Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector- lawrence wrote: ...............recently reinforced concrete and steelLike a Boeing travelling 400 mph it penetrated a two-brick wall and a flimsy
wall protecting the Naval Command Center.
Unlike a 'normal' Boeing it penetrated this 'blast wall' easily
screen like dominoes waiting to be knocked over. Stop the mud op on structure,
do your homework, I've provided the links AGAIN below.
I posted the construction details several times. There was a metal screen behind
the stone facade and two brick wall. The screen and thick glass windows were only
designed to catch fragments from a truck bomb explosion 200 feet away, not to
catch a 400 mph jumbo jet. There was no structural concrete or rebar behind the
two brick wall, only the fragment-catching mesh.
and exploded into an extraordinarily hot fireball._______________________________________________________
The scientific nature of the explosion and analysis of the damage
caused is more revealing than what the panicked witnesses thought
they saw.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-alum.html
Aluminum, water, hydrogen...
________________________________________________________
Most military witnesses were adamant that the 'plane' had itsB> Holbo and his muslim spanish translator Adil Raji left out
wheels up and its flaps down, ie, not intending to land.
Lt Col Holbow is Air Force. The AF did a pitiful job on 9/11.
Small plane theory is probably incorrect.
and mangled significant portions of what Omar Campos said,
while allegedly basing the government small plane theory entirely
on Omar Campos testimony. What Omar actually said was
"American airways...comercial...blue stripe" which Holbo and
Adil Raji lied and said was "small corporate or business jet".
Give up the government small plane LIE once and for all, that's
not from Omar Campos as claimed.
__
So is 'no plane' theoryB> Please do you homework. Stone facade blocks much taller than thick, two layers
and Eastmanic discordianism.
However, if it actually was originally
a Boeing it would seem to have been modified with additional
explosives,
and remotely controlled.
Also, its ability to pass through reinforced blast walls
of brick, that's ALL. Dominoes!
is mostB> It was not a bunker, no structural concrete except pillars which did shred the
noteworthy. Such 'bunker-buster' hi-tech
plane and you can see those pillars at intervals across the 91 foot wide wing hole,
and the floor slab which was lifted but essentially intact. Stop the mud op on
wall thickness and structure.
http://www.sitbot.net/htm/17401.html
http://www.prosoco.com/Story.asp?ID=15
"The facade stones, 5 feet long, 2 feet wide and half-a-foot thick, each
weighed about 600 pounds."
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm
http://www.sitbot.net/im/penta_wall.jpg
The scars from the Oklahoma City bombing are still fresh in the minds of
government officials six years later when assessing the physical security of
likely targets for terrorist attacks. The potential for attacks against the U.S.
government was made even more immediate with the bombing of the USS
Cole in Yemen last October and the killing of 17 of its sailors and the wounding
iof 39 others. With this escalation in terrorism came the desire to develop a
reasonable protective shield for the nation's foremost symbol of military strength,
the Pentagon. The need to reduce the building's vulnerability to a terrorist attack
was high on the list of renovation priorities for the sixty-year old headquarters of
the Department of Defense.
"When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter
Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a
number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised
economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip
the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry
was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building
was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was
constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete
floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough
to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.
Architecturally, the designers of the huge office building also opted for the extensive use
of windows. This feature helped connect workers with the outside world, and further reduced
the demand for critical wartime construction materials. Along each 924' (281.6 m) exterior
wall, there are approximately 400 windows, roughly 5' wide by 7' tall (1.8m × 2.1 m).
Together, the lightly constructed facade and large number of windows offer little resistance
to terrorist attack.
A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon's surrounding network
of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building's five
concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well.
Merely replacing existing windows with blast-resistant ones anchored to the existing brick
nfill would not be a workable solution. The newer windows would direct blast pressures to the window support connections at the infill. The tensile and shear loads would overwhelm the existing infill walls.
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).
Another proposal suggested dropping a continuous, structural tube through roof openings behind the walls and through the floor slabs. Grouting the floor slabs around the tubes would allow the tubes to transfer explosive loads horizontally into the slabs. This idea was rejected, primarily because of the building's structural irregularities. The Pentagon's windowless fifth floor, a late-construction addition, has a large, thick capstone running along the bottom third of the brick wall. This unusual, non-structural feature extends 17 inches (432 mm) into the interior from the wall. A design where the tube penetrates the stone would be costly as well as difficult to construct. Another irregularity is the second floor spandrel beam, which is located under the other spandrels and protrudes several inches beyond the wall into tenant space. The vertical tube would have to bypass this feature, too. To compensate for these irregular features and achieve effective structural protection, large spacers would have to be added to the continuous tube on every floor. This factor made the approach too costly.
Belying its regular-looking, geometric appearance, the Pentagon has a number of as built dimensional and structural irregularities. Many of these were never documented during construction and were only discovered during renovation. These unknowns forced HSMM to pursue a general solution that would be cost-effective and feasible for every floor and wall section.
The resulting general design solution called for erecting structural reinforcements around the windows, anchoring at the top and bottom to structural concrete floor slabs and not the non-structural brick infill walls. This general solution also accepts blast forces from the walls themselves and transfers both window and wall loads into the horizontal slab diaphragms.
http://www.sitbot.net/im/penta_win_tubes.jpg
http://www.sitbot.net/im/pentagon_hole.jpg
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
OM
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
