NINE FEET OF STEEL REINFORCED IDIOCY

PLANE PENETRATES 155', FRAUD LOGIC PENETRATES NOTHING
Adam Larson/The Frustrating Fraud
December 2006
Last updated 7/22/07

In another post I eplained the suspected depth of penetration of the attack craft as explained by Holmgren, Hufschmid, and Raphael Meyssan. Initially they and others had believed only the outer "E" ring was damaged, leaving not nearly enough space to fit a 757. But this was soon shown as false evidence. The Pentagon is indeed comprised of five concentric rings, from the innermost “A” ring to the outermost “E” ring, the outer wall of which is of course where the plane - or whatever - first hit. Each ring is about fifty feet wide in the cross-section below, and comprised of five floors. There is an open, ground-level roadway between the B and C Rings called the “A-E drive.”

But... while the upper floors of each ring are separated by spaces for light and air, floors one and two are completely roofed over and the ring distiction is meaningless. The attack plane is alleged to have penetrated three rings (E,D,C), all at the first-floor level, a single, enormous, open area with support provided by spaced columns, and variously divided by weaker internal walls. The plane and all its damage would be within the gray area in the cross-section below, concealed beneath the building’s roof and at least one more ceiling beneath that - clearly invisible from above.


Eventually the "punch-out hole" on the inside of ring C became the focus, indicating a deep burial of the plane through three rings (or at least fakery indicating such). Eventually the one-ring-damaged construct and its 757-couldn't-do-it implication faded and were replaced with the line put forth in 911 In Plane Site, where host Dave Von Kleist looked at the damage to three rings, where such a plane could fit, and again decided a 757 couldn't do it. "Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall," he said. "Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches or 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete [...] Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage?" Likewise, Loose Change cites "another sixteen-foot hole on the inside of the "C" Ring" (the punch-out hole, which is actually more like eight feet by ten). Narrator Dylan Avery concludes "for that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete." While disregarding the exact math, no-planer Killtown also doubted that "the fragile nose of Flight 77" could "penetrate all the way through 3 reinforced concrete/steel hardened rings and punched out a hole through the inside wall of Ring C.”

First, the exterior walls of the Pentagon are not 18" of steel reinforced concrete, as these sources imply. The exact construction the plane was up against is not entirely clear, but I'm nearing completion on a post to explain this.

Second, as I explained earlier, the lower floors were undivided, and so the remainder of the six such ring-defining walls pierced simply do not exist, except the last one. Below, see rooflines of the E, D, and C rings superimposed over the inerior layout of the impacted area, as released by the Pentagon. The red zone is the damaged area, and numbers 1-6 represent the six thick ring walls Von Kleist and Avery are looking for (though in reverse order).

They do not seem to play into the layout of the ground floor, which is where the attack happened. With the exception of walls 1 and 6, these heavy walls essentially do not exist at that level, and the plane would only have had support collumns and weak internal walls to deal with. It could bounce and tear between the pillars, like a deadly game of shrapnel ping-pong. The landing gear making the neat hole inside the C-ring is still a little suspicious, but it's a fairly minor point in the big picture, and a failry minor hole compared to the impact. So only the outer wall was pierced by the majority of the attack plane, leaving us with a not-so mysterious situation: Question? How does much of a 757 crash through the outer wall of the Pentagon?

Answer: with a running start.

But the no-757 theorists have laid down their own rings of fatuity, each with their inner and outer walls adding up to nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy that our bullshit detectors must pierce. Many peoples' aren't even switched on of course, and so this blatant misunderstanding has richocheted around within the Truth movement's head and will probably continue to do so for as long as it stumbles along. By the way, many of the little bubbles clustered in and around the red zone represent dead bodies that were recovered near the end of the trajectory and along its edges. Question - how could a cruise missile or Global Hawk plow a pile of corpses like that?

HUNTING THE BOEING! (AND FINDING IT)

TESTING MY PERCEPTIONS AGAINST THE MEYSSANS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
4/21/07

Thierry Meyssan’s use of the new medium of the Internet included a visually based website run by his son Raphaël, called “Hunt the Boeing! And Test Your Perceptions!” First posted in February 2002 as a prelude to the book “The Big Lie,” the site offered curious photos of the crash site that most of the world had never before seen, with some interesting observations tainted with sloppy analysis and unwarranted leaps of logic. It has often been taken as a starting point by American conspiracy theorists, one of whom, the Versailles, Missouri-based Dave Von Kleist, found that HTB “drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon.”

When I finally took a closer look at the site itself, I started getting some questions all right. “Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version.” The website urges. “It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!” I accepted the challenges. Below are the questions posed and my own answers:

Q1) "The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"


A1) No, because while it may seem “clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring,” the damage was actually much deeper, extending all the way through the ground floor of rings E, D, and C – although E was the only one damaged enough to collapse and all the other damage was invisible from above. A fuller explanation here.

Q2) "The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high.
Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"


A2) Yes and no. The tailfin and outer right wing hit and damaged/entered the second floor, and the main fuselage damaged the floor slab but along with the engines fit entirely into the first floor. Entry wound analysis.


Q3) "The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building.
You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
A3) Nope. While all the substantial parts entered the building, there were aluminum fuselage scraps photographed in other shots, some bearing parts of an AA paint job. But at the angle and distance of this photograph, it's true nothing is visible.

Q4) "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"

A4) Not precisely, but there are numerous prosaic reasons he might (like the need for greater vehicle access) and few good conspiratorial ones I can think of - we'd already seen the "telltale" unmarked lawn, so it wouldn't do much good to cover it up after the fact.

Q5) "The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"

A5) Again, yes and no. It would seem they exploded, entered the building partly, and were left on the lawn in small pieces otherwise as we’ve seen. I can’t explain why they caused no damage because I’m too busy documenting the damage they did.

Q6) (Extended quote from the Arlington County Fire Chief shortly after the attack) "Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?"
A6) No, nor do I care what one guy knew at a particular moment, nor how much sleep he'd had, etc. Next Question...

Q7) "The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?"


A7) This is indeed the precise spot, but it’s not visible in either shot due to fire hose spray - in almost any other photograph, the answer is yes.

Conclusion: The site sums up triumphantly by posing to its viewers this false dichotomy of tested perceptions:
"How did you Do?
Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?
> Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be glad to hear from you!
You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):
> If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!"

Again, the answer is yes and no. The only reason I even took interest in this theory is that I do NOT buy the official story, and I find it lacking much. But despite these initial best efforts and all the elaborations on the theme since early 2002, a Boeing at the Pentagon is not one of them.

ONE RING DAMAGED: EARLY ARGUMENTS

To understand the dry humor with which I take the following arguments, it helps to understand the depth of Flight 77’s penetration of the Pentagon. The world'slargest office building consists of 5 sides with five corners and five concentric rings, labeled A-E; Each ring, when viewed from above, is separated by a space for light and air. The massive Flight 77 hit the outermost E ring, on the southwest-facing side at a 45 degree angle from the south and disappeared inside the building, according to the official account burying itself over 300 feet into the building through rings E, D, and C, terminating between the C and B rings, in a ground-level roadway known as the "A-E Drive." (just about dead center in the picture above)

One evident mistake on the original Meyssan-produced Hunt The Boeing site that has reverberated through the works of others is the contention that since only the E ring showed signs of damage when viewed from above (see right - and 'damage' seems to mean total collapse), “it is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion." The younger Meyssan asked his readers "how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?”

Likewise, Australian 9/11 Truther Gerard Holmgren looked at this building layout and decided less than two months after the attack “I have estimated the depth of the ring itself to be about 32 feet [note his use of the singular “ring”] and the open space behind it, about the same.” I estimated closer to 45-foot rings and 30-foot spaces, but he may be closer. Whatever. The point is, his contention that “the outer ring collapsed, leaving a total depth of about 65 ft that the plane could potentially have fitted into, considering that the second ring of the building was intact.” Indeed, many skeptics, especially early on, saw only one ring collapse and presumed only one ring was damaged. Raphael Meyssan said precisely that, and an intrepid few no-planers pained themselves to look on the ground between the rings and saw no debris or damage there. The ground there is clear, so the attack object never entered the other rings and never left the outer E ring.

Likewise, Zionist-JFK assassination obsessed Eric Hufschmid has made this same exact case (in at least one exception to the Franco-German War construct). This I found in his intensely researched and richly illustrated book Painful Questions, released September 2002. The "Flight 77 Hits the Pentagon?" section of his book also carried headings like "the airplane was larger than one floor," "where is the airplane debris?" "Two pieces of the airplane were discovered," "where is the aircraft debris?" "the terrorists were the world's best pilots," "the CIA drones," and "if it looks and acts like a drone..." He also cites two explosions, one from "the missile," and the other from "a bomb inside the Pentagon." The illustration at right is a scan right from the book, where he too sees only one ring penetrated, clearly nowhere near enough space to fit the missing plane. He did show the punch-out hole inside the C-Ring, but mistakenly cited it as on the inside of the impacted, outer E-Ring. Such a gaffe is noteworthy, in that any place for the plane to hide is "squeezed inside the red area of figure 9-10" and inside the red-flag area of worse-than-worthless 9/11 theories.

This is the punch-out hole Hufschmid cited on the inside of the E-ring. By 2004-05 most people had figured out it was actually on the inside wall of the C Ring, right on the A-E drive (hence the no parking sign next to it). But for the plane to get there, they still saw six walls’ worth of the stuff smashed through in the "E" and "C" rings. But this ignores another key fact – that it only had the two heavy walls to contend with (explained in my “nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy” post). Meyssan, Hufschmid, and Holmgren at that time could not see that the spaces between the rings wasn’t ground but roof over the second floor, and the plane pierced the building at the first-floor level. There is no ground-level exit on the inside of the E-ring. The spot Hufschmid showed does not exist on this building.

But that was 2002 - I checked on the current status of Hufschmid's argument in Painful Deceptions, his video first released in February 2005. He no longer shows his red area of the E-ring, but still says “the passengers and debris from Flight 77 were confined to a very tiny area” and implies neither was present at all, arguing forcibly for a Global Hawk drone strike. At 17:53 his narrator says "it is obvious that whatever hit the Pentagon was not big enough to be a Boeing 757." He showed a location shot described as “the corridor between rings. There is nothing in this rubble that looks like Flight 77 or pieces of luggage.” All that’s there is broken glass and intact (reinforced) windows that fell from their moorings. But that’s to be expected. It’s the back side of the E-ring’s third floor, which was badly shaken but never entered by the plane. What he seemed in 2005 to take as the ground level between rings is actually the roof of the second floor, well above the plane’s massive damage. He seems to think this photo is of a spot near his misplaced punch-out hole, which he then shows and points out again no plane wreckage, but no longer specifies just where it is in the building’s ring structure.

Despite the slight back-off on this embarrassing gaffe, Hufschmid still clearly qualifies as a Frustrating Fraudster of the first order. His case at the Pentagon at least is stupid and flat wrong, and I will cover it more in-depth in an upcoming post reviewing Painful Deceptions' take on that evidence in total. If you'd like the review to seem more relevant, feel free to watch the video yourself first. I haven't looked into Holmgren's current take, but from the way all these guys operate, once they've staked out an argument, it becomes their trademark and their turf, and they never abandon it no matter what. I'd bet money he hasn't modified anything significantly either.