Visualizzazione post con etichetta -English. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta -English. Mostra tutti i post

"Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all

by Enrico Manieri - Henry62
.
Adapted and translated by Paolo Attivissimo with the author's permission.
Original Italian text is available here.
.
.
UPDATE - April 28th, 2009
.
According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni.
The editor in chief has resigned over the incident.
Says Pileni:
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”
.
-----<>-----
.
Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.
The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.
  • Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;
  • alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;
  • photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;
  • DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.
These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.
The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.
.
.
The debate regarding the collapse of New York's Twin Towers as a consequence of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been revived by a study published by a US journal: "Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe" (Bentham Science Publishers).

Some of the authors of this study, such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, are well-known for their strong support of so-called "conspiracy theories". The main author, Danish chemistry professor Niels Harrit, has also stated publicly his unorthodox views on 9/11 in writing and in TV appearances. However, I will not deal with who supports these theories. Rather, I will simply assess the conclusions and facts stated by these researchers. The authors claim to have analyzed debris dust from multiple New York sites located in the vicinity of Ground Zero, finding particles characterized by the presence of two layers, a red one and a gray one, joined in a wafer-like arrangement.

Analysis of these layers showed the presence of elements that can be observed in spectra.

- Red layer -

The red layer shows the presence of carbon, oxygen, iron, zinc, aluminum, calcium, chromium, silicon and sulfur. The authors write that the presence of calcium and sulfur might be explained by the dust generated by the gypsum wallboard that was abundant in the Twin Towers. The other elements are always present in various analyses carried out on the four samples studied in the paper. Therefore, attention is called to the constant presence of carbon, oxygen, iron, aluminum and silicon. Chromium and zinc are instead said to be present, but it is not clear in which samples they were found, since the caption of Figure 14 of the paper (shown below) suggests that the finding was occasional (note the word "sometimes").

The red layer appears to be porous and composed of particles having various shapes (faceted and laminar), embedded in a matrix that holds them. The faceted particles are rich in iron and oxygen (probably crystals) and the laminar ones are rich in silicon and aluminum. Carbon does not appear to be present specifically in the particles, but seems to be distributed within the matrix.

The porous region of the red layer, analyzed after soaking in a strong solvent, shows instead the presence of oxygen and silicon as well as carbon and iron.

- Interface between red and gray layers -

Spectral analysis of this separation region between the two layers shows the presence of oxygen and carbon.

- Gray layer -

This layer contains carbon, oxygen and iron. BSE (Back-Scattered Electron) imaging of this gray layer reveals lighter shades than the red layer. This means that the red layer is made of matter whose atomic number is, on average, lower than the matter that constitutes the gray layer. Optical and electron microscope imaging also shows that the red layer has a larger particle size distribution than the gray layer, with evident porosities and heterogeneities, in sharp contrast with the compactness of the gray layer. Both the red layer and the gray layer are sensitive to a magnetic field. In summary, the two layers, despite their different appearance and color, are found to have an extremely similar chemical composition. In particular, the red layer has a carbon-rich matrix that embeds crystal-like particles rich in oxygen and iron and other laminar particles rich in silicon and aluminum (page 15 of the paper).

- Use of Methyl-Ethyl-Ketone (MEK) -

The authors immersed samples of these particles in a bath of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours in order to separate the elements of the red layer. They claim to have thus obtained, in addition to considerable swelling of the matrix of the red layer, segregation of the aluminum. They also claim that this demonstrates the presence of elemental aluminum. However, it is trivial to find that the reactivity of MEK with light metals, and particularly with aluminum, is well-known, as reported for example in this Italian document, which states (in translation, emphasis added):

10. Stability and reactivity The product is stable in normal conditions of storage and use. Heat or fire can cause the release of carbon oxides and vapors that can be harmful. Vapors can form explosive mixtures with air. Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum, and with strong oxidizers: it attacks various kinds of plastic. Unsuitable materials: natural rubber, butyl rubber, EPDM, polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, Polyacrylonitrile. Suitable materials: stainless steel, carbon steel, polyester, Teflon.

If the intention of the researchers was to break up the carbon matrix of the red layer to allow analysis of the nanoparticles embedded in it, the result regarding the presence of aluminum does not appear to be compatible with this goal, since it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum. This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions. The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive. From a commodity point of view, MEK is sold for the following uses (translated from Italian):

"Methyl-ethyl-ketone - Used as a substitute of acetone when it is necessary to use a less volatile solvent, it dissolves shellac, rosin, cellulose resins, epoxy resins, many phenolic and acrylic resins, polystyrene etc. It is a component of vinyl and nitrocellulose paints. Methyl ethyl ketone is also suitable for cleaning instruments and tools and for washing impurities and chemical products off mechanical parts."

A data sheet of the product is available here (in Italian). Going back to the analysis of the red player, the iron-rich particles exhibit a simultaneous abundance of oxygen, with a 2:3 proportion of iron to oxygen. This means that these particles are Fe2O3, i.e., iron oxide. The simultaneous presence of iron oxide and elemental aluminum thus leads the authors to the conclusion that this is thermite. However, we have seen that the presence of reactive metallic aluminum is not at all beyond doubt. I believe, therefore, there is good reason to question this forced conclusion, which contrasts with the rules of chemistry. The authors claim to have found nanoparticles of elemental aluminum, which cannot be all that reactive if they remain unchanged after 55 hours in a methyl ethyl ketone bath (in other words, one can deduce that they should be surrounded by a compact layer of aluminum oxide, a material that withstands extremely high temperatures and has a very high hardness), yet react violently already at 430°C to trigger a thermitic reaction.

- Misleading comparisons -

In their study, the authors support their conclusions by showing charts of spectral analyses of various samples. – Combustion products of commercial thermite:

- Spheroidal particles found in Ground Zero dust some time after the collapse and after work to demolish and clear the rubble had begun:

This is a clear attempt to influence the less than careful reader by suggesting explicitly the analogy between the analyzed samples and the products of thermite reaction, without investigating whether a similar spectrum might be due to other causes and reactions. In other words, the authors jump immediately from the incorrect assessment of the presence of highly reactive elemental aluminum to the (evidently highly desired) conclusion that the collapse of the World Trade Center involved some sort of thermitic reaction of a mysterious product that is triggered at low temperature, provides twice the energy of ordinary thermite, and is characterized by the presence of nanoparticles that give explosive properties to a substance that otherwise is only an incendiary. These are dramatic claims that need to be backed by equally dramatic evidence, not by suggestions. Let's now consider the energy issue.

- Thermal DSC analysis conducted in air -

The authors analyze the behavior of the samples when heated in air in a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The result is that all the samples begin to burn in the temperature range between 415 and 435°C. In some cases, the heat generated by the exothermic reaction reaches 7.5 kJ/g. After combustion, spheroidal particles are found in the porous burned residues. Some of these particles are rich in iron and other are rich in silicon (which is transparent and translucent). These particles indicate that high temperatures were reached as a result of an unspecified chemical reaction (which begins at 430°C!). According to the authors, this reaction can only be thermitic. In particular, therefore, the authors claim (page 22 of the paper) that a highly exothermic reaction, such as to generate temperatures of approximately 1400°C, needed to melt iron and iron oxide, was triggered at only 430°C. What this thermitic reaction that is triggered at 430°C might be is not known, since the ignition temperature of commercial thermite is higher than 900°C. The authors seem to have failed to consider that the matrix of the red layer is highly abundant in carbon and that carbon has a lower heating value (or net calorific value) of 34.03 kJ/g, whereas thermite releases 3.9 kJ/g in combustion. In other words, one gram of carbon releases, in combustion at constant pressure, more than eight times the energy released by one gram of thermite. Since the measurement was performed in air (why? Is this another rather embarrassing error in methodology, after the MEK blunder?), one cannot exclude the combustion of carbon, which is instead highly probable. In order to obtain reliable results, since thermite does not require an oxidizer from the external environment, the DSC measurement should have been conducted in an inert gas environment (with nitrogen or argon).

The conclusions of the study are obviously favorable to the "alternative" hypotheses. In other words, they suggest that a nanothermite-based substance was used on 9/11 in the Twin Towers and was applied by unknown means, in unknown locations, at an unknown date by unknown individuals, yet it was able to cause the collapse of the two giant steel buildings and of the relatively smaller WTC7 building. Here are the conclusions as stated in the article:

- Remarks -

After examining the paper, which we can now describe as pro-conspiracy in its conclusions, I would like to present a few thoughts and consider whether there might be other working hypotheses that should be examined before jumping to the hasty conclusions presented in the paper. My memory goes back to photographs like these:

These pictures show parts of the structural steel of the Twin Towers preserved by NIST. Since these buildings were entirely made of steel and stood in a brackish environment, one of the builder's main concerns was to protect the steel adequately against corrosion by setting high quality standards for the protective coating. Here are some documents related to the standards agreed by the Port Authority, owner of the Twin Towers, with the suppliers of the corrosion-proofing coating (source: NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, page 302 onward):

These documents and others presented in NIST's final report allow to determine the methods used to provide the corrosion-resistant coating and the quality control tests (source: NIST NCSTAR 1-1A, page 146):

It is very important to know the chemical composition of the paint used, which was the following (source: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 147 onward, "Appendix D - Forensic thermometry tecnique development"):

Here we find that a substantially oily and resinous base (linseed oil and alkyd resin) contained a mixture of the following substances

as pigment:

Fossil flour is an opacifier constituted essentially by silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, iron oxide and other impurities. It is added to paint to give it an opaque finish and a rough feel when dry, so as to provide grip for subsequent spray-on fireproofing. The dried resinous and oily base might be the organic matrix that constitutes the base of the red layer, which is rich in carbon and, as shown, may have a primary role in the release of energy during the combustion process. In practice, the red layer of the wafers identified by the researchers contains exactly the same elements that we now know were present in the corrosion-resistant coating used during the construction of the World Trade Center, including the organic base constituted by linseed oil and alkyd resin. It's not just a matter of the same chemical elements being present. The presence of fossil flour in the paint, too, is compatible with the porosity observed in the samples of the red layer. If one considers, moreover, that mica is also often present in fossil flour, then the presence of laminar particles mixed with crystalline particles of iron oxide might also be explained. The gray layer, which as noted is rich in iron and oxygen, might be linked to a green corrosion-proofing paint (Tnemec Green Metal Primer, page 303), used extensively to provide markings on steel and explicitly listed in the materials supply specifications, or to a bonding agent used during construction to fix thermal insulation and soundproofing elements. Could this type of paint peel off, forming the small flakes found in Ground Zero dust? We can refer to the photographs provided by NIST to document its research aimed at determining the temperatures to which the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers were exposed. Some of these pictures, shown below, show the behavior of the corrosion-resistant paint used in the WTC when exposed to heat.

These pictures show that the coating, when subjected to temperatures above 250°C, begins to break up in irregular patterns and can flake off surfaces if subjected to impacts. For temperature far above 250°C, the coating separates completely from the part to which it was applied and the organic component undergoes combustion, causing complete separation from the steel and simultaneously producing a layer of dark burned residues. This result is compatible with the description given in the paper:

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust."

The corrosion-proofing paint used in the WTC was tested by NIST by subjecting it to 650°C for one hour. Combustion of the organic matrix occurred, but the paint was not reduced to ash. Bearing in mind the passive fire-retardant protection of the perimeter columns, one can notice that the inward face of the many columns that composed the building faces was protected by panels of vermiculite, i.e., by panels of a lightweight aggregate of magnesium phyllosilicate, trivalent iron and aluminum, which is generally found in the form of laminar or sheet-like particles. Vermiculite used in the building sector is obtained by baking micaceous rocks and is used as a heat insulation and soundproofing product. One should also bear in mind that mica is a combination of chemical substances that have the following chemical characteristics:

Mica classification:

Chemically, micas can be given the general formula

X2Y4–6Z8O20(OH,F)4

in which:

  • X is K, Na, or Ca or less commonly Ba, Rb, or Cs;
  • Y is Al, Mg, or Fe or less commonly Mn, Cr, Ti, Li, etc.;
  • Z is chiefly Si or Al but also may include Fe3+ or Ti.

Structurally, micas can be classed as dioctahedral (Y = 4) and trioctahedral (Y = 6). If the X ion is K or Na the mica is a common mica, whereas if the X ion is Ca the mica is classed as a brittle mica.

These panels were bonded by means of adhesive to the internal face of the columns, in direct contact with the corrosion-proofing paint. Vermiculite has practically no structural strength, and its use is limited to thermal insulation and soundproofing work. If impacted, it breaks into pieces. The Twin Towers contained enormous amounts of vermiculite in direct contact, by means of adhesives, with the painted face of the perimeter columns. Yet the researchers that signed the study do not appear to have considered and investigated correctly this possibility before claiming residues of "active thermitic material" in Ground Zero dust.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other English articles:

Clamorosa fotografia, probabilmente inedita, dal Pentagono?

di Enrico Manieri - Henry62



English abstract (translated and adapted by Paolo Attivissimo)
.

A member of the US military has sent me a remarkable photograph of debris which seems to be traceable to "Flight 77".
The source claimed that the picture was taken by the civilian driver of the vehicle that is partially visible in the photo.
The location is the "A-E Drive" of the Pentagon, in the days after 9/11.
The photo should be considered with caution, as is appropriate for any picture release so long after 9/11, until further confirmation can be obtained.
The picture had already appeared here on September 17, 2007:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15013&st=60


but I had received it at an earlier date.

A piece of debris on the left of the pile seems to resemble a gear strut of a B757-200.
There also seems to be a portion of an engine compressor stage, and two disk-like objects which closely resemble the wheels of a 757, with traces of what may be wire-like ply cords from the tires.
The masonry of the wall appears to be quite similar, in shape and structure, to the wall of the Pentagon's "A-E Drive".
I am asking for the help of aviation experts in identifying the parts shown in the photograph or determining whether they are compatible with parts from a Boeing 757-200 with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines.
Here is a link to a post about skid-steer in A-E Drive of the Pentagon.
Thank you very much. .
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGGIORNAMENTO IMPORTANTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..

Una clamorosa fotografia, molto probabilmente inedita, di rottami, che sembrano essere riconducibili al Volo AA77 che colpì il Pentagono, ci giunge dagli Stati Uniti.
Chi ha fornito l'immagine, un appartenente alle Forze Armate americane, dice che la stessa è stata ripresa dall'operatore del mezzo meccanico che si intravvede parzialmente nella fotografia.
Per coerenza con quanto ho sempre pubblicamente affermato, ritengo sia doveroso attendere per avere conferme, dato che immagini che escono dopo svariati anni dai fatti devono essere valutate sempre con grande attenzione (volevo dire "sospetto", ma ho preferito essere più ottimista...), quindi, pur consigliando sempre cautela, ritengo di dover pubblicare comunque l'immagine perchè è giusto che debba poter essere conosciuta anche dal pubblico italiano..
Fatte queste doverose premesse, a parziale supporto della originalità dell'immagine, che sarebbe stata scattata da un civile nel "A-E Drive" del Pentagono nei giorni seguenti il tragico 11 Settembre 2001, segnalo che si può scorgere, nel lato sinistro del cumulo di rottami, una parte che presenta forti analogie con lo stelo del carrello anteriore del Boeing 757/200, la cui presenza all'interno del Pentagono è ben documentata sia da immagini che da filmati.
Il muro dello sfondo sembra essere, sia per estetica che per modalità costruttive, in tutto uguale a quello presente nel corridoio carrozzabile del Pentagono e che separa i primi tre anelli dai due più interni.
Oltre a numerosi rottami di lamiere che potrebbero essere riconducibili a tecnologia aeronautica, si vedono alcune parti che potrebbero invece essere più facilmente riconosciute da parte di chi avesse competenze specifiche nel settore dei motori aeronautici.
L'immagine è questa (clickare sull'immagine per vederla ingrandita):
.
Vediamo ora alcuni particolari ingranditi dell'immagine.

In questo particolare si scorge una porzione di quello che potrebbe forse essere lo stelo di un carrello di atterraggio principale, ma la mia è solo un'ipotesi che sottopongo ai miei lettori più esperti di questioni aeronautiche.
.

- Parti del motore -





- Parte del carrello principale -

In questo documento è possibile vedere il carrello principale del Boeing 757/200 per poter fare un confronto. In particolare, significativa è questa immagine:
.

Effettivamente le analogie sono evidenti, soprattutto nella struttura interna del carrello.
A questo punto, quindi, potremmo parlare di parte del carrello principale di un Boeing 757/200, con i copertoni che sono bruciati, lasciando in evidenza l'armatura di fili metallici racchiusa all'interno della gomma.
.
. =<>=
Pur restando sempre molto ben ancorati ad un "sano" scetticismo, chiederei la collaborazione dei lettori che abbiano specifiche conoscenze tecniche nel campo aeronautico per tentare una "individuazione" dei diversi pezzi presenti nell'immagine e verificarne la compatibilità con la componentistica di un Boeing 757/200.
Naturalmente se avrò altre novità provvederò ad aggiornare il post. Per documentazione in merito alla presenza di "bobcat" nel "A-E Drive" del Pentagono, si veda questo articolo.
=<>=
.
L'utente Wells, sul blog Undicisettembre, comunica che in questo link c'è una copia dell'immagine in oggetto.
La data del post è 17 Settembre 2007, decisamente successiva a quella in cui ho ricevuto il messaggio con l'allegato.
Ringrazio Wells per la segnalazione; vorrei comunque sottolineare che il mio atteggiamento, fin dalla partecipazione al primo programma televisivo SpecialeTG1 dedicato all'attacco al Pentagono, è di massima cautela di fronte ad immagini, come questa, che escono dopo anni dai fatti.
Segnalo inoltre queste discussioni in cui si è parlato della fotografia in questione:

.

NIST confirms "UPS" on 81st floor of WTC2 was power supply; may explain glowing "fountain"

by Paolo Attivissimo (published in this blog with the author's permission),
based on research by Enrico Manieri (Henry62)
.
Traducción al español - Traducido de la versión inglesa por Red crítica del 11-S con permiso del autor.

.
.
- ABSTRACT -
.
A remarkable glowing fountain of material (shown here) which flowed from the 80th-81st floors of the South Tower shortly before the building's collapse has long intrigued 9/11 researchers and inspired many conspiracy theories.
In 2006, researcher Enrico Manieri suggested that this fountain might have been caused by the catastrophic shorting and meltdown of a large UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) battery backup system installed by a tenant.

NIST has now confirmed that such a UPS was indeed located on the 81st floor, providing strong backing to Manieri's suggestion.
Accordingly, conspiracy theories involving thermite and similar incendiary compounds are not the explanation that best fits the known facts.



.
Background: the glowing fountain
.
Apparently incandescent material was seen to flow and splash out from a window on the 80th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) around 9:52 AM, a few minutes before the tower's disastrous collapse at 9:59 AM.
The flow was located on the north face of WTC2, near the east edge.




This event was essentially unique: no other similar conspicuous flows were observed anywhere else in the Twin Towers or in other buildings affected by the 9/11 attacks.
NIST did report (NCSTAR1-5A, Chapter 9, Section 9.3, page 331) a six-second "shiny silver string" of "liquid pouring intermittently" from a window on the 78th floor of WTC2.
The material "looked as if it was glowing", but as shown by the picture on the right (Figure 9-32 of the NIST report), this was an extremely modest phenomenon, exhibiting none of the conspicuous yellow-red glow and splashing, fountain-like behavior of the event on the 80th floor. Some alternative theories regarding the 9/11 attacks consider this more conspicuous fountain as evidence of intentional demolition of the Twin Towers, performed by using thermite or similar compounds to melt and cut through the columns.
The glowing fountain, according to these theories, would be an effect of this melting process. However, such theories fail to explain why no other fountains were seen anywhere else. These theories also overlook a very important fact: the glowing fountain was located where the debris of Flight UA175 exited from the building (an engine, a landing gear and a fuselage section were found). This might not be coincidental. The large fountain on the 80th floor of WTC2 is discussed in the FEMA report and in NIST's NCSTAR1-5A report, Chapter 9, on pages 374-387. NIST notes that the flow began intermittently at 9:53:51. At 9:57:32 the flow "increased dramatically" and remained "nearly continuous until the tower collapsed".
Moreover, NIST notes that the amount of falling material was "large"; in other words, this was a substantial phenomenon. Here are some photographs of the glowing fountain, taken from the NIST report.



And here is a video of the fountain, from Youtube.
 
.

.
UPS vs UPS?
.
NIST speculates, in the chapter cited above and in its 2006 FAQ, that the fountain "could have been molten aluminum" from the Boeing 757 aircraft, which is largely made of alloys of this metal whose melting points are well below steel's.

The molten metal might have pooled within the building and then, as the floor trusses of the 81st and 80th floors failed and tilted, found a path to flow outward.
However, some rather unusual clues found by Enrico Manieri suggested in 2006 an alternative explanation.
NIST's NCSTAR1-1 report, which discusses structural alterations to the Twin Towers made by their tenants, shows that the part of the building where the glowing fountain occurred had been altered: specifically, the so-called "two-way trusses" (the trusses that span the corner area of each floor of the building) had been reinforced on the 81st floor in 1991 "in area occupied by United Parcel Service" (NCSTAR1-1, page 136).



The same alteration is mentioned in the NCSTAR1-1C report, on page xlviii, but with a slightly different wording which will turn out to be very significant: instead of referencing "United Parcel Service", it uses only the acronym ("UPS").


The same acronym turns up in the NIST report (NCSTAR1-1C) again in relation to alterations made by tenants to reinforce structural members: remarkably, it appears in the only two reported reinforcement alterations made to WTC2, as shown below.


Curiously, the floor is the same (the 81st), the trusses are the same "two-way" ones, but the year is given as 1999, not 1991, and the tenant is Fuji Bank.

Note that as mentioned, these are the only reinforcement alterations to WTC2 reported by NIST.

There is no mention of United Parcel Service being a tenant who made reinforcement alterations to the 81st floor. Moreover, the "UPS" referenced here does not stand for United Parcel Service, but for Uninterruptible Power Supply.

This is the name given to battery-based systems which must ensure the continuous supply of electric power for computer rooms and electrical medical devices which cannot tolerate the slightest power outage.
A bank, such as Fuji Bank, would certainly have an uninterruptible power supply for its computer systems.

These power supplies are extremely heavy: basically, they are massive racks of lead batteries, which would undoubtedly warrant truss reinforcement.
It is instead quite unlikely that Fuji Bank would perform very expensive truss reinforcement work to accommodate a United Parcel Service workspace. There's more.

In the NIST reports there is no mention of United Parcel Service ever being a tenant on the 81st floor of WTC2 at all, regardless of any alteration work.
And NCSTAR1-1H provides a list of all tenant alterations (including non-reinforcement work, such as installing an escalator) to WTC2.
 
In this list, shown below, Fuji Bank is given as a tenant of the 80th and 81st floors in 1990. Its locations are the northeast and southwest parts of the floor (the northeast part is where the plane exited). There is no mention of United Parcel Service.
 

Taken literally, these items of information would suggest a rather bizarre scenario, in which the 80th and 81st floors of WTC2 were occupied by Fuji Bank in 1990, then by UPS (United Parcel Service) in 1991, when it performed expensive truss reinforcement work, and then by Fuji Bank again in 1999, when Fuji Bank, too, performed further expensive truss reinforcement work, to accommodate a system known confusingly enough as UPS (uninterruptible power supply).
 
Another, perhaps more plausible scenario is that the single mention of United Parcel Service in the NIST report is simply a typo.

Someone read "UPS" and typed in "United Parcel Service", a more familiar concept that "Uninterruptible Power Supply".
After all, the wording is exactly the same on page 136 of NCSTAR1-1 and on page 50 of NCSTAR1-1C, except for "UPS" being expanded to "United Parcel Service".
If so, Fuji Bank would simply have been a tenant on the 80th and 81st floors since at least 1990 and would have reinforced the trusses to place a massive battery-backup system in 1999.

Why is all this important?
 
Because if there was an uninterruptible power supply on the 80th or 81st floor, in the northeast corner, the impact of the aircraft and the collapse of the floors above, with their conducting metal parts, would have caused countless short-circuits of the batteries, providing currents of tens of thousands of amps (as calculated in this article), which can produce unimaginable thermal effects.
 
In addition to this, abundant hydrogen, which is highly flammable, is generated during the shorting of a UPS system (it is also generated during normal operation, hence the need for special ventilation, firefighting equipment, and restricted access), and it is well-known that batteries are prone to explode in case of fire (hence the warning printed even on small AA batteries).
This inferno would have easily melted the lead of the batteries, whose melting point is even lower than aluminum's and is well within the temperature range of a building fire and far lower than the melting point of steel.
This would have allowed the molten metal to flow without damaging the steel columns, which is what the visual evidence shows.
In other words, the catastrophic shorting and meltdown of a UPS system would provide a very plausible and simple explanation for the glowing fountain.

.
NIST's confirmation
.
Henry62 contacted NIST to suggest this second scenario.

On March 17, 2008, he received the following e-mail from Michael E. Newman, spokesman for the NIST WTC Investigation (bold added):



"Enrico,
modifications were made in 1991 to reinforce the 81st floor of WTC 2 in an area occupied by the United Parcel Service.
Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.
Both of these modifications are documented in the section of the NIST WTC Investigation Report known as NCSTAR 1-1C (go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf).
What is perhaps confusing is that both modifications were made to areas where there are two-way trusses (the corners of the building) and the acronyms (UPS for "United Parcel Service" and "uninterruptible power supply") are the same.
However, these modifications were made eight years apart for two different tenants, so there is no link between them.
I hope this answers your question.
Thank you,
Michael Newman Spokesman, NIST WTC Investigation "

NIST, therefore, confirms that an Uninterruptible Power Supply system was located on the 81st floor of the South Tower, where the glowing fountain was observed.
 
In other words, there is a clear explanation for this phenomenon which does not require the involvement of thermite or other unlikely conspiratorial technologies.
As regards NIST's statement that United Parcel Service was indeed a tenant of the 81st floor, we are awaiting a clarification from the company.

.
=<>=
.Other articles in English language:
.




Why Pentagon damage is incompatible with a missile attack

by Enrico Manieri - Henry62
.
Translated and adapted by Paolo Attivissimo with the author's permission.
The original Italian article is available in the author's 11-Settembre blog.
La versione originale italiana di questo articolo è sul blog 11-Settembre dell'autore.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------
.

"Alternative" theories claiming that no hijacked aircraft struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have recently resurfaced. In the case of the WTC attacks, the sheer number of eyewitnesses and the abundance of evidence are sufficient to show clearly the absurdity of these "no-plane" theories. However, the matter is quite different for the Pentagon strike and therefore deserves further discussion.

If we assume that no plane hit the Pentagon, then we are invariably faced with the alternative suggestion of a missile. A truck bomb is absolutely out of the question because of the utter lack of evidence for this kind of attack.

It should be noted that some alternative theories suggest that the Pentagon was indeed hit by an aircraft, but not by Flight 77. Such theories consider a drone or a smaller aircraft. Either way, they imply the impact of an aircraft and as such cannot be considered "no-plane" theories and are beyond the scope of this article.

The missile theory had been sidelined because many, in the US 9/11 truth movement, felt strongly that the lack of clear audiovisual evidence of the impact of AA77 was a sinister booby-trap prepared by US authorities to ridicule once and for all the entire truth movement at the appropriate time (for example, by releasing new footage or pictures, or by showing the debris of AA77 set up in a hangar). However, a 2007 speech by the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro, in which he accused the US government of orchestrating a colossal criminal operation with vast media coverage to conceal what he believes was a coup, has given new life to the missile theory.

Castro in fact claimed that "only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane". He is certain that no plane hit the Pentagon and that one of the many missiles in the US arsenal was used instead.

I entirely disagree with this theory, because not only there is no evidence to support it, but there is, in my opinion, considerable evidence that allows to rule it out. Let's examine this evidence in detail.

I will not focus on the individual types of ordnance available in the US military arsenal or on the acronyms that identify the various missile types and flight profiles. Specialist websites already cover these in excellent detail. Rather, I will deal with the main evidence at the crime scene which allows to exclude the possibility of a missile attack at the Pentagon.

First of all, let's consider the only characteristic of a missile attack that I think is worth examining in detail: the angle of the attack profile. Here are some frames of special high-speed footage taken during test firings in US proving grounds, which I think speak more clearly than many words.

Vertical attack

Horizontal attack

Effects on the target

The pictures show clearly that the missile is not designed to explode upon impact against the target (in this test, a reinforced-concrete structure). It must penetrate the structure, piercing its hardened outer shell, and then detonate inside it, producing a pressure and thermal gradient whose effect is actually enhanced by the resistance provided by the structure.

In practice, penetration is achieved thanks to the kinetic energy of the missile and to the use of penetrators made of steel and, more recently, titanium, which enclose the explosive charge.

When detonation occurs, the entire structure is subjected to extremely intense stresses from the inside outward, due to the detonation of the explosive charge carried by the missile body and of any ammunition stored inside the target.

This is clearly visibile in the picture below, which shows that the entire structure is affected simultaneously and in all directions with the same intensity.

Obviously, the effects of the explosion are greater if the volume inside the target is small and if there are few pathways for venting the overpressure. An explosion in an open space is less destructive than the same explosion in an enclosed space.

Therefore, the asymmetries of the various observable macroeffects are not linked to the directionality of the stresses but to the different resistance provided by the materials and the design of the interior cavity in which the explosion occurs.

The explosion of a conventional demolition charge occurs in any case according to a rough symmetry, linked mostly to the shape of the charge and the resistance of the container, but in large spaces these effects in practice do not have a clearly identifiable role with respect to the extent of the resulting destruction.

In theory, the detonation speeds of high explosives allow us to model, as a first approximation, the explosion of a charge of this type as a static point-like charge which develops its effects spatially with a spherical geometry.

For particular applications, such as the interception of rapidly approaching airborne targets, missile charges have been developed which have a directional distribution of the effects of the explosion (shrapnel distribution and pressure wave). The purpose of these charges, which take advantage of particular geometries of the explosive and employ multiple-trigger electronic systems, is to maximize the destructive effects in the chosen direction, reducing the spatial dispersion of the pressure gradient and especially of the shrapnel formed by the charge container.

This requirement arises from the need to minimize the weight of the charge, accordingly reducing the total weight of the missile: this allows to increase its agility in performing course corrections and its maximum speed, and also allows to reduce the flight time to engage the threat.

Directional charges, therefore, are conceived to be used with point-like targets (to concentrate the effects of the explosion on a small surface, to overcome the resistance of the target and destroy it, as in the typical case of armor piercing), or to create walls of shrapnel and high-pressure regions in specific portions of space, in a direction which is not aligned with the missile axis (a typical example is the use of directional charges that explode at right angles to the trajectory in order to strike a target as the missile flies alongside).

The presence of a directional charge does not imply at all that the effects of the explosion, especially within an enclosed space, are nonexistent in the other spatial directions. An explosion is in practice an instantaneous phenomenon, which triggers subsequent mechanical phenomena related to the repeated impacts of secondary projectiles which draw their kinetic energy from the force impulse received during the explosion.

The trajectories of these secondary projectiles are a bundle of straight lines which converge at the point where the charge is located.

Of course, the first-approximation model stops when the pressure waves strike the resisting structure, because at that point the reaction of the target is tied to the actual characteristics of the medium and of the structures that are hit (pressure and thermal gradient, resistance and resilience of the materials, type and uniformity of the materials, presence or absence of discontinuities between the resisting elements, impulsive resistance of the materials to the impact).

Models for studying impulsive phenomena are very complex, indeed because they cannot be approximated by derivable functions. By definition, a function, in order to be derivable, must be continuous, but this makes it impossible to use such functions to approximate impulsive phenomena, which by definition are not continuous. It is necessary to resort to advanced computational systems, which are in any case approximate and are normally presented in higher-level courses on mathematical analysis or in the teaching of mathematical methods for engineering.

Certainly it is not appropriate, here, to delve into such models, because the challenge would be truly difficult and would require a solid experimental stage. However, for the purpose of this discussion it is sufficient to bear in mind that the detonation of a main charge is substantially omnidirectional and is intended to shatter the resisting structure from the inside, generating the maximum possible number of secondary projectiles (shrapnel, impacted objects which in turn strike other objects) having an extremely high kinetic energy, in addition to pressure and thermal peaks capable of disabling personnel and equipment.

Also, we must not forget that wave phenomena, essentially of the pressure-related type, are affected strongly by reflection and refraction. The direction of the motion of the missile, instead, does not have a substantial effect on the mode of detonation, because the time frame after initial impact is extremely small.

Analysis of the trajectories of the secondary projectiles allows to identify easily the position of the charge at the time of the explosion: it lies at the vertex of the three-dimensional bundle of trajectories of the secondary projectiles. To trivialize matters extremely, a missile is merely a vehicle which carries a bomb into a target.

The vertical or horizontal mode of target attack is chosen only to facilitate this task of the missile: to achieve penetration of the target and "deposit" a bomb, which then explodes.

These concepts are clearly shown by the final frames of the two image sequences shown above. The effects of the explosion are in practice undistinguishable in a horizontal or vertical attack. They are the same: what changes is only the path along which the charge is deposited inside the target.

Clearly I am greatly simplyfing the matter, but all this allows us to understand that the choice of the angle of attack does not depend on technical issues of the vehicle, but rather on the tactical requirements of the target (e.g., a surface target masked or not by other buildings) or by operational requirements (striking sites below ground, as in the case of underground command bunkers) and on the structural features of the target (weak points such as air intakes).

One other variable that needs to be considered is that the flight profile of the missile affects considerably the surprise effect and the ability of the target to react preventively. This is why cruise missiles usually are terrain-following, i.e., they fly at very low altitude, following the contour of the terrain according to computerized maps stored in their guidance system. This flight profile allows to use the shape of the terrain to avoid radar detection and any local defense systems.

The Milosevic photo

The effects of missile-related explosions on a non-reinforced building are quite evident, as shown by the well-known picture of Slobodan Milosevic's home, hit by missiles of this kind.

This photograph is featured often in Internet articles that analyze the damage to the Pentagon and is usually "interpreted" in a distorted way to provide support for preconceived theories. Let's try to analyze it correctly, in order to find aspects which may be useful in a subsequent investigation of the Pentagon event.

First of all, the explosion effect inside the target is absolutely evident. Note the effect on the eaves, which "swell" upward and outward. The severed column on the upper floor has been pushed outwards, the ceiling is gone and the roof has exploded upward (notice the edge of the floor slab, which has failed, and the downward bulge of the portico ceiling).

The missile easily penetrated the masonry and exploded in the rooms at the rear, which were completely devastated by the shockwave. Their non-bearing walls collapsed outward completely. These walls were certainly weaker and their collapse provided ample pathways for the outward venting of the pressure peak.

Debris was propelled at quite a distance from the building in all directions, in a pattern which is compatible with the presence of interior obstacles which hindered force propagation. The arrangement of the debris is certainly not due only to the vertical collapse.

However, the most interesting evidence is the least evident. Note the corner of the house that lies to the left of the struck portico, especially the correspondence between the damage on the inner edge (which has been affected more) and the outermost one.

The damage to both edges clearly shows that they were hit from the inside of the portico outward, with a pressure wavefront and with secondary projectiles which expanded (and therefore progressively decreased their energy) as they advanced away from the portico: this means that the forces were directed from the inside of the building outward.

Other evidence would be observable in a higher-resolution version of the photograph, but what we have is already enough to make our argument quite solid. Let us now try to understand, at least on a basic level, the structure of the Pentagon in the impact area.

The Structure of the Pentagon

A brief summary of the construction features of the Pentagon is needed in order to place the analysis in context. The Pentagon has five floors above ground level and at least two basement floors (not all information is reliable, due to obvious secrecy reasons). It was built in haste (between 1941 and 1943) during World War II, with a particularly strong reinforced-concrete structure based on concrete columns with a steel spiral reinforcement which enclosed the core with the steel reinforcement rods.

Viewed from above, it appears to have five pentagonal concentric rings, labeled A-E from the innermost one to the outermost one. Structurally, however, it was built in independent sections.

The large horizontal surface and the small number of floors allowed to erect the Pentagon rapidly because work was carried out simultaneously on the various sections (wedges). Each wedge was connected to the adjacent ones by expansion joints which also provided an appropriate structural response of the building to temperature variations.

The Pentagon has five concentric rings when viewed from the air, but its cross-section reveals that there are actually only two separate rings, because there is a first outer block (rings E-D-C), followed by a ground level drive ("A-E Drive") and by a second block, which forms the innermost rings (B-A) starting from the second floor.

The vertical supporting structure of the Pentagon consists of columns which belong to three types, characterized by 6, 8 and 10 vertical rods forming the reinforcement of the central core, around which the strengthening steel coil winds. The assembly is filled with concrete. The ground floor is essentially built on columns with 8 or 10 rods, while the upper floors typically have 6-rod columns.

The remains of this particular metallic reinforcement can be seen in a portion of one of the destroyed columns of the Pentagon:

At the ends of each column, the metallic reinforcement is linked to the floors slabs, consequently providing a structure of great strength, rigidity and load-bearing capacity both for compressive stresses and shear stresses.

The picture below shows the damage to column 3L in the region where it was tied to the upper floor slab, which in this specific case is the ceiling of the ground floor (first floor in US English) and the floor slab of the first floor (second floor in US English).

Column structure, therefore, can be shown schematically as follows:

The picture allows to appreciate the robustness of the assembly and the interlocking of the ends of the column in the horizontal structures, which in turn are particularly strong and based on a grid of reinforced concrete beams.

The diagram below shows schematically the structure of a floor slab:

Combined with the veritable forest of columns that supports it, the floor slab is a highly resistant yet slender horizontal structural member, which played a very important part in the building's response to the attack.

This structure was enclosed by a composite outer wall, with 6 inches of Indiana limestone as its outer face, followed by 8 inches of brick and, at the columns, 10 inches of concrete.

In the renovated section affected by the attack, the windows were blastproof and weighed 1600 pounds each. The panes were 1.5 inches thick and mounted on steel frames which in turn were supported by steel supports linked to the floor slabs, creating another very tough assembly.

The inner masonry also included a thin layer of Kevlar embedded in the plaster in order to provide better resistance of the wall against penetration of shrapnel or bullets of portable weapons and to reduce inward projection of debris in case of an impact against the building's face (secondary projectiles which in an external impact would detach from the wall even in the absence of direct piercing).

The damage to the building has already been described in this article (in Italian), which also offers a tentative reconstruction of the events linked to the attack.

The picture below shows the area to the left of the main entry hole in the building, immediately after the attack and before the impacted section collapsed.

Therefore, prior to the collapse, the damage reported and documented in the ASCE report can be summarized schematically as shown in the picture below, which clearly shows the portion of the building face that was penetrated.

The following pictures summarize the level of the damage inflicted inside the building to the individual columns.

First floor (second floor in US English):

The plan view of the ground floor, the one most directly affected by the impact, shows that the damage lies along a bundle of preferential directions, which are aligned with the direction from which the aircraft originated. Indeed, some internal columns, which were knocked down but remain attached at their base, show the same inclination with respect to the building's face.

This, in itself, in the light of what has already been discussed with regard to missiles, casts strong doubts on any theory which explains the damage to the Pentagon with an explosion inside the building. One should also refer to this article by Mother (in Italian).

In an explosion, one would expect the destruction to radiate in all directions from the point of explosion, generating a substantially spherical region of equivalent damage (i.e., of damage of the same level). Such a region would be circular in plan view. The main trajectories (substantially pressure-related effects) and the trajectories of the secondary projectiles (mechanical effects of objects which in turn have been struck by main effects) would belong to a single bundle whose vertex would lie at the point of explosion.

Besides the bundle of main trajectories of destruction, another aspect which is highly "suspicious" if one assumes a missile-related explosion is the progressive narrowing of the damaged region, with a highly elongated roughly conical shape, which contrasts sharply with what is actually known to occur in explosions caused by missiles.

If one considers that the level of destruction is roughly associable with the level of energy transferred to the structures, it is very difficult to think that an omnidirectional explosion could cause, inside a building with large interior spaces which are mutually equivalent in terms of structural strength, a highly elongated pattern having a practically triangular cross-section in plan view, and in which the energy-related effects decrease only in one preferential directions, without any indications outside that affected region.

These two aspects alone completely rule out the possibility that the Pentagon might have been hit by a missile. If we then consider that the floor slabs remained substantially intact, with no craters in the floor or in the ceiling, the theory of a missile explosion becomes totally unfounded.

In this regard, one only needs to view the following pictures, which clearly show that the floor slabs, where they failed, were not affected by high-explosive detonations: they were only affected by localized stesses caused by leverage of the nearmost column, which due to shear stress disrupted the integrity of the horizontal member. Here are a few examples of these localized failures.

First-floor slab:

Ground floor ceiling:

One might object that the region being discussed was not actually affected by the structural collapse and that in the collapse area things might have gone quite differently. Not so: the evident asymmetry of the damage with respect to the collapsed region is in any case evidence of high directionality of the damage wrought to the building and is inherently incompatible with the effect of high explosives.

Another aspect to be considered is the condition of the debris. Along the path of the cavity, the debris was distributed randomly: this is hardly compatible with the impulsive effect of an explosion. This concept deserves an explanation because it is more the result of empirical findings than of mathematical models.

The area where an explosion has occurred is usually clear, because the rapid expansion of the gases produces a very violent displacement of anything that is affected by the explosion.

This impulse is instantaneous, and in practice it entails that objects having similar shapes and densities receive the same force and fall at a certain distance from the point of explosion. It is unlikely to find a bed of debris of various shapes, weights and densities mixed together at variable distances from the point of a hypotetical explosion.

Consider this picture:

It shows the "corridor" of destruction, leading to the punch-out, i.e., the end region of the cavity formed inside the ground floor of the building.

In theory, this is where any explosion occurring just after penetration of the outer wall of the Pentagon should have caused pressure-shock effects powerful enough to knock down the wall at the end. Yet these hypothetical effects have left the area cluttered with debris. The debris, in order to be where it is, would have had to withstand the "wind" produced by the blast better than the more distant wall did.

This seems to me entirely unreasonable. If one observes the location of the debris close to the columns, it is evident that this is a purely mechanical effect of a mass of debris which broke up progressively as it advanced inside the building, preceded by the more massive and denser parts, which acted as a bulldozer, creating a path of destruction in which the trailing mass of debris was funnelled, like a landslide.

This picture clearly illustrates the concept:

The column in the foreground has been destroyed completely: you can see a stump dangling from the ceiling.

The nearby columns show considerable damage, but there is a rather thick layer of small, low-mass debris on the floor, cluttering the path.

What could have placed it there and left it?

Certainly not an explosion powerful enough to destroy completely a column and damage the nearby ones.

It is instead logical to think that the debris arrived after the first destructive effect, with less kinetic energy.

This explains why a piece of sheet metal can remain in front of a bent and twisted reinforced-concrete column.

How much force is necessary to perform such work on a column?

Is it conceivable that this occurred due to a single explosion?

What propelled the debris subsequently against the columns, and why is all this debris leaning against a single side of the various columns, defining a context which supports, as the only path of motion of the debris, the corridor of the passage and no other directions?

These questions, therefore, address the dynamic aspect of what occurred inside the Pentagon.

In particular, the point I would like to make is that inside the Pentagon we have evidence that the forces discharged onto the structural elements were not purely of the impulsive type, i.e., linked to a specific instant in time, but developed over time, certainly over an extremely short period of time which was however but certainly longer than the duration of an explosion.

This concept requires clarification.

Let's look at the type of deformations or failures characterizing the various columns.

.

The columns whose ends are still tied to the floor slabs are bent under the effect of shear stresses.

Obviously, if such stresses were caused by an explosion, they would be of a planar type, because they would be linked to pressure effects and to mechanical impacts of objects propelled by the explosion.

We observe columns which exhibit continuous bends, with the tightest bending angle at their midpoint.

There are no discontinuities caused by localized effects of individual impacts; rather, we observe the effect of a distributed force, as if the columns had been subjected to the action of a fluid which applied pressure to them.

Other columns were instead completely torn off where they were mated with the floor slab, as can be seen in the following photograph:

or were literally ripped apart and knocked to the ground:

However, some columns exhibit very unusual deformations which are incompatible with a single explosion.

These columns have so-called "triple curvature", as shown in the photograph.

The explosion theory cannot justify the presence of deformations of this type, unless one suggests multiple explosions occurring in very different locations and at different times, such as to generate the deformations in succession along different axes of force application.

But this, in view of what we discussed earlier, is not compatible at all with what occurred at the Pentagon.

One might object that these deformations may have occurred at different times and for different reasons: for example, a first explosion followed by fire.

However, tests conducted on the Pentagon columns have ruled out this hypothesis.

The picture below shows heat damage to a Pentagon column and a deformation which is not even remotely comparable with the one observed in the preceding photo.

At this point of the discussion, it should be noted that in this analysis I am granting a huge advantage to the "no plane" theorists, because I am deliberately ignoring everything that occurred outside the building.

Therefore, I am not considering the lampposts that were hit, the generator, the presence of aircraft-like debris outside and inside the Pentagon, and most of all I am not considering the presence of a "black box" or the victims of AA77, the passengers and crew, who were all identified as such.

Bearing in mind these factors, which by themselves are sufficient to dispel any doubt, let's continue with the analysis of the damage to the building.

Revealing damage inside the Pentagon's outer wall

Let us now consider the face of the Pentagon.
.
We will not waste time discussing the size of the hole on the outer face, since it is obvious that anyone claiming that there is a single hole 3-5 meters (9-15 ft) wide is talking nonsense.
.
There's no need to refute claims that can be thrown out simply by using a ruler.
.
Let us instead focus on pictures such as this one:

This is a frame from video footage taken inside the Pentagon 72 hours after the attack.

As already explained earlier, an explosion inside a building propels secondary projectiles in all directions, and it is quite evident that windows are not an exception to this rule.

In the video still shown above, the windows are ripped out but have not been pushed outward. Indeed, the pattern of wall damage clearly shows that the windows were struck from the outside and propelled into the building.

We can be confident of this because we can see that the wall damage widens inward, not outward. There can be no dispute as to what happened to the windows: they were impacted violently from the outside and pushed into the Pentagon.

The picture was taken at column 6AA, i.e., directly north of the collapsed portion. Knowing that a missile has a pointlike penetration pattern, as shown in the first part of this article, how can these facts be reconciled with the missile theory?

They can't. In other words, the missile theory is once again contradicted by specific evidence which conspiracy theorists prefer to ignore.

Exterior damage

There's more. Inspection of the building face from the outside is also very revealing.

Proving a theory is challenging: it requires a lot of evidence, and all the evidence must be consistent.

Proving a theory false, instead, only requires a single item of evidence that contradicts it.

In examining the pictures of the face of the Pentagon, I was struck by a detail: the damage located directly to the right of the collapsed region, as seen from the outside.

Here is a picture of the region:

I find the damage to the column and the adjacent window, to the right of the column, to be particularly interesting.

The window's upper part is missing; the lower part is still in place but the frame is substiantally damaged on the left upright, where it is connected to the wall, and is partially extracted from its seat and pushed towards the interior of the building.

The particular location of the damaged point, which is recessed with respect to the impact region of a hypothetical missile, shows that such damage cannot be due to something that occurred from the inside outward, because the damaged region is protected inward by the window pane which is still in place and is shielded, by the column, from the main region of impact of the hypothetical missile.

There is no way that this kind of damage to the face of the building can be compatible with an action originating from the inside of the building, much less from any explosion occurring a few meters away from the region being considered.

However, that region is contiguous to another punched-through part of the Pentagon's face:

Looking at the face of the building, it can be seen that this damage perfectly matches the remaining nearby damage, which stretches for several meters and is compatible with the hypothesis of an impact of the right wing of an aircraft of the same size as a Boeing 757/200.

At this point, the supporters of alternative theories object that there are no large pieces of plane debris.

However, this is another issue, which cannot be discussed here because it deserves a space of its own.

Purely as documentation, here is a photograph of what was recovered of Itavia's DC-9, I-TIGI, which crashed into the sea near Ustica on 27 June 1980.

This aircraft did not strike a reinforced-concrete building at extremely high speed, was not consumed by fire, and crashed into the sea.

Yet look at the size and shape of its debris.

.

-----------------------------

.

Go to: ENGLISH SECTION

.

Iscriviti a: Post (Atom)