The Kook Physics Of The Undamaged Pentagon Column

From: All Seeing Eye Love Lucy (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: 10 Sep 2004 15:51:04 GMT

glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
news:a83bb3a1.0409100035.732f90fa@posting.google.com:

> Anarch Peak <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
> news:<Xns955F7CCD8189Dspamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> news:a83bb3a1.0409090456.1df7e70a@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Anarch Peak <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns955E86F1FE7CFspamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409072224.718f53a5@posting.google.com:
>> >>
>> >> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<Xns955D712F783D5spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> >> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409062311.b5b8e91@posting.google.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:<Xns955CD7B6E9EF0spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> >> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409061709.627ea1c6@posting.google.com:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > "C-Fresh" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:<Xns955C85222BD45spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
>> >> >> >> >> glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409060002.7d48b53e@posting.google.com:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > "Homeland_Insecurity" <insecurity@homeland.net> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:<n1L_c.24394$lv3.7907539@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> >> >> >> >> >> "1aircraftQAguy" <glennab1@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >> news:a83bb3a1.0409051140.3187d8f@posting.google.com...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message
>> news:<633b063b.0409050253.1253ab23@posting.google.com>...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > "Homeland_Insecurity" <insecurity@homeland.net>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote in message
>> news:<Izw_c.11758$lv3.5567285@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > "AbsolutelyCertain" <easily@entertained.net> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > in message news:chdeb2$9bm$0@pita.alt.net...
>> <stuff snipped for space>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > According to the ASCE report, 8 columns
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > directly in front of and
>> in the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > pathway of this punchout are structurally
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > sound. Some of these
>> don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > even show any cosmetic damage, yet we wuz able
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > to get dat dare AE
>> drive > > > > punch out hole from moving debris.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Can you review the report and find it?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > From shrieking to this? Nice.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > I never liked the "Booster Gold" response myself! If
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > you have the information, post it. If you've already
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > posted it, provide a link to the post or post it
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > again. And again and again and again if you have to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > until you've made your point.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "According to the ASCE report, 8 columns directly in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > front of and in the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > pathway of this punchout are structurally sound. Some
>> >> >> >> >> >> > of these don't even show any cosmetic damage"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > He has provided more evidence of his lying to support
>> >> >> >> >> >> > his theory.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Huh, lets take a look.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Yeah, you should..... and even look again!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Pertaining to the 8 columns directly in front of and
>> >> >> >> >> >> > in the pathway of this punchout: Figure 7.9
>> >> >> >> >> >> > http://bedoper.com/pentagon/asce/ Which states:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cracking and spalling, but no significant impairment
>> >> >> >> >> >> > function"
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Figure 7.9 pulled from the ASCE report states "no
>> >> >> >> >> >> significant impairment in function".
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Since when is "Cracking and spalling, but no
>> >> >> >> >> >> > significant impairment function"
>> >> >> >> >> >> > equivalent to "structurally sound. Some of these don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > even show any cosmetic damage"
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Since you become a mental midget. Review 2A, moron. See
>> >> >> >> >> >> the correlation.
>> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=
>> >> >> >> >> >> sig nif ica nt& x=2 1&y=17
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Hey dumbass, you wrote "Some of these don't even show any
>> >> >> >> >> > cosmetic damage." For your info, cracking and spalling
>> >> >> >> >> > is much more than cosmetic.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> Can you find the secret text in the ASCE report?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Can you convince your *** buddy to tell us?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Aren't you the one with *** buddies? ...... prison
>> >> >> >> >> > bitch.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Harvard Debate Team, I see...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That must be your team, because we're the MIT team......
>> >> >> >> > Which one has the technical background?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, I'm amazed with your technical skills.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thank you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> If you look at the legend, the column directly in front of
>> >> >> >> >> the "punch-out" shows NO DAMAGE:
>>
>> >> >> >> > Is that what is taught at Harvard? To mislead, basically to
>> >> >> >> > lie? All of the columns "directly" in front of punch out are
>> >> >> >> > yellow, which have cracking and spalling damage. You must
>> >> >> >> > be refering to the column to the side of the punchout.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Graphic here:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
>> >> >> >> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I guess you haven't noticed that the punch out hole is offset
>> >> >> > differently in Figure 6.2 than Figure 7.9.
>> >> >> > Neither Figure shows an undamaged column directly in front of
>> >> >> > the punch out.
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >> >> I do notice you're ignoring the entire issue, at this point.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've noticed you always say something like that when you've just
>> >> > avoided something!
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you study the diagrams, and tell my why those columns
>> >> weren't damaged or destroyed, but the wall was.
>> >>
>> >> If you can.
>> >
>> > Well "my" the aircraft was basically shredded and flowing around the
>> > columns, however there were some metals that didn't shred.
>> >
>> > The columns were much stronger and had less surface area than the
>> > wall.
>> >
>> > F = A x P applies. Can you figure that one out?
>>
>> Flowing around the columns?
>
> You better straighten out those PhD CE's, I believe they used the word
> "flow or fluid."

You believe?

>> And then joined together again to make a round exit hole in a wall?
>
> The mass of debris was not only acted upon by the columns, it was also
> acting upon itself. Any force in one direction was countered be an
> equal force in the oposite direction. Mr. Newton again.

"opposite".

What the hell are you talking about?

>> Who do you expect to swallow this?
>
> I didn't think you'd attempt F = A x P
>
> It's a simple formula for figuring force or pressure applied to
> something, when either force (F) (In pounds) OR pressure (P) (In
> pounds per square inches, psi) and the surface area (A) (In Square
> inches) to which the pressure or force is applied is known.
> In this case we don't know the exact pressure or force applied to the
> columns and wall, however it's safe to figure they were pretty much
> equal and constant, so the exact pressure or force isn't crucial for
> this example.
>
> The impact surface area of the wall is many times greater than that of
> a column. That is the key to the walls failure.
>
> So, let's plug in some numbers for surface area and use the same
> random number for pressure applied to both the column and wall to
> compute the comparable force applied to each. I'm going to
> overestimate the columns dimensions and underestimate the well
> dimensions, so we will know that in actuality the difference would be
> considerably greater than shown.
>
> If the column is 12' tall and 21" wide it has an impact surface area
> of 3,024 sq. in.
> If the punch out hole has a diameter of 10' it has an impact surface
> area of 11,304 sq. in.
>
> If you apply 10 psi to both the column and the wall, forces equivalent
> to 30,240 pounds were applied to the column and 113,040 pounds were
> applied to the wall.
>
> The force on the wall was well over 3.5 times greater than that on a
> column (up until failure point). Actually, the force on the wall
> would continue to build up at a greater rate than that of a column,
> since the column allowed the debris to flow around whereas the wall
> didn't.

That was some impressive nonsense.

You do realize that a good many columns were completely taken out or
heavily damaged, right?

> Now do you see why the wall failed and the columns showed cracking and
> spalling.
>
> Probably not..........

Silly talk.

Any mass that had force enough to make that hole would have done more than
minor damage to the columns.

And to talk of the "757" weaving around columns is absurd.

Pachinko ball!

>> >> >> Quibble over semantics.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Semantics" has basically been your sides whole issue. Hasn't it?
>> >> > The "meaning" of the ASCE report?
>> >>
>> >> Erm, no. How about the obvious lack of the 757 and accompanying
>> >> damage in the photos, for instance?
>> >> But keep dodging.
>> >
>> > So, you don't want to see it? I know, you have too much time
>> > invested in this to back down now.
>>
>> Please show us a 757. Or, barring that, since you can't, I will settle
>> for starboard engine damage and tail damage.
>
> There are pictures of engine parts in front of the Pentagon,

Really? Got a cite for this?

> inside
> the Pentagon and in the AE drive, do you think they're only from one
> engine?

Well, since Pentagon people claimed the other engine flew over the
Pentagon...

Be careful you don't talk yourself into a corner.

> The tail, like most of the aircraft is unrecognizable without closer
> inspection.

And how did it end up inside the building, again?

>> >> >>There is no way anything made the punch-out while at the same time
>> >> > avoiding >the columns.
>> >> >
>> >> > So the punch out was produced by magic right? Maybe aliens?
>> >> > Maybe an inside job? Maybe the 757 wheel that was found outside
>> >> > the hole? Maybe just the mass flow? One thing you're not taking
>> >> > into consideration is; we don't know what the Pentagon interior
>> >> > layout was like, (walls, corridors, obstructions, etc.) it all had
>> >> > an affect on the mass flow. > 'effect'
>> >>
>> >> Is that paragraph above the best explanation you can muster?
>> >
>> > It was quite a bit more than your response. Just add it to
>> > everything else I've written......... And yours...... pretty much
>> > the same, as usual.
>>
>> You're essentially just making things up, now. You're comparing a 757
>> to liquid, and saying it flowed around the columns, then rejoined to
>> make a hole in a wall.
>>
>> Sort of like Terminator 2?
>
> No, a fluid, sort of like the towers when they colapsed, churning
> debris, yet flowing.

"collapsed"

Ah, silly talk.

>> >> > The columns were avoided? where? Oh yeah, that single column
>> >> > adjacent to the punch out hole.
>> >>
>> >> Right. The wall was damaged heavily, the column not at all?
>> >
>> > And you decided that based upon what?
>> > The way I see it, the damage to that one column isn't addressed by
>> > that figure.
>>
>> There was no damage to that column. The other columns showed only
>> superficial damage.
>>
>> Impossible.
>
> Cracking and spalling isn't superficial!

"No significant impairment in function".
 
Cosmetic damage.

>> >> > The one with the odd color code that
>> >> > doesn't match any in the table. Hmmmmmm
>> >>
>> >> The table legend reads 'undamaged'.
>> >
>> > Maybe for all the gray colored columns around the perimeter of the
>> > damaged area, but not that single dark gray one.
>>
>> They are all gray, which means "undamaged". Keep squirming.
>
> Isn't it odd that all the grey columns match the grey legend and this
> one column is a darker grey than all the rest?

The one that is in the dark grey triangle that shows the damage area? What
are you accusing the ASCE of? Not dumbing it down enough for you?

There's a two-toned one to the left of that. Part of it is shaded, and part
of it is not. Are you saying this is meaningful?

The column directly in front of the "757", before the exit hole, showed "no
damage".

Squirm away...

>> >>If the best you can do is accuse me of
>> >> editing photos, I don't know why you bother.
>> >
>> > Is that what I did? Why, do you feel guilty?
>>
>> You really suck at this.
>
> Because you're getting your ass kicked!
>

Ok, General Custer...

ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

New Online Video Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro
Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537