Pentagon Research

COLUMN DAMAGE FALSIFICATION?
I received a challenge from an engineer on the Rapid Wall Breaching Kit (RWBK) page. It led me to further investigation to answer his questions. I discovered something I had never noticed before. The following 4 diagrams and descriptions explain what I found. It is the most direct evidence for officials falsifying information to date at the Pentagon. In fairness to the ASCE they did their report without physical inspection of the building. The information was handed to them from another source. To see who that source was go to the No Exit Hole Inspection sidebar.

Look at the 5 actual columns in the illustration above and see how they were rated for damage. You can see the full rating descriptions on the building diagram from the official Building Performance Report below (Source).

If you look at the building diagram above you can see that the damage to the columns generally decreases from the impact point to the exit hole except in two areas - the two columns right next to what they refer to as the "opening through roof" (white rectangle) and what should have been a blue or red column at 5N North. The "opening through roof" is something you can't find photos of and the people I have spoken with won't elaborate on it. The roof there is a second story roof and as you can see by the beige rectangle the slab between floor 1 and floor 2 was not breached underneath that area. I also noticed that they did not put the exit hole right between the columns on the graphic as it is in reality. You can locate columns by cross-referencing the numbers and letters on the side and top of the graphic. "5N North" and "3N North" refers to the fact that the columns right behind the exit hole are to the north of the renovation line. Those were the original columns built in 1941. They were 21 inch concrete squares (on floor one) with rebar centers and spiral wrapped with more rebar. 5N North is the column that I proposed would have been blasted by the RWBK.

Now look at 5N North and compare it to 3N North. They were both rated yellow. I would suggest that anybody can see the difference between the two and that 5N North is significantly more damaged than "cracking and spalling". Why would they misrepresent the damage to column 5N North unless they were hiding something? Now go back up and Compare 5N North to 7D and 9C which received higher damage ratings.

The reason I believe they did this is because a trained person who would have looked at this graphic and noticed the anomalous red column at 5N North (after the normal decrease in damage across the rest of the graphic) would wonder why the energy suddenly increased in that particular spot. So they just made it yellow so as not to draw attention to the anomaly. I firmly believe this is condemning evidence of a localized blast at the exit hole in support of the RWBK.

If you look at the graphic below also found in the ASCE Building Performance report, you will see it indicates some column damage that is in conflict with the floor plan graphic. It is even more revealing as to the actual path of maximum force. If the "C" ring wall was going to fail in a perfect circle it should have been at the end of the path of maximum force. When you look at it try and picture the actual damage to 5N North right next to the alleged exit hole.