|
|
|
|
|
|
The Essence of the Problem
Compare
dimensions and shape of building damage
to dimensions, shape, and trajectory of plane
* There is no impression of the tail or wingtips.
* Areas that would have been impacted by 757 show blast damage
but not impact damage.
* Regions of 'hole' that would have been obliterated by densest
part of aircraft have standing columns.
guardian's article on crash
|
|
|
|
Comments by 9-11 Research added on 7/3/05
|
|
Each of the points made on this slide is inaccurate.
-
There is no impression of the tail or wingtips:
While it is true that the avialable photos don't show scoring
of the region above the second floor,
there is obvious damage beyond the wide expanse of first floor
impact punctures, where the wingtips presumably would have hit.
-
Areas that would have been impacted by 757 show blast damage
but not impact damage:
More accurately they may show blast and impact damage.
It is difficult to infer the cause of the damage given the
uncertainties about the materials in the Pentagon's facade
and their behavior in response to such an event.
-
Regions of 'hole' that would have been obliterated by densest
part of aircraft have standing columns:
The idea that there are standing columns to the right of the
impact hole center is based on the assumption that the leaning
objects are columns, which is likely
an error.
Also, note that the graphics on this page are misleading because
they imply that a jetliner is a solid stainless steel object
that should puncture anything in its path, out to its extremities.
In fact, jetliners are extremely light and fragile compared to
a heavy building facade such as the Pentagon's,
and are essentially
shredded by such a fast collision
with such a formidable barrier.
|
|