Mike Voice says:

What’s wierd is that it would “emerge” 3-years after the fact.

Rick Morris says:

Hmm… another conspiracy theory surfaces. As usual based on very unscholarly analysis of the evidence. Occam’s razor would seem to say that if we can explain the supposed questions they raise in a simpler way, then that would suffice. Otherwise we have to explain what happened to the *4th airplain*.

Here is a 3D animation that matches the photos quite well: http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

I think the reason the airplane looks to small to be a 757 in the Pentagon photos is probably because 1) it is coming in at an oblique angle, rather than the full “side view” that people imagine, and 2) people tend to forget the scale of the Pentagon. It is quite a large building, and those windows tend to underplay it’s scale in photos. Also, a reason for the lack of visible damage might be accounted for by the fact that this whole section had been recently reinforced.

A documentary of the Pentagon attack that I saw recently explains the lack of visible airplane parts: remember in the WTC attacks, those airplanes disappeared completely into the side of the towers. The same happened at the Pentagon. Inside, there were a series of extremely strong columns, which shredded the wings and fuselage completely. That also explains the neat hole punched into the inner wall, since only a small part of the plane actually made it that far. All of the photos of crash remains shown in the above video are of completely different scenarios, where a jetliner pancaked into an open field. In fact, even in open fields, when airplanes hit directly (say at a greater than 45 degree angle downward), you will see a similar lack of remains. Living in Florida, I recall when the ValueJet plane disintegrated completely by hitting a swampy part of the Everglades at enough of an angle.

So, I would have to say … nah; not gonna buy it.

tagryn says:

Oh, no. Not “Hunt the Boeing” again.

Snopes has a entry on this one from the last time it made the rounds: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Paul Boutin’s debunking of it remains the best answer I’ve seen:
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

frankbaird says:

There is one point where the slide show asks “What are these parts?” implying that they are missile parts. Well, maybe they are. Imagine there being missile parts in Pentagon offices. Seeing as how many, many people in the Pentagon have worked on missile projects, it is very likely they would have momentos in their office.

John C. Dvorak says:

In most of these sorts of things you have to have a lot of “hidden” and “taken” sorts of things that are unobtainable to make the whole mystery work.

K B says:

This is a good example of how you are never going to be able to prove an established theory to someone who insists on another take– no matter how well established the supporting facts are.
A good exercise is to take a subject you know well and make a specious claim which you know cannot be true. Take a notepad and jot down all of the points you can think of to support the argument. List a few reasons why prevailing opinion cannot be right. You will be AMAZED what you can argue.
I recently did this as an experiment by asserting that, in chess, the Knight is stronger than the Queen, and that only preconceptions and prejudice supported the notion that the Queen is stronger. It wasn’t too hard to come up with a few arguments. The Queen is too easily repelled, too vulnerable to come out early in the game, and seldom survives into the endgame. I scribbled down some examples. By contrast, the Knight is nimble from the very start, can enter the fray immediately, is not so quickly repelled, and often fights right on into the endgame.
Ensuing discussions would, of course, prove that the Queen is almost always much stronger than a Knight, but a zealot could go on arguing anyway.
Most of the time, the Master would refuse to discuss it at all, because his experience allows him to recognize nonsense when he hears it. But of course the zealot would point to that as an example of his not being open-minded.

Rob McEwen says:

It is very interesting to consider that all it would take is a single photo or camera still of a piece of airplane at the Pentagon to end this controversy.

I’m intrigued, but have not studied this near enough to come to any conclusion… though, I wonder, if the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, where did it go?

But, my main contribution to this discussion is to ask, (1) wasn’t there a very extensive and detailed search for human remains in all of these crashes ? If so, wouldn’t that have happened at the Pentagon and did any remains of those from the plane make it to the Pentagon. (2) Wouldn’t the jet fuel have presented a big (or bigger) problem at the Penagon. Recall that it took many weeks to completely put out the jet fuel fires out at the trade center. Wouldn’t this have been a problem at the Pentagon, too? (or was it?)

Just some things I’m curious about…

Trapper John says:

Mr Dvorak , you just try to help Bush to explain something that suspicious , there is no a piece of human flesh found on the crash site of Pentagon, condisering that we can collect some human tissue that identified as the flying crew of the exploded space shutter , even from higher attitude.

Shame on you , you are part of the conspiracy