Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

[golfballs]

After everything Wikileaks has published- not just about this election- I'm not dismissive of what seems like conspiracy theory. But this is one that I can't buy into

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

After everything Wikileaks has published- not just about this election- I'm not dismissive of what seems like conspiracy theory. But this is one that I can't buy into

I'm not saying you have to believe it. I'm jst saying to entertain the idea. Give it some serious consideration for a moment. What if the 9/11 narrative that we have all been told is actually a fabrication and that the towers were brought down?

I'm just saying meet me halfway. Just for fun.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Anybody ready to entertain the idea that 9/11 WTC attacks were controlled demolitions yet?

Ras are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is an evil, corrupt and despicable group that cannot be trusted. Yet those same people who consider our government completely untrustworthy, just blindly accept and trust their official reports about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Ras are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is an evil, corrupt and despicable group that cannot be trusted. Yet those same people who consider our government completely untrustworthy, just blindly accept and trust their official reports about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

I'm not asking for a lot.... just asking them to just give it a taste. They don't have to swallow the idea whole that it was a false flag. They just have to at least entertain the idea that it could have possibly have been a fals flag event. Or that it is within the realm of possibility.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I'm not asking for a lot.... just asking them to just give it a taste. They don't have to swallow the idea whole that it was a false flag. They just have to at least entertain the idea that it could have possibly have been a fals flag event. Or that it is within the realm of possibility.

I agree with you. To completey ignore even the possibility that this could have been a false flag, just shows utter close mindedness IMO.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ras are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is an evil, corrupt and despicable group that cannot be trusted. Yet those same people who consider our government completely untrustworthy, just blindly accept and trust their official reports about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

Two can play this game.

BOT are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is inept, inefficient, and a generally retarded group of individuals that cannot do anything correctly. Yet those same people who consider our government spectacularly inefficient, just blindly accept and trust conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Obsessed]

Two can play this game.

BOT are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is inept, inefficient, and a generally retarded group of individuals that cannot do anything correctly. Yet those same people who consider our government spectacularly inefficient, just blindly accept and trust conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

I disagree.

What if the the deception is the government appearing to be inept?

Who says the government is responsible? (Solely)

 

[PKT_VOL]

I disagree.

What if the the deception is the government appearing to be inept?

Who says the government is responsible? (Solely)

We are talking blanket statements here (in both posts).

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Two can play this game.

BOT are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is inept, inefficient, and a generally retarded group of individuals that cannot do anything correctly. Yet those same people who consider our government spectacularly inefficient, just blindly accept and trust conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

I dont necessarily believe conspiracy theories about 9/11. Could they be just that? Yes. But can you, with 100% certainly say that the official reports on 9/11 given to us by the government are completely truthful and accurate?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Anybody ready to entertain the idea that 9/11 WTC attacks were controlled demolitions yet?

I am a stress engineer. This is so stupid as to not deserve the injury to my fingertip as I pick out this response on my smart phone.
Do that ras. Get a smart phone. You'll finally have some...smarts that is.

1. Jet fuel burns.
2. Elevator shafts developed updrafts to feed fire and it burned really well, minimum about 850°-1000°F.
3. Yeild strength of structural steel decreases with temperature.

From ASME Section II, Part D, Table Y-1 and U-1:
Temperature(°F) Yield Strength(ksi) Tensile Strength(ksi)
-20 to 100 *36.0* *58.0*
150 33.8 58.0
200 33.0 58.0
250 32.4 58.0
300 31.8 58.0
400 30.8 58.0
500 29.3 58.0
600 27.6 58.0
650 26.7 58.0
700 25.8 58.0
750 24.9 57.3
800 24.1 53.3
850 23.4 48.5
900 22.8 43.3
950 22.1 38.0
1000 *21.4* *33.4*

Although exposures above 800°F will result in the carbide phase converting to graphite. Also, above 700°F, time dependant effects (creep) become important.

Note that the yeild strength at which A36 steel begins to bend at 1000°F is 40.6% LESS THAN your normal 70°F strength. Above 700°F creep (slow stretching) starts and is dependant on temp and load. And man, what a load. The WTC report with "truther" comments (red) attached below at several locations and whole side commentarys linked, at times becomes so absurd as to be comical. Absolutely written by those "Masters of Disaster" I refer to who may have graduated with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering Summa Cum Laude and have aced all their structures courses. But some folk have no common sense. They couldn't engineer there way out of a paper bag. This guy wants to say the trusses referenced weren't trusses but were steel beams, and shows a photo on a lower floor where they were just that, steel beams, because of design load transfering from the many building floors above to the plaza level and basement levels, to the foundation steel. At some point these WILL transition to trusses, as the official report shows, ... decrease the weight where required by good design so as not to need even larger steel in the lower levels you know. Then he rails about the weight of steel in the building, making "generous" assumptions to "prove" beams instead of trusses were used at the high elevations where the planes struck. There's a LOT more. They try to bury you with tomes of calculations, but they are all based on the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS that the trusses were beams, and that, even though the designers accounted for the impact of an airliner, they also accounted for the combustion of jet fuel enhanced by the draft created in the compromised elevator shafts and ductwork of the service core. I actually doubt that an inferno coupled with the degree of building damage we saw was accounted for in the years the WTC was designed. They even show how little they know by ridiculing the WTC Commission's use of the term "service core"...well, even though it has several design capacities, that's what it is.

Here's what happened.

The steel clips at either ends of the floor trusses, at high temperature, began to bend as the elastic limit of steel decreased (AT LEAST 40.6% at 1000°) from heating (the steel softened). It lost nearly half it's strength. The exterior shell also warped from the heat. At some point, after exposure to these temps and bearing the weight of all the above floors, the Youngs Modulus of the softened steel reached the catastrophic failure point at 42.4% of it's normal failure strength (tensile strength) because the fire protection gunnite had been knocked away (thermal short) during impact on several joist bearings. The fire protection is not absolute and is time dependant with ratings given in 'hours'. 1/2 hr, 1 hr, .. 4 hr. Also several bearings themselves had been knocked away during impact.
And then, one floors steel JOIST BEARINGS began to bend, the fl[r began to sag, and as design for this catenary displacement was exceeded the floor gave way in catastrophic failure. At a given number of failures of individual joist supports, this would almost instantaneously "zipper" around the whole floor and total collapse begins. The weight of the building above accelerated at normal gravity to instantaneously impact load the already compromised joist bearings of the floor below, again, resulting in catastrophic failure. As the failures, floor by floor, occured in the fire compromised section, each floors mass was added to the accelerated impact force on the floor below. As the failures passed out of the fire compromised region, only the acceleration of the accumulating mass of the building above was required. And I can imagine each instantaneous failure sending out a retort as if a cannon were being fired.

Chapter 2 WTC Report (with 911 "truther" commentary.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[PKT_VOL]

I dont necessarily believe conspiracy theories about 9/11. Could they be just that? Yes. But can you, with 100% certainly say that the official reports on 9/11 given to us by the government are completely truthful and accurate?

With respect to Ras' assertion that there was a controlled demolition of WTC Tower 1 and Tower 2? Yes.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

With respect to Ras' assertion that there was a controlled demolition of WTC Tower 1 and Tower 2? Yes.

Fair enough. The only problem with that is you are completely ignoring and failing to even entertain the idea of an alternate theory of how the towers went down. Thats just illogical. Especially when there are scientists, demolition experts, structural engineers, architects, physcists and others who have offered up their theories. Why are their theories somehow less valid compared to the governments theories? Now you are just assuming that the theories you believe are true because of bias. If a structural engineer offered you an alternate theory of the towers that included controlled demolition, seems like you would just ignore it because you believe the government reports.

Here is the main problem, what if the government was wrong? What if their reports are just lies? we know the government lies to us constantly, so why is so hard to fathom for them to lie about 9/11?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So the same government who can't manage to make a proper budget somehow orchestrated the greatest cover-up in world history? Hilarious.

The same dolts who discredit the government every chance they get on every possible thing also think they are extremely intelligent and are able to pull this off. Lol

This same government also had millions of people working for years on one of the greatest cover-ups in human history (the Manhattan Project). Nobody but a few people at the top knew a nuclear bomb was being made.

The government can be very smart and secretive when it wants to be. The reason you find this hard to believe is you think the mistakes made on domestic issues are the result of incompetence when in reality most of it is by design.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Ras are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is an evil, corrupt and despicable group that cannot be trusted. Yet those same people who consider our government completely untrustworthy, just blindly accept and trust their official reports about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

People believe what they want to believe.

Alot of people like the idea of an evil brown enemy overseas that is the cause of our problems. Others prefer the idea of the evil government at home that is the cause of our problems. None of us know the truth. We just believe what we want to.

I personally have no idea what happened on 9/11. I just believe the government story is bullsh*t. How come? The government has lied too many times. There have been too many false flag attacks. And the people who most benefited from 9/11 were the government contractors that get hired when we go to war.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

People believe what they want to believe.

Alot of people like the idea of an evil brown enemy overseas that is the cause of our problems. Others prefer the idea of the evil government at home that is the cause of our problems. None of us know the truth. We just believe what we want to.

I personally have no idea what happened on 9/11. I just believe the government story is bullsh*t. How come? The government has lied too many times. There have been too many false flag attacks. And the people who most benefited from 9/11 were the government contractors that get hired when we go to war.

We dont agree much, but on this we do. I feel the same way you do. I simply dont know. War always benefits money hungry elites. Like, I said its funny how the people who call the government untrustworthy on just about everything, just automatically take its word as truth with 9/11.

The fact is, nobody will ever know the whole truth about 9/11. Thats all I am saying. The government reports could be right. Then again they could be complete BS.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Yes, because flying two airplanes into the buildings didn't make enough of a statement.

 

[Pacer92]

People believe what they want to believe.

Alot of people like the idea of an evil brown enemy overseas that is the cause of our problems. Others prefer the idea of the evil government at home that is the cause of our problems. None of us know the truth. We just believe what we want to.

I personally have no idea what happened on 9/11. I just believe the government story is bullsh*t. How come? The government has lied too many times. There have been too many false flag attacks. And the people who most benefited from 9/11 were the government contractors that get hired when we go to war.

Haven't agreed with many of your statements, but I totally agree with you here..

 

[joevol320]

So he openly admits to changing the parameters (1,800 degree furnace vs 1,500 degree jet fuel) then shows a piece of steel that's a half inch thick. Whether or not this is the same as what was used in the buildings I don't know, I'm guess they used steel beams which is a bit thicker than a little half inch piece. Then the buildings as we all know did not fold over like he showed or how one would expect a building to, they collapsed in on themselves. This was a poor attempt to debunk anything. If you're gonna change the parameters to fit your objective then what's the point.

but most of the steal was damage by the impact. it also had to support a large passenger air plane which i don't think the designers had accounted for when the designed the structure. that extra weight plus multiple beams that were bent, damaged etc.. couldn't hold up.

 

[LouderVol]

Ras are you kidding? You are asking this question to people on VN one one hand say that our government is an evil, corrupt and despicable group that cannot be trusted. Yet those same people who consider our government completely untrustworthy, just blindly accept and trust their official reports about 9/11.

Its hypocrisy at its finest.

I question everything up to the events of that day. I have no reason to not believe that commercial planes took down those buildings.

 

[volfanhill]

I question everything up to the events of that day. I have no reason to not believe that commercial planes took down those buildings.

Agreed

 

[LouderVol]

I am a stress engineer. This is so stupid as to not deserve the injury to my fingertip as I pick out this response on my smart phone.
Do that ras. Get a smart phone. You'll finally have some...smarts that is.

1. Jet fuel burns.
2. Elevator shafts developed updrafts to feed fire and it burned really well, minimum about 850°-1000°F.
3. Yeild strength of structural steel decreases with temperature.

From ASME Section II, Part D, Table Y-1 and U-1:
Temperature(°F) Yield Strength(ksi) Tensile Strength(ksi)
-20 to 100 *36.0* *58.0*
150 33.8 58.0
200 33.0 58.0
250 32.4 58.0
300 31.8 58.0
400 30.8 58.0
500 29.3 58.0
600 27.6 58.0
650 26.7 58.0
700 25.8 58.0
750 24.9 57.3
800 24.1 53.3
850 23.4 48.5
900 22.8 43.3
950 22.1 38.0
1000 *21.4* *33.4*

Although exposures above 800°F will result in the carbide phase converting to graphite. Also, above 700°F, time dependant effects (creep) become important.

Note that the yeild strength at which A36 steel begins to bend at 1000°F is 40.6% LESS THAN your normal 70°F strength. Above 700°F creep (slow stretching) starts and is dependant on temp and load. And man, what a load. The WTC report with "truther" comments (red) attached below at several locations and whole side commentarys linked, at times becomes so absurd as to be comical. Absolutely written by those "Masters of Disaster" I refer to who may have graduated with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering Summa Cum Laude and have aced all their structures courses. But some folk have no common sense. They couldn't engineer there way out of a paper bag. This guy wants to say the trusses referenced weren't trusses but were steel beams, and shows a photo on a lower floor where they were just that, steel beams, because of design load transfering from the many building floors above to the plaza level and basement levels, to the foundation steel. At some point these WILL transition to trusses, as the official report shows, ... decrease the weight where required by good design so as not to need even larger steel in the lower levels you know. Then he rails about the weight of steel in the building, making "generous" assumptions to "prove" beams instead of trusses were used at the high elevations where the planes struck. There's a LOT more. They try to bury you with tomes of calculations, but they are all based on the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS that the trusses were beams, and that, even though the designers accounted for the impact of an airliner, they also accounted for the combustion of jet fuel enhanced by the draft created in the compromised elevator shafts and ductwork of the service core. I actually doubt that an inferno coupled with the degree of building damage we saw was accounted for in the years the WTC was designed. They even show how little they know by ridiculing the WTC Commission's use of the term "service core"...well, even though it has several design capacities, that's what it is.

Here's what happened.

The steel clips at either ends of the floor trusses, at high temperature, began to bend as the elastic limit of steel decreased (AT LEAST 40.6% at 1000°) from heating (the steel softened). It lost nearly half it's strength. The exterior shell also warped from the heat. At some point, after exposure to these temps and bearing the weight of all the above floors, the Youngs Modulus of the softened steel reached the catastrophic failure point at 42.4% of it's normal failure strength (tensile strength) because the fire protection gunnite had been knocked away (thermal short) during impact on several joist bearings. The fire protection is not absolute and is time dependant with ratings given in 'hours'. 1/2 hr, 1 hr, .. 4 hr. Also several bearings themselves had been knocked away during impact.
And then, one floors steel JOIST BEARINGS began to bend, the fl[r began to sag, and as design for this catenary displacement was exceeded the floor gave way in catastrophic failure. At a given number of failures of individual joist supports, this would almost instantaneously "zipper" around the whole floor and total collapse begins. The weight of the building above accelerated at normal gravity to instantaneously impact load the already compromised joist bearings of the floor below, again, resulting in catastrophic failure. As the failures, floor by floor, occured in the fire compromised section, each floors mass was added to the accelerated impact force on the floor below. As the failures passed out of the fire compromised region, only the acceleration of the accumulating mass of the building above was required. And I can imagine each instantaneous failure sending out a retort as if a cannon were being fired.

Chapter 2 WTC Report (with 911 "truther" commentary.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.

I have said as much before. I didn't get as technical on the collapse but posted the numbers on steel's strength under heat. these guys don't want to hear it.

I was a truther myself until I did the math and that resolves things pretty darn fast. you don't even have to go into that much detail, just look at the clips. once those are gone there is nothing holding up the structural steel.

 

[zidanefan]

I am a stress engineer. This is so stupid as to not deserve the injury to my fingertip as I pick out this response on my smart phone.
Do that ras. Get a smart phone. You'll finally have some...smarts that is.

1. Jet fuel burns.
2. Elevator shafts developed updrafts to feed fire and it burned really well, minimum about 850°-1000°F.
3. Yeild strength of structural steel decreases with temperature.

From ASME Section II, Part D, Table Y-1 and U-1:
Temperature(°F) Yield Strength(ksi) Tensile Strength(ksi)
-20 to 100 *36.0* *58.0*
150 33.8 58.0
200 33.0 58.0
250 32.4 58.0
300 31.8 58.0
400 30.8 58.0
500 29.3 58.0
600 27.6 58.0
650 26.7 58.0
700 25.8 58.0
750 24.9 57.3
800 24.1 53.3
850 23.4 48.5
900 22.8 43.3
950 22.1 38.0
1000 *21.4* *33.4*

Although exposures above 800°F will result in the carbide phase converting to graphite. Also, above 700°F, time dependant effects (creep) become important.

Note that the yeild strength at which A36 steel begins to bend at 1000°F is 40.6% LESS THAN your normal 70°F strength. Above 700°F creep (slow stretching) starts and is dependant on temp and load. And man, what a load. The WTC report with "truther" comments (red) attached below at several locations and whole side commentarys linked, at times becomes so absurd as to be comical. Absolutely written by those "Masters of Disaster" I refer to who may have graduated with a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering Summa Cum Laude and have aced all their structures courses. But some folk have no common sense. They couldn't engineer there way out of a paper bag. This guy wants to say the trusses referenced weren't trusses but were steel beams, and shows a photo on a lower floor where they were just that, steel beams, because of design load transfering from the many building floors above to the plaza level and basement levels, to the foundation steel. At some point these WILL transition to trusses, as the official report shows, ... decrease the weight where required by good design so as not to need even larger steel in the lower levels you know. Then he rails about the weight of steel in the building, making "generous" assumptions to "prove" beams instead of trusses were used at the high elevations where the planes struck. There's a LOT more. They try to bury you with tomes of calculations, but they are all based on the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS that the trusses were beams, and that, even though the designers accounted for the impact of an airliner, they also accounted for the combustion of jet fuel enhanced by the draft created in the compromised elevator shafts and ductwork of the service core. I actually doubt that an inferno coupled with the degree of building damage we saw was accounted for in the years the WTC was designed. They even show how little they know by ridiculing the WTC Commission's use of the term "service core"...well, even though it has several design capacities, that's what it is.

Here's what happened.

The steel clips at either ends of the floor trusses, at high temperature, began to bend as the elastic limit of steel decreased (AT LEAST 40.6% at 1000°) from heating (the steel softened). It lost nearly half it's strength. The exterior shell also warped from the heat. At some point, after exposure to these temps and bearing the weight of all the above floors, the Youngs Modulus of the softened steel reached the catastrophic failure point at 42.4% of it's normal failure strength (tensile strength) because the fire protection gunnite had been knocked away (thermal short) during impact on several joist bearings. The fire protection is not absolute and is time dependant with ratings given in 'hours'. 1/2 hr, 1 hr, .. 4 hr. Also several bearings themselves had been knocked away during impact.
And then, one floors steel JOIST BEARINGS began to bend, the fl[r began to sag, and as design for this catenary displacement was exceeded the floor gave way in catastrophic failure. At a given number of failures of individual joist supports, this would almost instantaneously "zipper" around the whole floor and total collapse begins. The weight of the building above accelerated at normal gravity to instantaneously impact load the already compromised joist bearings of the floor below, again, resulting in catastrophic failure. As the failures, floor by floor, occured in the fire compromised section, each floors mass was added to the accelerated impact force on the floor below. As the failures passed out of the fire compromised region, only the acceleration of the accumulating mass of the building above was required. And I can imagine each instantaneous failure sending out a retort as if a cannon were being fired.

Chapter 2 WTC Report (with 911 "truther" commentary.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.

I have said as much before. I didn't get as technical on the collapse but posted the numbers on steel's strength under heat. these guys don't want to hear it.

I was a truther myself until I did the math and that resolves things pretty darn fast. you don't even have to go into that much detail, just look at the clips. once those are gone there is nothing holding up the structural steel.

Thanks to both of you for contributing to the discussion. I have an elementary understanding (at best) of the physics at work here, and your explanations are very helpful.

I've read a lot, watched many documentaries on WTC, and have looked at both sides of this. I find there to be some compelling theories on both sides (which may or may not discredit me right off the bat with the two of you, I don't know).

I am curious what your thoughts are about the Pentagon, if you've done any research/calculations pertaining to it. The evidence there, from what I've seen/heard/read, appears to be the most tenuous.

 

[hndog609]

I'm not asking for a lot.... just asking them to just give it a taste. They don't have to swallow the idea whole that it was a false flag. They just have to at least entertain the idea that it could have possibly have been a fals flag event. Or that it is within the realm of possibility.

I (and to some degree others) have gone through this before so let's do it again.

1. There is zip, zilch, nothing I've ever seen that remotely...REMOTELY... leads me to believe the towers were a controlled demolition. Moreover, there is profound evidence (cited God knows how many times here and elsewhere) that refutes that assertion and completely explains the towers coming down from damage consistent with what we know to have happened.

2. And this is where it's really you that needs to come up for air. That there was no demolition involved does not necessarily dismiss shenanigans being involved at all.

Look, if you could produce something worth my (and others) time that, for instance, some people who thought they could use such an event to their advantage downplayed/buried intel on the matter that might be something. What you don't seem to understand is that there's a difference in trying to convince people that the government isn't always on the level and trying to convince them Wile E Coyote's evil brother used his contacts at ACME to orchestrate 9/11.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

CG Simulation of the impact. What it physically does to the exterior curtain wall, the interior service core structural members and columns, the impact scattering of glass, concrete dust, and debris which will knock away the 'gunnite' (while gunite originally specifies a particular mix of concrete shot from a pressurized gun, the name has become much like 'coke' as in "Anybody want a coke" and people respond, "Yeah, get me a Nehi Orange, a Dr. Pepper, etc.) various fire protection materials on the steel.
--------------------------
Purdue University Scientists Simulate Jet Colliding with WTC.

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

https://youtu.be/gH02Eh44yUg
---------------------------

BUT! The Purdue study in all probability assumes fully functioning fire protection on the steel members.

It was compromised somewhat.

The below article was written by a fire proofing engineer responsible for inspection of the WTC's already questionable fireproofing.

Oh, and by the way, WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IN HIS PHOTO IS THE FLOOR *TRUSS*! SYSTEM. Not "beams" as some "truthers" want to claim.



Login - Fire Engineering

 

[LouderVol]

Thanks to both of you for contributing to the discussion. I have an elementary understanding (at best) of the physics at work here, and your explanations are very helpful.

I've read a lot, watched many documentaries on WTC, and have looked at both sides of this. I find there to be some compelling theories on both sides (which may or may not discredit me right off the bat with the two of you, I don't know).

I am curious what your thoughts are about the Pentagon, if you've done any research/calculations pertaining to it. The evidence there, from what I've seen/heard/read, appears to be the most tenuous.

Questioning doesn't bother me at all. pushing a line (evil government conspiracy) along with those questions is an agenda and not looking for the truth.

and my "expertise" doesn't go as far on the Pentagon. I never did the math on that one.

depending on what your question is I am not sure I can answer it. the pentagon is a concrete structure and has gone through multiple rounds of reinforcing (it is THE military building of our nation so its not some weird insurance angle). being a solid building (steel beam or truss vs a concrete beam) it is going to withstand blunt force trauma a lot better than a steel building. More mass to absorb it and distribute the force. any concrete building has expansion and control joints (all buildings do but concrete and masonry have more) and it looks like the damage cuts off. imo that could easily be a joint that was already in the building on the left side.

on the right side you see where the masonry is more jagged where it has pulled away from itself. this is because that is at a bump out in the building plan and there isn't a join in that location. you place your joints on corners and long lengths, there isn't one at that location.

as to where/how the plane hit idk. what happened to it, also idk. but if it was a missile it would have been a bunker buster (in my very uneducated opinion on missiles) to take out the pentagon. if it had been we see debris outside the building. in the picture it looks like the wall got knocked in as if it had been hit from the outside. again not knowing how a missile works but even if it had been a "normal" missile (again going off movies and video games so no idea if thats real world) i would expect a lot more collateral damage from the explosion. the damage seems to be straight line, blunt force consistent with the story.