Interesting? Perhaps.

Untrue French-inspired conspiracy theory? Most certainly.

If you think the word "conspiracy" applies... Always check Snopes.

Interesting presentation, heavy mass objects like the engines should have made separate impact marks upon striking, leaving a larger entrance, there should have been more parts, wheels, engines, etc. that are not readily consumed by flames. I'll reserve judgement but not rule out the possibility of an Exocet type missle, then again if it were a missile what happened to the missing aircraft?

Jack - read the Snopes page.

The engines did make holes... inside the building. That's the big hole you see in the video, where one of the engines blew through a reinforced wall. And as for the parts - look at the Flight 93 crash site. Nothing but bits and pieces. Most of them thumb-sized or smaller. The destruction within that hole was pretty thorough. And define "not readily consumed by flames." The flames in the WTC were hot enough to burn steel; ditto for the Pentagon until the fire crews arrived.

I'm no structural engineer but I'd think the Pentagon external facing was stronger than the facing of the WTC, which could easily explain why "wing holes" were visible there. The wings ripped and folded back along the fuselage.

Thanks Mollbot, snopes does tear it to pieces. Just goes to show you can't trust anything those frogs say or do, sorta like that French looking Senator thats running around talking out his ass.

Very nice comments you guys have here, congratulations and thanks to allowing my post...