The Pentagon Problem

Silly silly people who question what happened at the Pentagon:

My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it's one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.

You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan's book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.

Well I guess even though I am hurting "the movement", I am one of those silly people who question what happened at the Pentagon. Are we simply not allowed to "go there"?

For what it is worth, I do think some sort of plane hit the Pentagon-- I just don't think it was flight 77 and I don't that it was an ordinary plane.

Here is the Pentagon problem in a nutshell:

First, I have no problem with the idea that the plane got totally smashed into thousands of mostly very small pieces upon crashing into the Pentagon facade and this is why no significant plane wreckage was found.

Also, I also have no great problem with the idea of a fairly intact plane smashing through the three outer rings of the Pentagon and then making a nice neat exit hole 300 feet from the point of first impact, even if this means the plane had to penetrate several concrete walls and bounce off several steel-reinforced columns on the way.

The PROBLEM is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the plane blew up upon impact and threw debris from the fuselage onto the Pentagon lawn but then say a significant part of the plane was intact enough to go through 300 feet of a building consisting of concrete walls and steel-reinforced columns and then finally knock a 9 foot circular hole in the last wall.

The other PROBLEM is that you can't say the plane blew up on impact and threw debris from the fuselage onto the Pentagon lawn but then say the remaining 99.9% of the fuselage with the people and seats and luggage and everything else that was supposed to be in the plane disappeared into the Pentagon hole.

So if anyone can reconcile this, let me know.

Thanks.