RIGHT WING DAMAGE CONTINUITY

RIGHT WING DAMAGE CONTINUITY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 10 2008

Citizen Investigative Team’s number one claim to fame is of course their trailblazing eyewitness account verification, proving a north-of-the-Citgo flyover of the Pentagon. But garnering less attention is their groundbreaking work on exploring the ‘smoking gun’ physical evidence there was no impact from any airliner. Besides the witnesses, and before they were known of at all, CIT felt they had a strong anti-crash case, based on research into the ‘anomolous’ physical evidence at the site of the anomalous (alleged) impact of a 757 into the Pentagon.

Among the prime points they have made and that I’ve so far addressed is the presence of Column 14AA on the second floor, and the lack of foundation damage. The next claim I will examine and answer to the best of my ability is “why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up its right wing? It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section.” This question was posted along with the two above and several others at Above Top Secret.com, and illustrated with these two high-res Jason Ingersoll photos:
The area shown here is just south of the main impact hole, the first and second floors of the section just upgraded to withstand bomb blasts. In the middle span there is much visible damage: a windowless panel recently backed with 10” of steel-reinforce concrete, intact but missing most facing and partially scooped-out. Perhaps most odd is another panel of presumably the same type right below it entirely gone, along with two weaker window/door panels just to the right of these. Some limestone facing is removed from the frame to the right of that, but at the left and right are areas of little or no visible damage, labeled in red “no wing.” On first blush this might seem like pretty anomalous damage, considering the alleged wing impact angle (see below); put simply, there’s too much damage on the first floor, and apparently not enough on the second.

The photo below is overlaid with a light grid representing the intact structural frame. Intact panels within the grid are lightened as well, whereas removed or intensely damaged panels are left un-tinted. The partial plane outline is based on the ASCE’s graphics, layered to scale and outlined. Areas shaded red are where the problem is, those marked ‘no wing’ above.
Considering how much continuity of damage there should be, we need to consider many factors, like these:
1) The strength of the wing at various point in optimal conditions
2) Actual wings strength/integrity after impacting light poles, generator, etc.
3) The mass and speed behind the wing (with the fuselage already shredding inside)
4) By the alleged impact angle, the entire right wing would have impacted near-simultaneously
4) Portions of the building impacted – horizontal resistance (floor slab) vs. vertical resistance (columns, wall panels, windows)
5) The possibility of other projectiles (cargo trailers, equipment, etc) and/or the deflagration plume of a pre-impact wing explosion contributing to the extra damage on the ground floor.

Considering these, one red area is near the wing’s mid-point just over and south of the engine. This is a very strong part of the wing, but it met the floor slab at a shallow angle – near parallel - with at least ten feet of it hitting edgewise either the slab or the very bases of the columns anchored to it above. At this point, the building wins and shows no immediately visible scars. The other problem area is nearer the wing’s tip, a weaker point, meeting ordinary columns and façade, if the outer wing was even still attached at that point. The wall south of CL 20 shows nary a sign of impact, so apparently building wins there as well, which somehow doesn’t surprise me.

But further in on the wing, which was after all attached to a barreling 90-ton jetliner at about 460 kts, there should have been some instant damage to the frame. Countering this CIT point at the forums, I’ve previously used the following two images of the damaged panel between columns 18 and 19, cropped from Jocelyn Agustino hish-res photos taken – yes, I’m aware - about a week after the event: The missing brick has a linear edge with a certain slope relative to horizontal. The concrete backing damage has its own similar overall slope. The slab and column damage as well exhibit a similar but shallower slope. The damage is manifested at different heights due to the nature of the materials, their order in layering, etc., but all share a moderate right-high slope that is consistent with the alleged wing tilt of the 757 at impact.
Seen from something of a side view, as above, it’s clearly visible that the columns are disjointed, with the upper floor’s lower ends apparently buckled inward, or the lower ones outward, it’s not entirely clear. Referring to this area of damage, the ASCE’s Pentagon Building Performance Report noted:

“Just above the second-floor slab, the exterior columns on column lines 18 and 19 exhibited aligning gashes that seem to indicate impact by the right wing of the aircraft [...] An area of broken limestone of the facade over the exterior column on column line 20 also aligned with these gashes.” [p 27/28 - emph mine]

Referring to these photos presented as evidence, and apparently missing the majority of information in them, Ranke said “the damage does NOT match a "wing". […] A single broken column does not match a "wing" and does not have to have been fabricated on purpose to match a wing.” He decided I was “incorrectly or deceptively trying to attribute damage to the "plane" that did not exist immediately after the violent event,” rather than to the collapse or some other later event. [source]

In fact, noting the lack of all this damage visible before the collapse, I attribute it to a chain of events unlocked by the plane’s impact. Let’s look at a different kind of continuity of wing damage - continuity through time. At impact the initial damage would be done in a tiny fraction of a second. Some of this – the missing and damaged panels - was externally visible. There would also be damage, especially along the stronger frame, that would be internal and less visible.

Considering both obvious and possibly latent damage, let’s look at a sequence of pictures from the morning of 9/11, at different points between 9:38 and 10:15 or so. In Steve Riskus’ photo at left, taken about one minute after impact, CL18 is framed by magenta markers and a line of fire just to its right. This long-shot is too unclear on its own, but compared to the Darryl Donley photo at center and taken at least five minutes after, it shows a flaming seam at its far right that matches, if more dimly. The Ingersoll shot at right was taken several minutes later and after a coating of fire retardant foam. While the facing is broken fairly clean on the column edge, the “no plane” damage area to the left of that remains unchanged; the column and its facing remain - counter-intuitively - intact.

At lower left in the top photo below, note a major crack in the horizontal frame just to the left of column 18. I speculate that at this point, the area there is holding together by weight and habit, but ready to shear, crumble, and scatter along the fault lines introduced by the big thud at 9:38, waiting for a further violent event to trigger the fractures into rifts.
Then the collapse, immediately after which the bottom shot was taken. The facing around the damaged panel has fallen away, but the brick and concrete backing remain about the same. Below that, something has left the whole corner of the frame above and left of column 18 missing, presumably in the pile large of rubble that formed at the foot of the collapsed zone. Perhaps it was some massive pressure that has stripped away the top of that column, exposing re-bar. Although the separation came after the collapse, the point of give is right about there in the red zone of ‘no plane damage.’ And I’m pretty sure column 19 on the right also shows its later damage at this point, and even before collapse, though that’s less clear. Coincidence? If there was no continuity of wing damage, then why is there no continuity of the column here?


Referring to Augustino's post-shoring photos of the alleged wing gash, Ranke told Above Top Secret.com member Dark Blue Sky, in no uncertain terms:

“You can't use a post collapse photo if you are trying to assert it was from the alleged impact. Catherder used the same image for the same reason and it's deceived many 10's of thousands of people. Please don't help. There is nothing possible about the damage to the Pentagon in relation to a 757 impact.” [source]

Referring to a blurrier version of the bottom post-collapse shot above that clearly shows the breach of column 18, Ranke furter explained “it's quite clear that even after the collapse the left column was not completely breeched as it was after supports were added days later.” [source] Wrong. It might have been worse by the time of Augustino's photos, but it could only be less clear here due to being a head-on shot. The top of the column’s casing is gone, the corner of the frame is gone, lengths of rebar are exposed, and column 19 seems to have its damage as well, visible even before the collapse.

In summary then, all things considered, the answer to CIT’s original question is that there is about as much continuity to the right wing damage as there should be, which is little that was plainly visible after impact, but more that revealed itself after the collapse. And again I'm only left wondering if they really misread the evidence this wrong or are just pretending to have done so.

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:

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 20 2007
pretty much final Nov 21 3 pm

In the interest of critical thought regarding fakery of the Pentagon plane impact, I’d like to address the massive fireball unleashed when the plane *supposedly* struck the building. This was reportedly unleashed from the exploding fuel tanks of the 757 that impacted at a 39 degree angle traveling 530 mph or more. By the laws of physics, the motion of the expanding fireball would be determined by some combination of its general expansion (in all directions,) the forward momentum it retained from its flight there, and the angle of deflection and as such should spread across much of the building face, especially to the left (north) of impact, pressing against limestone and glass alike on its way. It would also have some tendency to rise and roll forward over the facade, igniting the roofing materials.

If there was a staged overflight with on-the-ground explosives and pyrotechnics used to create the fireball, it would either somehow have to mimic this pattern, or reveal the deception with inconsistencies. Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of this fakery, let’s look at some of the evidence of this event and its aftermath; whether it was stage-managed or simply crashed into, what does the building and the scene reveal about what actually happened?

The Crappy Video Evidence
First, let’s look at the famous and much-questioned CCTV security gate video of the attack. These choppy sequences of images (video at one frame per second) were captured by two cameras near each other at a security post just north of the supposed crash site. They show the plane (in black or white, depending on how one sees it) for one frame, about 600 feet from the cameras and closing at an oblique angle, less than a second before a bright flash at impact in the next frame, followed by a surging orange fireball that engulfs the building (below). That seems to make sense. The silhouetted structure is the heliport tower. Note this for later.


Note the deflagration's apparently triangular or conical shape, peaking just to the left of the building edge. I’ve seen this taken as a static, Christmas tree-shaped mass of fire, rising straight up from an epicenter in the building – as if the upper floors weren’t there, proof of obviously bad photo-editing. Another explanation is that the incandescent mass is rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera, if the ‘official’ trajectory is any clue. And a third possibility is that it was Photoshopped right to look like it should, which would look the same as the second option.

If the blast originated within, as a flyover would indicate - and the video were honest – I feel it would look something more like this (at left): an apparent fuel explosion (I'm not sure) inside the building five minutes after impact radiating out from the first and second floor impact wound. What we see here is indeed consistent with a fireball rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera (see below). The glowing mass spreads along the façade to the area behind the heliport – it’s certainly difficult to imagine any inside-the building incendiary package actually doing this.Debris movement as seen in the video is another clue; some fragments hurtling out and ahead of the fireball seem to move backwards, but the larger pieces go forward, and presumably towards the camera, another clue of its overall momentum. As so many have said before, of course, this controlled video footage would have been easy to doctor, and so we're left with the old question - is it live or Memorex?


Post-Attack Photos
For whatever reason, photographs of the scene are not as often accused of fakery, but in fact they are easier to doctor. But ignoring the pit of paranoia that opens, here is a photo of façade burns after the impact and collapse, taken from an angle similar to the gate cameras. In fact, the cameras are in and in front of the small foreground buildings. The taller structure between them is the heliport/fire station. Compare the burn area to the left of the collapse zone to the narrower area to its right (not so clear in this shot). Also note for reference the security camera in about the middle of the wide left area.

This face-on early shot taken by Steve Riskus shows the area before the collapse, just minutes after the impact. Already we see that even after the fireball has passed, there are rectangular patches of fire that has somehow gotten inside of widows, and much further to the left than to the right (heliport cropped off the left side). This is yet more evidence of a fluid combusting with forward momentum consistent with a path from the southwest combined with expected deflection angle.


Upper Floor Fires
And in this picture, again after the collapse, note the same asymmetry and also the fires flaring out from inside on upper left, some of those that raged and smoldered inside for over a day. I’m not certain of the official take but would guess these are believed to be caused by the impact fireball breaking out windows in the un-renovated wedge two, and entering the upper floors though these breaches.

ASCE, Pentagon Building Performance Report, 2002:
“Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.” [p 41] "Windows that had not been upgraded generally were broken for several hundred feet to the north of the impact point." [p 28] "A large fireball engulfed the exterior of the building in the impact area.Interior fires began immediately." [p 20]

These observations of the ASCE would support the theory that these upper floor fires far from impact were injected by this possible engineered inferno. The following passage however is confusing: "Most of the original windows in a vast area of Wedge 2 were broken after the fire was extinguished. It is probable that some of these windows were broken by the fire or by firefighting efforts rather than by the effects of the impact." [p 44] This gives little clue of just how the fires got started behind these intact windows. With the fire unable to spread laterally through walls from the actual wing impact points, let alone up through floor slabs, it seems likely the fire came in from outside.

The Running Eyewitness Evidence
The rolling deflagration was reported by eyewitnesses, including Fort Myer firefighters Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper, and Dennis Young, close enough to have to run for their lives as it billowed towards them. On duty at the Pentagon’s heliport (which has a mini-fire station beneath it and an on-site engine, ‘foam tender 161’), Wallace and Skipper were outside the station, inspecting 161 they had just parked against the Pentagon’s outer wall. As Newsweek reported:

“The two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away -- the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." [source: "Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html]

Wallace’s account is interesting in that his image of its trajectory and altitude indicated imminent impact; and being so close to its said impact location, he’d have the perfect vantage point to see it work its flyover magic, (80 feet off the ground minimum to pass over). But being so close to its anticipated impact point from 25 feet up and 600 feet away, he was running with his eyes pointing away from it at the time. At any rate, it’s a good thing they ran instead of standing and fighting the fire like men. It would have won. This is Foam 161 afterwards, at the spot they were standing when the plane first came into view. Jon Culberson photo, Smithsonian

By the flyover hypothesis championed by some, however, this palpable pressurized explosion was not the effect of impact, but something engineered beneath the steeply pitching plane.

The Challenge
The usual proposal for non-plane damage is a truck bomb out front, or bombs inside the building. Any number of explosive materials could be used – including a jet fuel element to simulate a 757 strike – and different mechanisms employed to create the angle of the engineered fireball. Who knows, huh?

Well, for people who claim something to that effect actually happened, it would be useful to have some guesses at hand. So I challenge Craig and Aldo of the Citizen’s Investigation-ish Thing to offer a plausible method for how this was all faked. An unseen incendiary catapult hidden behind the generator to hurl a fireball against the wall as the explosives blew outward? I seriously challenge them – describe the least Rube-Goldberg-esque contirivance, the least exotic weaponry they feel may have been actually used. Diagrams, specifications, numbers, guesses as specific as they’re willing to get. Brainstorm on it. People are watching.

Simply branding it as another point that could be done any number of ways will not suffice. Sure, they’re investigating people with theoretically unlimited power and they’ve said before they don’t need to explain how, since their witnesses prove this was all staged somehow. While that presumption remains contested, if this fireball fakery was another of the many points of deception, it had to happen in some way, by some mechanism, or it wouldn’t happen. Columns can be bombed. Poles can be clipped or torched down and hidden. Fences can be torn down. Generators can be pushed, etc. But what on earth could hurl a fireball like that against the façade of the Pentagon? I’d love to see any guess as to what, other than a crashing jetliner, it could have been? Or failing that another tap dance routine will suffice.

I'm not trying to push this as some smoking gun debunking either, just a good point to offer a firm challenge on. And Aldo, you aren’t banned here. Feel free to comment.

PENTAGON FOUNDATION DAMAGE?

PENTAGON FOUNDATION DAMAGE?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 1 2008

The Foundations of the No-Impact Theory
Among the clues tht led Citizen Investigative Team (CIT) to start digging into eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack is the 'anomalous physical evidence' that doesn't match a 757 strike. Drawing on analysis largely worked out by his cohort Aldo Marquis, CIT’s Craig Ranke posted as AboveTopSecret.com Conspiracy Master “Jack Tripper” seven physical clues of massive deception of the no-plane impact variety. Among these was the lack of discernable damage to the Pentagon’s first floor slab/foundation, where the left engine was said to have hit at about ground level:

“Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted it's left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor? If the left wing/engine allegedly tilted and went through/under the first floor. Why is the foundation, the shoring is resting upon, still intact????"
He showed four high resolution photos with spans of the foundation on the left side disturbingly smooth and intact. This shot shows an area to the left of the engine impact point, a fact hidden by the compressing term “wing/engine.” Other than some minor chipping, there is no damage, not that I’d expect any there.

Looking at the four photos they used for the point, and noting that only one spot really matters to me (explained below), that spot is off-frame in the shot above, too far away to see in another, buried by debris in the photo below (red additions mine), and in the fourth… we’ll get back to that one. The bend of column 9aa I marked for my hypothetical wing placement, which puts the engine over near column line 11 and just about the right level to barely hit or barely miss the foundation edge.

The Left-Wing Underground
In this graphic by the American Society of Civil Engineers was used in their 2002 Pentagon Building Performance Report to illustrate how the plane impacted the building, the left engine is centered just right of column 11aa (aa meaning outermost row on a column line) with columns 10, 9, and 8aa visible in black to its left. The main problem with this picture, as I have highlighted in green, is that the engine appears to be about halfway underground at point of impact. CIT of course have not passed up the chance to comment on this, as Ranke points out in a more recent thread, “in fact this image from the ASCE report actually depicts the left engine at least half way burrowed into the foundation. But the perpetrators forgot to simulate any damage to the foundation. OOPS!”

This is indeed too low to have simply nicked and partly sheared the ground-level vent structure as seen, and too low to have entered the building as said. In the pictured scenario, it would have exhausted and buried itself, but not before smashing up the reinforced concrete foundation/first floor slab (in reality almost certainly a floor above basement levels, not on dirt). This did not happen, and neither was the left wing edge that low, judging by the bend of column 9aa. My opinion is this graphic is simply wrong on that spot, due to an imprecise modeling that ignored crash dynamics where the intact profile seen here breaks up in stages. But judging by the damage to the vent structure retaining wall, a glancing blow at least with this horizontal concrete structure seems likely. As the plane was generally above the ground by all accounts at impact, no other spots right at or shortly after impact should be similarly damaged – only this one spot, if even that, should be expected to bear a mark.

H ere is a simplified rendition of the post-collapse left-side overhang, shored with wooden structures. Columns 9 and 8aa are apparently still intact, while 10 and 11 are obliterated. The missing columns flanking the expansion joint at CL 11 would roughly mark the entry point of the 757's left engine, somewhere in or quite near that oval. To the immediate right of that is the section that collapsed before it could be shored. Keep these basic locations in mind below.

Muddying The Issue: Mud
Clearly this is the best and prime spot to look for ground level damage at the impact point, but for a moment let’s step back and realize this is only one small part of the floor passed over by the plane. In a 757 impact scenario, initially the massive plane’s trajectory would keep most of it traveling forward just above the floor, but exploding, scattering remnants would move in all directions averaged together with their diminishing forward velocity. So I’d suspect some slab damage under the whole plane and beyond, angled at about 39 degrees, and showing up especially further in as its fragments started grinding to a halt. Though they do generally ignore the issue, the ASCE does mention "effective frictional and impact forces on the first-floor slab" as one of the counter-forces responsible for "the short stopping distance for the aircraft." [p 40]

However I’d expect this damage in any one spot to be fairly minor, glancing. Some parts of differing mass would leave scrapes, cracks, and chips that cleared concrete might show. After looking at hundreds of photos by Jocelyn Augustino, I haven't seen any conclusive damage yet, and precious little cleared concrete. Instead we get a less than clear view prevailing: dirt, grit and tiny debris wetted down by fire hoses, broken water mains, whatever. Photos from further in shows this buildup as uneven, wet in spots and dry in others, and apparently an inch or more deep in places.

This shot shows such mud and puddles extending to just behind the area we’ve been looking at. Note the tire tracks of the bulldozers, which regularly drove in and out to dump debris large and small over that edge and form that sloping pile we’ve been looking at.

Noting the clean-scraped surface of CIT’s smooth foundation shots, it seems likely this area was cleared by the shovel of a small bulldozer like this one. These were seen all around the Pentagon during the cleanup


This scraping over the muddy surface would fill in the minimal damage to be expected there, leaving it nearly as smooth as fresh concrete and probably a similar color, but perhaps darker with burnt material. Note scrape marks parallel to the straight edge of the cleared space across this dark, sludgy surface. Of all things, this is to be the key evidence that 'puts to rest' the 757 impact theory and prove 9/11 an inside job. It does look counter-intuitive, smooth enough some debunkers have speculated on fresh concrete, but that's about it.


Foundation Damage Found?

So seeing how little there is to be seen of this alleged smooth concrete, and returning to he best photo for seeing the apparent smoothness CIT offered, this also shows us the clearest shot of the areawhere we might see real damage simply grime couldn’t mask; we see the wooden box placed to the left of column 11aa's onetime position - where the column's base and surrounding foundation had been. Right there, at the engine’s low-pass point, still a pile of rubble just above – no wait, at? Below? - ground level.

A small pile of broken concrete? curved rebar? At the edge of the otherwise cleared floor and marked like some unavoidable obstruction? (magnified and enhanced) Is that the foundation itself, damaged, right where that low engine is said to have passed?
Some point out that the rubble pile is halfway outside the building, but the other half is of course inside, where the foundation should be. Admittedly the resolution isn't good enough to tell exactly what's going on here. It could be a pile of debris again obscuring the floor just at that spot, pouring over the edge of an intact foundation, or a pile of rubble that had been the foundation. (see below for more detailed analysis)

Coulumn Remnants?

This area of engine impact is supposed to be right-centered on column line 11. On the right side of this area can be seen it seems five very long, curving bars, protruding from a damaged area, with a riveted metal scrap hanging off one. Although essentially horizontal, these curving bars are too long to be from the floor slab which ends right there, and the clustering is similar to that of a support column, perhaps 12aa. These have at core typically six bars wrapped with a spiraling seventh, here stripped down to the bottom of their concrete infill/casing. Craig’s panned out photo usefully captures the tip of another such set to the right, with the outer spiral still partly in place:
Despite that these are not vertical, it’s not a good clue for ‘columns blown out,’ another CIT clue of explosives inside, since there is no other evidence for that. Additionally these photos are all post-collapse and post-cleanup so can say nothing much about the initial event.

The Wooden ‘Lip’
Foundation damage started seeming less likely compared to Craig's debris pile interpretation when I saw the curb-like structure visible in higher resolution shots (just to the left of the solid plywood shoring). This apparently intact lip covers most of the small area I’d thought was perhaps scraped out, and seems to be under the shoring as well, though missing a small portion right there (note the small traffic cone visible). Craig says this “looks more like a simple construction flaw or normal progressive damage that typically happens over decades to foundations as buildings settle etc.” This seemed right until I found another high resolution photo showing this spot from another angle that shows this object is not part of the building at all, but a broken beam of wood set back at least a foot from the edge.
The Slope: More Photos
This photo also gives us valuable clues about what is going on with this contentious spot. Compared to a previously analyzed view and establishing correlary objects, we can get a better idea of the perspective and forehortening involved. Damage to the edge is still unclear, but very minor is present and possibly from cleanup activities. Note also the custered rebar from column 11 (circled in yellow), pushed forward, one bar wrapped in cloth, and others pinned down under rubble.



Not so promising for my case: Russel Pickering, at one point anyway, looked at this photo and noted "I don't see any devastation here." link

The photo below, also by Augustino, shows the pile catching rays of early morning light. It still looks beneath floor level to me. In fact considering that little dozers were driving in and out from somewhere, it almost seems feasible that this spot would be chosen as an access ramp because the low left engine carved it out for them. It's too-cluttered to seem that's what happened, and rather it looks like the excavation was used as a mini-debris chute, or perhaps an unofficial walk-up ramp like those improvised by 'gofers' on any complex site like this one. Either way, it's a special spot, the only one not scraped clean, and it's right at the spot it should be.