This topic is popping up on all my message boards, so I have made a GURP (general universal response post) for it:
General picture and info pages (may be my sources, may be conspiracy theory sites which are disproovable). These are my sources for the images only in the following layout:
http://http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.htmlhttp://http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htmhttp://http://www.utopiax.org/aa77.htmlhttp://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1861977.stmThis picture clearly illustrates the side of the building at 921 feet in a conceptual layout of the building:
http://http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20010913/PentagonDamage.pdf(in addition to the above sites, this one is seperate)
Considering the size and height of the building, I would further say that the pentagon crash photos (which show the plane hitting the building) accurately depict the "small object" at the correct height for such a plane to be hitting a 4 story + roofed building. Of course it will look small in comparisson to the building, but it is at the far side of the camera range, and in comparrison to the perspective of the height of the building, it makes sense for it to be the size that it is in the impact photos.
These links show the photos:
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1861977.stm
(
http://http://www.utopiax.org/aa77.html)
This one shows an overhead perspective as well, with the approximate plane size overlayed, showing clearly the impact edges:
(
http://http://www.conceptual.net.au/~jackc/pentagon.htm)
If it still looks like a "small object" after considering the perspective, your mind is playing a trick on you, an this is easy as our minds are set up to play this trick on us... which is why Perspective was not discovered until the Reniessance:
The Vanishing Point of the security photos will reveal that the plane is actually as large as depicted in real life. Run the lines of the pentagon inward toward the horizon, strait lines, and where they intersect is your vanishing point. Make a note of the distances of the top and bottom edges of the pentagon on the left and then mark those same distances on the right of the page, equidistant from the vanishing point as the two spots where the pentagon runs off the page (you can mark these off the page as well, just don't move the paper until after you're finished with these steps.) Now draw perspective lines in from those lines to the vanishing point established orriginally by the pentagon lines.
Compare the size of the plane in perspective. It's the right size.
(we are reviewing perspective in my drawing class right now)
To tackle the Plane crash photos of "fuel burn marks on the grass" that can be explained as well:
This one can be used to align perspective for the extent of fireball out towards the grass. Use the same method as before, but only for the left side. Use the street corner with the white post on it as your perspective line into to the vanishing point established by the pentagon lines:
(
http://http://www.utopiax.org/aa77.html)
(additionally the above photo does show fuel burning upwards and outwards at the maximum known range for the fuel to have reached in fireball size. Fire burns up, therefore the fireball would not burn the grass unless it had a level proximity [or contact] to the lawn itself. This picture depicts the fireball a few feet above the lawn [perspective line again] thus making it possible for the lawn to have survived the initial impact fire ball with out getting any singe other than the immediate front edge depicted in the next image.)
This one shows some of the burn area in front of the pentagon.
(
http://http://www.utopiax.org/aa77.html)
(only the bottom edge is visible, and it is where the fireball is known to have touched the ground, as in the largest fireball photo.)
This one shows a larger overhead view of the above, with the edge intact:
(
http://http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm)
...and this with the point of perspective white street post corner mentioned earlier (though the post is just outside of the photo [I think] you can easily see the same street corner the post is on in the security photos):
(
http://http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm)
(look at the edge of the street in front and compare it to the perspective line that we can establish from the street corner in the upper left view that would be parallel to the front of the pentagon in this view.)
If this analysis, which I just wrote up myself using pictures used in the same sites as the conspiracy sites, does not satisfy the misconception then post what makes no sense and I might later attempt to help more with clarification.
I have also seen a compelling debunking by the snopes.com urban legend site:
http://http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm******
Addition:
I was asked about the hole punch size into the pentagon. If you can remember, they initially thought (in news rooms) that the first plane was a private plane because the hole was so small. Refer to the final link I gave. It describes the reinforced materials the wall had been made out of. Of course the WTC was reinforced as well, but not nearly as thick, and the entry holes of the WTC looked very small as well, centrally around the fueselage area.
******
Until then... that is all I can say about the Penta-Lawn.
