9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer slips up and names the machine that struck the Pentagon as a missile, instead of an airplane. Oh, well, tangled webs.
Here is an analysis of why an airliner could not have hit the Pentagon that day.
I just had a discussion with a reader on the objections to the theory that a plane was used against the Pentagon. Here is a summary of the objections to that theory.
There are several problems with the explanation that a plane hit the Pentagon. One is that no wreckage of a plane has ever been found. If a plane had hit, there would be bodies of passengers, seats, baggage, tail assembly, wings. They would been all over the place and prominent in pictures of the site.
A second is that the marks on the building are not consistent with a plane. There are no indications that the wings or tail assembly struck the building.
A third is that there are no marks on the ground consistent with a plane flying that low. The jet would have had to come so close to the ground that the grass would show indications of it.
A fourth is that there was no fire at the Pentagon consistent with a plane carrying that amount of jet fuel, as compared say with the explosion at the World Trade Center when planes hit them. You can see that a book still sits on a filing cabinet next to the building and a wooden desk is not even singed. Papers are strewn about indicating that no fire took place.
A fifth is that Hani Hanjour could not have flown a plane that had to make those manoeuvers. He did not have the skills to have flown it in such a tight circle as it made on approach or so low to the ground. In fact few well-trained pilots could have flown that flight pattern in a passenger airliner.
A sixth is that the FBI have never released any of the security tapes that would confirm that a plane hit and would be expected to if they wanted to settle the question.