I have taken Mike's graphics and did some stills here... Notice the generator being clipped by the wing on the frame below right. (comments from another researcher at the bottom)
What I do notice here is the height of the fuselage as entering mainly the first floor, the top of the plane seems to barely go over the bottom of the second floor. I have taken his graphic here and added lines to the Pentagon wall. this shows the path of the wings accross the lamp poles, and to the wall. I had to "eyeball" the lines, i have tried to get them as accurate as possible, though they may not be perfect.
The left photo above seems to have the right wing hitting the tree, and the fuselage actually hitting the generator. Though there may be some discrepancies as to how accurate my lines are.
The wingtip seems as though it would have come very close to the cars, also, there is no apparent damage to the building where the wingtip (should have) hit, also no wing debris. http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
9/11 Models, Renderings and Animations
Mike J Wilson -August 2004 "...I spent many hours reconstructing the Pentagon attack using SolidWorks 3D software and several hundred photos I found on the web (still image below). I uploaded an animation to my website, mikejwilson.com/911 just a few weeks ago, that listeners can download for free (click on film strip icon).I will be uploading the entire 3D model to my website in a few days so that everyone can have a chance to do there own research. There is nothing out there that compares to the quality I've put into these models. I even have renderings from the security camera position.
Regards, Mike Wilson
thanks Mike, Brad
Comments from Rick Stanley below....
The referenced graphics and animations of Mike Wilson http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/ show the important engine footprints that my trajectory lines also show. However, Brad is wrong about the port wing of a 757 needing to hit above the second story's floor. He doesn't take into account if the port engine (with the plane banked slightly to port) had really hit the steam vault retaining wall, that the port engine and wing impact would therefore be lower than that. As well, the first two floors are taller than the ones above.
(This graphic was cut from the ASCE report, and the structural damage highlight was derived from the Arlington County After Report.)
[Most of the following and more is discussed at: http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm ]
The real problem is that once one can accept this image as what the fakers were trying to portray, what next falls out as anomalous?
1. The lie of Frank Probst (in the ASCE report, trying to fake complying with the findings of the ASCE referenced 1992 Sugano et al paper) saying that metal confetti (nowhere to be seen in the high res pictures) rained down on him as he ran back to the parking lot to the right. 2. That he could have seen one, much less two engines hitting the retaining wall and the generator after having the plane miss him by 6 feet and the resulting buffeting, his diving to the ground and changing his field of view by 180 degrees. 3. That other eyewitnesses were hit by a snowstorm of aluminum confetti (nowhere to be seen in the high res pictures) out on the highway, even to the point of making them afraid to leave their vehicles until it was over. 4. That even the best case analysis leaves too much wing tip and tail debris out in front unaccounted for in the photographic evidence. Curiously, the one debris field seen in photographs to the left of the impact zone going onto the helipad, is remarkably always out of sufficient focus to allow identification of the debris as to whether it is from the building, the contractor's trailers, or from any kind of aircraft much less a 757. Out of focus, excepting for the one piece of "show" debris with the odd lettering. 5. Brad's portrayal of where the 757 fuselage (upper portion at least) would interface along the collapse zone at the column 11 (concrete expansion joint) line, seems roughly correct. The photograph of column 11B shows almost no erosion of the outer concrete 'fluff' (outside of the column's spiral steel reinforcement) as should happen when that much aluminum scrapes past it, and as the Perdue simulation claims. Yet it looks almost pristine, much more damning to me than the lack of fire damage up above as many have noted in the same pictures (concrete being an excellent fire insulator). 6. The tree stump is only charred on the bark, no discoloration at all to be seen to the exposed inner wood. The upper tree remains can be easily seen in many photographs as having been dragged to the left behind the contractor's trailer hulk. 7. That once again, even with an otherwise very good simulation (Wilson's), the presence and significance of the two contractor's trailers is completely ignored. That at a minimum, the port wing and engines impact with the trailers would have cause a diffusion of energy that should have created a broader scope of damage to the port side facade, i.e. more window damage and more vertical axis damage to the limestone facade. That firemen went on record stating that most of the external fire seen was coming from the leftmost trailer whose bed curiously remained in place as can be seen in many common pictures (once one knows what to look for. 8. The presence of what appears to be explosive residue spots inside the window recesses behind the parked burning car. Residue that does not appear to have a significant lateral motion attached to it. 9. As can be seen in the pre-collapse photos, not only were the original columns along the first floor destroyed structurally, if not always obliterated, the additional recently added reinforcement steel was obliterated, at least ostensibly due to the lateral shear forces imposed upon the mounting bolts by either the alleged 757 or by the fakery. Since these reinforcement columns were no longer there (at the ground floor), they could not have helped to keep the building from collapsing shortly after, as officially claimed. But it was only claimed that these reinforcements were for relatively light incidents, not the impact of a speeding 100 ton plane. Their main purpose it seems was to allow framing the heavy new 'blast proof' windows. This leads to the importance of conducting the incident so that the path of the alleged 757 would cross over the concrete expansion joint along the double column row number 11. By doing so, the needed collapse (for covering up the worst damaged area) could be facilitated much easier by demolition, and a better excuse could be had for the collapse, i.e. that the presence of the expansion joint prevented the weight load from the damaged area from spreading further to the left of the column 11 line. The resulting visual gash in the building providing the needed psychological imagery to satisfy most casual observers.
Once again, one has to ask just how obliging the Islamic hijackers could be to fly the plane in such an operationally dangerous approach (even if physically possible) that would allow for the superficial presentation to be made that an actual 757 had made all the footprints out in front, and such as to not make any intermediate wall damage between the front facade and the rear of the C Ring (notice above that the first and second floors are contiguous to the rear of the C Ring). All this when they had no obligation to do so, they could instead have chosen to 'decapitate' the Pentagon by striking where Rumsfeld's office and the NMCC office is, where the building was still fully occupied and unreinforced, and where there was no convenient obstacles to leave the footprints of a 757. Only the fakers had this need.