We the People's Constitutional Activism Website!

What Do You Think Impacted The Pentagon On 9/11?

My thoughts, briefly:

A) I doubt if it was a 757; however, it might have been a 757;

B) If it was a 757, what happened to the wings? The engines? The tail?;

C) The hole in the building is consistent with the fuselage of the 757 . . . or a cruise missile with a shaped fuse warhead;

D) That hole, the size of which is unknown to me, depending on the hole's diameter, appears to be inconsistent with a 757 because there is no hole for the strong wing root on either side of the oval hole allegedly made by the nose of the fuselage and there are no holes for the wings themselves and the even harder, heavy, large, engines;

E) The insides of modern, large, jet engines are made of extremely hard metal, and they are big and heavy. The heavy mass and high speed momentum of the alleged 757's fuselage, wing roots, and twin engines would leave either one big hole [bigger than the width of the distance from the outside of both of a 757's twin engines] or three holes--one for each engine and one for the fuselage, with wing root holes on both sides of the fuselage hole. Given the huge scale of the Pentagon, the apparent single hole in that building might be deceiving. That hole might be bigger than the distance from the outside of a 757's twin engines. If that hole is not bigger than that distance, then, there should be three holes in that building [two engine holes and one fuselage hole,] or, one whole [for the fuselage] and the two engines should be found near the outside of the Pentagon. If the Pentagon at that point of impact had super reinforced walls, the engines, at high speed, would be similar to a high speed bullet speed hitting an ultra dense metal plate--hit, smash up, and drop down and land in place near by or careen off a distance, but not just vaporize. Those engines are not bullet hollow points;]

F) Despite a full bag of fuel, the entire wings, tail assembly, and engines would not 100% vaporize;

G) If the engines, tail and wing did not penetrate the building they had to come to rest outside it, but there is no evidence of that, at least not to my knowledge;

H) The lack of 3 holes in the Pentagon, the lack of engine, wing, and tail assembly debris strongly suggests it was not a 757 or any aircraft of that size;

I) Even when a plane hits the ground in a nose dive or at an angle, most often a large portion of the tail and the wing tips survive, especially if the ground was impacted at a shallow angle, as allegedly was the case for whatever hit the Pentagon, but, the large tail assembly and wing tips were not shown in photos taken promptly afterwards;

J) The Govt and private enterprise maintain many surveillance cameras around Washington, D.C. with fields of view that overlap one another. If a 757 really did impact the Pentagon, where is the convincing movie footage showing that fact? With so many people asking the questions I ask herein, if a 757 did impact the Pentagon, odds are high that a camera photographed it and the Govt or private enterprise or both has the images to prove it and would have released such images. Reason: As of now, the Govt has a growing credibility gap problem arising from the questions asked herein by many.

Note: If a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, think of the implications: 1) Is the Govt lying to us?; 2) Who, if anyone, has a sinister agenda, one horrific enough to murder innocents in the Pentagon to advance their agenda?; 3) Did some military test go haywire and the Pentagon was accidentally struck?; 4) Did some tyrant wannabee or rogue person or useful idiot for a tyrant wannabee deliberately fire upon the Pentagon and now the Govt is trying to pass it off as a 757 flown by an alleged terrorist?; 5) If a 757 did not impact the Pentagon, what happened to that allegedly destroyed 757 and its crew and passengers? Who is callous enough to hold them incognito or murder them? Who, if anyone, is involved in a plot to lie to us on this scale and, if mass murder is involved, murder so many innocents?

Comments?

I am not a scientist, a physicist, or an aeronautical engineer. I got my undergraduate degree in Political Science, and there is not much "science" in PoliSci. But, based on a smattering of science and physics that I picked up in a broad based liberal education, the pictures of the hole in the Pentagon are not conclusive of the official version of what caused that hole, at least not in my judgment as of now.

-- Peter Mancus