... and glad to see more papers added to the list. The new layout is a big improvement.

I found the Wyndham reply to be of little substance in arguing pro-flyover or pro-no-plane-attack. That may or may not have been the primary purpose.

I do appreciate and welcome any new efforts to explain some of the observations of the Pentagon event and I do not necessarily champion the defense of Wyndham's paper. I also certainly echo all parties call for utitlizing the scientific method for arriving at conclusions and hope for some reconciliation in the movement over this issue.

From my examination:

In the 1st 8 pages, the author(s) offered no real arguments.

Pg9 attempts to argue that the pentagon attacks required more precision than the WTC attacks and thus requiring pre-planted explosives inside the building. Speculative at best and certainly does nothing to counter the large plane impact theory. Of course planes + bombs are most likely ... especially those pre-planted on all the planes for abort, etc. reasons. We know that is what the planners did at the WTCs. On pg10 he states it was unlikely the same M.O. was used for both Pentagon & WTC ops. More unfounded speculation and I was surprised to read that.

At the bottom of pg10, top 11, he argues that rapid cleanup of site was unnecessary if a plane really hit. This of course is also countered by logic that states the cleanup would have been done for other reasons (e.g. plane or building pre-planted explosives, modified plane parts, other unrelated covert miscellania, standard procedure). He then argues that planting evidence at the site would have been easy. Although that is true for items inside, that is not true for the debris outside in full view of dozens of agents and hundreds of motorists.

Pgs 11 & 12 he argues (apparently echoing Griffin) that dozens of pentagon impact witnesses can be dismissed due to Pentagon, govt, or corporate affiliations. If that is true then nearly all eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. The US govt and its Pentagon exert influence far beyond DC and probably most people in the area are employed by them or their contractors. I have read some of the detailed complaints and have not found them convincing enough.
However as it stands, there are dozens (possibly >100) of impact witnesses and zero witnesses to alternative theories.

However, as I stated before, I appreciate the efforts of these researchers and hope for more substance in the future.

At the top of pg14 he argues that other senses may be just as reliable as vision. In some special circumstances that is true but not so during a highly visual event. I was surprised to read this. Did anyone hear, smell, taste or feel a plane flyover the Pentagon immediately after the explosion?

He goes on further to state that pics inside the building do not show enough plane debis. But what should one expect from such a high speed impact against and through a reinforced structure? The only contextual example I can find on the web (the F4 test crash) shows that it completely disintegrates. And should we expect the Pentagon to release all photos showing all elements of the crash before picking through it ... when they don't have to? Who knows how many closet skeletons one might see. The huge outside debris field does appear satisfactory to account for the small % of debris that would not slide into the building. Who cares if one describes it as a fluid flow or just as demolished junk continuing to move in the direction it was going?

He then argues that some areas on the facade (and possibly a support column?) did not receive the expected damage that a fully intact AA77 might create, avoiding the distinct possibility that the plane may have been breaking up somewhat due to stressful aerial maneuvers, ground turbulence, abort explosives going off just before impact, lightpole damage, etc. and that such actions might disposition some parts, especially the extremeties.

I did not find any new evidence or revelations to counter the argument that it is most likely that a large plane impact occurred at the Pentagon. No amount of pure speculation regarding massive problems with witness reliability, unconfirmed flight path anomalies, etc. can counter the highly one-sided witness testimony (many for an impact vs none for a flyover, despite a potential witness pool of hundreds of thousands for a flyover), physical debris evidence, flight path damage, even frames of a video, which although unclear, certainly argue more for a craft of some type and probably a large one, etc.