It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The idea of supporting the brick infill walls with a reinforced concrete wall "backing" was rejected as a "typical" approach because of the Pentagon's extensive fenestration (although this design was accepted for "blank" wall panels with no window openings).
[color=darkblue]Howard: What is being said is this:
The area of the collapse was weaker than what the public was lead to believe. That's the area that was supposed to be reinforced as the whole Pentagon was being worked on under scheduled re-inforcing / cosmetics work, whatever the government had been telling people. However, judging by the pictures and the other information, this was not the case. It looks like the reinforcements had been removed / altered to something that would support a collapse as we have seen.
I don't believe the bull# put out by Fox / CNN. However, not everyone is "technical minded" or understands masonry / carpentry / whatever. There's no need to be a smug ****** about it. I didn't understand it at first either. I had to re-read it several times to sort it out.