Pentagon Damage Analysis, split from Leo Titus thread.

thanks for the info about the sprinklers merc. i did some looking around, and here is what i found:


repeatedly and at many sites, the info about sprinklers at the pentagon is quoted specifically from an LA Times article. This site has a direct link to that article:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pent...enovations.html

but when you go to the la times link, its no longer active:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,2818328.story


so no luck there. but here it is from the horse's mouth (evey lee walker):
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...1_t915evey.html

DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation - Saturday, September 15, 2001 - 11:00 a.m. EDT

This is what it would read like, MINUS the stipulations between the commas: "If you look at wedge one, the fire, was knocked down immediately by the fire sprinklers." Ok, simple, right? but what about the stipulations: "except in those areas where it was clearly fueled by jet fuel, the fire, when it tried to spread into other wedge one areas, was knocked down immediately by the fire sprinklers."

well "those areas" where the fire was "clearly fueled by jet fire" are supposedly everywhere, but i think walker is referring to the outtermost edge of wedge 1, closest to the entry hole, right? so the rest of wedge 1, the deeper sections are where the sprinklers worked, and the pics of the L columns (below) corroborate this. so where is the rest of the plane? people from the tail section of the plane were found piled up near this area, so how did they get there? assuming a giant mass of bent and mangled machinery and metal, coupled with inertia and momentum brought those bodies to this location, shouldnt some major pieces have survived, since in fact the sprinklers WERE WORKING at this location?

you can see that the sprinklers (at least in the area near these 2 N-level columns) DID in fact work:






location of these poles:


notice the poles (7L 9L) show soot/smoke residue, but you can also see where the water was running down these columns from the top, hence the non-burned and non-smoked (white colored) areas at the top and sides of these columns. so the sprinklers were in fact working in this section at least, of wedge two. since the majority of bodies (and presumably the plane) ended up very near to this area (second wedge, adjacent to 7L & 9L), and the sprinklers worked to squelch the fire, then how come more wreckage didnt survive? especially the biggest, strongest pieceS of the plane, such as the landing gearS and wheel hubS, where are they? is it possible they did survive, but werent photographed and/or presented into the public record? i doubt it, but here are some possibly relevant details:

post-attack project to rebuild, the Phoenix Project:
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/Phoenix.htm

the above page has a set of links on the right which direct you to news stories about the events of 911. now remember this is an official site (homepage: http://www.whs.mil/ ), but they link the visitors to their to news articles (not DOD releases) as their set of "facts":

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/Pre...nn_pentagon.htm

so no large pieces survived according to what the WHS themselves point to as "fact". also take note of the areas that were OFF-LIMITS to everyone. they say "Defense Department policemen", but im not sure who they are referring to: is that the pentagon police? but it is stated that people were indeed kept from parts of the site, even if it was under the guise of protecting them from structural danger. anyhow, a closer look here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
(scroll to bottom- each and every column is identfied)

if you scroll to the bottom of the above page, you will see each and every individual column identified and its damage specified. a closer look reveals an omission that suggests that (at least) the deepest part of the pentagon was indeed closed off to even insiders (like the asce). as you get to the deepest areas inside (near the N columns), close to where the majority of passenger's DNA was found, you will see that even the ASCE had to take the pentagon's word for the alleged damage.

on the ASCE's itemized column list you will see that there are NO PICS of these deepest poles (1N, 3N, 5N). instead there is this quote " Damaged (Per FBI)":



the lack of pics and the asce's referrence to the feds suggests (to me) that these areas were kept CLOSED to everyone, including rescuers and engineers. so if its a question of access to the scene, then it was limited. not only did this prevent/preclude relevant parties from witnessing and confirming the damage, but this also would have allowed those with ill-intent to perpetrate whatever fraud or subterfuge they deemed necessary to support their lies (imo).

i have to point out however, that while searching, i actually found a pic of column 3N, on rense.com:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm


Sarah Roberts (the author of the above rense article) states:

so no specific sources are mentioned for the 3N column photo, but we can see that in the public domain, an actual picture of this column exists. i can only speculate one of 2 things regarding how this relates to my earlier assertions: either the asce was telling the truth and did not have access to column 3N, or they did have access, but for some unknown reason (no known practical motive thus far) the asce lied or omitted direct mention and/or pics of the three N columns (3N in particular).

the other possibility is that only "special" persons were allowed access to that area, and one of them managed to photograph it. whoever this (possibly) highly privileged person who took the picture was, they forwarded the pic to sarah roberts, but NOT the ASCE. so either the asce is/was not aware of this pic, or for some currently unknown reason, they were aware of it, BUT could not (as in were not allowed to) post the photographs and descriptions of the three N columns.


its worth noting what the ASCE claims was found in that particular area, the FDR:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf



but a public release from a pentagon official and an arlington county police official (reported friday afternoon: September 14, 2001 1:00pm EDT), is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the ASCE's alleged FDR discovery location:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/septem.../wash_9-14.html (only names bridges)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/1047680.html (also names col.rhynedance)

also:

question: who deemed what was "secret or sensitive"? based on what criteria? and who did the marking of these pieces?


more on the fdr recovery:
America Under Attack: Pentagon Holds Conference Concering Black Box Aired September 14, 2001 - 06:33 ET (must read) :
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/se.47.html
( note - arl. police official bridges is misidentified as a "pentagon spokesman" )

quik note, the above statement is referring to this:

back to the rest of the q & a with bridges:

okay i included all of bridges' statements regarding the fdr for posterity and clarity, but what he explicitly states about the fdr's location is that it was found near the entry hole. but for those that wanna argue that his one statement isnt enough and that birdges could be in error, i point to the fact that he describes that it was found near the area which had the most column damage and fire, and that re-confirms that he is definitely referring to the fdr being found near the entry point, NOT the punch out hole (per asce's claim).

so, dont these guys exchange notes? how come they so blatantly contradict each other? and frankly, im not sure i believe bridges' answers. he seems to be unsure of what he is talking about, making vague generalizations and unclear referrences. its almost as if he is regurgitating some b.s. he was told, but didnt fully absorb:

he is talking to reporters and to laymen (the broadcasting audience) as if we know where the fuk an FDR should be located on the plane, even though he himself doesnt seem to. plus he avoids giving an exact location by positioning the fdr as congruent to some unknown/unobvious referrence point. he refers to an exact location: "right where the plane came into the building," and this directly contradicts the asce.

keep in mind the asce uses this supposed fact of the fdr's location to help support their story that the plane caused the very specific damage that it did. the asce establishes the plane breached that far into the building because they knew where on the plane the FDR should have been located - at the back of the plane (unlike bridges). so wtf is bridges talking about? how could such a very conclusive reality of locations be so misrepresented? is it possible the fdr was never found at the pentagon at all? or at least not at the time that bridges released his statements?

what im thinking is this: early in the story, someone's (whatever or whoever was bridges' source of original info) logic was that the fdr is in the back of the plane, but they imagined that the tail section would stop somewhere near the entry hole. thus the report came out that thats where the fdr was found. BUT later, after the official story got its sh*t (somewhat) together, they realized that would have to claim the tail kept going, so the asce "adjusted" their FDR location to fit the "scientific" reality they were/are trying to portray.

but bridges is giving us the "official" word, not some hearsay. presumably he was informed (by who?) that the fdr was found near the impact, so somebody misled or outright lied to him, and he passed that lie on to the rest of the world.

questions to ponder: where was it (fdr) really found? at the entry hole or at the punch out hole? and why the huge inconsistency in the 2 versions of the fdr'z recovery?

some complications arise in my theory, namely that 2 firefighters claim to have found the fdr in the early morning hours. i am looking into that more deeply, to see how the timing of that news relates to the timing of bridges release, as well as where these firemen claim to have found it (fdr). an update will follow...





***more inconsistencies are continued on the next post... (below)

more contradictions.


different versions of damage released: ( *btw - i have tried to make the diagrams easier to see, so they are therefor highlighted by me (took hours using ms paint-lol). BUT ALL DATA CONTAINED THEREIN IS ACCURATE AND EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL)


this one labeled "structural integrity" from a DOD News Briefing, Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 11:00 am:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/g010915-D-6570C.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/bri...D-6570C-009.jpg



VS.

this on labeled "structural damage" from DoD News Briefing, Thursday, 07 Mar 2002 - 11:00 am:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/g020307-D-6570C.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/bri...70C-008.jpg.JPG




VS.

this one copyrighted 2003, from the ASCE "pentagon building performance report" :
http://www.asce.org/responds/
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf (illustration




the first 2 versions compared:





(note that columns 7L and 9L - the ones which showed sprinkler traces earlier, are labeled as missing in the 2002 release. this is of course, incorrect and impossible, since there are pics of these 2 columns that contradict this 2002 diagram).

so why did the DOD change their public assertions? if it werent for columns 7L and 9L being completely wrong, one might guess that the earlier release was incomplete due to to a premature understanding of the damage. but because we know for sure these 2 columns were minimally damaged, and NOT missing, we can be sure that the DOD is misrepresenting the damage (at least to these 2 poles).



the 3rd representation of the damage, the one released by the ASCE, is also different from the earlier two(DOD) releases. although the ASCE's wording of the description of the damage has changed slightly:



in spite of the adapted wording, the legends for these 3 diagrams are largely describin the same type of damage. what i mean is that a red square on the diagram represents the same thing, no matter which diagram you are looking at. so the tallies/counts i have labeled are NOT misleading since there is a change of wording in their legends. anyway, the important thing is that with this 3rd release, we still have a representation of the damage that is different than the earlier 2 versions:






so wtf is going on? which of the releases is an accurate and honest version of the damage? and why has it varied? was the DOD intentionally misleading in its releases to the public? was the ASCE privy to accurate information? their (asce's) findings and conclusions are bogus and ludicrous either way, but one has to wonder: was information and evidence with-held from them by the DOD and/or the FBI? was the ASCE intentionally given wrong or mislead "facts" by the DOD/FBI? if so, why? or was the ASCE properly informed with accurate information, and then they themselves "re-shaped" the findings to help fit their flawed conclusions? who is screwing who here? who are the real bad guys? and can we trust any of purported evidence "gathered" at the pentagon scene?

P,

This deserves it's own thread.

Very interesting work dood.

Very interesting indeed.

thanks merc. i leave it up to a mod/admin to make that call, and open a new thread, but i appreciate the props.


but i havent even gotten to the juiciest revelation, cuz its incomplete. but it has to do with the firetruck 161 and how it burned and caught fire. i have been trying to gather a comprehensive background on the fireman's own version of events and see how they compare to the firetruck damage.

but how does that relate to the damage diagrams above?

look closely:


figure out where the firetruck was, and find the out of place column marked as missing:




then go back to the 5 frames from the security cam, the one that shows the fireball. look closely. i am of the opinion that you can see 2 explosions in 2 of the frames. what i mean is that in the foreground, where the firetruck was, and where the damage diagram shows a lone column missing, and you will see a smaller, shorter in height, explosion:






and:







so anyway, im working on putting together a post to go with the above, but i couldnt resist sharing at least some of it even if in an incomplete form, since it is fairly self-explantory.

excellent job paranioa... always love reading your work.

i'll pin this as well.

Cheers!
Rob

thanks much rob for making a seperate thread of this.
as always, i am much obliged.

Very interesting.

A real research.

But I can never open defense/mil links in my conputer... I think they are bloching my

But do you know what this black line in the mddle is supposed to mean.



And of cource interesting to see that they have damage columns just about where the fire truks was... I mean, why would they mistaken so seriously ? Makes no sense.

Explosives in the building. (my opinion)

Here in this SSG JOHN VALCEANU photo, the fireman is spraying water on the B-ring roof from the courtyard between C-ring and B-ring with the exit hole. How did the 'jet fuel' fire spread to the B-ring when the 'aircraft' damage supposedly ended here at this corridor?

No visible damage to the B-ring wall.

How did the B-ring and A-ring experience fires unless they were caused by explosives?