New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon


New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

Thu Jun 21, 3:01 AM ET

Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission":

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (, there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," available to the public at's+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (, this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed four lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon."

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site,

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."


Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(608) 835-2707
E-mail Information Trackback URL:



Why is this getting such a

Why is this getting such a low rating, because of Fetzer and scholars? Give me a break..this is huge for 9/11 truth. You people really need to get over yourselves and that fact that you know everything about 9/11, cause I highly doubt you do.

i voted it up despite

i voted it up despite Fetzer.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I have to

plead some ignorance here...why the bad feeling around Fetzer? The article is good, so there must be some negative back story on Fetzer that I'm unaware of.


ah ha ..I did some looking. Space based directed energy weapons. Too bad the guy's latched onto that.

This is but a mild example...

...of Fetzer's nuttiness:

""Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them.""

Yeah, or the debris might have been "planted" in advance and then sprouted from the combination of heat of the fireball and moisture spewing from the firehoses. Of course, this would require advanced knowledge and liberal application horse shit.

Additionally, it appears that it was Fetzer who issued this as a press release through

And, if Fetzer did write it, why does he only quote himself?

Was this done with the blessings of the pilots? If so, why were they not quoted, considering it is their work that is the subject of the press release? There is nothing about this press release on their site.

johndoex, what say ye?

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

look and ye shall find..

It is NOT a yahoo news item,

It is NOT a yahoo news item, it is a item - affiliated with yahoo. In other words, this is paid for by Fetzer and is a press release in order project an air of relevance.

Don't believe me?

Check for yourself and don't take sides based on appearances - thats how Fetzer attached his slimely paws on Prof. Jones' name in the first place.

and just for the record, I may not know everything about 9/11, no one can claim that and be taken seriously. But I have been in the trenches and seen first hand how Fetzer works and I have 100% confidence he is PAID to lower the credibility 9/11 Truth via feigned misinformation.

Remember if 9/11 was a false flag op, then there would be a trailing campaign to slow/disrupt/muddy any attempts for the truth to spread into the publics conscious.

Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds are tasked with academia disruption. Judge not by their words but their actions.


Instantly, James Fetzer is the voice of the movement again.

And we have "proof" that no 757 hit the Pentagon!

1) This is not proven. It is a possibility. A slim possibility, as per previous discussions, lack of witnesses (as in zero saw a flyover).

2) Putting this as the central claim of the "truth" movement helps to discredit us, as most poeple aren't convinced, won't be convinced, and will hear a litany of "debunkings" a la BBC, PopMech, faux left media, etc.

3) You give disinfo professional J Fetzer an inch, and all of a sudden we're the Star Wars movement, minus the entertaining plot.

4) "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired," says Fetzer. Disagreeing with the veracity of this data file evidence makes one "cognitively impaired."

Fetzer is disinfo. He's 110% on board this claim. Do the math.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Interesting that Fetzer hasn't shown up

to defend himself.

Yet when Jones or anyone else he disagrees with posts something, he's there like stink on shit.

I don't get the "ground effect" thing

I tried to get someone at pf911t to answer this question some time ago, and no one did (or would; or could).

One claim is that an airplane can't fly at 500 mph (or thereabouts) just several feet off of the ground (or thereabouts) because of some type of "ground effect" (described as "massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage" above), but that doesn't really make sense, because that would mean that a plane could not crash. (unless its speed decreased to some smaller mph, I suppose)

I'm kind of ultra-lay-person-ing my question, but it does seem a little odd to me. Not really logical.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Forensic 9/11ologist

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

The ground effect claim is misleading (read: Disinfo)

Did it ever to occur to Fetzer that if you point a plane downward it can counter ground effect?

[Jim Hoffman:] “Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the… [claim that] ‘the final approach was impossible due to ground effect’… [This claim] fails to acknowledge that the increased lift due to ground effect can be negated by lowering the angle of attack.”

Lowering the angle of attack would enable the plane to approach near the ground. Obviously this could be done by remote control, and not a hijacker. Don't get me started on how the witnesses described the plane as pointing downwards at a 45 degree angle...

[Jim Fetzer:] “The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.”[90]

[Jim Hoffman:] “In fact, photographs clearly show that the region of punctures to the facade extended to a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Thus, the hole was approximately six times as large as Fetzer admits. Fetzer continues to promote the ‘small hole’ fantasy despite the efforts of several people, including Fetzer's colleague Steven Jones, to point out his error.

This claim is also in his newest book, which I spotted while browsing through a book store for books on 9/11.

Jim Fetzer is one of the least credible people within the "truth" movement. The fact that he is spreading misleading claims like this at the Pentagon shouldn't surprise anyone. It only amazes me how people can't put two and two together on this issue.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Fetzer's a mess. Asshole or

Fetzer's a mess. Asshole or agent, it's all the same in the wash.

However, the plane didn't crash into "the ground" the way one might imagine possible from a 45 degree impact angle. It passed cleanly through a building. And try as I might, I have NEVER seen convincing photos of anything close to what Hoffman is describing. In fact, if the 45 degree angle was correct, the upper level of damage would be higher than the second floor.

And what caused his 96 ft. hole on the first floor? It couldn't have been the wings, because they would impact at a higher level with the 45 degree angle. What else is wide enough on a Boeing? What else matches up with this outline? I am incapable of seeing in my mind's eye that which he alleges

It seems that as soon as someone tries to explain one anomoly, another is created in the wake.

Eyewitness Testimony and Video

Witnesses who described the approach of the plane as “unusually steep”

1. “It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle.”[356]
2. “It was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft.”[357]
3. “If you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward.”[358]
4. “It came in… at an angle?”[359]
5. “The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon.”[360]
6. “I saw a plane coming what I thought was toward National Airport, which is very close. You see that all the time. But this one looked different. It was at a very steep angle”[361]
7. “A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington ‘at an unusual angle.’”[362]
8. “It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way.”[363]
9. “I didn’t think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp.”[364]
10. “The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle… The jet creamed in at a dive bombing angle”[365]
11. “The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory.”[366]
12. “The plane [flew] at a 45-degree angle… The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon.”[367]
13. “[The] nose [was] down… going aimed like a dart straight into it.”[368]
14. “The plane… rapidly descended.”[369]

Here's what the camera shows in one of the videos from judicial watch:

I recommend downloading and watching from the high quality original here to judge for yourself, as this photo does not do it justice:
1:26 mark.

It appears suddenly for just one frame and appears to be the front of a silver fuselage, and is pointed slightly downwards.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

The DoD Video Analysis & Fake Test Procedure

Analysis completed by -

Pier Paolo Murru
Senior Film & Video Editor
Expert in Postproduction and AV Technology
1400 AudioVisual productions
Teacher in Editing, Filming & Lighting techniques



You sure do spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove a part of the govt story which does not include positive identification. Why is that?

Next, Jim Hoffman doesnt have a clue what he is talking about when it come to aerodynamics. Please tell him to review Bernoulli's principle, effects of trim, center of pressure, center of lift, coefficient of drag, aspect ratios of elevator verses wing, speed effects on generating asymetrical wing lift, Vg diagrams, i could go on and on...

Although the "ground effect" claims are a bit misguided and a thorough explanation has not been given, study of the above references will give a more thorough understanding.

Its not as simple as "just pushing the nose down" at those speeds. The elevator only has so much effect within the aircraft envelope, eventually you "run out of elevator" (and trim). Google it.


What does this show?

The press release says:

"If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon."

Is this the conclusion of Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

I'm confused -- how can the data show that if we don't know where the black box came from?

I'm not saying your study is not significant -- inconsistent black box data is very important to show what did not happen. I just don't see how it shows what did happen.

I am not trying to "prove the official story".

I am not trying to "prove the official story".

How does a plane hitting the Pentagon affect official government complicity in 9/11 in any way? It doesn't. There is no way that:

1. The plane should have hit the Pentagon--where is NORAD?
2. Hanni Hanjour could not fly a plane for his life, therefore REMOTE CONTROL must have been responsible if a plane was used. Therefore, an inside job.
3. Even if a 757 with American Airlines colors hit the Pentagon, it does not prove it was Flight 77. The government has never convincingly proven that a plane hit the Pentagon, let alone that it was flight 77.

Plane or no plane doe NOT impact government responsibility at the Pentagon. Therefore, we should stick to the STRONGEST claims to prove government culpability.

Point #1 is strongly documented and provable--the hypothesis that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon is not provable in my opinion.

Theorists that rely on unsubstantiated claims of "faked plane parts" and "faked light poles" and "faked witnesses" and "faked radar", and other similar claims, are on weak ground, not I. A scientific argument relies on the concept of total evidence, where all evidence must be reasonably accounted for, and that is how I judge my conclusions. Yes, the government lies, but if we are going to PROVE what happened at the pentagon, we can't rely on assumptions that evidence is fabricated without proving it thus.

Having stated my hypothesis, I am open to the REMOTE possibility that the government would SOMEHOW fake boatloads of eyewitness testimony, plane parts, light pole damage, Pentagon Facade damage, the very improbable to fake internal damage inside the pentagon aligning with the light pole damage, and all of the extensive evidence that there is... but I think quite frankly that is highly implausible and even irrational. Why go through all the trouble when flying a plane into the Pentagon would be EASIER, and make the hijackers look GUILTY instead of the perpetrators being exposed by a single photograph or video by traffic jams about 500 feet away from the Building, or a SINGLE CLEAR eyewitness statement that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. I think it is absurd, to assume that the government would be stupid enough to attempt this.

It would be nice to see the full videos to end the debate once and for all. I'd prefer to spend my time doing other things quite frankly than arguing with people who simply just assume that evidence is fake. That's what I like to call the "conspiracy" method, where any anomalies, no matter how small or explainable by a rational argument some how disprove all of the other evidence.

I fail to see how any logical hypothesis can account for the fact that the light poles were knocked down in stand-still traffic, and then damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly in a straight line with this light pole damage in any other way than a plane impact. Can you explain this in any other way?

I didn't quote just Hoffman for the question of "ground effect".

Unfortunately this link you gave me: does not work, so I can not comment on it.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Comments and Correction to Article above

We replied to the above article at our forum.

As for ground effect, please provide a link and i'll reply to it personally.

Also, i have discussed the ground effect claims on a few radio interviews which can be downloaded at our site.


Please explain

I'm sorry, but I've never understood this particular claim. If the government sent a missile (or whatever) into the Pentagon, and wanted people to believe that it was a 757, why would they release fake black box data that disproves their claim? To the authors of this article I would say: "If no plane hit the Pentagon, then no black box was recovered. If no black box was recovered, then the analysis done by the NTSB had to be on a fake box. If the perpetrators were going to provide a fake box, why would they put in the wrong data?"

Give that boy a cigar!

"If no plane hit the Pentagon, then no black box was recovered. If no black box was recovered, then the analysis done by the NTSB had to be on a fake box. If the perpetrators were going to provide a fake box, why would they put in the wrong data?"

The pentagon is SURROUNDED by highways. If a plane buzzed over it, just above the roof, it would be noticed by many many people (in traffic).

The fact that no one came forward to report this bizarre flyover is pretty damning to this theory.

Hundreds -- or thousands -- of Pentagon witnesses in the courtyard area would also have unmistakeably seen and HEARD a plane rocket overhead. This isn't subtle shit!

The line to be pursued is: WHY HAS NTSB GIVEN US BOGUS DATA? (This file CAN be traced directly back to NTSB, can't it?)

Great Photo

In another thread, I just showed how the highway in front of the Pentagon was filled with a traffic jam.

I really don't understand why the government would intentionally incriminate itself with this FDR data, but you never know, they couldn't even fake a list of hijackers properly. You would think they would spend the requisite time to get THAT right. It makes even less sense that they wouldn't fake this properly and then fake hundreds of witness statement without anyone letting anything incriminating out. Even today, people are talking about the explosions at WTC 7, and the only incriminating witnesses at the Pentagon are either self contradictory or admitted fakes.

That photo is great, I hope you don't mind if I save a copy.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

To all of you

...who are posting your thoughts and convictions on these types of articles, I thank you. I am learning a lot. I commend many of you for being critical thinkers and investigators and keeping it real. It's hard to know who to trust and you help in the discerning process.

My respect.