|
|
In reference to the site below i had some comments from Rick Stanley.
The referenced graphics and animations of Mike Wilson http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/ show the important engine footprints that my trajectory lines also show. However, Brad is wrong about the port wing of a 757 needing to hit above the second story's floor. He doesn't take into account if the port engine (with the plane banked slightly to port) had really hit the steam vault retaining wall, that the port engine and wing impact would therefore be lower than that. As well, the first two floors are taller than the ones above.
(This graphic was cut from the ASCE report, and the structural damage highlight was derived from the Arlington County After Report.)
[Most of the following and more is discussed at: http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm ]
The real problem is that once one can accept this image as what the fakers were trying to portray, what next falls out as anomalous?
1. The lie of Frank Probst (in the ASCE report, trying to fake complying with the findings of the ASCE referenced 1992 Sugano et al paper) saying that metal confetti (nowhere
to be seen in the high res pictures) rained down on him as he ran back to the parking lot to the right.
2. That he could have seen one, much less two engines hitting the retaining wall and the generator after having the plane miss him by 6 feet and the resulting buffeting, his diving to the ground and
changing his field of view by 180 degrees.
3. That other eyewitnesses were hit by a snowstorm of aluminum confetti (nowhere to be seen in the high res pictures) out on the highway, even to the point of making them afraid to
leave their vehicles until it was over.
4. That even the best case analysis leaves too much wing tip and tail debris out in front unaccounted for in the photographic evidence.Curiously, the one debris field seen in
photographs to the left of the impact zone going onto the helipad, is remarkably always out of sufficient focus to allow identification of the debris as to whether it is from the building, the
contractor's trailers, or from any kind of aircraft much less a 757. Out of focus, excepting for the one piece of "show" debris with the odd lettering.
5. Brad's portrayal of where the 757
fuselage (upper portion at least) would interface along the collapse zone at the column 11 (concrete expansion joint) line, seems roughly correct. The photograph of column 11B
shows almost no erosion of the outer concrete 'fluff' (outside of the column's spiral steel reinforcement) as should happen when that much aluminum scrapes past it, and as the
Perdue simulation claims. Yet it looks almost pristine, much more damning to me than the lack of fire damage up above as many have noted in the same
pictures (concrete being an excellent fire insulator).
6. The tree stump is only charred on the bark, no discoloration at all to be seen to the exposed inner wood. The upper tree remains can be easily seen in many photographs as having been dragged to
the left behind the contractor's trailer hulk.
7. That once again, even with an otherwise very good simulation (Wilson's), the presence and significance of the two contractor's trailers is completely ignored. That at a minimum,
the port wing and engines impact with the trailers would have cause a diffusion of energy that should have created a broader scope of damage to the port side facade, i.e. more window damage and more
vertical axis damage to the limestone facade. That firemen went on record stating that most of the external fire seen was coming from the leftmost trailer whose bed curiously remained in place as can
be seen in many common pictures (once one knows what to look for.
8. The presence of what appears to be explosive residue spots inside the window recesses behind the parked burning car. Residue that does not appear to have a significant lateral motion attached to
it.
9. As can be seen in the pre-collapse photos, not only were the original columns along the first floor destroyed structurally, if not always obliterated, the additional recently added reinforcement
steel was obliterated, at least ostensibly due to the lateral shear forces imposed upon the mounting bolts by either the alleged 757 or by the fakery. Since these reinforcement columns were no longer
there (at the ground floor), they could not have helped to keep the building from collapsing shortly after, as officially claimed. But it was only claimed that these reinforcements were for
relatively light incidents, not the impact of a speeding 100 ton plane. Their main purpose it seems was to allow framing the heavy new 'blast proof' windows. This leads to the importance of
conducting the incident so that the path of the alleged 757 would cross over the concrete expansion joint along the double column row number 11. By doing so, the needed collapse (for covering up the
worst damaged area) could be facilitated much easier by demolition, and a better excuse could be had for the collapse, i.e. that the presence of the expansion joint prevented the weight load from the
damaged area from spreading further to the left of the column 11 line. The resulting visual gash in the building providing the needed psychological imagery to satisfy most casual observers.
Once again, one has to ask just how obliging the Islamic hijackers could be to fly the plane in such an operationally dangerous approach (even if physically
possible) that would allow for the superficial presentation to be made that an actual 757 had made all the footprints out in front, and such as to not make any intermediate wall damage between
the front facade and the rear of the C Ring (notice above that the first and second floors are contiguous to the rear of the C Ring). All this when they had no obligation to do so, they could instead
have chosen to 'decapitate' the Pentagon by striking where Rumsfeld's office and the NMCC office is, where the building was still fully occupied and unreinforced, and where there was no convenient
obstacles to leave the footprints of a 757. Only the fakers had this need.
Rick
pentagongraphics.0catch.com/ more here...
bravenet.com