Sounds like some crackpot psycho babble.
What about the aircraft that struck nothing in the field, where is it at? Impact is a funny thing. However I do remember watching a piece on the pentagon last summer stating they needed to do something like a billion dollars in restoration work to the pentagon before 9/11. They said after the attacks that it will be close to a billion dollars to repair the pentagon. Almost a billion for that one section? I dont think so. Padding the repair bill is the only thing the government may be guilty of here.
The Boeing accelerated as it approached in a downward dive. This was due to a very steep angle of attack generated by a hasty target selection on the terrorists part. The aircraft speed was excessive due to the steep angle and subsequently hit outside the Pentagon on the lawn and disintegrated. The debris was scattered forward into the Pentagon due to aircraft impact inertia. Most of the force was directed into the ground due to the steep angle of attack and what little did move forward would have impacted the ground floor worse than the three floors above.
This steep angle and impact dynamics would have broken the aircraft into very small pieces (hense no big aircraft parts to be found). The high temperature of the burning jet fuel would have crumbled the three floors above very quickly and turned any metal (hense structural steel or aircraft parts) into slag. You can not identify parts that are melted into pools of slag.
As for the sand and gravel: When operating very heavy excavating equipment to remove the Pentagon rubble, you need a road or your equipment sinks in the lawn. The sand and gravel support heavy equipment very well. I know, because we had to build several roads into aircraft crash sites when I assisted in crash investigations for the Navel Flight Safety Center.
This link was meant to illustrate what has been said about the attack by outsiders. If you look at the writing it was put on the web by a Frenchman...........NEED I SAY MORE?