This post by ProudBird
triggered my curiosity again :
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LaBTop
.....I am convinced that an airplane smashed head-on into the huge concrete second floor slab above the ground floor at the west wall of the
Whew. (Wiping brow).
At a near 90° angle.
Oh? Then this is complete rubbish? All of the people involved lied, and continue to lie? Little bit difficult to reconcile, wouldn't you
THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT
(Graphics of note, pp 36, 37, 38 and 39)
I advice the reader to first read my answer to him, and then proceed to read here.
And that's why I re-read this :
THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY (BPS) REPORT
ProudBird, your Graphics of note, pp 36, 37, 38 and 39, they ALL depict different
angles than their own concluded 42° angled attack path for
AA 77. So, that makes you wonder, ain't that so?
WARNING for JREF members : This report is considered a "wall of text" lately, in your circles, so we expect you, as usual, to not take the time to
5. BPS SITE INSPECTIONS
Members of the BPS team inspected the site on two occasions. Between September 14 and September 21, 2001, team leader Paul Mlakar had
limited access to the site while rescue and recovery operations were still in progress. On this early inspection visit,
he examined the exterior of the building and portions of the building interior.
Controlled access to the site was granted to the full team after rescue and recovery operations were complete. On
October 4, 2001, the Pentagon team, together with John Durrant, the executive director of ASCE’s institutes, and W. Gene Corley, the BPS team leader
at the World Trade Center, inspected the interior and exterior of the damaged area of the Pentagon for approximately FOUR
The inspection of the BPS team focused on obvious physical damage, primarily in the region of the impact.This inspection was not comprehensive. It
did not address fire damage to concrete as a material, and it did not result in full documentation of all physical damage or as-built
By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been
removed (figure 5.1) and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage. The design team charged with reconstructing
the Pentagon was assessing the building and preparations were being made to demolish the areas for reconstruction. Consequently, the Pentagon BPS
team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire.
I think those of you reading my bolded, colored, but especially my underlined texts (and like me, have read thousands of dissertations, thesis and
patents), will know directly, that these guys were seriously pissed off and managed to get these lines pushed through the end-editing process,
resulting in this full paragraph's text, being allowed to stay in this form in this report.
Mlakar was the same Army Corps of Engineers career guy, who also led the Oklahoma City Bombing Report. Another skewed piece of disinformation, just as
It's not all disinfo of course, that would it make too obvious, but its the small details that stick out, like all the plane drawings are not 42°
angled attacks, they are all depicting bigger to much bigger angles of attack.
Because when they would have drawn the real 42° angle they decided on, it would have cut the generator trailer in half and obliterated that trailer
totally, and ended far left from the column 14 entrance hole center line on and around the second floor slab.
Thus, not covering the internal damage path lined up as a 42° damage path by the Pentagon Building Performance Report members, at all.
That 42° angle was based by the ASCE team, on the center-line of damage, drawn from a few points between the 5 downed light poles, through the
generator trailer AA 77 its wing-tip damage (the cabin roof gouge) and the internal damage path to that ridiculous "exit" hole.
When you reverse the process, and start a 42° angled line depicting the nose cone attached to the fuselage of AA 77, and draw that back from that
ridiculous "exit" hole, through the internal damage path its center, as depicted in the ASCE report, and then forget for a moment that pesky trailer
in the way, but then extend that line through the center of those 5 downed light poles, and THEN look back at that generator trailer, you see AA 77
its fuselage cut right through that trailer's left side.....
Another (BPS) Building Performance Study-team member from Purdue University, Mete Sozen, did put this animation on-line, which also shows a different
than 42° attack flight path :
This above link to a post written by me, offers about all there is to know about the generator its cabin-roof gouge, and the dishonest attack angles
shown in the ASCE Report and the Purdue animations.
And it shows that the ASCE conclusion of a 42° attack angle would have resulted in a total miss of the photographed impact point, with about 60
meters, to the north of that real impact point in the west wall (Y-axis at column 14, X-axis at the second floor slab).
And should have formed a totally different gouge, namely a long diagonal gouge from the frontside right corner to the backside left corner in the roof
of the generator cabin on that trailer in the outmost corner of the fenced-in portion of the Pentagon Renovation contractors and sub-contractors
What we see however in the gouge photos, is a 62° gouge angle.
The Purdue University CGVLAB its Pentagon attack simulations animation using LS-DYNA Runs, made by Mete Sozen et al :
The teams attempted to inspect and photograph all columns with significant visible damage and most of the beams and floor bays with
significant visible damage.To the extent possible, it was noted whether physical loads or the effects of fire caused the observed
damage. The BPS team also noted the performance of windows and exterior wall reinforcements that had been installed to enhance blast resistance in
Wedge 1 prior to the attack. However the BPS team inspections were not comprehensive, and they did not address fire-related material
This above block of text from the same page 18 (of 45) shows also the hidden frustration that they could not inspect and collect samples of curious
places, where a free researcher would see explosive damage. But in just 4 hrs CONTROLLED and LIMITED access, there was no chance in hell that these
guys would be allowed to sample suspected portions of the building.
When I read the word "controlled" and "not comprehensive" in one report page, I can see the soldiers looking over the researcher's shoulder,
leading him away from spots not allowed to inspect, and stopping him from any sample taking that did perhaps show high explosives evidence.
Page 19 :
Since all debris was removed prior to the detailed inspection, the team was unable to determine specifically the level and
extent of impact damage in this region of the building.
Especially the word "extent" coupled to "impact" is very telling in this context.
Those team members expressed clearly with those two words, that they doubted and could not assume that all the internal damage they saw up to the
"exit" hole in Ring C, was caused by the impact OF A PLANE. And especially not in the collapsed portion of Ring E, the west wall portion. It is also
telling that they do not report that they were shown photographs or Army Corps of Engineers reports from the meticulous 25 days (9/11 to 10/03)
cleansing of the collapsed portion of Wedge 1.(Corps of Engineers study, Paragraph 4.3)
I read this text, and for me it is as clear as glass, that these guys were very very frustrated.
And knew that they were used. To form the impression in all non-military readers of their report, that they did a good job. They however could NOT do
a good and thorough job.
They were not allowed to do a thorough investigation.
Anyone who knows what it takes to perform a thorough structural research report of such an enormous debris site, laughs his nuts off when reading that
these poor guys were ALLOWED in under CONTROLLED access rules for a measly 4 hours, and knows immediately that it was meant to be a con-job. And to
fail any possible chance that there was other evidence to be found, like the use of explosives for example.
Or a totally different attack path.
The Army Corps of Engineers cleansed that site in the forgoing 25 days, and then these poor guys were allowed in for FOUR hours.
This ASCE report is written mainly on the basis of studying other parties reports.
Which were all paid by or worked for, or were in the Army.
6.1 IMPACT DAMAGE
The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to
the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab. Eyewitness accounts and photographs taken by a security camera suggest that
the aircraft was flying on nearly a level path essentially at grade level for several hundred feet immediately prior to impact.
Gashes in the facade above the second-floor slab between column lines 18 and 20 to the south of the collapse area suggest that the aircraft had rolled
slightly to the left as it entered the building.
The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building
entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line 14.
The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width,
perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft (figure 6.1).
An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete
marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade
of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer
one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.
It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the
second-floor slab.The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right
engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.
In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of
the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements
that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external
vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have
damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building.
The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings.The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the
wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the
building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left
wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and
contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the
The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height
was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft
Damage to the first-floor columns is summarized in figures 6.2 and 6.3. In formulating opinions about columns in the collapse area, the BPS team
interpreted photographs taken after impact and before collapse.
There's reason to believe, that an outer third portion of the right wing must have been sheared off, after it hit the generator trailer roof. And
that this event started the fires behind the Generator trailer.
The next quote from the ASCE's BPS report should be remembered when looking at my 80° to 90° impact path drawing that I made from this report's
drawing that showed a plane that was entering the Pentagon under a supposed angle of 42°.
I just introduced another plane entering the same spot, but now at an angle of 90°.
And the nose of that 90° plane came no further than the full length of the original, not compacted plane. Which ends at about the Wedge 1 its first,
Ring-E back side, shown as a thin red line in the original drawing. And yes, we know very well that the first two stories in the first three Rings
were long office spaces, divided by thin brick or gypsum board walls only. And full of reinforced concrete columns that held up the higher floors.
More likely, the fuselage was destroyed much earlier in its movement through the building. Therefore, the aircraft frame most certainly was
destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft.
The debris that traveled the farthest, traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft, after entering the building. To come to rest at a
point 310 ft (figure 6.6) from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30
Ask yourself another important question: "Do I think that any non-military
first responders had a shimmer of a chance to ever get to a point
in the building further than let's say the E-ring area, to witness any damage done further than that point? And to find any victims? See the Pentagon
map drawing that I posted with the positions drawn-in, from the victims. Pentagon personnel and plane victims.
Do note the strange amount of victims in the NAVY offices, which laid not at all in the trajectory of a 42° angled plane, but were however straight
in line with a 80° to 90° angled plane, that however did not get further than the first, Ring-E its backside perimeter line, according to the
internal first floor column damage drawings.
All columns in the first story had square cross sections and spirally reinforced cores with a concrete cover of 1 1/2 in.,The story height was 14
ft 1 in.
That means the second floor slab began at a height of 4.30 meter above grade.