Is it Logical that an Aircraft Hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001?

     To look at the attack on the Pentagon on Sept 11th 2001, and say the answer we are given as to what impacted the Pentagon is logical, is a giant leap of the imagination! It appears that for the first time in history we are given the most circumstantial evidence of an aircraft impact, and then told to accept it as truth, because those who are telling us say it is so.

     Let us examine what we are told is an aircraft impact at the Pentagon. First we have a few witness’s saying they saw a large commercial aircraft fly over them and hit the Pentagon. Never mind the fact that there are just as many who claim the aircraft flew an entirely different route. We are shown images of downed light poles along the supposed flight path, yet the poles lie nowhere near where some people reporting seeing the plane fly. Now in the face of two sets of eyewitness’s saying two entirely different things, we must rely on the actual evidence and our own sense of logic as to what exactly hit the Pentagon that day.

     So let us now examine a few of the key pieces of evidence we are told represents a very large passenger jet, and see if it logically represents what we should see with such an crash.

     First we are shown pictures of various aircraft parts. None are very large and can easily be identified as belonging to the particular aircraft right away. We see very fine fields of aluminum debris in the lawn area directly in front of and side of impact area. Original pictures of the building before the collapse showed no signs of impact impressions of the wings, engine or tail sections. Now logically no matter how hard or reinforced the outer walls are, you would expect to see at least damage of some sort from these major aircraft parts, yet, you do not. Does that seem logical?

     Second we are shown photos of men carrying a large covered object on their shoulders and told it was plane wreckage. Yet we are never once shown or told exactly what it was, to this day! Again we are shown photos of a burnt out engine that does not look like the engine found in the aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon. Yet again, only one is ever said to be recovered and these engines are made of virtually indestructible material! Remember, there were two of these large engines on the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. We are paraded a line of photos said to be aircraft wreckage, yet in some way it still does not seem to fit. It just does not seem to fit reason that this aircraft would be so utterly obliterated, when there is absolutely no historical precedent for this!

     Once again in the face of multiple contradicting witness testimony, we must rely on the available evidence to base our conclusion on as to what exactly hit the Pentagon. Seemingly, we must also account for the wreckage WE DO NOT SEE, at the Pentagon crash site. We are never once shown photos of large pieces of wreckage such as a wing, a tail, parts of the fuselage, as we have seen in all wreckage of large airliner crashes in the past. We are not shown pieces of substantial aluminum body panels or the aluminum ribs that make up the planes skeletal structure. No all the typical wreckage from a jet liner of the size we are told hit the Pentagon, seems to be missing. Does this seem logical in any way?

     Lastly we come to the odd coincidence that the flight data recorder information which is said to be from the aircraft, once again does not conform to the eyewitness accounts of flight path, height, and speed. Actually, the flight data that we are told comes from the aircraft, has the aircraft at a much higher altitude, than the downed light poles would indicate. If we are to follow the line of reasoning put forth by the official story, the evidence does not logically add up to, or support in any way, the conclusions we are given.

     Another well documented fact that seems to defy logic that a large aircraft struck the Pentagon is the severely lacking skills of the person who was supposedly flying the aircraft had. This is an individual whom could not fly or land the smallest of aircraft. Yet we are to believe this man carried out precise maneuvers needed to make a perfect spiral decent to the Pentagon and strike it at ground level? Maybe all of us need to go view the obstacle course this menial pilot had to fly through to hit the Pentagon, and then use a little logical thinking to see if he could have pulled it off. I would be surprised if anyone actually claims he could. Yet this is what we are told happened!

     In all, I for one can see no logical evidence as to a plane the size of the one we are told hit the Pentagon, anywhere near the Pentagon! Others have claimed a much smaller aircraft; some others claim a small unmanned flying missile of some sort. It is hard to say who is right or wrong on those two points. One point you cannot deny though, the explanation we are given sure seems to defy all logical thought whatsoever, once you actually look at the evidence that they claim indicates one did!

     So good reader, does it seem logical that a large aircraft hit the Pentagon on Sept 11th, 2001, given the available evidence? All indications would point to no!