Have you ever seen what actually happens to a plane when it hits a wall?
Watch this video for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–_RGM4Abv8
Now consider again what might have happened to the 757 upon impact.

And I already linked to an image showing where exactly the DNA of the
passengers of Flight 77 was found on the grounds of the Pentagon.

Also, have you realized that Ronald Reagan National Airport is situated only
a few hundred meters away from the Pentagon, with a landing strip pointing
directly to the direction of the Pentagon? There are literally hundreds of
airplanes that are “allowed to get any where near the Pentagon” every day.

Please stop asking questions anyone can debunk in two minutes time.

Turning now to the Pentagon attack. Some in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and others do not. However, we all agree that a plane shouldn't have been allowed to get any where near the Pentagon with out being intercepted or at best a warning being issued.

Why didn't the tail of the plane damage the Pentagon's facade? This problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states,

“The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.”

What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?

These are question brought up by the PBPR but are left unanswered. To support the official story you have to provide evidence that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon not some other plane. So far, years later, no evidence has been forthcoming.

The government brought forth – though not always in the most forthcoming way
- the facts. So anyone is free to analyze these facts and draw his own
conclusions. In my view, these facts absolutely fit what we know or, as you
would like to call it, the government's “conspiracy theory”. If you disagree
you have to specify why and what evidence supports your claim – that's the
basis for rational discourse. That's all I have to say on this matter.

Daniel: “The most basic premise the conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on them.”

Why is the burden on the 9/11 Truth Movement? Are you saying that the government is under no obligation to provide any positive evidence in support of their conspiracy theory? During the run-up to the Iraq War, was the burden on the government to prove that Iraq was producing and stockpiling WMD, or was the burden on the dissenters, like Scott Ritter, to prove that they weren't?

Daniel: “Playing on one’s emotions is a clever tactic…” It is our government that does this. Remember the “mushroom clouds over Americans cities” argument for why we needed to attack Iraq?

Daniel: “Why was Flight 93 not intercepted? Because NORAD had no specific targets to go after, and was waiting on the FAA to name them.”

“[W]e watched the [Flight] 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.”
Larry Arnold, Commander of the Continental US NORAD Region, “Air War Over America”

A little learning is a dangerous thing.