Researchers Differ on What Hit the Pentagon

A great deal of controversy has erupted regarding the attack on the Pentagon. You will note below that I share the perspective of 9/11/01 researcher Jim Hoffman. That is, I believe that it was indeed American Airlines Flight 77 – or quite similarly designed large plane – which hit the Pentagon. Nonetheless I present here information about the multiple perspectives one may honestly hold on this issue.

As Hoffman points out in his article Pentagon Strike Theories, “Questions have surrounded the Pentagon attack from the beginning, given the lack of publicly available evidence clearly showing the crash of a Boeing 757 (the type of plane that Flight 77 was), photographic evidence of building damage that is arguably difficult to reconcile with such a crash, and a substantial body of eyewitness accounts indicating that a jetliner had crashed.”

In his carefully researched paper, published in the October 2016 edition of the online “Foreign Policy Journal”, John Wyndham, PhD – former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology, and current Scientists for 9/11 Truth Coordinator – has applied the scientific method to examination of the Pentagon attack.  With the goal of resolving the troubling questions referenced above by Hoffman, and thereby unifying the 9/11 Truth Movement with respect to the Pentagon attack, Wyndham’s paper, titled Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate, meticulously examines eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, radar records and all available forensic data relevant to the Pentagon attack.  The inescapable conclusion he draws is that the Pentagon did indeed suffer a large plane impact, most likely American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11/01.  In the light offered by this definitive study Wyndham challenges activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement to either convincingly refute his Large Plane Impact hypothesis or join him in working to bring closure to the 9/11 Pentagon debate.

In order to move toward that closure, let’s first look at additional data supporting the “Large Plane Impact” hypothesis.  Then let’s look closely at the data offered in support of the several competing Pentagon attack theories.

A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence Supports the “Large Plane Impact” Theory

For the most detailed interpretation available of the Pentagon attack site forensic data, please see: “Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11”. In this multi part presentation, Engineer Wayne Coste presents a thorough review of the research on the physical evidence at the Pentagon while contributing a fair amount of original research, as well.  Created by Wayne Coste, and narrated by David Chandler, this sequence of videos offers convincing conclusions based on a comprehensive examination of the available data.

Here is an Introductory Overview of Coste’s research presentation (11:38)

Evaluating Alternatives to Large Plane Impact at the Pentagon:

This computer generated visual simulation traces the path of American Airlines Flight 77 as it crashes into the Pentagon. Please note from this video the physical evidence trail involved in the attack.

In his remarkable research paper, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact”, John Wyndham, PhD, examines fully the physical evidence trail at the Pentagon, so clearly detailed in the above video simulation.  He again applies the scientific method to examination of the Pentagon attack “Large Plane Impact” theory.  In this paper, however, he then goes on to apply that same approach to evaluating the several competing theories regarding what occurred at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01.  In each case, he asks the question, “Can this attack theory explain all the relevant evidence available for examination?”

Keeping in mind that  any alternative theory to a large plane impacting the Pentagon that cannot account for the physical evidence trail cannot possibly be accurate, we encourage our readers to first explore the four alternative theories presented below 1) The Missile Theory, 2) The Global Hawk Theory, 3) The Fly Over Theory, and 4) The Honegger Hypothesis. Once you feel you have a clear understanding of the strengths of each theory, read the section of Wyndham’s paper that addresses that particular interpretation of the attack.  Upon completing your review if you conclude that Wyndham’s challenge to any of these alternative theories is not persuasive, please contact me directly with your counter interpretation of the relevant data and I will forward to John Wyndham your challenge to his analysis.

Start with Eye Witness Testimonies:

Part One of the following video, “The Pentagon Plane Puzzle”, presents the testimony of 30 eyewitnesses in about 30 minutes.  Investing a half hour in viewing Part One will definitely be of high value in preparing for consideration of the competing Pentagon attack theories.

 Part Two of the video, “A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence” is a related lecture by Scientists for 9/11 Truth professional member David Chandler, MS. You will learn about Chandler’s research on behalf of 9/11 Truth in more detail in the Further Support for the “Large Plane Impact” Theory section of this page.  With that in mind, you may prefer to wait to view Part Two until you see it presented again in that section, where “The Pentagon Puzzle” is again presented, together with Chandler’s complete lecture on this subject.

Did a Missile Hit the Pentagon?

Explore the question of “What hit the Pentagon?” by viewing the following video. This video attempts to make the case that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Though I don’t think this researcher is correct, we can certainly see how he and others might come to this hypothesis.

Was the Attack Plane a Military “Global Hawk”? 

For a more in depth challenge to the formal Pentagon attack narrative link to this 43 page article. This author makes the case for a Global Hawk military plane being the Pentagon attack weapon. Here is a link to the brief “Pentagon Strike” video referred to in that article .

The Flyover Hypothesis

A theory which has gained credence in some sectors of the 9/11 Truth Movement is that the seeming Pentagon attack plane actually flew over the Pentagon, while pre-planted explosives created both the actual observable damage to the Pentagon façade and a smokescreen for the plane’s flyover of the building.  This theory emerged in 2003 and was widely promulgated by a group known as the Citizen Investigation Team.  It was eagerly embraced by many 9/11 Truthers who could not make sense of the Pentagon impact hole and other confusing visual and anecdotal data related to the Pentagon attack.

 Here are two detailed responses to the Flyover Hypothesis which convincingly challenge the theory: “ERROR: The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It” and “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path”.

An Alternative Interpretation of the Pentagon Attack Data

“Behind The Smoke Curtain” In this two and half hour live presentation at the 2013 Seattle 9/11 Truth Conference, long time 9/11 Truth researcher and activist, Barbara Honegger, MS, offers her unique theory of what did – and did not – happen at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. She proposes that bombs were used at the Pentagon in ways akin to how many researchers speculate explosives were involved in the collapses of World Trade Centers One, Two and Seven. Additionally, she offers the theory that while a plane did crash at the Pentagon, it was not at all involved in the penetration of the targeted Office of Naval Intelligence where most of the auditors tracking the 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget were working and were killed!

A Hard Science Based Refutation of “Behind the Smoke Screen”

I have deep appreciation for Barbara Honegger’s valuable contributions to the 9/11 Truth Movement during her many years of 9/11 Truth activism. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to respectfully challenge her interpretation of the Pentagon attack data.

In response to Honegger’s theories regarding the nature of the Pentagon attack, an impressive team of credentialed scientists and respected 9/11 Truth researchers have authored a detailed refutation of the hypotheses on which “Behind the Smoke Screen” is based. The 95 page document which is linked here and titled “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted“ is essential reading for any informed debate of Ms. Honegger’s work.

Honegger’s hypothesis is that no plane impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and that pre-planted explosives caused all the deaths and damage. Additionally, Honegger postulates that a large “white” plane was destroyed outside the Pentagon west wall without causing any damage to the wall.

The authors of the above paper refute Honegger’s hypothesis and show that the physical, eyewitness, radar, and flight data recorder evidence, plus other relevant indisputable facts, all support impact by a large silver plane – a Boeing 757 and most probably American Airlines Flight 77 – as the main cause of all the deaths and damage.

Identifying Pentagon Attack Theory Errors

The Pentagon Errors page, created by 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman, offers a thoughtful response to those who challenge the notion that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and also focuses on the more relevant issues the 9/11 Truth Movement would do well to attend to with regard to the attack on the Pentagon. Please note that I believe Jim Hoffman’s work, at www.911review.com, is some of the very best 9/11 Truth research done so far.

Here is just one telling forensic detail pointed to by Hoffman that confirms AA flight 77 (or identical matching substituted aircraft) was indeed the Pentagon attack vehicle:

And here is another piece of remarkable forensic detective work that supports the Large Plane Impact theory….

Walk through his trail of impeccable logic as Pentagon attack researcher and professional engineer, Wayne Coste, explores the question “The Tree At Column 16: What it Tells Us About the Event at the Pentagon”.

As you moved through Coste’s presentation, what did that tree tell you about the nature of the Pentagon attack?

 Let’s return now, briefly, to imagining the perspective of the plotters of the 9/11 attacks, explored initially on the 9/11 Truth “Reality Check” box of this website…  “They had a choice: they could actually crash a plane, or they could pretend to do so. To fake it, they would have to fabricate a complete, intricate and complex illusion of a crash.”… As we can see now, that fabrication would have had to include the most minute of details, such as shattering – not simply cutting down – a large standing tree and carefully spreading its trunk and branches in a precisely thought through pattern so as to successfully deceive subsequent forensic investigators. The authors of “Why Not Use a Plane?” wonder aloud “So what is the likelihood that they would plan a weird, totally unnecessary deception rather than simply using an airliner? It must be vanishingly small.”

 Thus we too must ask that central question: “What is the likelihood that the 9/11 attack plotters would plan a weird, totally unnecessary deception (and succeed in mapping out all of the required minute details) rather than simply using an airliner?” Although we will continue here with further support for the Large Plane Impact Theory, hopefully the answer to this question has already begun to come fully into view.

Further Support for the “Large Plane Impact” Theory

Shortly after the attack on the Pentagon, FBI officials confiscated video recordings of the attack from a number of nearby surveillance cameras.  The only currently publically available visual records of the Pentagon attack, as it was unfolding, are the two security camera recordings – one with, and one without, foreground obstruction – which were released in 2006 in response to a FOIA request for surveillance camera videos at or near the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

In his Pentagon research article, rather technically titled “Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon” Scientists for 9/11 Truth professional member, David Chandler, MS., builds a detailed and solid case in support of the “Large Plane Impact” theory. In his brief yet compelling presentation, not only does Chandler use the video images to support his thesis that the attack vehicle was American Airlines flight 77 (or skillfully disguised similar plane) but also he explains how other well intended researchers could have come to erroneous conclusions.

If you still favor the validity of one of the alternative theories to “Large Plane Impact” at the Pentagon, I hope you will give Chandler’s additional research the careful attention it deserves by watching the following video: The Pentagon Plane Puzzle + David Chandler – Going Beyond Speculation (skipping to minute 26:40 if you have already viewed Part one of “The Pentagon Plane Puzzle” video above.)

In addition to his work on the Pentagon attack, David Chandler is well known for many other aspects of his science based investigation into the events of 9/11/01 – including his successful effort to force NIST to acknowledge the initial free fall collapse of World Trade Center Building #7. See this page at http://911speakout.org, and then tour the 911 Speak Out site for more of Chandler’s, and other like minded scientists’, 9/11 research work.

Additional support for Hoffman’s work, and the perspective of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is found in the following video which carefully documents how the hard data supports the hypothesis that AA Flight 77 (or close match similar plane) was indeed the Pentagon attack vehicle.

Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence (2:24)

Interestingly, this excellent video was created by a clearly well intended 9/11 Truth debunker!  Sadly, the hard work of the person who created this video serves to underline how the rancorous Pentagon attack controversy has undermined public confidence in the overall challenge to the formal 9/11/01 narrative that is championed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Whether it was Flight 77, or a Global Hawk military plane, or a guided missile that hit the Pentagon, one matter seems irrefutable. The attack at the Pentagon was permitted to occur without resistance or defense. The article linked here makes the case for that perspective.

The testimony to the 9/11 Commission by the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, adds credence to the perspective that Vice President Cheney did not want the Pentagon to be defended! You will note here that Mr. Mineta, in his recollection of the events of that day refers to a young man asking Vice President Cheney three times “If the orders still stand”, as Flight 77 was closing in on the Pentagon. Mr. Mineta testified that each time Dick Cheney said “Yes” to the young man. But still no defensive action was taken with the anti-aircraft batteries atop the Pentagon. Thus, wouldn’t we have to conclude that the orders Mr. Cheney gave were to refrain from shooting down the incoming aircraft?!

Mr. Mineta subsequently confirmed that he thought Dick Cheney’s order was to shoot down the hijacked planes in defense of our nation. However, in the video which follows here – which includes Mr. Mineta’s actual testimony before the 9/11 Commission – former CIA analyst Ray McGovern challenges that interpretation of Cheney’s orders to the enquiring young man!

Ray McGovern Addresses Norman Mineta’s 9/11 Commission Testimony
(relevant section is 2:54 – 6:07)

Clinical psychologist Michael Green, further deconstructs Secretary Mineta’s testimony in this brilliant article: “How They Get Away With It”!

Now… Imagine a truly independent, authentic investigation of 9/11/01 revisiting and exploring in more detail Mr. Mineta’s critically important testimony about the attack upon the Pentagon?”  Where might that further exploration lead?…

While they are at it, how about if that new commission demands the release of all the confiscated external surveillance videos – the simple action that may put all the Pentagon attack controversies to rest?!

And this – pursuing the implications of Mr. Mineta’s testimony and addressing the multiple Pentagon attack theories – is only a small part of why we need a new formal inquiry, carried out by a well financed team of independent investigators who have impeccable credentials and subpoena power!

The impact of Misinformation and Disinformation on the 9/11 Truth Movement

In tandem with exploration of any alternative Pentagon attack theories, I encourage readers to fully review “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth”, by Frank Legge PhD. This paper’s detailed overall analysis of the Pentagon attack data is considerably enhanced by its skillful integration of photographic evidence.

To further explore the critical question of “What Hit the Pentagon”, review any of the other Pentagon Attack analysis articles in the “Papers” section of Scientists for 9/11 Truth at http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/papers.html.

To learn about how the campaign of deliberately planted disinformation is being orchestrated in order to fracture and undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement link here.