Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

Originally posted by HowardRoark

That is just what I said. Clay tile and plaster lath is masonry.

That was a common building material from the 30's through the early 60's.

You are assuming that masonry means cement walls.
[edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Actually no. I am assuming masonry means "not plaster lath and drywall".

I'm past the semantics. I want to establish what kind of interior walls were in there.

And you didn't say "clay tile and plaster lath" originally, you said "drywall and plaster lath".

I said that the original construction would have been clay tile with plaster lath.

The new construction after the renovation would have been drywall. The plane hit in the area of new constrution. It only impcated a small portion of wedge 2, which was the original construction.

It’s possible that some of the original plaster lath was left in place, but it wouldn’t be that significant, since the renovation included replacement of all the mechanical systems and ADA upgrades on the stairwells.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile. (Emphasis changed – HR)

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that the term "Masonry" included tile walls.

Keep in mind that your source that indicated that there were masonry interior walls in the basement and around the transformer vaults and mechanical rooms was talking about the original constrution

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Here is an example of "reinforced concrete" masonry:



[edit on 8/3/06 by JAK]

- End of story – bro.

A loss adjuster might ask why the block has no concrete within the cavity.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by The Links]

Originally posted by The Links


A loss adjuster might ask why the block has no concrete within the cavity.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by The Links]

That is because those are not concrete blocks, they are hollow clay tiles from the original construction. (that is a pre-drywall interior partition wall) You can even see the plaster on the outside of them.

Presumably that photo is of the damage in wedge 2.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

nah. its a perfect 16 foot (circumference) hole. A bomb did the damage.

Going back to an earlier post,

These are not of the pentagon, but they are illustrative of this particular style of construction
Clay tile wall


Clay tile wall


Clay tile wall demolished.

Your obfuscating skills are unparalleled.

That thin clay tile wall doesn't look nearly as strong or thick as this multi-layered brick and limestone facade wall.




And the demolished clay tile wall in your pic sure seems to be crushed into MUCH finer particles than the nice perfectly intact whole bricks we see hanging out in the water here:



Why would that be Howard?


I don't know for sure but my best uneducated guess would be that it's because the materials used to make the pentagon wall were much STRONGER!

Or perhaps it's because they used something with more force than a 757 to demolish those clay tile walls?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Your obfuscating skills are unparalleled.

That thin clay tile wall doesn't look nearly as strong or thick as this multi-layered brick and limestone facade wall.


And the demolished clay tile wall in your pic sure seems to be crushed into MUCH finer particles than the nice perfectly intact whole bricks we see hanging out in the water here:


Why would that be Howard?


I don't know for sure but my best uneducated guess would be that it's because the materials used to make the pentagon wall were much STRONGER!

Or perhaps it's because they used something with more force than a 757 to demolish those clay tile walls?

Merc/link posted a picture of part of a clay tile wall from the interior of the pentagon and made the claim that it was a concrete block with the comment about it not being filled with cement.

I was merely pointing out that it would not have been, since it was in fact a clay tile from a clay tile interior partition.

Who is the one who is attempting to derail this thread with ad hominem attacks?

Attack? ad hominem?

Hardly.

The point of yours and mercs discussion was to determine the strength of the wall of the pentagon and whether or not it is feasible for the craft to have created a hole of this nature.

You deliberately obfuscated the discussion throughout this thread and particularly with your last post by prefacing it with this comment.......

"These are not of the pentagon, but they are illustrative of this particular style of construction Clay tile wall"


This implies that those clay tile walls are similar to what they had at the pentagon.

This is clearly not so.

This is also a typical pattern of your debate style.

Obfuscation.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Attack? ad hominem?

Hardly.

The point of yours and mercs discussion was to determine the strength of the wall of the pentagon and whether or not it is feasible for the craft to have created a hole of this nature.

You deliberately obfuscated the discussion throughout this thread and particularly with your last post by prefacing it with this comment.......

"These are not of the pentagon, but they are illustrative of this particular style of construction Clay tile wall"


This implies that those clay tile walls are similar to what they had at the pentagon.

This is clearly not so.

They sure look like clay tile blocks to me.

What are you claiming that they are?

Stop obfuscating again.

The only truly relevant wall for this discussion is the one that has the 9 foot perfectly round hole.

That is obviously not merely clay tile although it may have had a layer of that on top of multiple layers of brick and limestone.

It's quite obvious the wall is multi-layered and quite thick as you can see in the upper left corner shot in the "chisel mark" collage posted above.

But is it 6 feet of reinforced concrete?

Please keep in mind that the side of the Pentagon struck on that day had been through a recent reinforcement/remodel so who knows what the nature of that work comprised. Perhaps it housed a built in targeting device for a missle. The biggest question here is where are the engine remains. Rolls Royce turbines are several ton each and would have crumpled at impact , but would have remained pretty much intact. my 2cents.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
But is it 6 feet of reinforced concrete?

Doesn't appear to be but it certainly appears to be quite thick and strong with multiple layers of brick and limestone and perhaps clay tile as well.

Bottom line......the perfect circular shape and large size of the hole is quite suspicious when considering the fact that there are NO significant large aircraft parts visible that would explain creating such a hole.

Is that a fair statement?

Howard....

This is an honest question as I will concede you know more about construction than I do.....

What is the black stuff we see hanging in the center of the hole that looks like it has grey concrete chunks on it?

say, howard, seeing as you're on a roll.
why don't you tell us what stopped the cookie cutter before it hit the next wall?

say, howard, seeing as you're on a roll.
why don't you tell us what stopped the cookie cutter before it hit the next wall?

From Merc's source, which he quoted both in this thread and in the Mechanical Engineers thread:

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete before exiting through this hole.


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

This guy, Michael Meyer, clearly has his head up his backside.

From this report, we learn.

As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is
mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.
The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the
frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the
frame.

That is what I see in those pictures. Furthermore, the exterior wall doesn't sound that strong to me.

Q: Where is the reinforced concrete in those pictures?

A: It doesn't exist.


An unreinforced masonry wall like that is NOT that hard to bust through.


Q: Why are the conspiracy theorists attacking me instead of defending the premise that the wall was reinforced concrete

A: Because they can't defend the indefensible.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 18-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Howard.....please stop intentionally making this difficult by ignoring my replies and my questions.

Why did you post info regarding the "orginal E ring wall" when the curious hole we are discussing was in the C ring AND of course the new E ring wall WAS in fact reinforced?

Obsfucation anyone? sheesh!

Plus I already conceded that Michael Meyers was incorrect to use the term reinforced. You asked; "But is it 6 feet of reinforced concrete?"

and I replied:

Doesn't appear to be but it certainly appears to be quite thick and strong with multiple layers of brick and limestone and perhaps clay tile as well.

So although this was about the "original E ring" which is totally irrelevant to this conversation you admitted that it is what looks like we see "in those pictures" (meaning the C ring):

As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is
mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.
The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the
frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the
frame.

I agree with you though Howie. The C ring wall with the hole does look like it is made of those materials.

So........

Will you please answer my two questions above that you ignored? Here they are again:

Bottom line......the perfect circular shape and large size of the hole is quite suspicious when considering the fact that there are NO significant large aircraft parts visible that would explain creating such a hole.

Is that a fair statement?

and...

What is the black stuff we see hanging in the center of the hole that looks like it has grey concrete chunks on it?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

An unreinforced masonry wall like that is NOT that hard to bust through.

What kind of a blanket statement is that? The point/question is more along the lines of what created such a large and perfectly round hole when there are no significant aircraft pieces to be found?

Q: Why are the conspiracy theorists attacking me instead of defending the premise that the wall was reinforced concrete

Relax! Nobody is "attacking" you! And stop calling me "the conspiracy theorists".

Originally posted by billybob
say, howard, seeing as you're on a roll.
why don't you tell us what stopped the cookie cutter before it hit the next wall?

well, billybob, perhaps the cookie cutter was attached to a giant bungie cord, and after punching through the ring wall, it came to an abrupt halt like an dog at the end of it's leash. that's why there is not even a dent in the next wall.

duh, billybob, duh.