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.

 

Forward this photo to any 911 Truth debunkers.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
there really isn't a whole lot to this discussion. buildings don't collapse.

here's some photos from nagasaki

www.gensuikin.org...

this is from a wiki page


Some of the reinforced concrete buildings in Hiroshima were very strongly constructed because of the earthquake danger in Japan, and their framework did not collapse even though they were fairly close to the center of damage in the city.


here's some pictures from london air raids during WWII

images.google.com... tle

Here's the aftermath of the marine barracks bombing in '83.

michellemalkin.cachefly.net...

if you still think that buildings can collapse because of a water heater in the basement or because a plane crashes into it i think it's time for you to visit your local mad doctor and get that lobotomy you've been thinking about.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath

My point is that reinforced concrete does not mean heavy steel
and the outer facade was limestone



It was concrete!
Sorry
This could be found on page 77 of this Official renovation report for congress dated March 1 1999





posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Exterior Walls
Architectural and structural elements of exterior walls have shifted and settled. Joints are open and moisture has penetrated causing damage. Cracking and evidence of movement is apparent at all five exterior perimeter parapet corners. In some instances these cracks extend below the parapet wall. The exterior walls are not thermally efficient and the stone facing is in need of cleaning and repair to insure its weather tightness.

There are two types of courtyards at the Pentagon: (I) interior courts (light wells) between concentric rings of the building and, (2) the Center Courtyard. All courtyards walls are of concrete with surface conditions ranging from fair to failing. Concrete is spalling, particularly where rusting reinforcing bars are exposed; patch material is failing; cracks, efflorescence, and water stains are evident everywhere. In addition to problems cited in the courtyards walls, cornices are disintegrating, especially between Corridors 7 and 10. There are also problems due to use of non-conforming materials and poor construction. In the Center Courtyard, the asphalt paving at the peripheral


Page 77 same report.

I know they renovated but even in the renovation they did not tear down and replace walls.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 



Exactly and they had to reference page 21 of said document




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
That picture is like solid gold.


I guess the plane vaporized on impact.

Peace



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Read what it says - Concrete Finishes

They did not repair the concrete. just the outer finish to repair the cracks and for weatherproofing.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


I have and

1. it's not limestone
2. Has to be restored not replaced.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Read Page 88 that covers wedge 1 and 2 which should be the the site of the impact based on the way the align the building in the plans


The renovation work involves the demolition and removal work includes all partitions, ceilings, floor finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and communications systems. The basic structural system, as well as the stairwells and their enclosing walls, will remain


Underlined for clarity



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


Exactly poured concrete!
Not limestone. Not all areas were in that bad of condition and needed to be repaired nor replaced.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Ah so since it was poured concrete it now compares to a 12-foot thick blast wall?

Explain please

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Achorwrath]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


"I" Never said it was 12' The video I posted only shows something like 3 or 4 feet.
Go a. click on it. I know you can do it clickity clickity click!



I forget now. Tell me again exactly how many walls it flew through? Including outer and inner walls not to mention support columns and floors ?


(click to open player in new window)




[edit on 24-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


did you read the renovation report or just look for what you wanted?

Go on I know you can do it read.

It stated that interior walls were removed to create an open office area in wedge 2

So it penetrated two walls and impaced a few columns again, remember 2-4 MegaJoules of impact energy



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


yes I have there was a to do list and an accomplished list.

So what does that have to do with outer walls, inner walls, support columns and floors?

"Inner walls" are referring to the actual outer walls between the rings not facing the street



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath

It stated that interior walls were removed to create an open office area in wedge 2

So it penetrated two walls and impaced a few columns again, remember 2-4 MegaJoules of impact energy




OK we are splittin hairs over what the walls are called OK count up all the exterior walls ga . ga . Dont forget to add up all the columns and floors in between




[edit on 24-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The Pentagon crash has got to be the only plane crash I've seen that doesn't look like a plane crash. Can't recall ever seeing photos of an incident where it wasn't immediately apparent that it was a plane crash.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Pretty big missile to take out all that fencing.

Plus if it's claimed it was taken out by the explosion wouldn't it be blown away from the building?



Yeah that had crossed my mind (the size of the missle)...so I tried not to hypothesize what caused the damage. But I'm pretty sure a 757 would have torn up more of the fence and made a more pronounced mark on the outer walls. What do you reckon?


[edit on 24-3-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by screwedagain
 


I completely agree. It should be easy to see a horizontal scar along the side of the building at least, even if it was made of reinforced concrete.

It just doesn't look like a plane crash!

I mean look at this photo of the El Al (admittadly a 747 but you see what I mean!) flight that hit an apartement complex in 1992.




No scar but look at the gaping hole (think Penatgon before the collapse of the wall!)



[edit on 24-3-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Concrete, steel, or the indestructible unobtanium from planet Zorgon, it doesn't matter. Slam a 300,000 pound object into a wall of ANY building at 400 mph, and see if the glass panes in the windows less than a foot away from the point of impact don't break. Especially if that object has wings that should have made direct contact with the windows that didn't break.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
Concrete, steel, or the indestructible unobtanium from planet Zorgon, it doesn't matter. Slam a 300,000 pound object into a wall of ANY building at 400 mph, and see if the glass panes in the windows less than a foot away from the point of impact don't break. Especially if that object has wings that should have made direct contact with the windows that didn't break.



Now come on...that's stupid, everyone knows that there is less than 0.5g of unobtanium in existance due to it's tendancy to react with everything!

But serously you are so right!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
Concrete, steel, or the indestructible unobtanium from planet Zorgon, it doesn't matter. Slam a 300,000 pound object into a wall of ANY building at 400 mph, and see if the glass panes in the windows less than a foot away from the point of impact don't break. Especially if that object has wings that should have made direct contact with the windows that didn't break.



Yeah I completely agree take a look at this one for example it was the WWII bomber that flew into the Empire state building notice how one wing sliced in to the building and the other didn't.

Come to think of it its not a very big entrance hole hmmm. Must be that whole aluminum vs Concrete thing again.







[edit on 24-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join