Oblique Perspectival View of penetration from Computer Model (see also animation from same model, below). This illustration indicates with not-so-subtle clarity how the engines and main wing spars (structural component of wings) present peril to the exterior shell of the building. The main wing spar and engines are far more massive and solid objects than the front of the fuselage itself.

Drawing 3: Elevation of 757-200 Superposition over actual opening created at Pentagon. Geometry (shape and dimensions) extracted forensically from photographs of the penetration available in the public domain. Both 757-200 fueselage (drawings courtesy of Boeing, Inc.) are to the same scale. As can be seen above, the aircraft fuselage cannot penetrate the wall of the pentagon without being tilted nose-down, which would create significant tracks in the lawn made by the engine cowlings and engines themselves – not to mention the fact that ground interference would tend to make the aircraft enter a headlong rotation, up-ending it against the building face. Photograph of site post-crash below shows no such marks or signs of interference. Please also note lack of damage that would clearly be inflicted by (a) main wing spars, (b) engines, (c) rear stablizer/rudder assy., etc.

Drawing 4: Plan View  757-200 PENETRATION @ PENTAGON – PLAN

This drawing indicates the point of penetration of the 757-200 in the context of the official floor plan of the Pentagon, both at the same scale of course. The direction of travel of the aircraft is indicatd on the fuselage, above. Plan shows missing section of wall and interior structural elements. The drawing also indicates the impending collision between starboard wing leading edge and entry of building, which was left unscathed (see photographs). There are no marks or exterior damage from engines or from wing. The wing itself contains a rather massive beam, called the ‘main spar’ which is FAR stronger than are girders commonly used in skyscrapers. It is not only of comparable size – but is also heat treated and hardened to a higher specification – owing to the span across which it must function  (approximately 125 ft) – a far greater span than can be found in the largest of skyscrapers.

See also: Animations at bottom of graphics section

Original drawings were made according to government and Boeing documents available in the public domain. See below for reference.

Figures 5A & 5B: Photographic evidence of Pentagon and WTC 2 respectively, showing damage from impact of similar planes. Penetration @ Pentagon Exterior wall does not correlate to distribution of mass or structural elements of Boeing 757. Single central hole is left behind, despite the lack of compressive strength of the 757  fuselage and the far greater strength/mass of wing and engine assembly.