Flight 77, the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was a Boeing 757. It is the same plane that President Trump flies in.
A Boeing 757 uses one of 2 different engines: Either a Rolls-Royce RB211 or a Pratt & Whitney PW2000
Here is a diagram of a Rolls-Royce RB211. It says the opening of the turbine of a RB211 is 84.8 inches in diameter. (7 feet)
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B0122274105003562-gr7.jpg
Here is a photo of President Trumps plane (757), look at the size of the opening of the plane turbine and the person standing next to the plane. Look at the center hub of the turbine, compare its size to the person standing next to the plane.
Here is a photo from the Pentagon on 9/11. Look at the round object behind the person on the left. That is the center hub of a turbine from the object that hit the Pentagon. Notice anything wrong?
That makes sense however, the photo above has the rounded, egg shaped, center point which is what you would find on the bigger front fan.
That's what it would look like if it broke at high RPM. It could even be one of the front turbines with all the blades broke off, thats special steel to prevent blades creeping in length at high temp, I would expect them to break and it's probably not even steel most likely iconel,blades from material like that would break and not bend. It was almost 20 years ago I got my A&P license,but I still remember the basics.
I have no idea what hit the pentagon, but that part does not make your argument. It was a well researched and document high effort post, I hesitated before I posted.......
Have you watched to documentary Loose Change? They go over some of the details about the parts that were found at the scene. It is at the 13 minute mark.
https://rumble.com/vs3quw-american-coup-1st-edition-2005.html
I watched it, just now. It reminds me of the concord crash in Paris. The pentagon crash site needs to be compared to similar crashes.
I'm sorry, but I did research for a living. "Well researched" does not come up with the wrong answer. High effort means nothing if it is mistaken. In this case, the anon could have avoided the errors if he had simply become familiar with the construction of turbofan engines and what the components look like. There is no way that a worthy researcher would claim (in effect) that an inlet fan and a turbine disk were the same thing. That was the whole premise on which he hung his conclusion. We can't let sloppy research fuel empty conspiracy theories. It is a waste of time and a distraction from the truth.
This picture of a cutaway RB211-535E4 may help. The large fan is on the front but the part you can see in the Pentagon photograph has a shroud round the outer edge. I believe this picture shows guide vanes but turbine blades have a similar shroud round the outside.
To me, the Pentagon image seems to be of shrouded blades which implies turbine blades rather than compressor blades. In the cutaway picture the compressor sections are on the left and the turbine sections are on the right. The combustion chamber is in between.