity, many 9/11 Truthers have found this pillar intact and sound and concluded no plane fuselage entered there.
- Why they're wrong. Columna 14AA: The Smoking Gun That Fell Away?

But the main question with the state of the supports is on the first floor; above is one of the few shots of the first floor showing clearly the impact point and the right (south) half of the damaged area where the plane hit. Note the orange of fires is here prevalent on the second floor and almost absent from the first. This is consistent with the high impact of the fuselage breaching the floor slab and sending exploding jet fuel into both floors, and the reported banking angle of the plane, with starboard wing tipped high and cutting across the second floor slab. Just beneath that and just to the right of main impact, is what would have to be the entry “hole” for the 757’s right engine and wing root. In that spot, most all sources on both sides agree, there are three exterior columns there, 15-17AA, that are badly damaged and warped (the picture above is from the ASCE’s Performance Report). Opinions differ as to whether or not that’s odd, and what it means for the 757 impact story.
- I disagree with nearly everyone here, and this post explains why. This graphic sums it up somewhat:


One clue there’s a problem with identifying just what was a column in this area is the discrepancy even between official reports, explained in this Split-off sub-post:
Confusion in Reports: 15-18 missing, present, or a bit of both?

If these three mystery slants are indeed something other than columns 15-17, then we are left with a roughly 90 foot-wide area in which all supports were obliterated on the ground floor, front line - leaving plenty of room for the engine-fuselage-engine penetrating core of a 757, whose deeper but less even damage further in would explain the collapse of everything above that twenty minutes later.

Additional column damage deeper in the building will be covered in another forthcoming post, and will also be touched on briefly in an upcoming post on the “Punch-out” hole.