Re: The Undamaged Pentagon Column

From: lensman1955 (lensman1955_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: 10 Sep 2004 10:28:49 -0700

glennab1@aol.com (1aircraftQAguy) wrote in message 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."
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Now do you see why the wall failed and the columns showed cracking and
> spalling.
>
> Probably not..........

"Smaller words, you're losing Anarch Peak!"

Quantcast