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.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Originally posted by HowardRoark
That is just what I said. Clay tile and plaster lath is masonry.
That was a common building material from the 30's through the early 60's.
You are assuming that masonry means cement walls.
[edit on 7-3-2006 by HowardRoark]
Actually no. I am assuming masonry means "not plaster lath and drywall".
I'm past the semantics. I want to establish what kind of interior walls were in there.
And you didn't say "clay tile and plaster lath" originally, you said "drywall and plaster lath".
I said that the original construction would have been clay tile with plaster lath.
The new construction after the renovation would have been drywall. The plane hit in the area of new constrution. It only impcated a small portion of wedge 2, which was the original construction.
It’s possible that some of the original plaster lath was left in place, but it wouldn’t be that significant, since the renovation included replacement of all the mechanical systems and ADA upgrades on the stairwells.
Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile. (Emphasis changed – HR)
en.wikipedia.org...
Note that the term "Masonry" included tile walls.
Keep in mind that your source that indicated that there were masonry interior walls in the basement and around the transformer vaults and mechanical rooms was talking about the original constrution
Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Here is an example of "reinforced concrete" masonry:
[edit on 8/3/06 by JAK]
- End of story – bro.
Originally posted by The Links
A loss adjuster might ask why the block has no concrete within the cavity.
[edit on 15-3-2006 by The Links]
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Your obfuscating skills are unparalleled.
That thin clay tile wall doesn't look nearly as strong or thick as this multi-layered brick and limestone facade wall.
And the demolished clay tile wall in your pic sure seems to be crushed into MUCH finer particles than the nice perfectly intact whole bricks we see hanging out in the water here:
Why would that be Howard?
I don't know for sure but my best uneducated guess would be that it's because the materials used to make the pentagon wall were much STRONGER!
Or perhaps it's because they used something with more force than a 757 to demolish those clay tile walls?
Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Attack? ad hominem?
Hardly.
The point of yours and mercs discussion was to determine the strength of the wall of the pentagon and whether or not it is feasible for the craft to have created a hole of this nature.
You deliberately obfuscated the discussion throughout this thread and particularly with your last post by prefacing it with this comment.......
"These are not of the pentagon, but they are illustrative of this particular style of construction Clay tile wall"
This implies that those clay tile walls are similar to what they had at the pentagon.
This is clearly not so.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
But is it 6 feet of reinforced concrete?
We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)
EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete before exiting through this hole.
It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is
mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.
The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the
frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the
frame.
Doesn't appear to be but it certainly appears to be quite thick and strong with multiple layers of brick and limestone and perhaps clay tile as well.
As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is
mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.
The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the
frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the
frame.
Bottom line......the perfect circular shape and large size of the hole is quite suspicious when considering the fact that there are NO significant large aircraft parts visible that would explain creating such a hole.
Is that a fair statement?
What is the black stuff we see hanging in the center of the hole that looks like it has grey concrete chunks on it?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
An unreinforced masonry wall like that is NOT that hard to bust through.
Q: Why are the conspiracy theorists attacking me instead of defending the premise that the wall was reinforced concrete
Originally posted by billybob
say, howard, seeing as you're on a roll.
why don't you tell us what stopped the cookie cutter before it hit the next wall?