Here are a few of my answers to this so called debunking:
The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last
statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757
equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to
have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757.
In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
"Inconsistent Damage"?
Don’t tell me this, show me math, if you cannot show me the math then its speculation plain and simple…
Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The
reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that
there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft +
making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large
commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.
The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything
else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do
that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
First mistake here is that the tail does not extend 45 feet in the air with the gear retracted so there goes 13 feet right off the top. Tail height is
measured this way though as it is mainly needed to check clearance when hangering the aircraft which is generally done with the gear extended as it is
easier on the aircraft not to drag it into the hanger on its belly (those size schematics are used for ground maneuvering with obstacles). The actual
height of the tail is the height from the top of the fuselage to the tip of the tail which is around 20 some feet and maybe 2 feet thick at its widest
point.
As too the rest, lest see exactly how much of the airfoil did not leave damage:
Image from here: www.geocities.com...
Looks like over 90 some feet of damage to me, and that is being on the conservative side. Meaning we are missing only about 35 feet of either wing
that simply exploded into confetti, got bent and dragged into the 90 foot hole with the rest of the disintegrating wing, or Some variation of both.
All the pillars are not busted as they would have cut right through the only two foot thick (at its thickest) wing like a hot knife through butter
thus inducing the explosion.
While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we
expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade?
The tail of a 757 is not like that of a DC-9, 727, DC-10, or L1011 which we are used to seeing in crash photographs. The reason that the tail on those
aircraft is strong enough to survive a crash is because all had tail mounted engines. To engine mount a tail, the tail is highly reinforced. That is
not the case with a 757 in which the tail is simply an empty airfoil with at the most some control surface hydraulics in it.
More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were
they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable
that I would be able to cause some observable damage?
There is over 90 feet of observable damage to the facade, part of the reason that it looks so small is that the pillars are still standing in areas,
but these again would have simply cut through the body, wings and even engines as the plane passed through them. At the point the wing sustained
damage to the leading edge that passed into the fuel tanks the explosion occurred, but by then the whole nose of the aircraft and the front of the
remaining engine would be inside the building. The plane would start to break up from that point on. The only reason that there is ANY wreckage on the
lawn is from debris that were ejected from the explosion itself. This is clearly evident in the fact that many rivet holes show no tearing; it is
about like hitting that piece of metal from the inside with a hammer really hard. The heads of the rivets would pop right out of the sheet metal
without tearing it. Tearing is only evident in pieces that are bent or twisted off the airframe.
While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the
body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly
unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually
able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact
that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a
total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon
would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
The author here fails to take into account wing flexing. When the engines contact the ground the body is going to be either on the ground or
substantially less then the normal 5 feet higher. This can clearly been seen in this NASA crash test footage just before the planes fuselage hits the
ground.
lisar.larc.nasa.gov...
Shall I continue?
SO may I continue with this, or am I going to get into trouble?
[edit on 1/26/2006 by defcon5]
. From your question
below. 
