Comparing WTC and Pentagon crashes

[Andre II]

Comparing entrance holes:
After what is considered to have been two Boeing 767 hit the WTC they left these entrance holes :








And here is how the Pentagon looked like after it was hit by what is considered to have been a Boeing 757:




Now let’s compare the three entrance holes.
I have no problem imaging that it is possible that a plane enters a building and leaves a hole practically the size of the plane (WTC).
I have no problem imaging that it is possible that a plane hits a building and only leaves a small hole (and somehow the rest of the plane vaporized). Ok
I also assume that the holes at the WTC are bigger cause they were caused by the bigger plane and the WTC wasn’t as solidly build as the Pentagon


Comparing exit holes:
Now,
at the WTC there was no exit hole.


At the Pentagon it looks like this:




“The fuselage crashed through 310 feet and the outer three rings of the renovated section of the building known as Wedge One”
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/8_03/national_news/21295-1.html


Here my question:
I can imagine that somehow a Boeing does manage such a big entrance hole at the WTC and doesn’t manage any exit hole in a building that has a width of about 200 feet.
I can imagine that the nose of the smaller Boeing 757 is so strong that it manages to crash through 310 feet and three wings that had been renovated against terrorist attacks.
But my problem is simply:

Why does a plane that leaves the bigger entrance hole NOT manage to crash through 200 feet of the apparently less solidly built WTC when on the other hand a smaller plane manages only a small entrance hole at the Pentagon still is capable to crash through 310 feet of what apparently is much more solidly built?
Don’t these two crashes contradict each other?

[file83]

1. Yes they do contradict each other. If the wings didn't penetrate the

exterior Pentagon walls (as is clearly shown in the photos), then there should be significant pieces that should have bounced off and landed on the lawn.

[HamdenRice]

2. There were exit holes from the towers

This is a photo of the exit holes of both towers:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires3.html



I think you mean the holes are different. The tower holes are not neat and round like the Pentagon exit hole.

[Kevin Fenton]

3. A good fisking

"I have no problem imaging that it is possible that a plane enters a building and leaves a hole practically the size of the plane (WTC)."
The hole - measured from severed column to severed column - is definitely smaller than the plane. The wingtips and the tail can't sever the perimeter columns.

"I have no problem imaging that it is possible that a plane hits a building and only leaves a small hole"
It's 90+ feet. How is that "small"?

"(and somehow the rest of the plane vaporized)."
It didn't vaporise. If memory serves me correctly, this claim was initially made by Le Monde, hardly an official US government body.

"at the WTC there was no exit hole."
On the contrary, there were exit holes, for example:
"some aircraft parts ... passed entirely through the buildings, landing some distance away."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.html

“The fuselage crashed through 310 feet and the outer three rings of the renovated section of the building known as Wedge One”
The fuselage (if it really was the fuselage, "debris flow" would be more accurate) passed through not only part of Wedge One, but also Wedge Two.

So there's no contradiction.

[Andre II]

4. Holes

Any link for stating that the hole in the Pentagon prior to the collapse was "90+ feet"?
Do you have any photo of the WTC showing an exit hole?

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Links

The hole "extends about 90 feet on the first floor -- wide enough to have allowed the vast majority of a 757 to enter the building, even considering the trajectory of the plane."
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

This is also well worth reading:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

This is the FEMA/ASCE study:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
It has some diagrams and good photos.

I don't recall seeing a picture of the exit holes in the WTC, although somebody (maybe Seatnineb) did post a video of some of the debris exiting the building. The holes were in the form of severed perimeter columns.

[medienanalyse]

6. A Very Short But Explaining Answer

"Why does a plane that leaves the bigger entrance hole NOT manage to crash through 200 feet of the apparently less solidly built WTC when on the other hand a smaller plane manages only a small entrance hole at the Pentagon still is capable to crash through 310 feet of what apparently is much more solidly built?"

Answer: the difference between the buildings in this question is: alu-shredder inside vs. alu-shredder outside.

Additionally: forget about the solidity of a building. Solidity is a function to many circumstances from weight to earthquakes, from wind-thrust to construction principles.

And as always I repeat: do not forget the kevlar on the walls ...