People say what they know. "Scud" missile. No.

It WAS, however, a cruise missile. My background has many things and many hats I wore while serving in the Military. One of these hats was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator. What significance is that? Glad you asked and I'll be as brief as possible to get the point across.

As an Investigator, you are trained in all sorts of "tells" so you can identify what went wrong by looking at a heap of metal confetti and a smoking hole. This ranges in everything of flight characteristics of all types of aircraft, to what systems it carries/uses. In this particular context, there is absolutely NO commercial pilot good enough to fly 4-5 feet off the ground over varied terrain, through telephone poles and streetlights, to hit the exact spot where auditing was taking place by internal investigations in the disappearance of 3.2 trillion dollars (remember rumsfeld on live TV talking about it?).

Added to that, I served almost 7 yrs in Special Ops during the 90's and have seen up close what a cruise missile does, as well its aftermath. "Up close" being relative to not being part of the blast for any pedants out there.

• Fact: There is ZERO chance any aircraft built, or the parts that make it up, can punch thru 5 layers of spaced reinforced concrete plus internal beams and walls of someplace like the Pentagon. It would absolutely disintegrate within the first "ring", mostly upon smashing the first outer wall.

• Fact: A cruise missile can punch thru 5 layers/walls; that IS what it is made to do.

The hole size of the Pentagon does NOT match up with the airframe size, nor does it have ANY of the traits associated with an aircraft hitting the site...but a cruise missile does.

Questions:

• There was a hole for a "fuselage" which is the lightest and most destructible part of any aircraft, but there were NOT any holes punched for the engines which are the heaviest and most dense metal content?

• If you view the photos of the up close aftermath, it shows floors of the building sheared away from the blast. Ok, by why are there wooden desks, chairs, pictures on walls still, and unburnt papers on those floors? Aren't aircraft full of fuel that would have incinerated all of that? Would a quick flash-blast of an explosive warhead leave some things untouched as they were shielded from the blast by a lower floor?

• Why wasn't the grass burnt to the dirt by spilled jet fuel? Why wasn't the asphalt burnt the same? Why were walls not charred black by burning JP8 fuel?

Hint: these questions are called rhetorical.

I said it the day it happened and I've been saying it ever since: That was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile.

People say what they know. "Scud" missile. No.

It WAS, however, a cruise missile. My background has many things and many hats I wore while serving in the Military. One of these hats was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator. What significance is that? Glad you asked and I'll be as brief as possible to get the point across.

As an Investigator, you are trained in all sorts of "tells" so you can identify what went wrong by looking at a heap of metal confetti and a smoking hole. This ranges in everything of flight characteristics of all types of aircraft. In this particular context, there is absolutely NO commercial pilot good enough to fly 4-5 feet off the ground over varied terrain, through telephone poles and streetlights, to hit the exact spot where auditing was taking place by internal investigations in the disappearance of 3.2 trillion dollars (remember rumsfeld on live TV talking about it?).

Added to that, I served almost 7 yrs in Special Ops during the 90's and have seen up close what a cruise missile does, as well its aftermath. "Up close" being relative to not being part of the blast for any pedants out there.

• Fact: There is ZERO chance any aircraft built, or the parts that make it up, can punch thru 5 layers of spaced reinforced concrete plus internal beams and walls of someplace like the Pentagon. It would absolutely disintegrate within the first "ring", mostly upon smashing the first outer wall.

• Fact: A cruise missile can punch thru 5 layers/walls; that IS what it is made to do.

The hole size of the Pentagon does NOT match up with the airframe size, nor does it have ANY of the traits associated with an aircraft hitting the site...but a cruise missile does.

Questions:

• There was a hole for a "fuselage" which is the lightest and most destructible part of any aircraft, but there were NOT any holes punched for the engines which are the heaviest and most dense metal content?

• If you view the photos of the up close aftermath, it shows floors of the building sheared away from the blast. Ok, by why are there wooden desks, chairs, pictures on walls still, and unburnt papers on those floors? Aren't aircraft full of fuel that would have incinerated all of that? Would a quick flash-blast of an explosive warhead leave some things untouched as they were shielded from the blast by a lower floor?

• Why wasn't the grass burnt to the dirt by spilled jet fuel? Why wasn't the asphalt burnt the same? Why were walls not charred black by burning JP8 fuel?

Hint: these questions are called rhetorical.

I said it the day it happened and I've been saying it ever since: That was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile.

People say what they know. "Scud" missile. No.

It WAS, however, a cruise missile. My background has many things and many hats I wore while serving in the Military. One of these hats was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator. What significance is that? Glad you asked and I'll be as brief as possible to get the point across.

As an Investigator, you are trained in all sorts of "tells" so you can identify what went wrong by looking at a heap of metal confetti and a smoking hole. This ranges in everything of flight characteristics of all types of aircraft. In this particular context, there is absolutely NO commercial pilot good enough to fly 4-5 feet off the ground over varied terrain, through telephone poles and streetlights, to hit the exact spot where auditing was taking place by internal investigations in the disappearance of 3.2 trillion dollars (remember rumsfeld on live TV talking about it?).

Added to that, I served almost 7 yrs in Special Ops during the 90's and have seen up close what a cruise missile does, as well its aftermath. "Up close" being relative to not being part of the blast for any pedants out there.

• Fact: There is ZERO chance any aircraft built, or the parts that make it up, can punch thru 5 layers of spaced reinforced concrete plus internal beams and walls of someplace like the Pentagon. It would absolutely disintegrate within the first "ring", mostly upon smashing the first outer wall.

• Fact: A cruise missile can punch thru 5 layers; that IS what it is made to do.

The hole size of the Pentagon does NOT match up with the airframe size, nor does it have ANY of the traits associated with an aircraft hitting the site...but a cruise missile does.

Questions:

• There was a hole for a "fuselage" which is the lightest and most destructible part of any aircraft, but there were NOT any holes punched for the engines which are the heaviest and most dense metal content?

• If you view the photos of the up close aftermath, it shows floors of the building sheared away from the blast. Ok, by why are there wooden desks, chairs, pictures on walls still, and unburnt papers on those floors? Aren't aircraft full of fuel that would have incinerated all of that? Would a quick flash-blast of an explosive warhead leave some things untouched as they were shielded from the blast by a lower floor?

• Why wasn't the grass burnt to the dirt by spilled jet fuel? Why wasn't the asphalt burnt the same? Why were walls not charred black by burning JP8 fuel?

Hint: these questions are called rhetorical.

I said it the day it happened and I've been saying it ever since: That was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile.