Version 6 of "What hit the Pentagon" is at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Calculation errors in the previous version have been corrected. Version 5 included a table showing that a range of flight paths exist which would enable a Boeing 757 to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. As some researchers have stated that this is impossible the issue of misinformation arises and is examined.


Following precedents already set, if anyone can find a technical error in this version there will be another. I am hoping that this will be the last version. An invitation has already been extended to some who rejected the papers hypotheses to submit a rebuttal to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If this occurs it will be published together with a response.

Show "Hello Frank," by Adam Syed


"In the realm of statistics and probability, this is mathematical and hence scientific proof."

No, that is a conclusion based on speculation using "I can't figure out how it happened, therefore, it did not happen."

The so called "evidence" for flyover is very weak and to claim that it's conclusive is an overstatement. That is my opinion.

Please don't post the "evidence" again. We have all seen and studied all of it.

The continued insistence that the flyover evidence is "conclusive" is counterproductive. People have already made up their minds one way or another. The problem that Frank is trying to resolve is the endless ranker of people not being able to disagree agreeably as you an I have.

Though I may disagree completely with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Thanks Chris.

I appreciate the fact that you believe disagreements in opinion should not lead to rancor. Some people in this debate have really chosen to make it a personal issue (i.e. removing me as a fb friend because I support CIT's work) and I appreciate that you want to stick to facts. I do find it odd that you find the evidence for a flyover very weak, but I too will defend to the death your right to state it.

You took exception to my "statistics and probability" line. You yourself, in previous threads, have stated that you find the evidence for a north approach conclusive, you just didn't believe in the flyover. Are you now saying you doubt the conclusiveness of the north side approach?

Traffic court case: 13 eyewitnesses testify that the accident took place north of the intersection, not one [credible w/r to POV] witness challenges that. Where would the judge conclude the accident took place?

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

As I have previously stated

I find the north path evidence conclusive to my satisfaction . That does not mean it is a fact. Only an independent investigation will reveal the truth.

The leap of assumption that the north path proves flyover is fruit loops IMnsHO ;-)

I posted [but will not post again] a possible explanation for the north path ending in the plane hitting the Pentagon at the proper angle. My opinion and yours are just opinions based on the incomplete data that we have.

Have you had any luck at convincing OCTers with the flyover theory?

I just got a close friend, that I have been trying to convince for years, to start looking at the evidence using free fall acceleration.

I do not talk about Pentagon

Have you had any luck at convincing OCTers with the flyover theory?

I do not talk about Pentagon stuff with 9/11 "newbies" who have not looked at the issue at all and who believe the OCT by default. I use it as supplemental evidence after people have been convinced by the WTC evidence. For example, even many 9/11 truthers might at first think that the "light poles were staged" sounds a bit far fetched (as I did) until they have looked at it in depth, so that would be the case tenfold with complete newbies. I mainly discuss this with people who are already sympathetic to the cause and are looking for "even more" evidence beyond the already indesputable. ;-)

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Edit to change:

When people think for themselves the result is every theory possible. This is a strength, not a weakness. The absurd theories can be rejected and the strongest put forward. The questionable theories are debated vigorously and the inevitable result is a split decision. This does not hurt the Truth Movement until people start attacking each other or posting an enemies list. It's OK to say "You are dead wrong!" but it's not OK to attack the person. I have been guilty of this and I have learned from my mistake.

What we see on the other side is everyone parroting what they have been spoon fed on the idiot box or what they read on a so called debunking site. These people let others do their thinking for them. This should be pointed out whenever deniers say truthers can't agree or the Truth Movement is in disarray.

"There is no proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon." is one sided and leads to more debate. It would be better to say "There is no conclusive evidence of what caused the damage to the Pentagon. Until the videos are released, it cannot be said for certain."


This is an interesting comment, touching on the strategy used in the paper. I started out with the intention of lowering the antagonism between those who asserted that a 757 hit the Pentagon and those who asserted that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I also wished to reduce presentation of the "no 757" theory to the public as I believed it was risky to the truth movement.

If that leads to more debate, as you say, surely that is beneficial. But is it "one sided"? By that I presume you mean that there was something unfair in the approach I took, something calculated to raise hostility. That was certainly not my intention. I look carefully at your alternative setting out of the proposition and cannot find that it is any different in essence. The essence is the question of whether scientific proof exists that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. No matter how you put it, no such proof is at present in our hands.

I wanted a pithy approach, leading straight into the video evidence from Norman Minetta to the 9/11 commission, where the young man refers to a plane coming into the Pentagon and the involvement of Cheney. I used this to show that there was much more to the question of what hit the Pentagon than the media portrays and that it is important for us, when dealing with the public, to have our important facts marshalled. In that regard the paper was setting out a strategy for dealing with the public. The debate which followed I believe showed that this approach is successful - we have had considerable relevant scientific debate.

The major hypothesis

The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and thereby weakening the credibility of the movement.
The best way to avoid the development of contradictory views is to scrupulously adhere to the scientific method and to promote to the public only those concepts which are shown to be soundly based.

"Soundly based" is subjective as we can see. Adam is a concert violinist. Sound he knows, bass, not so much. ;-) The guy is as hard headed as I am and there's no chance of his defining "soundly based" the same way you or I do. That is the case when people think for themselves and we cannot stop anyone from expressing their views. I think promoting flyover is harmful to the Truth Movement too but I cannot stop people from believing it and saying it. At least Adam does not lead with anything about the Pentagon when talking to "newbies". This is a wise decision.

Adam, I ask that you not imply the Truth Community supports your particular view about what happened at the Pentagon. We are divided and you should say so. Endorsements should not be used to imply anything other than what was specifically endorsed.

I think we all agree that "Nothing should have hit the Pentagon" and Minetta's testimony is the best piece of evidence.

Other than that we are clearly divided on all things about Pentagon. There will be no consensus.

I know you want to smooth things over but after several 100 plus comment threads I haven't seen a whole lot of movement. I think Cheney did it with a 737 via the north path. That's my theory and barring new evidence, I'm stickin to it. However, I don't claim that there is proof. Barring further evidence, Adam and those who agree with him will continue to believe as they do. I would just caution them not to claim they have proof. Free fall acceleration is scientific proof, "It couldn't have hit the Pentagon because" is not.

Version 7?

I have received an email from Rob Balsamo predicting that version 7 will appear:


I briefly read over your paper and once again you failed to understand our calculations.

I won't bother to waste time with all the inaccuracies and logical fallacies.... but once you perhaps take the time to learn what Angle Of Attack means, that should bring you up to Revision 7. Or not.

Again, my prediction for 10 revisions stand. And after briefly looking over your revision 6, I'm thinking 12-15 revisions.

You may want to review our latest releases based on speeds reviewed by actual Aero Engineers and 757/767 Pilots.

Steven, each day you keep such absurd information on the top of the JONES, it decreases the credibility. At least in pilots eyes.

Keep up the good comedy!


As Rob did not point out any errors, version 6 still stands. The calculations are discussed in its postscript.

If Rob, or anyone else, submits a rebuttal arguing that errors are present in version 6, it will be considered. If we are persuaded that errors are present they will be corrected in version 7, with appropriate acknowledgment of the assistance. If we are not so persuaded, we offer to publish the rebuttal in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, together with a response.

This offer has been made previously; errors have been found and corrected. Some issues raised appear to be matters of opinion or interpretation rather than fact and in this case clarification has been added. If readers feel that some of these issues have not been properly dealt with they are welcome to submit them and they will be given the same attention as matters of fact or calculation.