9-11 Research does not endorse all of the conclusions of this presentation.
For analysis of this issue, see The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
See the comments below.
<< PREVIOUS Simulation NEXT >>

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
page 17 Copyright 2003-2007 911research.wtc7.net
<< PREVIOUS INDEX NEXT >>
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.