Firstly, thanks for posting that excellent quality picture which I'm guessing is part of the latest FOIA release.
I can see that the overhead mains are still there so they were not actually 'taken out' by a plane, nor were those poles impacted which would have been an amazing feat for a 125' wingspan aircraft low enough to contact the wires. I can tell from the overhead construction there that the highest span of conductors is actually high voltage in the 6-11kV range (rough estimate) and the pole on the left is a 'ug/oh' or underground to overhead connection point for high voltage mains. In light of the mains in question being a HV distribution feeder I revise my height estimate to approx 8m above ground level (the top cross-arm on the pole). What this would mean is that any sort of impact or major disturbance of those conductors would cause them to clash together triggering the feeder overcurrent protection and blacking out a considerable area, not just the CITGO gas station. There would also have been a huge blinding flash.
In line with the above observation, is there any report of loss of electrical supply in the area? I note particularly that the CITGO security cameras continued recording throughout the event with no interruption. You mentioned the telephone service possibly being interrupted which could have been the result of loss of supply to a PABX but did the CITGO suffer a total blackout? not to mention everyone else supplied by that HV feeder.
Considering the recent arguments re G forces, the manouver required to clear the Navy Annex roof then descend to the height of those conductors looks 'undoable' to me even without extending it to clearing trees further on then pulling up sufficiently to clear the Pentagon roof as suggested by the current NOC theory.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just looking at everything as presented.
I'd have thought CIT & Co would be all over this particular aspect because evidence of the plane actually contacting the mains in that location would be the first piece of physical evidence supporting the NOC theory. So far there's nothing in the way of tangible physical evidence for the NOC theory and they're relegated to attempting to negate all the actual physical evidence which happens to be not where they want it to be, unsuccessfully in my opinion.
I noted your question re the apparent lack of smoke in the pic of the recently collapsed section of the Pentagon. I believe it's answered by the latest post of the overhead view which shows the wind direction
Abundant smoke is present over the roof - blowing toward the south-east, away from
the camera position in the first pic. [edit on 8/2/2009 by Pilgrum]
