March 19, 2008
from ThePentacon Website
The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on itís belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring.
They also suggest that the right wing of the
plane had to have been tilted up to account for the generator trailer and
the anomalous damage to the facade.
With a finite amount of space between the bottom two floors and the required wing tilt that they report, the ASCE report illustrates that about half of the left engine would have burrowed into the foundation of the building:
Here is an RB-211 for scale:
The engine is about 6 tons and would necessitate
an incredible amount of kinetic force attached to a 90 ton jet traveling
All of these images from the FEMA site were taken by Jocelyn Augustino on 9/21/2001 just 10 days after the event:
Here are some examples of what a plane crash would do to a ground slab:
What underscores this irreconcilable anomaly is that the topography and trends reported in the alleged FDR prove that the alleged aircraft would have had a noticeable descent angle as reported in our previous article and depicted in these images created by Pilots For 9/11 Truth based off trends in the final values of the 2006 released NTSB alleged black box.
Based on the descent rate provided by the NTSB in the FDR data, due to the G loads required for that vertical speed, it is aeronautically impossible for this aircraft to have pulled out of that dive instantaneously and be level with the lawn as depicted in the 2002 leaked and 2006 released Pentagon security video.
Furthermore, the FDR does not show and has not recorded any positive load required to pull out of this dive.
In fact, it shows less than 1 G for that segment
which represents a "pushing forward" motion on the yoke, as seen in the
animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB (See
Pandoraís Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American
77), instead of a "pulling level" motion required.
The DoD itself called the damage "counter-intuitive".
The animation released by Purdue University actually omits the engines from the airframe and does not continue vertical stabilizer path, most likely due to the fact they cannot account for the lack of damage observed at the pentagon from these heavy airframe structures.
Questions like this are why so many who research 9/11 initially had issues with the Pentagon attack.
The anomalous damage and lack of parts recovered
- which were never positively identified as having come from American
Airlines Flight 77, nor will government agencies release such information
via FOIA, giving unlawful excuse to withhold this information - is just as
observably questionable as the collapse of WTC 7.
Witness list has been
Government agencies refuse to comment and mainstream (and some alternative media) refuse to report it.
Attention to this important evidence is paramount to exposing the 9/11.