No... because this is what I have deduced would be your counter arguement, and being that it is not cemented in conspiracy suspicion I would say you're SOL in getting a solid side to what you want with out relying on the duping of your audience.
*edit to add*
Your paper will need concessions to aide you no matter what you do. Common ground usually does make a paper more convincing; I say usually because some times the lunacy of a person can make them just plain off the wall anyway. (this is not to say you are crazy, just a general observation of other papers)
*end of edit*
A counter arguement:
This topic is popping up on many of my message boards, so I have made a GURP (general universal response post) for it:
General picture and info pages (may be news sources, may be conspiracy theory sites which are disproovable). These are my sources for the images only in the following layout:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pe ... 20316.htmlhttp://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htmhttp://www.utopiax.org/aa77.htmlThis picture clearly illustrates the side of the building at 921 feet in a conceptual layout of the building:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20 ... Damage.pdf(in addition to the above sites)
Considering the size and height of the building, I would 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://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1861977.stm
(
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://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, and this is easy as our minds are set up to play this trick on us... which is why perspective was not discovered until the Renaissance (at which point some kind of primitive projector was built [some kind of camera name I forget the name of] which an imaged was traced from and perspective was realised.):
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:
(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.
(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:
...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):
(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, although it still has some holes, by the snopes.com urban legend site which influenced the above (and below) in no way:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htmAddition:
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.
Addition:
I was asked about my proclaimation that the jet fuel would not cause the lawn to have a large scortch mark, due to it's height above and non-contact with the grass. I spent many hours of my youth testing, burning, and experimenting with accelerants (safely, only in a large tilled field, for safety) to see their effects both on their environments and on the materials they were inside of or were touched by. This includes copper, aluminum, glass, plactic, grass, wood, Diesel, DNA, (other various alcohols), Gasoline, Propellants, etc.
Crashes of flights in fields may illustrate this point better than my claims to have been an experimental (but safe) pyromaniac. Just as the above, the following were taken from some type of news source or conspiracy site, links in the pictures:
The Concorde Crash:
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/851119.stm)
This is the only field crash in color picture I could find in 2 hours of searching and it illustrates the physics of jetfuel in a severe crash.
The grass right next to the burn mark is still green and unmarked.
That is all I can say about the Penta-Lawn.
