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.

No Fires? a Stool Sample of IPS Evidence

last updated 10/13/07

We’re told Flight 77 took off with about 11,500 gallons of jet fuel for its transcontinental journey, and that this fuel was contained in its wings, which span 124 feet. So if it flew into the side of the Pentagon, we should expect to see a line of jet-fuel fire at least 124 feet wide across the façade, and yet more burning fuel exploding forward through broken windows into the building with the plane’s momentum and burning everything in its path to cinders. From the outside, it'd probably look like this:


911 In Plane Site, for one, is certain that an airliner was not responsible and it was not even well-faked. In his narration, IPS writer/poducer/host Dave Von Kleist cited as evidence a relative lack of fire damage near the attack point on the ground floor. While some of the pictures he showed clearly indicated massive fires, he zoomed in on a post-collapse photo of the upper floors and calmly pointed out “On the 3rd floor it's plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor. Neither of them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk, it hasn’t burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed, a wooden stool with a book that is laying open. The pages aren’t even singed.”


Dave knows that the Pentagon has five floors - the 5th has no exterior windows and the 1st is not visible in the shot above, which is precisely the picture he chose to use. Look just to the left of the building's peak and count down - 5, 4, 3… there's that miraculous stool, one floor slab above the impact site and a floor above any fire. The file cabinet Von Kleist cites on the third floor is actually on the 5th, and the wooden desk from the 2nd floor is actually on the 4th. His careful analysis of the public evidence completely subtracted two floors, one of which – the second floor - is clearly visible in this shot and looks rather seriously burnt.

Don't think I'm just nit-picking here. As critics point out, you don't level charges this serious without good evidence, and it's major blunders like this stool sample - and there are perhaps hundreds in IPS alone, that can derail people without adequate bullshit detectors. The video that has bragged “September 11 changed the world. This video will change September 11,” on closer analysis, looks more like a parody of 9/11 skeptics than an authentic effort at what it claims.

Other examples of the stool sample used to question the jet fuel fire:
911 Review.org
Pentagon Strike (video)
Glen Yeadon

More on the book in question reveals the 'stool' as a likely bible lectern:
""Yet, as he (Mark Williams) looked up into the black chasm torn into the symbol of the mightiest military on earth, Williams saw a sign of hope. On a second floor, right next to where the jet sheared off a section of the building, was an undisturbed stool. And on it was a thick, open book. Fellow searchers who had gotten a close look said it was a Bible. It was not burned. Nor was anything around it or on the two floors above it. "I'm not as religious as some, but that would have me thinking," the soldier said. "I just can't explain it."

It sure does look odd, but the reason nothing there burned was by being on the third floor. This site thinks it's some other kind of book. Must've been important to get its own lectern in the corner. If it was a bible, I'd like to know what page it was left open to. If there's a message of 'hope' here, I doubt it's from God.

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

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.

THE ENTRY WOUND

THE ENTRY WOUND: A 90-FOOT WIDE "SIXTEEN-FOOT HOLE"
Adam Larson / Caustic Logc
The Frustrating Fraud
Updated 8/30/07

Note: I first wrote this article nearly a year ago when I didn't knw as much and was on different tangents. I've updated it a few times and it's getting slapdash. I will de totally revising my ttext and graphics at some point in the near-future to make this a solid contribution rather than the mess it is.
(check also Jim Hoffman's page on common "errors" associated with the entry wound analysis.)

Perhaps the most prevalant mistake among myriad that has been repeated ad nauseam by no-plane researchers is focusing on the “small hole” in the breached outer ring. 911 In Plane Site host Dave Von Kleist reminded viewers of the dimensions of a Boeing 757 - 124 foot wingspan and 44-foot tailfin heighth - and then he explained two different versions of the hole in the Pentagon, neither of which would allow the alleged Flight 77 to pass. At one point he asked “how does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole only 65 feet across?” and at another point “how does a 757 fit into a 16 foot hole and leave no damage, or wreckage on the outside of the pentagon?” In Loose Change, narrator Dylan Avery says “the only damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than sixteen feet in diameter.” Others have it at 12 feet, or as low as five, and other cite a wider damage area but still deny passage to 124-foot-wide jetliner.

Both videos and may others cite the lack of holes for wings and tailfin, apparently taking their own charges of “stage-managed event” too literally, and looking for a cookie cutter punch-out of a cardboard prop shaped exactly like a plane’s profile. (note on the graphic: it was hitting not dead-on but at a 45 degree angle and so the hole would be slightly wider than the actual chassis, but no larger vertically.)

Indeed what should we expect? Well, I'm no structural engineer or other type of expert, but I have enough common sense to take my own crack at it. Let's start with the main chassis, as I did. When the nosecone hits at about 350 mph, like a bullet (or a missile!) it would easily pierced the outer wall, leaving a hole about 12-15 feet high and 16-18 feet wide.
In the shot at left, the second floor facade breaching is limited to a perhaps twelve foot wide set of windows and section of wall, presumably taken out by the base of the tailfin. But this allows us to clearly see a bright patch of fire just a few yards in on the second floor, which is intact at that point. So whatever pierced the outer wall was large enough to take out the wall and the edge of that floor and hurl burning material across it. but since the rest of the floor is intact, clearly the object was small enough that it was instantly diverted/mangled/compressed to fit entirely beneath the second floor slab. I've been unable to verify the exact clearance even from the ASCE report, but from photo analysis it seems to have about 13-15 feet available - roughly the size to allow a barreling 12-foot-high 757 body. Note also the recognizable line of orange jet fuel fire – from left to right it progresses from ground level to piles of burning debris on the second floor. This is consistent with the alleged baking angle of the plane with starboard wing tipped high and cutting across the second floor slab, left engine basically at ground level.

Having clearly accounted for the main chassis, the question of what happened to the massive engines, which occupy a space about 50 feet wide, at first stumped me. Dense, cylindrical, with a diameter of about nine feet, would probably obliterate the outer walls and enter the building intact, in fact advancing ahead of the rest of the plane. They were, after all, what was driving the whole thing, and after tearing loose from the exploding wings their own unhindered momentum and the last second or two of fuel burning would shoot them through like blocky missiles until lack of fuel and resistance forced them to stop, likely in various pieces. Radial parts that could well be from such engines were found inside the building. On the way in, they would knock out holes, I believe, like those shown below.


Top: Still from Purdue University simulation, yellow added. Below left: knocked-out section of the first floor to the left of main entry point with fires inside and out, likely entry point for left engine. Below, right: what I had previously taken as broken and oddly tilted support columns on the first floor just to the right of main impact, likely entry point for right engine.
---
(update): Many have taken these columns as signs the plane could not have entered - since they lie at the "shoulder" of the alleged plane's impact, between wing base and chassis, they could almost be right. Though it never seemed a big enough problem for me, it was troubling. It was also a bit sloppy to call these "support columns" when the three each look different and all columns on the left side were uniformly removed. Jim Hoffman has decided they are at least as likely parts of the second floor slab that broke after losing their supports and fell at this angle. I did a lengthy post on this. If these are indeed something else, then we are left with a roughly 80-100 foot-wide area in which all supports were obliterated - leaving plenty of room for the penetrating core of a 757 and explaining the collapse of everything above twenty minutes later.

Compare this to the size of the initial "hole" we see above, from a simplified computer graphic done up by the ASCE and fairly accurate. The limestone facade and essentially all outer columns are gone from an open span of it looks like nearly 100 feet of the ground floor, even with the three slants on the right that probably aren't columns. Again,plenty of room.

What I could see in this damage is a high 16 foot hole flanked by two 10-foot holes set lower amid a jumble of lesser damage. The possible engine holes seem to be about 70 feet apart, which is how far apart the engines would be if hitting at a 45 degree angle as alleged. The math is correct, and we have a roughly 100-foot damage area or “hole” with all columns removed. The plane fits – at least as far as width, but should it be able to fly or compress its entire 155-foot length inside and disappear? Well, that seems less likely, but perhaps depends on the nature of the “renovations” just completed there and on exactly how many feet of steel reinforced concrete stood in its way.

And as for the "no plane" evidence's recycling in Loose Change, they insist on their sixteen foot hole while the shot on screen has the spray from a fire hose completely covering both this hole and the 65-foot-plus damage area around it that even IPS showed. Then they highlight the plane's outline with the chassis hole entirely on the second floor! Despite their marvelling at the plane flying "inches" above the ground, they think it deviated upward in its final feet and hit the second floor, leaving the greater damage below unexplained. I feel sorry for these guys' girlfriends - their careful analysis of the Pentagon evidence gets it in the wrong hole. And we all know it's not good to get germs from the fallacy hole in the truth canal.