What Hit the Pentagon? - A new paper at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?"


Here are some excerpts:

"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one
reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the
arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another."

"There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not."

Two competing stories about the flight path

Excellent paper, Kevin. (Edit: My bad; the paper was written by Frank Legge.)

The timing of the paper seems to coincide with the movement's prominent scholars' endorsement of CIT's new video "National Security Alert," which provides an airtight case for the north side approach. Perhaps as a way of smoothing things out between the "camps."

I believe that the small amount of undeniable 757 wreckage is indeed planted. If I were Rumsfeld and I had a budget of $300 trillion (facebook, Mr. Gold) I could easily manage to plant some debris there. I'm glad, Kevin, that you included this as a very valid possibility in your paper, rather than those who defend the official flight path approach with "You guys harm the movement by claiming planted light poles, planted airplane wreckage, and a flyover. How embarrassing."

As far as competing eyewitnesses about the flight path:

Those who defend the South Side Approach have lately been very fond of citing Father McGraw.

It's right there. He didn't just hear it. He watched it hit the building. - jimd3100

In fact, here's a witness by CIT whose testimony supports a SOUTH path that they completely omit from their claims: - Arabesque

I'm really beginning to conclude that CIT's detractors (south side defenders) bank on the hope that fence sitters will take them at their word without clicking on the links (or taking the time to watch the vids).

I watched this video. His testimony is extremely suspect, so much so as to not be believable.

Here is his testimony starting at 5:18 on that video. Tell me if this matches the photographic evidence:

"I will say that I have a memory, um, which was you might say was revived after the fact, of the plane bouncing on the lawn before it went into the building. That basically, uh, came to me, um, after hearing of other witness testimony, from other witnesses that were in the area. I heard that other witnesses had supported that the plane had bounced, you know, had hit the ground before it crashed into the building. When I heard that, it kind of, sort of, provoked something, or um, I thought, 'Yes, that's the image I remember having."

There is no damage on the lawn which would indicate that the plane bounced.

In the last thread on CIT's work, a couple weeks ago, Snowcrash and I nailed Victronix on two similar misrepresentations which were easily exposed with a simple examination of the links she provided which they claimed refuted the north side approach.

And I have little doubt that DRG and the rest of them DID look at all sides of this debate and found many falsehoods and misrepresentations on the side of the south side / plane crash defenders.

Thanks Kevin. What an excellent opportunity for me to post this as the first comment on the thread, where it will receive the most views.

And I hope Justin and Orangatan are taking note.

Disagreement should not deteriorate into lying

Lying happens when people knowingly promote verifiably false claims. And when lying happens, those who are lied to should not hesitate to say so. In this case, even a bold-faced lie. Everybody's incorrect sometimes, but in discussion, we do not lie to each other. Why are we a truth movement otherwise?

Even worse (and extremely dangerous) is if lying is accompanied by repression, in this case, the horrific flaws of the "Truth By Consensus" model, also known as "Tyranny of the majority". (Saddam did 9/11, Anti-Darwinism) CIT's claims could be a complete hoax. A complete fabrication. That still doesn't make it alright to outright lie about verbatim witness testimony to defeat them. Never, ever, ever. A work as a whole does not necessarily have the same properties as its components. Every single fact stands by itself, and should be judged accordingly. I choose sincerity over popularity any day. Should anybody be willing to challenge my sincerity, take it up with the moderators.

1. Robert Turcios is not Roosevelt Roberts. Period.
2. Roosevelt Roberts described in his account to CIT a large commercial airliner, with jet engines, flying low, ten seconds after the Pentagon attack
3. Edward Paik described a flight path diagonally crossing Columbia Pike. Not parallel to it. He described a flight path OVER the Navy Annex.

Roosevelt Roberts could be wrong. He could have seen a C-130. Who knows how flawed his perception is. Edward Paik could be wrong as well.

In addition, Father McGraw said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He could be lying, or remembering incorrectly.

But THIS is what they said. Anybody who says otherwise, is LYING. But...what do you expect. Lying is used to protect ego and prevent loss of face.

The Pentagon... was hit on the ground floor

"His testimony is extremely suspect, so much so as to not be believable"

The plane hit the first floor of the Pentagon. Gee, I wonder if that would explain why witnesses thought the plane may have hit the ground. At about 500 mph.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Every description of the plane hitting the Pentagon is a description of the flight path of the plane. Which CIT would like to pretend otherwise that this does "not" count as evidence of the flight path.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


[Apologies for the re-post from elsewhere, but this is extremely important. Please see Adam Syed's comment above]


How can he even say that with a straight face (at 2:10)??? I’ve lived in the area for 35 years. There’s absolutely no way you “don’t know” it’s the Pentagon. First, there are huge highway signs all over, well in advance, that clearly say “Pentagon” and direct you to the Pentagon South Parking, Mall Entrance, River Entrance, etc. And once you’re on Route 27 where he was ("in totally standstill traffic"), it’s the only thing in sight, other than open fields and a parking lot. How can a person of his education, training and background not recognize it? He says he was driving, too. That’s just eerie.

Notice when he’s fed that line by Aldo, he repeats it, then fumbles a bit, his face goes into silly contortions (NLP, anyone?), as he tries to explain that he’s grown up in the area but he’s “just basically never over there… besides, you can’t really tell, it’s five-sided anyway…so I never… I didn’t even know it was the Pentagon.…”
Catholic priest or not, I find it hard to believe he's telling the truth.

It might seem trivial to focus on this, but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

ADDED: I urge everyone to watch this video carefully. Look at Fr. McGraw’s expressions as he draws on his recollections. Listen to everything he says and ask yourself if his statements are internally consistent throughout the interview. At 5:45, is he clearly recalling a plane entering the building (after it “bounced first”), or is that only his impression, reinforced after he heard other people saying it?

At 6:20, “the memory that was clearest to me, that never left me from the very beginning” was not of the plane actually hitting the building, but of “two huge billows of fire” coming out from the top two windows. Coming OUT of the windows, ABOVE where the plane "disappeared."

He calls it an "explosion."

The author's veracity rests on this statement:

"Many eye witnesses confirm this [official, south, flight] path." However, the author does not back up this contention with a list of these "many eye witnesses," nor does he quote them, nor does he bother to interview them on camera and independently verify their accounts.

I can name several other eye-witnesses whose accounts have been recorded and independently verified that place the plane they saw on a heading that is irreconcilable with the physical damage. Now, either all these witnesses are mistaken or they are lying or they are telling us exactly what they saw. If the latter, then the question "What Hit the Pentagon," is absurd because, obviously, nothing did. You can't have physical damage caused by one object on a very specific line of approach by another object traveling on a completely different line of approach. That is physically impossible. It is completely reasonable, therefore, to come to the conclusion that the physical damage was not caused by the witnessed aircraft at all, but was staged. Indeed, nothing should have hit the Pentagon nor could have without inside complicity. But I've yet to be shown convincing evidence that anything DID impact the Pentagon. Yes, I realize there is significant physical damage inside and out the Pentagon but the question being raised is what hit it? The author concludes, "The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not." Right. They don't. Because they can't. The prime suspects have total opaque control over all the physical evidence. After all these years they've refused to provide us with wreckage positively identified as having come from Flight 77 and clearly documented to have been found within the Pentagon. In fact, via FOIA, they freely, openly and arrogantly admit that they don't have any such documentation because, "the identities of the aircraft used in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were never in question."

Sounds like a rather lame Jedi mind trick to me.

Fact....not fiction...

"Many eye witnesses confirm this [official, south, flight] path." This is what the media will quote as a fact!? They don't care painter said it's not true?

Please.....! You don't get it.....this is not a fair playing field, is it!

Officially many, many witnesses saw the official path and to state otherwise does not get you a say "in the real world"!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Simple Question

.........Why has there been no official identification of any of the plane parts? All in all there are way to many justified unanswered questions that prove the official story is BS !
The official story falls faster than WTC #7

NIST has made this moot by admitting free fall of WTC7

Free fall of building 7 for 2.25 seconds is ADMITTED by NIST and that FACT trumps everything else----------------------EXCEPT human psychology.

Where are the Psychologists for 911 Truth????????

Why are they all hiding?????????

This is a PSYOPS not a mystery.


Insightful paper

And I agree that is unlikely no plane hit the Pentagon, as I've said and implied before. However, should the perpetrators have planted physical evidence, it's apparent that this is an extremely powerful thought stopper.

An interesting quote:

If explosives were used to destroy the plane you would not expect it to make a perfect impact
mark on the building, as happened at the towers, nor would it leave much in the way of large
easily recognized pieces.

The fact that we saw planes vanish into the WTC buildings and largely reduced to confetti tells us something about what to expect from planes impacting buildings in this manner. I believe no explosives are required: a specifically reinforced facade of a military building will not respond the way the steel facade of the WTC did, a strong facade designed to distribute heavy wind loads, and which has been compared to "mosquito netting". A commercial airplane versus the Pentagon's reinforced and strengthened concrete facade, on the other hand, is something else altogether, and results in a devastating loss for the airplane. This is one of the (apparently) best kept secrets of the Pentagon. 9/11 was a good test for the new blast resistance. Could it be possible that the Pentagon Building Performance Report merely represents experimental results for some perverted people in the military?

If the ground rules for the Pentagon discussion are honesty, then I see no problems in proceeding with the discussion. We should cease polarizing discussion into camps. I don't belong to either "camp", and I believe that this is the majority of the truth movement. There are contradictions between witness statements, government released data, and physical and forensic evidence, and these contradictions need to be resolved. I agree that if the discussion becomes too damaging, that we should stop:

Inferences from Contradictory Evidence
Much time has gone by since 9/11 and it would have been very easy for the authorities to
provide clear evidence to answer the question “What hit the Pentagon?” and set our minds at
rest. A useful perspective is to consider the attack on the Pentagon as if it were a stage play.
On the stage we, the audience, have seen actors playing parts in a mystery thriller, full of
convincing details. We speculate at length on the clues as we enjoy a glass of wine after the
show. Eventually we realize that the question of the identity of the criminal was deliberately
left unanswered. Next day the media critics give the author high praise for skillfully
tantalizing us right to the end.

The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one
reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the
arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another. Like a good
playwright they balanced contradictory evidence to keep the public guessing.

We shouldn't be willing actors in a stage play designed to subvert the movement. Clues for the government's involvement in designing this stage play are in the release of contradictory flight data. It's strange that the government would be willing to fatally conflict with its own story in this manner.

Good paper

Instead of arguing about the mystery of what hit it. Emphasis should be placed on why the Pentagon was even allowed to be struck & Cheney's obvious stand-down order.




The onus should be on the Federal Government to prove the official story with the CCTV tapes.

Then we'll know what hit the Pentagon and put it to bed, however I just had an epiphany: They are not releasing the tapes because it is hiding anything or that it disproves the official story. Rather that the refusal to release them in itself creates a perfect distraction and diversion as the very people who want to find out the truth of the incident are fighting amongst themselves and creating outlandish theories without the Government even having to lift a finger. All they have to do is throw a few kindling on the fire and watch the fools play.

I also agree wholeheartedly with TruthOverProfit, how the hell did ANYTHING penetrate protected airspace led alone the most heavily guarded, funded and staffed military installation on Earth?

The answer is it couldn't of! There are classic examples of small planes being confronted by fighter jets who stray into restricted airspace yet on 9/11 a passenger plane strolled straight into the Pentagon with Dick Cheney physically hearing the airspace penetration and....no orders to shoot it down. Mmmm

Agreed, truthoverprofit

This is exactly what many of us, especially those doing public education and activism, have been saying for years.

I'm all for research, citizen investigations and eyewitness interviews, but I'm not for the promotion of unproven theories based on faulty logic and/or questionable evidence.

We already have enough very strong evidence to make a convincing case to the general public, we only do ourselves and the victims of this heinous crime a disservice when we promote anything that is not very credible and ready for prime time.

Accept that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of unanswered questions and let those motivate you to work harder and smarter for a new investigation with subpoena powers and the ability to sanction perjury.

There is still much work to do, brothers and sisters, unity of purpose and commitment to truth are our greatest allies.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Basis of unity?

If we are going to achieve some kind of unity with statements such as, "We can all agree that nothing should have struck the Pentagon,' we need to be honest with ourselves by admitting that such a statement means one thing to those truthers who are convinced the damage at the Pentagon was from an airplane strike, and another to those who are not. so convinced.

To the first kind, it means, 'What happened shouldn't have happened.'

To the second kind, it means, 'What the government has told us happened is something that shouldn't have happened.'

Both kinds of truthers can then proceed to make their case, to those still under the sway of the official story, that what happened at the Pentagon--whatever their particular understanding of it--is something that the people of this country should not accept.

And something that truthers can TRULY all agree on--and which we likewise need to make clear is something that the public should not accept--is that so much information relating to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11 remain undisclosed (if not destroyed outright).

Unless something opened the

Unless something opened the buildings prior to impact. 911 Ripples has military talking about that bump under the second plane. They said it could have been a military plane. Could a payload have helped?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Frank makes some great statements in his paper...

"...The evidence for what hit the Pentagon is contradictory. It is likely that contradictory
evidence has been deliberately provided...."
"...As stated above the authorities could easily show what hit the Pentagon, as they have many video tapes of the event. That they choose not to do so must be because they want the investigators to argue against one another. This has worked well for them so far... ...This will throw the 9/11 truth movement into disarray...."

My Take on the Pentagon and the 9/11 Truth Movement

I do not have anything significant to add to this discussion in terms of further testimony, evidence, or other anamolies that would explain exactly what happened at the pentagon. What I would like to offer is a common ground for which we all can stand on without point fingers of accusations of being misinformed, mistaken, and/or worst of lying. Especially since this all about truth.

Before this discussion gets way out of hand about who is right or wrong, who is lying or not, and what effect that is having on our search for truth, I think we all need to step back from the table a moment and look at this at a higher level. I say this because as we get into the details, we simply just do not know period. That is the purpose of this entire blog site is that we DON'T know. What I do know is that when we go questioning other peoples motives and sincerity, the bad guys win.

This is purely speculation on my part, but there are many angles I think we lose track of when we get buried into the "how it was done". Again, we just don't know. Could the damage path evidence been planted? 5 light poles?I tend to doubt it. Staging this evidence seem highly risky to me when you consider the risks already being taken. Unless someone can prove that these light poles were not there prior, I believe the damage to authentic. What caused it, again, we don't know for sure. I read Jim Hoffman's take on the pentagon, which I highly regard his research, and he hasn't convinced me one iota either way whetherr it was flight 77 or a Boeing 767 at all. He left out many details in my mind. I look at the same pictures he does and my interpretations don't agree. So what to do?

When I read any theory about 9/11, I try to keep an open mind and I willing to look at their evidence at face value and try to see if it correlates with other evidence and make a determination on its plausiblity, not is reality. And I think we need to take that approach here. For example, the "no-planers" theory seemed quite bizarre to me (especially when I consider my own experience that day which I should share sometime.) However, I looked over their evidence thoroghly (i felt i did) and sure enough, it held no plausibility except on the old Scooby-Doo cartoons. I was waiting next for the unmasking of GWB only to find out he was really Karl Rove.

All kidding aside, I take each 9/11 theory with the caveat that is just a theory and does not necessarily represent the views of this site, movement, or any group there after. But we have the issue of, does this type of wild, loosely fact based speculation hurt the movement? No, I don't believe it does. What hurts this movement is the fundamental fact is that we KNOW we are being lied to and suspect remnants within our own government are behind it. That theory alone in this corporate culture today is wild enough to call us crazy no matter what the facts. Case in point, JFK. 75% of the populace, it is said, now believe it was a conspiracy. Are we any closer to the truth? Not at all because you will still be called crazy by the MSM. Did anyone see Chris Matthews earlier this week? There has been much ado lately about the "birther conspiracy" lately and he was masterful and "debunking it" by displaying Pres. Obama's birth certificate. Once debunked with this evidence (like it was hard), he conflates it and it,s believers to some psychological disorder and paints 9/11 and JFKers with the same brush. It is really quite appalling. And it didn't stop there, MSNBC did it again the next day during programming btwn the 4 and 5:00 hour. With that said, it seems we should not take to this road ourselves amongst competing theories as it tend to lose us allies and we need every person we can get, despite their personal theories, to speak out.

So where do go from here? I think we should work on common ground with facts we do know. The renovation on the pentagon was a long time in the planning and construction phases. Why? Why that part of the building too? Rumsfeld and other top brass offices were on the other side. Why reinforce that wing? Was there a plan to move the offices of top officials over there for more protection? Was it for the scenarios being practiced prior to 9/11 about planes crashing into the pentagon? It seems so, but that would be akin (in my estimation) to building a meteor defense system around the planet to protect us from the 1 in a billion chance one comes our way. Whatever happened that day, it seems to me that is was well planned to confuse witnesses. IMHO, I believe the planning for 9/11 began shortly after the first WTC bombing in '93. So we up against too much forsight, I think, to really come up with the actual how and why they did it. But in order to get a murder conviction retried, a laywer needs only to prove the original conclusion was likely false and seeks a retrial. He does not have to prove who actually did. He only needs a proponderance of the evidence to raise doubt in the verdict. Here is where I think we can score points.

I believe we have ample evidence in order to do this. Regarding the pentagon, the answer lies the 80+ videos being withheld. There must be further action through FOIA to get them released. I know it was tried once, and very little additional info was released. I think we can press that issue. I don't know what the citation is for withholding the videos, I am presuming national security. But that is simply not applicable. The deed is done, security was already breached. No new security information can be compromised at this junction. Possibly a national petition to demand their release, lets say a FOIA signed by thousands instead of one? Can they be sued for it? ACLU? I feel the answers lie in those tapes and instead of speculating on what did happen, we should find, fund, and support legal avenues to have them ALL released. There are only 2 organizations I give what little money I have left to give and they are NYC CAN & AE911Truth because they are demand driven and science driven which are our two best avenues. I know that many people have put a lot of stock in various theories of 9/11. some sincere, some not so sincere. Some valid, some not so valid. But not unlike the different religions, there is a common precipice on the truth movement and that is we all demand the truth regardless of its consequences, because without it, we will never rid ourselves fo the cancer that has spread through our country and destroying it. My greatest hope is to see a million man march on the whitehouse, demanding truth whatever it may be. Thanks to all who took the time to hear what I had to say and thank God for 9/11blogger for providing the forum for saying it.

Peace to all

"We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

Before 9.11 our Gov. spent

more on our miltary empire than the next 8 largest Nation's, COMBINED. COMBINED.

How did they get away with faking us out that our military HQ could be hit with a plane, after 2 others slammed into NYC largest building?


"This appears to be a missed piece of evidence for a powerful explosive charge being set off at, or just before, impact. The video also shows an intense white flash just before the red fire ball from combustion of the dispersed fuel. This white flash, very different from the fire ball, is further evidence for the use of explosives."

More explosives? Ok, so now we're promoting explosives at the Towers, WTC7, and the Pentagon? More theories that sound crazy to the masses eh? I am reminded of that scene from the South Park episode...

Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted in the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked.when really we just rerouted them to Pennsyvania, then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives, then shot down all the witnesses of Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly-executed ever, ever.

Does anyone not see how f-ing crazy we sound? Donna Marsh O'Connor said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "this Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy theories." I'm starting to understand how she feels.

Stick with this. It will serve you better. I guarantee it.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

What's this?

Ha ha

Come on, have a sense of humor ;-)

South Park debunks South Park!

Sure that's funny. But how

Sure that's funny.

But how funny is it when a person who had a family member killed has to feel like a victim because we reject critique and continue to hype nonsense theories, continue to give them air time and seats at our anniversary events?

That's what Jon is really talking about.

CIT wants to spread their claims to Congress.

Hey I know! On the anniversary when many died, and many are remembering them, let's talk in public about a theory where many of those who died are disappeared!

Where'd they go?

How should we know?! Maybe they were dumped in the sea!

I'm sure that's hilarious for the debunkers. But it's not actually funny, it's just sad.

I've never said

no plane hit the pentagon. I'm saying there are contradictions that need to be resolved. Not only in the name of Donna Marsh O'Connor, whose various speeches move me to my core every time I hear them, or in the name of Bob McIlvaine, who keeps making me cry, but in the name of the hundreds of thousands of people who died in the 9/11 wars. For my friend from Afghanistan, who fought the Taliban. For my other friend serving as a medic on his second tour of duty in Afghanstan, and who's going to come back traumatized. For all of them, it's not really funny either. Neither is it funny for all of us who have lost our privacy, dignity, and liberty.

Most of all, I believe we owe the victims of 9/11 and its horrible violent aftermath TRUTH, JUSTICE, and SINCERITY.

No amount of appeal to emotion or appeal to consequences will make me deviate from that path.


Good post.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Think some thing disrespectful....

No "Gold" here just some one looking back to some other idea of where we "are going"!

Lets find some common ground! Or lets drop out of the argument?

If some around here didn't notice explosive are common in the military...please Jon....crazy.....?

Regards John

PS - I won't be drawn into some whole page argument...

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Why is the CIT research discounted so heavily?

I've been following the research of CIT, posted on their forums, and have found them to be very credible researchers surrounding the Pentagon attack. I'm not sure why Dr. Legge has virtually ignored CIT's work and cited two sources, one that is a basic character attack of the researchers. They are the only research team that has canvassed the Pentagon area to obtain eyewitness accounts and corroborate them. These accounts along with the FDR data prove without a doubt that a passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon.

1. 13+ people on camera and on a photograph show the path of the plane DOES NOT align with the official flight path. They aren't new to the area but long time employees familiar with their environment. These people include the the air traffic controller at the Pentagon on 9/11, Pentagon police officers, Arlington Cemetery workers, and one Pentagon employee who saw a large commercial airliner fly over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. Other secondary testimony points to a fly over as well as one claimed she thought the plane flew over and crashed on the other side. All of these witnesses state the plane was slower than what the official story states as well. Those with the clearest view state the plane was banking to the right before the alleged impact. This banking takes its path over the South parking lot where it was observed by Roberts on the southside of the Pentagon. The timing of the impact and what Roberts viewed do not match the C-130 turbo prop plane. Roberts states, it was a commercial aircraft in his interview.

2. They interviewed the cab driver,Loyd England, who essentially blew the whistle surrounding the light poles and the pole that allegedly hit his cab and is central to the official flight path. It was a staged scene. This alone negates much of Dr. Legge's justification for stating that the overflight theory has met with "substantial opposition." Dr. Legge, why did you rely on this website, 5 http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html which is essentially a character attack. For one example of the erroneous logic at the site, the author lists 200 some witnesses to a plane hitting the building and concludes this is why a fly over didn't happen. However, the author ignores the fact that no one has collaborated their accounts and accepts the media accounts as gospel, where as CIT did do exactly that with the witnesses they came across in and around the area with the numerous people who contradict the official flight path.

3. The 100's of witnesses who are expected to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon are simply lacking. Many inferred an impact without direct observation as stated above. But what about those expected to have seen a fly over? Plain and simple, situational blindness. That and the fact that flyovers are a common everyday occurrence in the region.

4. The second website claims that the flyover theory is not credible because it would be observed by 100's of people around the Pentagon. This of course can be explained as situational blindness. Those unfamiliar with this should research it. Unfortunately, Hoffman fails to collaborate those impact witnesses. Many have been collaborated only to discover they inferred impact and did not directly witnesses it. Doesn't the press tell amazing stories when sources aren't collaborated? Sort of like that WMD thing in Iraq,eh.
Hoffman completely relies on the fact that people would continue to view a low altitude plane flying towards an airport instead of a massive explosion and resulting smoke screen at the Pentagon. I would too I suppose if I were trying to ignore those that put the plane North of the Citgo and therefore unable to cause the damage path cone to and into the Pentagon as well as Rossevelt Roberts testimony.

The fact that CIT could predict the response of the mainstream media as well as those opposed to their research is very telling indeed.

Perhaps Dr. Legge you should re-examine the body of CIT's work, read and listen closely to the eyewitness statements, and decide for yourself instead of relying upon a character attack of a website that omits information and uses bad logic to attack the body of evidence.

CIT's research combined with Pilots for 9/11 Truth's examination of the flight data recorder, essentially prove the official story false, and that the plane did not impact the Pentagon.

Besides, two websites that I just showed contained several errors and poor logic do not amount to "substantial opposition" and why you would describe them as such is beyond me.

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.

Nice essay, thanks to Frank

Nice essay, thanks to Frank for this.

I appreciate that he makes the key point about the idea that those in possession of the 80+ videos have the power to harm everyone's efforts with one round of mainstream news stories of the plane hitting the building to show how we were all nuts afterall.

They have the videos. We don't.

The videos we have are of the WTC towers being destroyed in a way that would be impossible by gravity alone.

We also have these:

* How was it possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began?

* Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital?

* Why Did F-16s fail to protect Washington on 9/11? Was the Langley Emergency Response sabotaged?

* Why were Pentagon workers not evacuated or warned that Flight 77 was approaching, despite those in the bunker tracking the attack plane as it closed the final 50 miles to the Pentagon?

* Why did the flight instructor who certified Hani Hanjour, a former Israeli paratrooper, disappear a few days after his 9/11 Commission interview?

* Why was a war game drill used to vacate the National Reconnaissance Office for the duration of the attack?

* How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not?

* Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

* What were Vice-president Cheney's orders when Norman Mineta described him speaking to a young man in the presidential bunker as the plane approached, saying, "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?

These aren't nothing. But they are basically ignored and sidelined as long as "what hit" is constantly focused on and continues to go nowhere after 8 years of wasted time.

Recommended Reading:

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77
By Mark H. Gaffney

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a Better Job of Defending the Skies on 9/11 than NORAD?
By Arabesque July 25, 2009

The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?

I agree, Vic

The truth movement should be about demanding evidence and demanding answers to those questions you just posed. I haven't seen the evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon-- and I demand to see it. I am not going to speculate on what might have happened. I don't know. That's why I demand the release of the 80+ videos, and the CVRs / FDRs, and serial number id's of plane parts. I like the subpoena, sue and FOIA request approach.

That's how we play the Pentagon. With the WTC, it's a whole different story because we HAVE that evidence and it's check mate.

Don't forget the E4B flying over Washington!

All excellent points, Vic, and ones I make when asked about the Pentagon in public.

I do have questions about the drill at the National Reconnaissance Office, though, as I have read conflicting reports on this. Do you have credible evidence that the building was, in fact, vacated; when this began and when the personnel returned to their offices?

Any links/sources would be greatly appreciated.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Error: Black box data does NOT contradict Flight Path

"What is quite certain is that this flight data and the official report are contradictory. One or other, or both, must be untrue. The flight data is just as likely to have been faked as the photos of the 757 components in the debris."

Unfortunately this statement is wrong. It appears that Legge has been fooled by this "meme" as have many others. It is very annoying to have to debunk this information again and again. So here we go... again:

1. There is more than one set of "data" and it is contradictory
2. The Black box data is NOT the same as the flight path animation
3. The animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the black box data and yet it is not
4. Most critical of all, The Black box Data supports the official flight path.

If you don't believe me, I'll quote snowygrouch for you (Callum Douglas) who says:

"The raw FDR files do show the plane on the correct path as I make perfectly clear in all my public engagements. The question is...do you believe that seasoned professionals at the NTSB with decades of experience in crash re-construction FORGOT about magnetic declination! One of the most basic concepts in map reading and navigation..."

That certainly is a relevant question. The fact that the animation does not match the black box data is certainly "interesting", but you cannot claim that this data is "right" and they "faked" the black box data--that would be incredibly absurd. It is possible that a mistake was made in the translation of the Black Box data. Now at the risk of confusing people further, there is ANOTHER animation, and it was used during the 9/11 commission and this animation supported the official path. Again, don't ask me why.

The "animation" cannot exist without being reconstructed from the black box data. This is the original source of the data for the animation and should be understood as such. The animation could NOT exist without the original black box data. So it cannot be claimed that the "animation" is right and the "black box is wrong". I suppose some will still claim that they "faked" the FDR, but you cannot claim that the "animation" is right when it is contradicted by the FDR. Make sense?

I don't know why they do not match, but the black box does support the official "flight path" of the plane. However, the data ends several seconds before the impact of the plane into the Pentagon and is therefore several feet in the air. It is unclear why the data is missing, but the data does support the official flight path.

Interestingly, this has not prevented many in the 9/11 truth movement with confusing the "animation" with the black box data. Which is an example of misinformation repeated in Legge's article.

Interestingly enough, CIT has NEVER used the "animation" as evidence for their flight path which is really saying something. The animation is NOT the black box data, which is in agreement with the official path.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Interesting comment on Caustic Logic's blog

Anonymous said...

The ground representation below NTSB animation of Flight 77 is not connected to the aircraft data that makes the plane move. The data from the FDR was used to make the aircraft animation, but there is no actual correlation to the ground. The NTSB animation is only a working copy and we never finished it to be accurate to actual ground objects. Funny stuff watching a bunch of half witted pilots and so called experts run around making up ideas on something they do not understand but have been told about. Take a look at the FDR data please. Now tell me where is Flight 77 at takeoff, and at the last data point. Come on experts like Snowy, tell me where Flight 77 is. Any point in time will do. Bet you can not place it better than 1000 to 3000 feet. Too bad we did not have GPS to knock that down to 100 to 300 feet. Sad thing is, after reading the posts around the internet, the FDR was found in the Pentagon as were all the bodies from77. The people who make up stuff about Flight 77 are sick people.

7/27/07 7:56 PM

There are at least two animations

That comment certainly is interesting, but I can't know if it is genuine. They did "finish" an animation. There are at least two animations.

Watch That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

As you can see in this video, there are at least two "animations" of the flight path. As I also explained, an animation is a "reconstruction" of the FDR. It is not the "original" data, it is a reconstruction.

John Farmer writes:

"I have put in an FOIA with the NTSB requesting the parameters used to generate the animation, but to date there has been no response. Some have said that the animation is generated using the physics data in the FDR. If that is the case, then that would account for the deviation observed if the heading data had indeed been tampered with. That does not mean that is the case, but certainly is a possibility. That is why it is important to understand how the animation was generated. I will leave that to others since it really is in the domain of professional pilots and aeronautical engineers (outside my expertise)."

Far from being a "simple" process, the NTSB explains how they create an animation based on FDR data:

"Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower "is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder." Because of that, he adds, "as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. "We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom," explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don't offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation.""

More on that here: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/misinformation-flight-77-flight...
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


As for that last paragraph, I wanted to know exactly that. I'd like to know even more about it in time, because I have trouble following Caustic Logic's explanations of his discoveries with respect to magnetic declination and rotation of the terrain map. I'm not an aviation professional.

FDR Misinformation explained: FDR "contradicts" animation

Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path "Contradicts" Official Story according to "Black Box Data"
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Actually it does....

See analysis of the raw FDR data from the NTSB here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10751

John Farmer states CSV file was altered to match the south approach: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5083

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11

"FDR Misinformation"?

Just the facts...


Also Arabesque, if you want to convince others of a south path based on heading, you may not want to use a diagram fabricated by a janitor. His "70 degree" path has it flying over the annex and north of the light poles.

Too funny.....

Nice try though...


good summation by Legge


"The position I hold is simple. In answer to the question "What hit the Pentagon?" I say I don't
know and attempt to turn the discussion to the more fundamental question "Why was the
Pentagon hit?". It should not have been. It should have been well defended."


"There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.

Together these provide prima facie evidence that the official explanation of the event at
the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. This is sufficient to demand a new
investigation, regardless of what hit the Pentagon."

Enough said, imho.


Jim Hoffman's Two Papers on this Issue

Nearly all of the points in Frank Legge's paper were made more clearly and more extensively in Jim Hoffman's following two papers:

"The Pentagon No-757- Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics," published on 10/7/2004 and revised on 11/15/2004, available at http:/911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

"The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows," published on March 28, 2006, available at http:/911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

These papers are highly recommended reading.

I wholey support this paper!

Thank you Dr Legge!

Any that fail to see the 'reason' here are missing the point and are caught up in the drama :(

Logic and reason must prevail or we do not deserve the luck we need to.....prevail.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

What is this paper about?

It is interesting that this paper has generated such a fuss. The range of attacks is wide. Some say it has errors, some say it makes a weak case for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

In fact the paper gives very little evidence for what hit the Pentagon, so what is the paper about? Have some of the critics missed its thesis? It is stated right at the beginning. It is advice about what to do when asked "What hit the Pentagon". The purpose of the paper is stated later where it points out that it will put the 9/11 truth movement at risk if members strongly assert that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, given the contradictory evidence and hence contradictory assertions. Are there contradictory assertions? Certainly, and they are strongly held and it seems getting more strident.

Even in the comments on this thread, where we are all supposed to be friends fighting for the same cause, we see opposing views. Arabesque says that the statement that the data recorder flight path contradicts the official story is misinformation, while Swingdangler links to a video showing that the data stops at a point too high for the plane to hit the Pentagon. Clearly these contradict.

Peace brothers and sisters. Learn the message of the paper that it is the contradictory evidence and how we deal with it which is the issue, not what hit the Pentagon.

>>It is interesting that

>>It is interesting that this paper has generated such a fuss. The range of attacks is wide.

Indeed. Historically, those suggesting that AA77 could have hit the Pentagon have been targeted as "agents", "spooks", defenders of the official story, etc. by people such as Holmgren, Haupt, Serendipity, Webfairy, Rick Siegel, etc. Unfortunately, that trend continues.


Until the Pentagon shows some of the evidence of what happened, I see no reason to get worked up over this piece of damaged real estate. Clearly, withholding information from the taxpayer citizens, that could provide answers, is the real issue here. I'm sick of letting the military off the hook. They failed to protect us (if we believe their BS), they waste our dollars , and they are mostly silent about their eagerness to take away our rights while 'protecting' us. While I commend Col. Bowman and others to lead the way towards the real truth, we are asking for a police state run by the military, judging from the amount of resources we give to them to abuse. I do not trust these people to be honorable overall. We need to ask them directly to fess up what they know.

The FDR data... is Missing. Possibily altered or deleted.

"Swingdangler links to a video showing that the data stops at a point too high for the plane to hit the Pentagon"

This is a very relevant point, unfortunately it is actually misunderstood. This would make sense to you if you read my blog: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com

YES, the plane is several feet in the air with the last seconds of the data. But what you didn't know is that the FDR is MISSING data.

In other words, the plane is still in the air because the data has been removed. Several seconds before the alleged impact, in fact. This means that the data actually does NOT inherinently contradict the official story. What it does mean is that the data is missing and an official explanation (a legimitate question, I might add), needs answering by the NTSB.

So, while the data is missing, it does not support evidence of a "flyover". As I said in my blog:

"Also of interest is that the FDR data ends about "4-6 seconds" before impact. Caustic Logic quotes John Farmer who believes that the FDR was modified:

“The significance of this," Farmer contends, "is that at the final recorded position, the altitude data begins to make sense. The elevation of the area in the vicinity of pin #1 is ~150 – 160 feet above MSL. Add to that the radar altitude of 273 feet above ground level (AGL), […] an altitude of 420 – 430 feet above MSL matches well with witness accounts...” and explains in the conclusion: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered.""

I believe that this is a legitimate question unlike the claims of "flyover" and "north flight path". The FDR itself may have been erased for uknown reasons. However, the data itself as it exists largely supports the flight path and altitude of the plane as it approached the Pentagon... except that it is missing the final seconds. This demands a legitimate investigation and answers from NTSB and official sources.

In response to Rob... attacking the personal character and credibility of Caustic Logic based on his job does not make you look any more civil, relevant, or classy. Unfortunately, you seem fixated on attacking him for his job description, which is really quite lame. And it adds nothing to the discussion here, I might add. The quality of his work speaks for itself, as does yours. Let's not bring up those mistaken calculations that you made in trying to prove it was "impossible" for the plane to hit the Pentagon based on the final FDR data. Two attempts, two failures. I'll note that you are trying to claim I'm trying to "convince" people that the South path is correct. Well this is slightly less ridiculous than trying to claim that the "north" path is right when the animation data to "support" this claim is flat out wrong and doesn't even match the FDR.

I am not "attacking" Legge's paper for pointing out his error. Proper peer review demands pointing out errors so that they can be fixed. Which for some strange reason is not very popular among some in the 9/11 truth movement.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

FDR and south path

Well Arabesque, given that the FDR data finishes pretty high, do you think it is possible that the plane could have commenced a descent to the lamp poles, then leveled off to stay above ground to the Pentagon? Others say not.

If not, how do you support the idea that the FDR data is consistent with the official flight path? This is just peer review of course.