Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

From the report above.

The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with
no windows.

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?

No, I see a large part of the forward door, a substantial part of the aircraft.



I also see a wheel rim.

What is the black stuff we see hanging in the center of the hole that looks like it has grey concrete chunks on it?

The bars are black iron channels and the stuff that looks like chicken wire is a wire lath for plater. The "grey concrete chunks" as you call it is the plaster scratch coat.

THis is a modern picture, but it is the same as what was used then


Here is a picture of plaster lath that was used in the construciton of a munitions factory in 1918

What is the black stuff we see hanging in the center of the hole that looks like it has grey concrete chunks on it?

Did you forget your silly "Chisel marks" photo already?




You can see a close up of the lath in the top left corner of the bottom picture.

The top two photos clearly show that you are looking at a plaster wall.

The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with
no windows.

Pardon my interruption but the above statement back when I was a mason for a construction company meant we layed the block for the walls then came back and poured them. Then the brick was layed on the exterior.
Not sure what infill means today but back then it meant block without rebar reinforcement filled with concrete. Certainly didn't mean hollow block.
The term we used for that was unfilled. Which is extremely rare especially here in Florida with the hurricane standards.

Sorry for the interruption please continue.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with
no windows.

Pardon my interruption but the above statement back when I was a mason for a construction company meant we layed the block for the walls then came back and poured them. Then the brick was layed on the exterior.
Not sure what infill means today but back then it meant block without rebar reinforcement filled with concrete. Certainly didn't mean hollow block.
The term we used for that was unfilled. Which is extremely rare especially here in Florida with the hurricane standards.

Sorry for the interruption please continue.

Were you a mason in the 1940s when the pentagon was built?

The frame was infilled with common brick. (see the picture above)

Were you a mason in the 1940s when the pentagon was built?

I didn't say that nor did I mean to imply it. I stated no expertise just my own experience.

The frame was infilled with common brick. (see the picture above)

That's not what the quote said. I never witnessed any block structure where brick was used to fill. We used concrete to fill. We layed the block either by layer or a wall at a time. The brick was layed after the block wall was layed. The block was the frame over which the brick was layed.
If this doesn't apply to the current discussion then excuse me. Just thought I might actually have something to contribute since I have been reading these threads for some time now and only wanted to contribute.
I didn't realize that others views were unwelcome.
I'll go back to just reading then and you folk continue with this wonderfully entertaining discussion.
Oh and myself I lean towards a plane hitting the pentagon. However I would like to see all evidence and come to my own conclusions.
So ignore me and continue on. Didn't mean to upset the apple cart just wanted to throw in my humble .02.
(could you please direct me to a thread where other input is welcome?)
[joke]Bing! Idea. New forum name. The howard, agent, tripper, merc forum.[/joke]

Your opinion is welcome.

Sorry If I came off a little too grouchy.

anyway.


The Pentagon is not a block structure.

It was a concrete framed building with brick masonry walls.

Although concrete blocks existed in the 40's, I have not seen any evidence that they were used in the original construction of this building.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

That's not what the quote said. I never witnessed any block structure where brick was used to fill. We used concrete to fill. We layed the block either by layer or a wall at a time. The brick was layed after the block wall was layed. The block was the frame over which the brick was layed.

The quote:

The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with
no windows.

I think that is pretty clear. The wall is brick inside a concrete frame. That is what "infill" means.

No where in that quote is it indicated that the wall is a concrete block wall.

Ok so it wasn't a block building. So they poured a concrete mold and then filled it with brick? Or did they lay the brick and then pour the concrete over it?
Now I think I'm confused.
As I said when I worked construction(not in the 1940s) that quote meant what I said so that's my point of reference.
Now I think I get what your saying but it makes me wonder how they accomplished this. Did they build a wooden frame and pour the concrete, remove the wood when the slop was dry and then lay the brick?
Now I'm confused.
If you could point me to the appropriate reference(don't be afraid to mention an actual printed doc as I am not afraid to go to the library and browse the dusty shelves) to the construction method I would be interested to see it.

It is a concrete framed building. The floors, columns and beams are concrete. The spaces between the perimeter columns along the exterior were filled in with brick walls.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is a concrete framed building. The floors, columns and beams are concrete. The spaces between the perimeter columns along the exterior were filled in with brick walls.

okay, so why did some intact cylinder punch clean through there and then dissolve before it hit the next wall, then, seeing as it's 1940's infilled brick?

The point he was trying to make was about the INNER wall. The outer wall was reinforced, but the inner ring with the "chisel marks" on it was the same wall as they built in the 1940s.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is a concrete framed building. The floors, columns and beams are concrete. The spaces between the perimeter columns along the exterior were filled in with brick walls.

okay, so why did some intact cylinder punch clean through there and then dissolve before it hit the next wall, then, seeing as it's 1940's infilled brick?

How do you figure that the hole was made by an “intact cylinder?”

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is a concrete framed building. The floors, columns and beams are concrete. The spaces between the perimeter columns along the exterior were filled in with brick walls.

okay, so why did some intact cylinder punch clean through there and then dissolve before it hit the next wall, then, seeing as it's 1940's infilled brick?

How do you figure that the hole was made by an “intact cylinder?”

i just used a word to describe the shape of the hole, and cylinder was good. giant bowling ball would have worked, or 'big disk'. it's a nearly perfectly round hole, that either has high speed fracture markes on the bricks, or chisel marks. take your pick.
they call it a 'punch out' whole. where's the fist? what stopped it? if it was going fast and hard enough to punch that whole through 1940s in-filled brick, why did it not leave a mark(except for a patch of smoke) on the next wall?

i just can't picture it, 'BOOMCRACK', something has just smashed through all the interior walls of the pentagon and maintained a straight trajectory while doing it, and then .....crickets. where the next 'CRACK'? the bowlingcylinderfist was an unstoppable juggernaut that can cookie cut it's way through a gaint building, and then pretty much turned into a pile of rubble that just barely pushes out of the clean cut hole it just made at high velocity.

911 physics are like movie physics. bruce willis would know what happened.

speaking of which, charlie sheen was on alex jones last night. look out. we've got the REAL TV president's son on our side. martin won't stand for treason from the likes of bush. you saw him in apocalypse now, right? one tough cookie.

charlie sheen for president! if hollywood physics are real, then so are actors who play politicians actually real politicians.

i'll be back.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by billybob]

Don't joke like that Billy, I don't know how true it is but I heard the law has been changed so foreigners can be President, looks like Arnie's in line for the throne.

Should be.. er.... interesting.

EDIT: Added links

Schwarzenegger: Let foreign-born seek White House

President Schwarzenegger?

The Republican effort to make Arnold Schwarzenegger president of the United States has begun.

Slight change of topic though, I might start a new thread actually. Pretend you never saw this.

New thread here.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

Take a look at these initial photos of the Pentagon crash. Does it look at all like a 757 really crashed there? Who could be so stupid as to believe such at thing? Anyone can fake photos of small debris, even an amateur can. But these photos really say it all. If a real 757 crashed there, there would be large pieces of debris and wreckage. Plus of course, no plane can fly at 400mph while 20 feet above ground. It's aerodynamically impossible. So the plane could not fly fast enough to disintegrate, even if that were possible.







What I don't get, is why there are still intelligent educated wise people out there who still buy the official version of 9/11, even though it's been debunked to a zero probability many times over? Isn't that odd? Why is that?

Questions for believers of the official 9/11 story:

1. What is the basis for your belief that authority=truth and that the official version of everything is always correct, no matter what evidence there is for and against, and no matter how many times the government has lied in the past?

2. Why do you take on faith, a source that has constantly lied in the past? Doesn't that defy common sense? The government has even lied about small things like the rescue of Jessica Lynch or the death of Pat Tillman. Haven't you heard of the parable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? So why do you believe everything a pathological liar says? Isn't that illogical?

Can you provide a logical explanation for the above two?

Also, in the photos above, does it look to you like a 757 crashed there?

reply to post by WWu777


Question is why are you spamming a thread from 6 YEARS AGO.......


Maybe if GOT CLOSER TO PENTAGON MIGHT SEE SOMETHING.......

Here are close up shots - plenty of debris visible

Originally posted by WWu777
Plus of course, no plane can fly at 400mph while 20 feet above ground. It's aerodynamically impossible. So the plane could not fly fast enough to disintegrate, even if that were possible.

(bolding mine)

Wow. That comes to news to us who have....oh, I don't know...flown supersonic at 20 to 50 feet above the ground. You have an interesting NEW twist on aerodynamics that we all need to know so w know that we can't...you know....do what we were doing.

Always entertaining when neophytes get into discussions and start throwing around absolutes without having clue one about what they speak.

Edited to add....supersonic speed at ground level is close to twice as fast as the speed you say is "aerodynamically impossible". I've been there,

reply to post by WWu777

Plus of course, no plane can fly at 400mph while 20 feet above ground. It's aerodynamically impossible.

Please prove it's aerodynamically impossible.

Originally posted by WWu777

Plus of course, no plane can fly at 400mph while 20 feet above ground. It's aerodynamically impossible.

Winston, why make up silly stories? Care to prove it's aerodynamically impossible?

No, I did not think you could.

Originally posted by WWu777

1. What is the basis for your belief that authority=truth and that the official version of everything is always correct, no matter what evidence there is for and against, and no matter how many times the government has lied in the past?

Nobody believes that. Your question is a classic straw man.

2. Why do you take on faith, a source that has constantly lied in the past? Doesn't that defy common sense? The government has even lied about small things like the rescue of Jessica Lynch or the death of Pat Tillman. Haven't you heard of the parable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? So why do you believe everything a pathological liar says? Isn't that illogical?

Yes. I don't.

Also, in the photos above, does it look to you like a 757 crashed there?

Yes. But then my criteria for deciding whether one has done so is based on a bit more than having watched a few films and over-trusting my 'gut reaction'.

By the way, it's not 2006 any more. The game's already over and it wasn't the Truthers who got the cup.