| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Vent Structure Damage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 15 2008, 05:16 PM (1,290 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Jan 15 2008, 05:16 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Many people have talked about the damage to the vent/exhaust structure on the alleged left engine trajectory - where it was said to be basically scraping the ground. Indeed, the damage lines up. ASCE:![]() For those who don't know this is it, zoomed in From Darryl Donely's photo: ![]() Locate that same spot in this Ingersoll photo, note also the angled 'doors' (I'm not sure what exactly) and you have a basic idea of the scale of the vent structurre - mostly recessed below ground level. ![]() Here's an above shot during cleanup - things are moved around: ![]() source: Desmoulins Some cite the back wall being gone as evidence the engine took it out entirely. I'm leaning towards there never was one. ![]() What's between the walls is less studied. We'll look at the 'doors' last. First the two intact structures on the left (as seen above): these are intact and in all photos. Cool. Boring. Next: the one on the right, at the entry corner. In the overhead shot, it's gone - just a base. In early shots it's barely visible. I've looked everywhere and cannot see the top of it, just the edge. but it seems to be a panel/door, perhaps pushed down, definitely tilted at an angle relative to the walls, and bent at the corner nearest the engine entry point. Note also a large gap between these spots - something is missing. ![]() Composite from above photo and an Ingersoll shot: It's got power cables... foreshortening here is tricky - that extra concrete edge is the far side of its footprint, so we're also seeing a good length of its underside here. Then the easternmost structure, top center in the overhead shot: again in later shots this is just a footprint, its top stuff removed. I propose this is where the angled 'doors' originally were, before being spun off to the left by something. Note in the overhead shot, where it's been moved and re-oriented, the right-hand door has a distinctive line of black stuff, and a missing corner. ![]() Here are some useful very close-ups of the doors, from three Ingersoll shots, in which it's clear they are propped open by a rectangular object off-cenetered between them (green-gray). Note different lip styles on each door, apparently designed for inter-locking, and a long section of black molding hanging off the left door at a smal bit of missing far corner(?). Note the hinge arm thing and possible power cables hanging under the right door. Hinge arm, unclear half-tube shape and more cables hanging under the left. In the top shot note also in the background a tipped Bobcat dozer/forklift, a possible clue to what was going on there at impact time. In the bottom shot note a pile of dark stuff on the right door, the 'grime line' previously discussed, and faintly the broken, bent section of lip, which is revealed as well in this Jocelyn Augustino photo from September 17. Note that with the object propping the unit open removed, the left side seems to sag at an odd angle. ![]() Compare that to this, a cropped J. augustino photo (index no. 4891, available at this page). ![]() Same grime, proportions, lip - and a corver curved on a scale of several feet. I'd guess this was right on a path between that retaining wall chip and the foundation damage. Also note at left what I think Desmoulins labeled 'scorched metal' - its properties indicate ventialtion ducts. ![]() See also my blog: Vent Structure Damage Two direct indications of engine damage, plus missing stuff, a pile of vent metal, another skewed and bent lid, drawing a line through the vent structure on the official trajectory leading to the limited foundation damage at the left engine's impact point. If a very low plane didn't do this, then how? Was it too staged in advance? |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 15 2008, 05:50 PM Post #2 |
|
If you accept the notion that this damage was caused by an RB-211 you open up a whole host of other problems with the physical evidence. First consider the cartoon like curvature of the damage as if it was perfectly punched out by the bottom of the engine: ![]() But look at the size of the curve compared to the spools right next to it: ![]() Now compare that with the size of an RB-211: ![]() It seems the perpetrators (and some 757 impact conspiracy theorists) expected us believe that similar cartoon like curves were created by the engines on the fence to the generator trailer AND the tree up by the light poles: ![]() Unfortunately for the official story this cookie cutter anomalous damage raises more questions than it answers. The vent structure damage was allegedly caused by the left engine while the fence damage was allegedly caused by the right engine. They are irreconcilable with each other and the alleged impact of a 757. The obvious problem here is that if the plane was low enough to cause either of them the damage to the generator trailer itself would not be limited to the top corner of the trailer. ![]() ![]() (The bend in the top corner to the trailer was likely simply caused by the raging fire melting it. ) The ASCE report answers this conundrum by suggesting the right wing of the plane was tilted up like this: ![]() But if this was the case they have even MORE issues. Now the damage to the generator trailer and the cookie cutter curved damage to the fence going all the ground makes even less sense. Plus there is a groove in the trailer that has been alleged to be caused by a flap track in the wing of the plane but this is clearly impossible when demonstrated with this image (courtesy of Undertow with P4T) showing how the flap track wouldn't touch the generator at all: ![]() It also shows how the fence damage is irreconcilable with the reported tilt. Even more egregious......if the left engine was low enough to damage the retaining wall, and if the plane was tilted as the ASCE reported........the massive 6 ton engine would have burrowed into the foundation of the building as the ASCE illustrated here: ![]() Yet not a single image with foundation damage can be found anywhere and all images show the foundation untouched all the way to the C-ring: ![]() ![]() ![]()
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 16 2008, 05:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 15 2008, 05:58 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Let's not forget that the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo which would prevent this from jiving with the left engine. I think Craig pretty well handled it. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 15 2008, 06:19 PM Post #4 |
|
Here is a better image depicting the wing tilt and how irreconcilable the damage to the fence would be if the left engine hit the vent structure. (Get that edit button going Gid!)
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 16 2008, 04:39 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
Okay, so I'm getting that a plane's engine wouldn't make that neat and round of damage. So this is another fx snafu then I take it. So they faked it just a little too perfect, and by what means? I am having a weak start here and no time to go point-by-point on all the above right now. I'll address all concerns soon. |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 10:10 AM Post #6 |
|
Re-read the post if you don't understand but please try to refrain from over-simplifying my point. Besides the fact that the curvature in the fence, retaining wall, and tree is clearly cookie cutter and anomalous showing blatant signs of pre-fabrication.... The fence damage is irreconcilable with the wing tilt, the generator damage, and the vent structure damage that has a curve that is even too small for an RB-211, the descent angle reported from the trends in the FDR, AND of course the lack of foundation damage. |
![]() |
|
| Bonkers | Jan 17 2008, 09:36 AM Post #7 |
|
As for the curve of the RB-211, how much of the outer engine housing is "solid," or is it a thin housing over the bypass duct? What is the alternative explanation? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 17 2008, 10:07 AM Post #8 |
|
Doesn't really matter much since if the engine was really that low at that point and the plane was really tilted as reported by ASCE the left engine would also burrow into the foundation of the building yet there is no foundation damage from the alleged plane at all. Plus the damage to the vent structure and the generator trailer/fence is also irreconcilable with the tilt.
Pre-fabrication. |
![]() |
|
| Bonkers | Jan 17 2008, 11:29 AM Post #9 |
|
Is it possible that the impact with the wall caused the engine to detach from the wing? How fast would the turbines have been turning at that point? I seem to recall once reading that engines use specail "breakaway" bolts, although I wouldn't wan to be in a plane where the engine broke loose in mid flight. |
![]() |
|
| Bonkers | Jan 17 2008, 11:36 AM Post #10 |
|
A thought just occured to me. Is it possible that that "vent" was in fact a part of the pentagon's ground to air missile defense system just disguised to look like an air vent? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 11:44 AM Post #11 |
|
-
Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 12:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 19 2008, 05:11 AM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't know how thin, but yes, it's just a casing.
Could be, but it's pretty well disguised if so. Either way, something damaged it and I don't see too many good options open.
Let's not forget the plane approached low as everyone reported, with no flyover witnesses and one pull up witness only who seems to be lying and isn't in the Citgo video where he says he is. If it were low it'd have to impact. If it impacted it came from the south and this would be its left engine damage. ![]() As for Craig and the cartoonishness of this damage, that is kinda curved isn't it? Everybody knows when round things hit flat things, it comes out - what, random? Little wiggles and jagged edges? Heck, this looks almost melted, like a massive friction burn or a lot of energy transferred into it by some massive physical force. Def. too fkake to be real, so clearly fabricated again in a way that doesn't even LOOK real. OOps again for the DoD psyops door-bengers/concrete smashers/generator arsons/fence rippers/tree pruners/pole stashers/etc... Certainly cartoonishness should be a tip-off that something ain't right. Sorry I missed that.
safe bet, and I agree I think. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 19 2008, 05:18 AM Post #13 |
|
Deleted User
|
Oh and the foundation damage. Do we have polls here? I'd like to put this one up for vote. This the part of the foundation where the engine is said to have hit just after tearing thru the vent structure (and also apparently a construction trailer it obliterated). Is this, as Craig has said, a pile of rubble on top of undamaged foundation? It's at only that spot, with the rest of the floor cleared. The edge is visible across except at that very spot. I challenge anyone to find a photo anywhere of that spot cleared. I want to see intact concrete at that spot, cleared, right angle edge visible, etc. Is there not at least a hint also to this pile of concavity, partly beneath the floor level at a spot it shouldn't be if intact?
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 19 2008, 05:24 AM Post #14 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
source please. also: ![]() ![]() question: how did the plane and its engine rip thru where u allege, WITHOUT knocking down the spools? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 19 2008, 05:54 AM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Alright, a little real-time interaction but too late. After this it's to bed. Source: Nobody knows exactly what hit where for sure, but by everything combined the left engine would have to hit very low at about column line 11. For example: ![]() Mlakar, Paul F., Donald O. Dusenberry, James R. Harris, Gerald Haynes, Long T. Phan, and Mete Sozen. “The Pentagon Building Performance Report.” American Society of Civil Engineers. January 2003. ISBN 0-7844-0638-3 ![]() Their engine underground graphic is wrong of course - the right wing was probably slightly lower than that and the left higher, probably the whole plane a foot or so higher, plus there's the wings probably breaking up at this point so not all angles have to be perfect. For L-R placement it has to be about perfect. And that is the lowest point of the plane, the one spot we might expect direct edge-on damage (otherwise, further in, it'd be glancing and minor enuff it could be hidden under mud). ![]() I guess this is the best graphic I have handy to show where the engine would hit relative to photos. Compare to the little pile that won't go away. ![]() Oh, and also the engine went to the left of the spools. Being nine-feet high, the wing above them. The're too close to account for that, less than 4.5 feet or so from the center of the gouge? Careful - remember perspective. |
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 19 2008, 06:55 AM Post #16 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
so no one specifically stated that "This the part of the foundation where the engine is said to have hit"? so what you're asserting is your own deduction? im not trying to argue/debate it, i just want to know clearly if there is an official record that has stated that. sorry but im not convinced. no way a plane passes over or near those spools without knocking them over. you are wrong about placement, sorry i dont have fancy graphics to prove it, but examine ur pic again: ![]() in order for the plane to knock out the piece you allege and still avoid hitting the spools, its LEFT wing would have to be extremely tipped/tilted down. the engine isnt far from the fuselage, so to have that fuselage out of the way, the plane would almost have to be completely sideways (left wing tilted down). of course thats impossible cuz then it would gouge the ground and cartwheel the plane instead. you are further restricted by trying to keep the plane within the rightengine/fence envelope. NO way the wing on the left could hit that curb, while the fuselage avoids the spools, and still have the right wing/engine tear thru the fence. and while we're on it, no way that the right wing nacelles would have gouged downward on the trailer. if the right engine hit the fence, then the trailer should have been knocked into a spin by the frontside of the wing or engine. ever see a copshow where a car runs a red light and t-bones someone else? imagine a 757 t-boning the trailer. it wouldnt have just a gouge or 3, it would have been knocked to high hell in a clockwise spin. if the plane was anywhere near the orientation you suggest, then everything in between and past should be knocked down or around. the left side of the fence, the wooden stairs, the construction office, the spools, they should all have been impacted if the plane was in a position to hit that curb on the left. anyhoo, sorry man- but you're asking for way too much suspension of disbelief here. even minus the fuselage problem, i dont see how the wind coming off and around the 757 wouldnt knock the spools over, and that curb is no taller than 1 foot. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 20 2008, 05:57 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
I don't know if anyone's said that or not. It might pop up in a report talking about the condition of the columns. It's gotta be it to within a foot or three. All sourrces agree on impact area, app. bank angle and impact height, and the damage itself only leaves so much wiggle room. So I dunno if someone else says so or not, but if you asked them to specific I'm sure they would. So... Alright, there's no way this and that in your opinion. Why not whip up some graphics to demonstrate this geometrically? You can scan my blog BTW: scene mapping Always with the spools - look, two ARE tipped over, one of these warped by something, probably the fusealage/left wing root. The others were just to the right of that at impact apparently and were heavy enough they weren't knocked over. This is just another 'they faked it but wrong and us geniuses are so smart we can see it all' bullshit observation. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |



































7:22 PM Jul 10