Okay here's nine somethings listed at the site as it stands now, which again, is
this.
the aircraft's reported 42º approach angle is not possible for a B-757;
Everyone knows a big plane like that can't hit something at that angle! Just kidding, he means the damage don't line up with a 757. Partial debunk:
This is false. It all lines up well -wingtip to wingtip, except maybe the gouge in the top of the generator seems a bit off. and I challenge you to show otherwise.
the aircraft's right wing's hitting a generator cannot account for the narrowness and discontinuity of the damage to the facade as proposed by the Report;
Debunk
the intact cable spools in the trajectory of the aircaft are incompatible with the information on the impact contained in the Report
Nope. Two were tipped and distorted, which fits the impact altitude the real plane was at. The others were further back and passed over untouched and stayed put or rolled a bit on wake.
there is no evidence to support the claim of the left engine having hit a vent structure; such a hit would also not explain the narrowness of the damage to the facade.
Debunk on vent damage - see photo at top, lower left damage area in the concrete enclosure. A nice line where the engine would be, at ground level.
Wing damage debunk - same as for the right - outer wings don't break through, the wing imprint does not represent the whole wing. If we tie eight foot peacock feathers to each wingtip, should the hole be 16 feet winder? Same concept, dude.
the allegation of the aircraft's fuselage sliding into the first floor has no physical credibility;
Like hell it doesn't. 2nd floor slab damaged at impact for several feet in - something too big to fit obviously hit there, intact at first. After this the fuselage got smaller, as is obvious. The top didn't go in. it's all over the lawn, remember? Bottom 2/3 of the fuselage wouldn't fit inside? Please don't try arguing this.
the facade damage on the right side of the opening in the outer wall does not correspond to the shape, size and reported position of the alleged B-757;
I already covered this, point 2.
the facade damage on the left side of the opening are not suggestive of the proposed impact of a B-757
Covered.
the tail of the aircraft left no visible marks on the facade while the Report in no way explains this
Allow me then - the plane didn't fly in backward but nose first. By the time the "tailfin hit" it wasn't attached to a plane anymore. It probably NEVER hit the wall, at least not upright, in one piece, or with any real force.
the Report fails to provide any kind of explanation for the hole in the wall of Ring C.
True. They weren't even allowed to inpest it. It might have something to with the giant plane that they documented penetrating about that deep into the building on just that path. Who knows, eh?
Is that it? Oh...
