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.

 

Penatagon Damage Picture

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
pics.soohrt.org... [2 meg image removed for ease of viewing.]
Save and you will then be able to zoom in.

Few questions about this picture.

1. The red I beams you see in the collapsed section have no fire protection at all, it is quite a basic standard usually, but not here. Why not?
2. The roof area the workers are working on top right, how did that area have so much damage?
3. What are the large grey panels on the roof?

I find many things odd with this picture the more i look at it.

The blinds on the windows at the punch out area are closed for some reason.

[Mod Edit - Image size, please review this thread: ATTN: Image Size Guidelines - Jak]



[edit on 7/3/06 by JAK]

[edit on 13/3/06 by JAK]




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

Few questions about this picture.

1. The red I beams you see in the collapsed section have no fire protection at all, it is quite a basic standard usually, but not here. Why not?


I’m not sure what those are. They look like the roof joists.
The building itself used concrete columns and beams, steel being a vital war resource when the building was built.

Remember that this building was build in the early part of WWII. Standards were different then.

In fact, the fifth floor of the pentagon was added to the design at the last minute.
That’s why there are no exterior windows at the fifth floor level.



2. The roof area the workers are working on top right, how did that area have so much damage?


It is my understanding that roof & attic fires are difficult to put out unless you get right into the areas.
Obviously, the firemen were hampered by the dangers of additional collapse.



3. What are the large grey panels on the roof?


Which ones?

I see roof scuttles, ducts, equipment curbs, and expansion joints.



I find many things odd with this picture the more i look at it.

The blinds on the windows at the punch out area are closed for some reason.


Well, you really can’t see the punch out area in that picture.

A lot of the blinds are drawn.
What is so strange about that?
That is the east side of the building.
It was morning when the attack occurred.



[edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

2. The roof area the workers are working on top right, how did that area have so much damage?


It is my understanding that the roof (the insulation etc.) was actually on fire for something like a week before they even realized it. At least that is what my former boss (who has a project dealing with the pentagons roof) told me. Actually, he and one of my former work mates were on that part of the roof the day before 9-11. They were lucky not to be scheduled for roof inspections on 9-11.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Howard the red beams are not timber roof joists (truss). They appear to be steel, they seem to be holding the blast proof windows in place. The springfield crane is pointing them out for you.
Yes i have heard "Remember that this building was build in the early part of WWII. Standards were different then. " but this external section had just been built to new standards surely?

It may be your understanding that roof & attic fires are difficult to put out unless you get right into the areas
Obviously, the firemen did not think about fighting the fire from the interior court. Is there any information around as to the fire on that roof area, did it travel up through the building or did it spray fuel that way from the initial impact of the plane. Did the fire on that roof only burn some of the roof tiles but all the walkway, when it burnt the walkway did it throw the steel supports holding that walkway around the roof, you can see twisted steel all over that area.

The grey panels on rings d/c roof are sitting around the antennas.

Well true maybe you really can’t see the punch out hole in that picture, but you can see the area, if you looked out of the top floor window if the blinds were open you would be able to see the punch out hole, but oddly all the blinds in that area are closed, the only blinds that are not drawn are three windows covered in plywood, oddly again they are situated directly above the punch out hole.
When you say "That is the east side of the building.
It was morning."
You are correct, which means the windows look? And the sun rises in the ? Everyone is averse to indirect sunlight who works on that floor?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
You are right about the joists, the roof joists were cast in place concrete. You may be right that they are part of the blast proofing. I honestly don't know. If they were, depending on the enclosures build around them, sprayed on fireproofing may not have been required. They would not have been load bearing.


The rings around the antennas are just concrete blocks to hold them in place. The panels look like building materials to me. Flashing maybe, It's hard to tell.

What do you think they are?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Here is some additional info from a briefing given by the person in charge of the renovation program.


You see these vertical maroon bands here. They're of great interest to us in the Pentagon renovation, because what those are -- and you have some horizontal ones here -- what those are is those are steel frames that were placed into the building as part of our renovation activities. We undertook a significant amount of work to try to make the building much more blast-resistant than it was prior to renovation.

. . .

However, what's holding this whole structure together here are these steel beams. Now, the steel beams were placed -- again, they're about six inches by six inches, and they're part of a blast-resistant scheme that we put into the building. That consisted of three components. First, there were the steel beams themselves. The steel beams start on the first floor, go through the fifth floor. They're bolted together floor to floor, so they're one contiguous unit.
Then we have blast-resistant windows. The weight of the windows and the steel framework which supports the windows is a little bit over a ton. It's about 2,500 pounds.
. . .

These white panels that you see here, okay, that's a Kevlar cloth, the same stuff we make bullet-proof vests out of. We interspersed the Kevlar in between the steel beams in the windows to catch any fragmentation that would result from a blast event.

source



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You are right about the joists, the roof joists were cast in place concrete.

You don't know much about buildings if you thought for one honest second the building in question had roof joists. You would condem an igloo for not having a damp proof course?


You may be right that they are part of the blast proofing. I honestly don't know. If they were, depending on the enclosures build around them, sprayed on fireproofing may not have been required. They would not have been load bearing.


Of course they were not load bearing Howard, they only supported the windows. 4 windows x 2500lbs is nothing really.



The rings around the antennas are just concrete blocks to hold them in place. The panels look like building materials to me. Flashing maybe, It's hard to tell.


Where did i ask "what are the rings around the antennas?" Stop being an ass and making those fighting a loosing battle look even more stupid than they really are.
Lets not bother with the fire damage top right of the picture for the moment, ok got you on that.



External Source

You see these vertical maroon bands here. They're of great interest to us in the Pentagon renovation, because what those are -- and you have some horizontal ones here -- what those are is those are steel frames that were placed into the building as part of our renovation activities. We undertook a significant amount of work to try to make the building much more blast-resistant than it was prior to renovation.

. . .

However, what's holding this whole structure together here are these steel beams. Now, the steel beams were placed -- again, they're about six inches by six inches, and they're part of a blast-resistant scheme that we put into the building. That consisted of three components. First, there were the steel beams themselves. The steel beams start on the first floor, go through the fifth floor. They're bolted together floor to floor, so they're one contiguous unit. Then we have blast-resistant windows. The weight of the windows and the steel framework which supports the windows is a little bit over a ton. It's about 2,500 pounds.


Contiguous unit is a new term to me, anyway a part of this contiguos unit for the top section seems to have unatached itself from the remaining contiguos unit, it sits in the rubble pile at the front of the collapsed section, perhaps they forgot to bolt this section to the other sections. The fire appliance with the yellow jib is pointing just to the right of where this piece of steel sits.

pics.soohrt.org... [2 meg image removed for ease of viewing.]

And another thing why has the building collapsed in the way it has, nice and clean on the left edge?









[edit on 13/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Please excuse me if this is old ground you have heard a thousand times by now, i only recently around january this year was awakened to the 911 conspiracy side of things, prior to this i believed what i saw on the BBC news ect. They quickly moved us on to the next chapter and i quickly forgot about some of the strange when i look back now and say "i noticed that but never gave it a second thought" squibs/ odd puffs of smoke/overall disbelief they actuall fell all the way to the ground.

I now feel very ashamed of when i think back to how i enjoyed watching those pentagon briefings showing various precission strikes ect.

So if i may, regarding my last question, this expansion joint people seem to think runs all the way through the building, do they also think this is the boundary of wedge 1 and 2? like it appears to show here in this picture...renovation.pentagon.mil... very odd shape if you ask me.
And the way these guys talk about it.....
renovation.pentagon.mil...
RAY SUAREZ: The original Pentagon structure is actually five different structures, or wedges; each one a separate entity connected by expansion joints. Five concentric rings of offices connect the wedges.
The plane plowed through three rings just to the right of an expansion joint, almost like the first cut in a wedding cake.

ALAN KILSHEIMER: If you looked at the photographs early on, you saw a vertical clean line. That was the expansion joint. So, everything to the left didn't collapse and everything to the right collapsed within an hour or two.

RAY SUAREZ: On that left side was wedge two, part of the unrenovated original Pentagon with no sprinkler system and tons of asbestos. On the right side was the newly renovated wedge one with a brand new advanced sprinkler system.



BUT NOT HOW IT REALLY SHOULD BE.. www.defenselink.mil...

They must move the boundary of wedge 2/1 imho because if they show it where it really should be you would see from other photos taken that there had been no work done at all.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You are right about the joists, the roof joists were cast in place concrete.

You don't know much about buildings if you thought for one honest second the building in question had roof joists. You would condem an igloo for not having a damp proof course?


“damp proof course” You’re from Britain, aren’t you?

Steel roof joists are common in many buildings.

Anyway. Here is a picture of the forms for the cast-in-place concrete roof beams.






Originally posted by The Links


You may be right that they are part of the blast proofing. I honestly don't know. If they were, depending on the enclosures build around them, sprayed on fireproofing may not have been required. They would not have been load bearing.


Of course they were not load bearing Howard, they only supported the windows. 4 windows x 2500lbs is nothing really.


Yes, they were intended to support the load of the windows. I suppose that I was unclear in my original statement, I meant that they were not load bearing in terms of the original building loads. In any case, they were fireproofed by enclosure in drywall. (that was your original issue, wasn't it?)


Originally posted by The Links



The rings around the antennas are just concrete blocks to hold them in place. The panels look like building materials to me. Flashing maybe, It's hard to tell.


Where did i ask "what are the rings around the antennas?" Stop being an ass and making those fighting a loosing battle look even more stupid than they really are.
Lets not bother with the fire damage top right of the picture for the moment, ok got you on that.


You are the one being an ashhat.

You originally stated:

Originally posted by The Links
The grey panels on rings d/c roof are sitting around the antennas.


There are a lot of things sitting around the antennas. I was just trying to be precise.




Originally posted by The Links
Contiguous unit is a new term to me, anyway a part of this contiguos unit for the top section seems to have unatached itself from the remaining contiguos unit, it sits in the rubble pile at the front of the collapsed section, perhaps they forgot to bolt this section to the other sections. The fire appliance with the yellow jib is pointing just to the right of where this piece of steel sits.


“perhaps they forgot to bolt this section to the other sections” Or perhaps the bolts broke when the façade collapsed?




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
BTW, see those grey lines across the roofs? Each one of those is an expansion joint. There were several expansion joints per wedge.

There are three of them in this picture alone

pics.soohrt.org...



[edit on 13-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]


JAK

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hello,

The image in question is 2mb in size and has now been replaced with links so that those who are on dial-up etc have the choice of downloading that sized file rather than being forced to in order to view this thread.

Jak

[edit on 13/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, see those grey lines across the roofs? Each one of those is an expansion joint. There were several expansion joints per wedge.

There are three of them in this picture alone

pics.soohrt.org...



[edit on 13-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]


Expansion joints are on the exterior of a building. People assume the expansion joint slices through the building, they are wrong.
You do not get expansion joints within the shell of a building, within a building you would fit a control joint, fitting a control joint if needed, would still require a grid line underneath the control joint. On the grid line would stand a column supporting a beam supporting the slab, the end of this slab would have the control joint.

I think you will find a proper control joint at grid lines 1aa/1aa, the distance between grid lines at this point is smaller than anywhere else on that elevation. the beams and slab will cantilever over grid lines 1 and meet in the centre.
Where we are told to believe there is an expansion joint there is no support to carry the slab, and the distance acceptable for a cantilever has been far exceeded.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   




top topics



 
0

log in

join