Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

Adam Larson AKA Caustic Logic was stumped by this when I first brought it up so as usual he responded with a convoluted blog to help neutralize the info on his Frustrating Fraud page:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Ultimately his conclusion was that it was perplexing and his only rebuttal was that the available images were not definitive enough and that the damage may have been hidden by debris or not visible in the images that weren't very high resolution for the most part.

Of course his argument is ridiculous because he would have to suggest that the "hidden" damage would be limited to a couple of feet that was hidden by debris.

Naturally a 100 ton jet airliner traveling at over 500 mph would cause damage to the foundation much deeper than that but this was his argument.

Well now I have high resolution versions of the images that leave no doubt.

There really is no way to debate this any longer and if this physical evidence doesn't convince 757 impact proponents like Adam than nothing will and it's clear they have no interest in the truth.

Let me recap the details for first time readers.

The physical damage to the building was limited to the bottom two floors as documented in the ASCE building performance report.

The physical damage REQUIRES the plane to be extremely low and level to the ground.

Although everyone knows there was no damage to the lawn or ground outside of the building the report states that the damage requires the left wing of the plane to be tilted down.

Because there is a finite amount of space between the first two floors this means that the left engine would be digging into the foundation of the building as it entered on the bottom level.

There is no room for debate in this regard and in fact this image from the ASCE report actually depicts the left engine at least half way burrowed into the foundation.




But the perpetrators forgot to simulate any damage to the foundation.

OOPS!

Here is what typically happens to concrete when planes crash on it:




And here are the images I had previously posted showing there was no damage to the foundation at the Pentagon particularly where the left engine would have entered:





Larson said these weren't good enough so here are higher resolution versions:


ve ry high resolution version here


very high resolution version here


very high resoltion version here


very high resolution version here


What more proof do you need Larson?

Clearly no plane of any type whatsoever crashed into this cement:


How many contradictions, anomalies, and impossibilities should we accept before the movement completely dumps the notion that a plane hit the building?





[edit on 27-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit: oversized images changed to links]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.

i14.photobucket.com...

[edit: oversized image to URL]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Mods,

This thread is not about CIT or The PentaCon so please keep it in the general forum.

Thanks.

Here is a cleaner shot of the very front showing how nice and level it was.



higher resolution here

First here's a direct link to my post and not just the main page:
Foundation Damage
This is almost all the rebuttal I need. If you think THIS argument might finally debunk a 757 impact, please read that link first. But to clarify. I agree that the ASCE graphic does not depict what happened, as my graphic you borrowed illustrates.

Ultimately his conclusion was that it was perplexing and his only rebuttal was that the available images were not definitive enough and that the damage may have been hidden by debris or not visible in the images that weren't very high resolution for the most part.

Craig distorts my opinion, as usual, trying to cram his words in my mouth. CRAIG's contention, if I understand correctly, is that the non-damage is covered by a rubble pile in all photos, at different stages of cleanup. And only the one spot - where the left engine was PERHAPS low enough to hit the slab. This is the only spot that matters, and it's either consistently covered with a thin layer of debris, or it IS debris - damaged by the engine. If damage, should it be such a small area? I don't know. It seems odd in ways but makes sense in others. I just see what I see.

Here's the possibilities:
1) no plane, all fakery, but they screwed up and left no foundation damage - unproven yet, by your own theory of the rubble pile persistently over that one spot.
2) plane entered above ground level, all MAJOR foundation damage further in, undamaged spot still always covered is odd
3) plane entered, engine hit and deflected up, we're seeing the mark of this
4) they faked the foundation damage too

Same basic graphics, but thank you for the higher res images of Agustinos' - undeniably better than what I had and useful. The blow-up of the higher res fisheye view from inside does add new info for me - looks kind of like a little "curb" at that spot. ?? Whaddayou make of it?


This one really helps, my favorite but blown up:


Craig, if you're so sure this is a small pile of rubble, where's that rebar sticking out from? Please explain this if you can. And that little piece of riveted rusty-looking metal. I can see that now. Hmmm..

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.

i14.photobucket.com...

How does this picture help your case at all? It's scratched, minor glancing damage. right? Wipe off the dust, wet that stuff down like in the Pentagon photos, and it's gonna look shiny new too.

And what is this, an astralite? This seems to under-argue your point.



[edit: quoted oversized image changed to link]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I dont even need more proof to know its was a inside job, because by now there must be hundreds of things not making sense in the official story.

Question is, can anyone do anything about it?

The bombs that were planted didn't cause any damage either? Let it go...it's over.

Originally posted by Copernicus



Question is, can anyone do anything about it?

You have asked THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. I whole heartedly agree.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
First here's a direct link to my post and not just the main page:
Foundation Damage
This is almost all the rebuttal I need. If you think THIS argument might finally debunk a 757 impact, please read that link first. But to clarify. I agree that the ASCE graphic does not depict what happened, as my graphic you borrowed illustrates.

Your blog on this is not even close to a rebuttal. That is the entire point of this thread. You simply claim the images are not definitive due to the debris pile but the debris is at the very front of the building. The notion that the foundation damage from a 757 at ground level would be limited to a few feet defies all logic. Plus this image shows even the debris at the front cleared away and still not even a scratch anywhere to be seen:

Ultimately his conclusion was that it was perplexing and his only rebuttal was that the available images were not definitive enough and that the damage may have been hidden by debris or not visible in the images that weren't very high resolution for the most part.

Craig distorts my opinion, as usual, trying to cram his words in my mouth. CRAIG's contention, if I understand correctly, is that the non-damage is covered by a rubble pile in all photos, at different stages of cleanup. And only the one spot - where the left engine was PERHAPS low enough to hit the slab. This is the only spot that matters, and it's either consistently covered with a thin layer of debris, or it IS debris - damaged by the engine. If damage, should it be such a small area? I don't know. It seems odd in ways but makes sense in others. I just see what I see.

You have got to be kidding me. There would likely be foundation damage all the way to the C-ring. It's bad enough to suggest the plane wouldn't have hit the lawn but for the entire craft to remain under the first two floors of the building as reported and as the initial damage to the facade REQUIRES there would HAVE to be significant damage to the foundation.

You can't take evidence out of context of the facts (pre-collapse damage) and say maybe this or that. There is no "perhaps" about the FACT that the left engine would be "low enough". In fact the right engine would be too as the plane broke up underneath the first two floors. But the initial wing tilt is REQUIRED to explain the pre-collapse damage which is why it was reported by the ASCE.

It is YOUR contention that the damage was covered by debris. It is my contention that this is absurd since the debris is cleared away in the images from where there would have to be visible damage.

Here's the possibilities:
1) no plane, all fakery, but they screwed up and left no foundation damage - unproven yet, by your own theory of the rubble pile persistently over that one spot.
2) plane entered above ground level, all MAJOR foundation damage further in, undamaged spot still always covered is odd
3) plane entered, engine hit and deflected up, we're seeing the mark of this
4) they faked the foundation damage too

What are you blabbering on about? THE AREA THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DAMAGED IS NOT COVERED BY DEBRIS IN ANY OF THE IMAGES.

The ASCE reported the plane entering that way for a REASON which is that it HAD to in order to explain the anomalous damage to the facade. If you suggest that the plane entered differently than this:


then you open up an entire different can of worms once again showing that the damage to the facade does not make sense.

You see this is why the lies told by the government about 9/11 keep getting exposed. When you tell lies you have to cover it up with more lies and your initial lies end up getting exposed.

Same basic graphics, but thank you for the higher res images of Agustinos' - undeniably better than what I had and useful. The blow-up of the higher res fisheye view from inside does add new info for me - looks kind of like a little "curb" at that spot. ?? Whaddayou make of it?

Curb? Uh no. Looks more like a simple construction flaw or normal progressive damage that typically happens over decades to foundations as buildings settle etc. It's clearly not "damage" from the incident. It doesn't even run in the proper direction.

This one really helps, my favorite but blown up:

Craig, if you're so sure this is a small pile of rubble, where's that rebar sticking out from? Please explain this if you can. And that little piece of riveted rusty-looking metal. I can see that now. Hmmm..

I know what rebar is. And it's quite clear that this rebar is still sticking out from the foundation left over from an outer column that was completely removed in the clean up. There is more in the corner of the image from another column:


Obviously this did NOT come from the foundation itself being damaged because it is sticking up vertically.

No matter how hard you spin to protect the official story it's clear that ALL the evidence points to a military deception.

Eyewitnesses, FDR, as well as physical evidence. The implications are clear yet you STILL insist on tirelessly defending the government lie. Why?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here is another example showing how a real plane would damage real concrete.

i14.photobucket.com...

How does this picture help your case at all? It's scratched, minor glancing damage. right? Wipe off the dust, wet that stuff down like in the Pentagon photos, and it's gonna look shiny new too.

And what is this, an astralite? This seems to under-argue your point.

Under-argue?

So be it. In fact that helps to make the point even more.

If a much smaller plane crash still leaves visible and obvious damage to concrete then naturally we should expect much more damage to the concrete at the Pentagon.

Yet there is not so much as a scratch.

The foundation is just as clean and smooth as the hood of Lloyd's taxicab!


What's utterly perplexing to me is how when presented with evidence like this you are quick to dismiss the reports done by engineers and experts such as the ASCE report or the animation from Purdue:




Both explicitly demonstrate the unavoidable fact that there would be significant damage to the foundation if the plane entered in this fashion.

Both depict the plane entering in this fashion because it is the ONLY way to explain the physical damage to the facade.

If you dismiss the validity of these reports you are simply contradicting the initial damage to the facade and the FACT that all damage was limited to the bottom two floors.

Why do you feel the need to defend the official story even in the face of such blatant contradictions?



[edit on 28-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[mod edit: oversized image changed to link]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Would a bomb effect the foundation? Just curious.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

And you forgot to comment on this previously unreleased image showing the very front of the foundation (that for some reason you seem to think is the only relevant part) completely intact and level.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

 

Would a bomb effect the foundation? Just curious.

Perhaps if one was sitting right on top of it but of course that notion is ludicrous.

The explosives were likely built into the walls and columns during the renovation and placed in very strategic areas so as to mimic directional damage like this:

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Im not a bomb expert, how does one plant bombs during construction to make it mimic directional damage?

Do you have any information as to what construction company did the renovations?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

 

Im not a bomb expert, how does one plant bombs during construction to make it mimic directional damage?

Do you have any information as to what construction company did the renovations?

I'm not a bomb expert either but I do know that "powder monkeys" as they're called in the industry can do pretty much anything.

Especially when they have unlimited time, resources, technology, and access as they would at the Pentagon.

There were many contractors used during the "renovation". If you feel this is relevant to this discussion than go ahead and research it and report back why.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Im not a bomb expert, how does one plant bombs during construction to make it mimic directional damage?

Do you have any information as to what construction company did the renovations?

And how exactly is the government or whoever clever enough to do it all on the day yet completely forget about such obvious things? Not just this but with the proponents of TV fakery as well, they say they are clever enough to pull it all off and produce the evidence yet fail on basic camera angles? It just makes no sense.

Originally posted by apex


And how exactly is the government or whoever clever enough to do it all on the day yet completely forget about such obvious things? Not just this but with the proponents of TV fakery as well, they say they are clever enough to pull it all off and produce the evidence yet fail on basic camera angles? It just makes no sense.

Are you talking to me?

If so your analogy to "tv fakery" is ridiculous.

This is physical evidence.

Using the "government is clever enough to do this so they would have been to do that" argument is a logical fallacy of the highest order that completely ignores the evidence.

Clearly this evidence is not all that "obvious" since CIT is the first to talk about it.

Your post is devoid of answers and amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity based on a false premise and an irrelevant analogy.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Are you talking to me?

If so your analogy to "tv fakery" is ridiculous.

This is physical evidence.
Using the "government is clever enough to do this so they would have been to do that" argument is a logical fallacy of the highest order that completely ignores the evidence.

But why would they be so stupid as to not cover this aspect of it? Surely they had access to people who could simulate it beforehand, so they would know how to make it look exactly right for their purposes.
And also how come it isn't damaged from the rest of the building collapsing onto it? Surely that would do something to the rest of the concrete too, in this image?

Clearly this evidence is not all that "obvious" since CIT is the first to talk about it.

So how come you make it look so obvious?



[edit on 28-9-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


There were many contractors used during the "renovation". If you feel this is relevant to this discussion than go ahead and research it and report back why.

The assumption that this covert operation was done during renovation is relevant to this discussion. I don't know anything about the exploding monkey's, but I do know they would have to get planted DURING the construction and not bee seen by the contractors. Kind of the same way the light poles were planted and Lloyds car was damaged.