3) You would have to read the exit hole page in detail. Don't skip over it and then ask questions please. I am aware of a couple of errors, one regarding the "rebar" I mentioned that is not actually rebar. My belief about the exit hole does not immediately make sense in light of a plane also hitting the building.
All right, Russell, I have done as you asked, and read your Exit Hole page and your notes on the ACSE investigation in detail. I have also read the ACSE / NIST report on the Pentagon from cover to cover.
The relevant page on Russell's site is here:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/094.html
A few more comments on the exit hole:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/105.html
ACSE / NIST Pentagon Building Performance Report:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
First, let me summarize Russell's argument. This is found on the first link I have above. I assume these words are Russell's unless noted otherwise. Please let me know if this is incorrect; in any case, I feel it safe to say that you support its contents.
Russel Pickering @ Pentagon research said:
COLUMN DAMAGE FALSIFICATION?
If you look at the building diagram above you can see that the damage to the columns generally decreases from the impact point to the exit hole except in two areas - the two columns right next to what they refer to as the "opening through roof" (white rectangle) and what should have been a blue or red column at 5N North.
Russell is here referring to the damage chart describing columns on the first floor, found on Page 53 of the NIST study (page 32 of the PDF file). Russell is claiming that column 5N North was more damaged than the graphic indicates.
Russell Pickering @ Pentagon Research said:
Now look at 5N North and compare it to 3N North. They were both rated yellow. I would suggest that anybody can see the difference between the two and that 5N North is significantly more damaged than "cracking and spalling". Why would they misrepresent the damage to column 5N North unless they were hiding something?
Russell presents a picture showing Columns 5N North and 3N North. Unlike the other photos in the NIST study, this picture was taken prior to removal of debris. Hand tools appear at right in the photo, suggesting cleanup was underway at the time.
Russell Pickering @ Pentagon Research said:
There was more force directed on this line [See graphic inset -- Russell indicates a line to the right of the aircraft's direction of travel, aligned with one possible path of maximally damaged columns] than on an imaginary one to the exit hole.
Add the falsification of the condition of pillar 5N North and it really becomes obvious that there was another source of energy in that area which caused the exit hole and the anomalous damage to 5N North.
So let me summarize Russell's position. And keep in mind that
he accepts Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
1. The ACSE team was obstructed from seeing Pillar 5N North. Instead, the FBI tricked them by giving them false information.
2. This was done because the United States Government didn't want anyone to read the report and notice unusually high damage to pillars near the exit hole.
3. This is because something else happened, something in addition to the plane crash, that damaged Pillar 5N North and made the exit hole.
4. This hypothesis is corroborated by the apparently higher damage path that passed several feet further to the right of the exit hole, proving that the exit hole was not at a point of maximum energy from the aircraft.
5. Russell has no idea what it is that They are covering up, only that "something happened" that they don't want to reveal.
Let me start from the top.
1. If you actually read the Building Performance Report, you will find that the ACSE was principally concerned with the structure's
collapse response following the aircraft impact and subsequent fire. The study focuses on issues of previous building standards, quality of materials, testing to see if the structure lived up to its specification, failure modes of columns, failure modes of beams and slabs, and finally -- most importantly -- where, how, and why it
collapsed.
There is very little attention paid to the exit hole, or indeed anything that happened in the rear of the structure, towards the C Ring and AE Drive. The collapse affected the outer E Ring, and was fairly small in area. About the exit hole, the Report says the following:
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16). The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building. The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately 225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.
And that's... pretty much it.
As far as "obstruction," the Report does -- as Russell so boldly points out -- say that they "attempted" to examine all of the affected pillars, but could not. Again this does not surprise me, as the Pentagon was the site of firefighting, search and rescue, and then reconstruction efforts, and all the while was an operational facility. I will merely point out that the Report nowhere states even the faintest complaint, nor intimation that lack of access hindered their investigation.
As for Pillar 5N North, this is what the report says, from Page B14 (Page 44 of the PDF File):
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
5N-North ................. Damaged (per FBI)............. (photo) N/A
... and
that's it. Pillar 5N North is in fact one of
twelve for which there is no photo, and one of six for which data comes "per FBI."
Pillar 5N North is in company, and being at the very back of the building -- farthest from the collapse area -- has almost nothing to do with the central focus of the report, viz. the collapse. It is therefore
entirely expected that the ACSE would not pay much attention to it.
Russell's Point 1 is rejected.
2. Let's look at what Russell says Uncle Sam was so afraid of. Here's the chart from the Report, with a few annotations by Russell, as found at his website linked above:
So down at the lower right, that little yellow square -- Russell is saying that should really be
blue or even
red.
That's what they're covering up, folks. Honest.
The ACSE Report has some interesting things to say about the randomness of damage. From Page 28 of the report (page 20 of the PDF file):
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
Columns and beams along the path of the debris and within the fire area were damaged to varying degrees. Some columns and beams were missing entirely (figure 5.17), while others nearby sometimes appeared unscathed.
In other words, some randomness is expected, and was even observed. This surprises no one who has any conception of the energies and complexity involved. Nonetheless, Russell would have us believe this
one instance of randomness -- even if it was real, which has yet to be proven -- would be such a grave threat to National Security that it's been covered up. So grave, indeed, that he considers it proof of the Conspiracy.
Russell's Point 2 is rejected.
3. Let me briefly consider the exit hole. As I noted before, the ACSE Report really doesn't care about the exit hole. It was far from the region of collapse, and had no significant structural impact, since the hole did not affect any structural members (page 6 of BPR, page 9 in the PDF):
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete. The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows.
I assume the other exterior walls were similar -- that appears to be true, given the photo of the hole, thus we assume the exit hole hit an area of unreinforced brick. This is not a materially load-bearing part of the structure. It would thus be relatively easy to punch a hole through, and is meaningless for the purposes of their survey.
So what did happen there? Well, the Report surmises that much of the damage caused on impact was due to essentially fluid effects, rather than blunt trauma caused by large fragments of aircraft. The failure modes of the columns bear out this theory (page 29 of BPR, page 20 of PDF):
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
Several columns were substantially distorted, exhibiting lateral displacement at the column midheight equal to at least three times the diameter of the spiral cage. Some highly distorted columns were bent in uniform curvature with discrete hinges at each end (figure
5.20), while others were bent into triple curvature (figure 5.21). In these cases, the vertical column steel remained attached to the foundation below and the second-floor beams above (figure 5.22). The deformed shapes of the columns with this damage were smooth curves: generally they did not have discrete deformation cusps.
[Page 40, page 26 of the PDF:] Several columns exhibited severe bends. However, the predominant evidence suggests that these columns generally did not receive impact from a single, rigid object. Instead, the deformed shapes of these columns are more consistent with loads that were distributed over the height of the columns.
Interesting, huh?
In this case, it is completely reasonable to conclude the exit hole, in the weaker, unreinforced brick part of the wall, was
not punched out by a solid piece of debris, but was instead a failure due to sheer overpressure. The direction of the aircraft's travel and Bernoulli's Theorem make the exit hole point right where you would expect it.
This is a hypothesis, not proof, I freely admit. It is also completely possible that a lucky solid piece of debris just happened to hit there. But to say the hole is in the wrong spot without
much deeper analysis is, simply, a lie.
Russell's Point 3 is rejected.
4. As we have just seen, the damage path through the first floor of the Pentagon was really a fluid phenomenon, not a scattering of large debris. In this case, we should think instead of a total energy created by the impact, and also think about dissipation.
In a failure mode of this type, basically a jet of superheated gas and small bits of debris, the primary mode of dissipation will be through
turbulence. This can be seen in the column damage photos contained in the BPR (but be careful to distinguish impact vs. fire damage). Columns first lose their outer shell, followed by erosion down to the rebar, then are bent, then ultimately tear loose when the rebar stretches past its plastic limits (page 48 of BPR, page 30 in the PDF):
ACSE @ Pentagon BPR said:
The photograph in figure 7.5a shows a column that had been torn off of its supports. Figure 7.5b is a close-up of the ends of the fractured reinforcing bars.The necking of the reinforcing bars is evidence of the proper performance of the bar anchorages. If energy absorption is a design objective, the evidence suggests that spirally reinforced concrete columns are the right choice.
So what about that "path of greatest damage?"
In reality, that is the "path of greatest
energy absorption." Along Russell's line to the right, there are the most columns missing and heavily damaged. And, hence, the most energy dissipation.
There is no way to conclude, again, that the exit hole (or another one) should have appeared to the right. It is far from "obvious" as Russell claims.
Russell's Point 4 is rejected.
5. I don't know what They would have to cover up in the building either. I note that Russell does not have a complete theory, only a perceived anomaly. Not good enough. Point 5 is rejected without further comment.
Let me instead get to the heart of the matter. For Russell, it all comes back to Pillar 5N North. Russell has a "Smoking Gun" in this case -- a photograph that "proves" the Building Performance Report is wrong. Remember, the Report said that 5N North was "Damaged."
Here's the photo:
I make the following observations:
- The pillar has DEBRIS in front of or on it, and we cannot even see the pillar itself
- The pillar is obviously present, so it is not a "red" classification
- The pillar appears to be straight, admittedly hard to tell, so probably not a "blue" classification
- The pillar appears to be holding its load, so "yellow" seems appropriate
But from this one, obstructed picture, it is
impossible to say with any certainty what that pillar's true state is. It might even be completely undamaged!
That's it! That's Russell's evidence and Russell's complaint. And I rest my case.
------
Russell Pickering, I thank you for finding some information. I've learned a few things from you. But to be a good researcher takes more. While you may be good at finding information, your skills at assimilating and interpreting that information are, to put it mildly, lacking.
Why you thought, on the basis of that inconclusive photo, you knew more than the ACSE team, I cannot understand and will not let slide unchallenged. Only three days ago I
nailed you for lying about Government obstruction. Don't make the same mistake twice.
I can help you understand what happened, Russell, but only with your participation. Please respond -- and it darn well better not be another
asinine cartoon. I will interpret that as a sign of complete surrender.
)