Answer: it doesn’t. See for yourself.
Now that you’ve watched the video, here’s the kicker: the hole in the front wall of the Pentagon was not merely 16 feet in diameter. This particular clip is patched together with a snippet from the now-famous crockumentary “Loose Change,” as well as pieces of a computer-simulated recreation of the crash from a History Channel piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The maker, MikeHawkins, has several like it on his YouTube page.
Before the collapse of the E ring after the crash, the hole in that ring was actually approximately 75-80 feet wide. You can’t see it in the images in the video, because, guess what–the smoke and dust obscures the hole. So where’d they get the 16-foot estimate? From this image:
This is actually the funny part, because they admit this hole is 16 feet, too. The theory, again, is that a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane. This was the last hole punched in the building, done on the C ring–and it was made not by the nose of the plane, but by the front landing gear, which was recovered just on the other side.
Another question: where are the wings? Wouldn’t you see wing-like holes from a plane crashing into it? Nope. As I said previously, the impact would have sheared the wings off. On a blast-resistant building like the Pentagon, the wings would not have created the cartoon-image hole that the twoofers say should exist. This shot, in fact, shows proof that the wings DID do damage to the building:
Hey, they wanted answers. Dylan Avery, the creator of Loose Change and the narrator you hear in the clip above, superimposes the computer-generated image of a 757 over a distant photo of the crash site while it was still on fire–and doesn’t even get the image over the hole! Classic.
The windows next to the “hole” are next, and contrary to what the twoofers would have you believe, not all of them were completely intact. Many of them were, and here’s why: they were designed by a glass company in Bessemer, Alabama, not far from one of the towns I lived in for a short time. They were blastproof. In other words, they were specifically designed to withstand a force beyond hurricane-force winds presented quite suddenly. This was done after the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
And the cable spools…oh, the spools. It cracks me up that Avery can zoom in on those things, laying askew and quite obviously damaged in that shot, and seriously claim that they’re “untouched.” Do they look untouched to you?
Some of the “questions” that they’re “demanding answers” for seem to be outright lies. I’d like to be able to say that it’s just naivete, that they really just don’t understand how it would’ve worked, but they’re so adamant about defending themselves that, as Shakespeare wrote, “methinks thou doth protesteth too much.”
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
