It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • Once the plane penetrated into the building, the only walls it would have encountered until it punched out into the inner drive, would have been interior partition walls. (i.e. drywall installed in the various renovations and plaster lath as part of the original construction).




  • "A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry. The basement, where the maintenance shops, garage and storage rooms are located, is divided into fire areas by reinforced concrete firewalls with double, automatic firedoors. Transformer vaults and machine rooms throughout the building are protected by masonry walls and firedoors.

    www.greatbuildings.com...



    If this incorrect please let me know.


    Here is a less certain source:







    DESCRIPTION: Cross-section of the building during demolition.

    KEY NOTES: From left to right you can see a portion of D Ring, then the two story section of the space between D and C rings, then all of C Ring. From there you are looking down AE Drive and then the wall of B Ring. You can see that the exterior walls don't line up with the extra interior walls. But I think it is safe to assume that there are at least 7 additional interior walls which are made of concrete at least as thick as the 10" exterior walls. I have no idea if they're reinforced or not. Even if they are just plain concrete it adds nearly 6 feet of penetration to the 310 foot path of travel. That would mean (let's just say the interior walls are plain concrete) the aircraft penetrated just less than 6 feet of regular concrete, 5 feet of steel reinforced concrete, 16" of brick and 6" of limestone.

    pentagonresearch.com...



    I would just have to assume there would be more than just "drywall and plaster lath" seperating the very sensitive offices in the Pentagon.


    Again, if this is incorrect. Then please provide a link showing this.




    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:12 PM
    link   
    Howard how are things at CIA/NSA these days?



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • Once the plane penetrated into the building, the only walls it would have encountered until it punched out into the inner drive, would have been interior partition walls. (i.e. drywall installed in the various renovations and plaster lath as part of the original construction).




  • "A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry. The basement, where the maintenance shops, garage and storage rooms are located, is divided into fire areas by reinforced concrete firewalls with double, automatic firedoors. Transformer vaults and machine rooms throughout the building are protected by masonry walls and firedoors.

    www.greatbuildings.com...



    If this incorrect please let me know.


    The main walls? I assume that they mean the walls along the expansion joints which typically define the areas enclosed in fire walls.

    Based on the type of construction typical for that period, and visible in that photo, the masonry walls used in the construction were clay tile blocks covered with lath and plaster. Slightly stronger than drywall, but still relatively fragile for that.
    As far as I know, no transformer vaults were impacted by the plane.

    You certainly would not build 10" thick concrete partition walls in the interior of a building.

    Furthermore, the photograph shows the wedge that had not yet been renovated, so that those walls consist of the original walls plus 50 years of modifications.

    The area that was hit had been recently remodeled, so most of the original walls would have been cleared out to allow for newer, more flexible floor plans.


    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

    Here is a less certain source:


    Obviously someone who is not familiar with how buildings are built.


    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
    I would just have to assume there would be more than just "drywall and plaster lath" separating the very sensitive offices in the Pentagon.


    Why?



    From: fire.nist.gov...


    The exterior wall of the AE drive.


    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.


    This is clear in the photos of the punchout.



    In fact, if you look closely, you can see the plaster and metal lath interior walls hanging down inside the hole. What you don't see is a reinforced concrete wall.



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:44 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    The main walls? I assume that they mean the walls along the expansion joints which typically define the areas enclosed in fire walls.



    Well then you'd just be assuming.


    There were interior walls that were "of masonry".


    End of Story.



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Zaphod58
    Uh Ultima? There are NO planes made mostly of steel. They're all made of either aluminum or composites. Steel is *WAY* too heavy to even get airborne.


    You might want to go check out the constuction of an F-4. I can testify to the steel constuction. ! reason the F-4 had some of the biggest engines at the time.



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:41 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Zaphod58
    Uh Ultima? There are NO planes made mostly of steel. They're all made of either aluminum or composites. Steel is *WAY* too heavy to even get airborne.


    The F-4 had a lot of steel construction. The jet wieghed over 30,000 ibs empty. It had some of the biggest engines of the time.

    [edit on 7-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    The main walls? I assume that they mean the walls along the expansion joints which typically define the areas enclosed in fire walls.



    Well then you'd just be assuming.


    There were interior walls that were "of masonry".


    End of Story.


    So?


    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. I have never seen cement interior partitons.

    Big assumption. Can you back it up?


    In any case, that doesn't reflect the reality of the new constrution and remodeling that was just completed.


    [edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:20 PM
    link   

    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".


    The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile.

    en.wikipedia.org...


    Here is an example of "reinforced concrete" masonry:



    Surely you can't mean that the "main interior walls" were made of "clay tile" and "lath and plaster", Howard.

    Come on Howard. Just a few minutes ago, the interior walls were "drywall and plaster and lath". Now it's "clay tile" and "plaster and lath". Anything that slants it your way, huh Howwie?

    Just let this one go.

    [edit on 7-3-2006 by Merc_the_Perp]



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
    link   

    You have voted Jack Tripper for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


    good work, jack. really good. between this, the taxi, the confiscated videos, the reports of terrorists with 'bombs' on board(this is never mentioned in official fairy tales, but was reported live from one of the famous cell phone calls(that don't work) from the 'hijacked' plane) and the 'associations' of the most prominent eyewitnessess, is pretty much proven to me that what hit the pentagon was not a 757. unless it was one of those 757's that's made of cotton candy, and has special wing root hinges for folding back and disappearing into buildings, and of course the 45ft. high rudder would have a custom hinge for folding into the hole, too...

    and here's one for smitty.....


    you have voted agent smith the most something award. you have as many votes to give mr. smith as you wish this month



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by billybob
    and here's one for smitty.....


    you have voted agent smith the most something award. you have as many votes to give mr. smith as you wish this month

    [sarcasm on]
    I got your slack, billybob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    I gave AgentSmith my last two 'way above' votes for ya'.
    Keep up the good refuting, AgentSmith.






    seekerof



    posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:29 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Seekerof

    [sarcasm on]
    I got your slack, billybob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    seekerof


    don't try and steal my slack, 'norm'.
    go get your own....




    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:22 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by billybob


    LMAO!! Church of the Subgenius! I would recognize Dobbs' face anywhere.

    And Howard, it's nice to see you haven't lost your touch, making crap up.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:36 AM
    link   

    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:





    Hey Merc, did you happen to notice that that is a picture of an exterior wall?

    It appears to be new construction, also. How is that applicable to a building built 60 years ago?

    Here are some more photos from the same site you got that from.

    Does this look like the Pentagon to you?











    This is a typical clay tile wall commonly used circa early to mid 20th century. This is what the original constrution would have looked like.





    They are not reinforced and break apart quite easily.



    Here is an image of the inside of the exterior wall of the Pentagon after the blast proofing. Note the framing for the drywall enclosures.

    external image


    In any case the original claim by your so-called mechanical engineer was that the plane traveled through 6 (or 9) feet of reinforced concrete. This claim has been made elsewhere also and is based on the mistaken idea that all of the exterior walls of the inner rings were blast proofed, and that the plane traveled through these exterior walls in succession. This is not the case.

    Therefore the case presented by your so-called mechanical engineer, is critically flawed.

    You were right about on thing - End of story – bro.


    [edit on 8/3/06 by JAK]



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:25 AM
    link   
    No not end of story-BRO.

    You have not conclusively proved that there were NOT concrete/masonry interior walls.

    You just keep yappin and misdirecting. Playing games with words and semantics.

    What does the exterior wall have to do with the question? What does plaster lath and drywall have to do with the issue? When you have 0 proof that it was renovated from "Masonry-which could involve any of the aggregates" to "plaster lath/drywall/and thin clay tile" all the way through to the C Ring.

    This all just YOUR OPINION. There is nothing specific that details this.

    Post a link. Until then it's just Agent Howard's opinion.

    Later Hater.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:53 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
    No not end of story-BRO.

    Oh? Bothers you when someone uses your same baiting tactics?


    You have not conclusively proved that there were NOT concrete/masonry interior walls.

    You just keep yappin and misdirecting. Playing games with words and semantics.

    Funny, you have conclusively proved nothing either. You need to face the mirror, because you also play the same word games and semantics.


    What does the exterior wall have to do with the question? What does plaster lath and drywall have to do with the issue? When you have 0 proof that it was renovated from "Masonry-which could involve any of the aggregates" to "plaster lath/drywall/and thin clay tile" all the way through to the C Ring.

    So now it seems you decide the questions AND the issues? How nice that we have you here to dictate to others what is important (and correct) in this matter.



    This all just YOUR OPINION. There is nothing specific that details this.

    Post a link. Until then it's just Agent Howard's opinion.

    You have posted plenty of opinion yourself. You would think you could get the message through judicious use of repetition, but it seems that you will simply continue to antagonize others and claim that your way of thinking and your logic are the only correct way.

    Others, such as myself have stated that we believe there are many anomalies with 9/11, but if we don't prescribe to your exact conclusions...we're all wrong.


    Later Hater.

    And of course the final jab. Sad really, since it complete distracts from actually getting to the truth.
    Perhaps your "mission" is a success.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:53 AM
    link   
    It was your claim that there was "9 feet of reinforced concrete walls" between the outer wall and the AE drive. (or was it only 6 feet?)

    It is your job to prove this. You have not.

    Sorry.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    It was your claim that there was "9 feet of reinforced concrete walls" between the outer wall and the AE drive. (or was it only 6 feet?)

    It is your job to prove this. You have not.

    Sorry.



    Not my claim. And I made mention of this.

    But what I love is how this thread was created shortly after my thread about the entry was up.

    Now this one has more activity, more views, more "debunking".

    Nice move.

    You guys continue on with your games in the minutia. I'm going to stick to what proves a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

    If you need me I'll be in the "If it does not fit, you must acquit" thread.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander.



    Is there a way to ignore you? No huh?

    The sad thing is I didn't even read what you wrote.



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:06 PM
    link   
    Well maybe it was both, Missile and Plane,, Since witnesses at the Pentagon did say they heard what sounded like a missile. IF i wanted to be sure to bring down buildings, specially 1 that had a reinforced concrete wall i would use a missile too. I mean there are pics and videos of the second plane to hit the towers having a weapons pod, so why couldn't the plane at the Pentagon also have a weapons pod.

    Makes as much sense as any other theory about how the plane got into the building so far and the damage.


    Weapons pod on second plane
    x11.putfile.com...

    [edit on 8-3-2006 by ULTIMA1]



    posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

    Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander.



    Is there a way to ignore you? No huh?

    The sad thing is I didn't even read what you wrote.



    Emmm... That reminds me of someone....


    Ah! I know!!




    new topics

    top topics



     
    4
    << 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

    log in

    join