John Griffin and the ASCE Report

From: 7 Habits Of Highly Effective Penii (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 22:57:25 GMT

John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in
news:Xns9585B06B7F03thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4:

> 7 Habits Of Highly Effective Penii <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
>
>> John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote
>
>>>7 Habits Of Highly Effective Penii <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
>
>>>> [ "I don't understand it, therefore it didn't happen." ]
>
>>> Anyway, it's hilarious that you think I'm wrong when I mention that
>>> you're a fucking idiot and one of the lamest of the amentia-crippled
>>> fools who swallow those idiotic stories about 9/11 conspiracies.
>>> Clearly, you are.
>>
>>
>> I wrote the first one. Please disprove any or all of it, if you can...
>
> <snicker>
>
> You just saved someone the time, if anyone had any thoughts of taking
> that nonsense seriously. Whatever I've said about it, you said worse,
> namely that it was written by a lame, illiterate fool who believes
> nothing can happen except those things he's equipped to understand.

What does it say of you, John, that you cannot debunk that which you claim
was written by an illiterate fool?

ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
(With Photos)
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

Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757
Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004

Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence indicating a
757 struck the Pentagon. Indeed, there seems to have been no "official"
investigation into this topic at all. Many who claim a 757 hit the Pentagon
cite an American Society of Civil Engineers building study as proof. I
contend that the ASCE report, despite its assumptions regarding the day in
question, actually supports the belief that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

The report, some sixty pages long, was released in January of 2003. Its
stated purpose was not to investigate the events that caused damage to the
Pentagon, but to examine the performance of the building after the incident
in question. It makes certain base assumptions regarding the assumed
presence of a 757, and works forward from there.

While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building
performance report, some of the logic is rather spotty, and the report
seems to include at least one falsehood. Other areas of the report openly
contradict the claims many have made in support of the 757 theory.

The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3,
"Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the
unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly
labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the
many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report
cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757,
their credibility is questionable, at best.

Smoke trail mislabled as 757.

Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching all
the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet
longer than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this
supposed 757 lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate it
is an airliner.

Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.

In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy,
irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of
disinformation is deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE should
correct this report in order to save their credibility. There is nothing in
the still frames that remotely resembles a 757, so it is difficult to
believe a team of engineers could make a mistake of this magnitude.

The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by misrepresenting
the width of the initial impact damage. While the photograph in figure 3.8
indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from the
second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of
four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known
photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of
the report.

Note the fencing in place, where the left wing clearly would have struck,
had a 757 hit the Pentagon.

The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are revealed
only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom floor.

This is crucial, as the small size of the initial entry point, along with
the stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim
that a 757 struck the Pentagon to begin with.

Careful reading of the report shows that only a single column and two
windows from the second floor were removed. This makes the width of the
damage at the top of the entry point somewhere between sixteen and twenty
feet. Of course, part of the top of the column is still evident in
photographs, which calls into question the possibility that a massive 757
inflicted the damage, yet left this piece of the building in position.

Two windows wide, with the top part of the column hanging down. Total lack
of tail damage above presumed impact area.

The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence and
the ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that point.
However, figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of damage.
This confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim, falsely,
that the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and
twenty feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1),
actually refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and not the actual
entry hole.

Deceptively, both missing and damaged columns are assigned the same color.
In the front wall, only columns 10-14 were removed, in fact.

Finally, the diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 show another fallacy of the 757 story,
and illustrate a dramatic lack of critical thinking on the part of the
report’s authors. The supposed exit point of the alleged 757 is commonly
referred to as the "AE punch-out". It was a circular hole approximately
eight feet wide in the rear wall of the Pentagon, where the remains of the
aircraft are claimed to have exited.

An amazing number of columns in front of the AE punch-out "exit hole". Did
a giant pachinko ball strike the Pentagon?

However, as diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 clearly illustrate, at least four columns
remained in place in front of the claimed exit hole. It is difficult to
imagine something with the size and mass required to create this exit point
weaving around the columns like a giant pachinko ball in order to reach the
rear wall and create this circular-shaped hole. This facet of the damage in
not questioned in the ASCE report.

Whatever made this hole couldn't have been a 757, or even a missile, due to
the columns in front of it. Probably man-made.

Furthermore, the supposed 757 engines remain unaccounted for in the ASCE’s
study. With these obvious holes in the 757 theory, and the lack of debris,
supporters of the 757 story are reduced to reliance on eyewitness
testimony. This testimony, hearsay evidence, would not even be allowed in
court unless presented by the eyewitness themselves, and certainly cannot
account for the lack of 757 debris or explain the other serious flaws in
the 757 theory.

There is an ambiguity to the World Trade Center case that allows for
endless debate on the issues involved. There is considerably less "wiggle
room" when it comes to the Pentagon, and that is probably why FEMA
neglected to study the Pentagon at all. A formal report on the cause of the
damage itself would have renewed debate, and put FEMA on the defensive.

Unless definitive evidence indicating a 757 is uncovered, the most logical
conclusion that can be reached when studying all of the available evidence
is that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and a subsequent cover-up was attempted.
And of course, if no 757 struck the Pentagon, then all of the events
surrounding 9/11 must be questioned. I invite all interested parties to
read the ASCE report for themselves and consider the many flaws in this
building performance report.

ASCE Report Online in PDF Format:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html