What Hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

Let me first start by saying, I think it is possible that flight 77 or a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. In fact, in some ways this fits the evidence well and is the simplest explanation. But at the risk of offending people like Mark Rabinowitz, I don't think it is a slam dunk case. And furthermore, in some ways, I simply don't see how a Boeing 757/flight 77 was able to produce the complete scene we saw at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Assuming flight 77 truly hit the Pentagon, I think it either had to have had an amazing pilot at the controls who was not one of the known 9/11 hijackers, or the plane was piloted by remote technology. The 9/11 commission is simply lying when it says Hani Hanjour was the pilot.

Moreover, the spot on the Pentagon where the plane hit was highly suspicious. It was recently renovated and lightly populated. Why was this spot chosen by a terrorist?

But in terms of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE-- here are the reasons to think the Pentagon was hit by flight 77 (a Boeing 757):

1) it is the simplest explanation for what happened to the plane and its passengers

2) the hole in the Pentagon wall was a reasonable fit for a 757 if we assume the tail and part of the wings broke off and that these were never seen by first responders, reporters and photographers

3) the relative lack of plane debris from the huge plane was because the plane completely shredded as it exploded and then impacted inner columns and walls in the Pentagon

4) a Boeing 757 is a very large plane that with a large fuel load could have caused the explosion and inner devastation seen at the Pentagon

5) the government says that is what happened, and we should simply take their word without seeing any real proof

But wait-- there is more!!!

Here is what we need to either believe or rationalize if the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757/flight 77:

1) the squads of soldiers and FBI agents who picked up pieces of debris very rapidly after the crash were merely collecting evidence and were not trying to hide anything

2) the Pentagon security camera video of the crash is really the best set of pictures they had and it was not altered and key frames were not cut out

3) the FBI really has a good reason for not releasing the videos they confiscated from the gas station and nearby hotel

4) a Boeing 757 can travel over 500 mph only inches off the ground on essentially a level path without being affected by the ground effect and without crashing on the ground.

5) that even though the fuselage of the plane clearly blew up spewing debris on the Pentagon lawn, and the passengers of the plane were in the back section (according to Barbara Olson's call), not one human remain was blown out onto the Pentagon lawn by the huge explosion the plane made as it hit the building

6) a Boeing 757, with its engines only inches off the ground (since one engine apparently knocked a ground level hole in the chain link fence), and thus with the plane's belly only four feet off the ground, can pass over six foot tall cable spools without knocking them down. This picture illustrates my point very well, actually:

From Jean-Pierre Desmoulins's Pentagon site. The left cross is supposedly where the port engine traveled and hit a cement curb, knocking a hole in it. The middle cross is where the fuselage is supposed to have gone and the right cross is supposedly where the starboard engine went. 
However, one can clearly see the absurdity of this flight path. First, the hole in the curb is simply not the right dimensions for a 757 engine. Second, even if it was a 757 engine that knocked the hole in the curb, this means the plane's body would have to be only four feet off the ground. But you can see the six foot high cable spools were in the direct path of the fuselage and were not knocked down. So if you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, you have to believe the plane magically passed over these cable spools. But in fact, for the damage pattern seen at the Pentagon, the only way a Boeing 757 could have come in is with its engines just inches off the ground. So this is a serious problem.

7) a Boeing 757, which is not built to penetrate walls, can go through the three foot thick reinforced concrete wall of the Pentagon and pass completely through without leaving significant debris outside. Not only this, but the plane is so tough it can penetrate the wall by hitting at an oblique (52 degree) angle-- thus wasting much of its forward momentum on a force vector that is parallel and not perpendicular to the wall

8) the engine of a Boeing 757 can strike a 10,000 pound generator some one hundred feet from the pentagon wall, and either not break off the wing or break off and keep traveling in the direction of the plane and disappear into the Pentagon.

So, yes, one can think that flight 77/a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

But if you will indulge, I also wonder if something else could have hit there.

Last night I ruled out the A3 skywarrior as being able to knock that hole in the fence. But I mentioned a missile that might be a candidate: the SNARK SM-62 missile:
The SNARK missile in a hanger 

Sure, this is a wild idea, but bear with me.

First off, the thing is pretty big and looks like a plane. With small jets mounted on the wings, it even looks a bit like a 757. Or certainly it looks like a small plane, as a couple of witnesses said.

Second, the fuselage is about the right diameter to make the hole in the fence.

Third, we don't need to worry about this thing passing over the cable spools-- it would take a different path and avoid the spools.

Fourth, this thing could carry a lot of explosives and hence do a lot of damage, and since it is a missile, it is built to penetrate.

Fifth, this thing has been decomissioned and is no longer is service, and thus would be easier for rogue miltary personnel to get their hands on and program to fly. This would probably be easier to get hold of than a cruise missile.

Sixth, it is propoelled by a normal jet engine, so it would sound similar to a jet airplane and leave jet engine debris.

Seventh, the flight path of the flying object that hit the Pentagon is similar to that of a missile, with the circular correction path at the end before the impact.

Eighth, the missile would blow up and leave little debris, as was observed. To mimic an airliner crash, few parts from an American Airlines Boeing 757 could be packaged in one of the contractor's trailers and then blown up as the missile hit.

Ninth, a missile does not fly like a plane and would not have worry about the "ground effect".

Tenth, a missile hitting could be why there has been a cover-up of the Pentagon attack, and why the men outside the Pentagon cleaned up so quickly.


Why would the 9/11 planners use a missile and not a plane?

1) better penetration and more damage

2) they wanted to send a signal that this wasn't just terrorists-- so they made a Boeing 757 cover-story but really used a missile

3) this SNARK missile actually carried nuclear warheads and if this missile was identified by people who reported to Bush on 9/11, this might explain why he went to Offut Air Force Base to take control of the nulcear arsenal.

Okay, it's just CRAAAAZY, isn't it?

So, I am not saying this is what happened-- I am only putting it out there as an alternative theory.

Yes, the 757 theory is the simplest. But the 757 theory also has some severe problems!