The Pentagon Event - The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted

Announcing a new paper, "The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted," by Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, James Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham.

The paper can be found in the Pentagon section of or directly at


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


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


John Wyndham



Wising up

Gosh! What a coincidence! The plane that never hit the pentagon. That ....I guess...didn't do anything, and maybe never existed....was the very same plane that Hazmi and Mihdhar was supposed to be on.

You know....Hazmi and Mihdahr. The non-existant hijackers that didn't hijack flt 77 because it wasn't hijacked and flown into the pentagon? The two non existant hijackers mostly ignored to promote "the truth" of no plane at the pentagon? You know the two non existant hijackers that the CIA lied about during the joint inquiry....

You know, the two hijackers that were on the non existant plane at the pentagon that lived with an FBI Informant?
The two hijackers that were on the non existant plane crash at the pentagon that the President refused to allow The Joint Inquiry to question their landlord-coincidently a counter terrorism FBI Informant?
You mean that plane might have been real? The plane that the two hijackers that were getting support from Saudi Intelligence officials and President Bush's buddy Bandar were on, that plane?
You mean the plane that Hami and Mihdhar who expose how the CIA and Saudi Intelligence both knew were al qaeda operatives before they ever came to America and were assisted by Saudi Intelligence and CIA,....that plane was real? And flew into the pentagon?
Wait...Ted Olson didn't help murder his own wife on his birthday?
Hold on here.....does this mean Donald Rumsfeld wasn't helping the "truth movement" with secret "Clues" about what hit the pentagon when he gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12, where he said a "missile" hit the Pentagon." Only 5 days after Thierry Meyssan made a webpage suggesting no plane hit the pentagon?

Gosh - it's almost as if......nah

Maybe the "Truth Movement" has learned something and wised up?

Philip D. Zelikow, who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and has read the pages, thinks they should remains secret.
In any event, he maintains, the Saudi connections were “a red herring.”

Saudi Arabia’s Alleged Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks. “Red-Herring”, Propaganda Ploy


honegger refutation

(i'm pretty confused by the first commenter.)
the following should shed some additional much needed light on the situation.

The 'new' Wyndham paper, which is anything but new,
was finally just posted on his own website because it was submitted
to the editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies last year, where it can't
get past the peer review -- and for obvious reasons. Chief among
these are the reasons detailed by one of the peer reviewers who
recommended that it not be published, and whose review is below.
This paper is a series of 'straw man' arguments, making claims
contrary to honegger's actual Pentagon findings so they can be polemically
'knocked down'. The authors also ignore the fact that Wayne Coste,
who took up their position after the paper was drafted, lost the
Pentagon debate with honegger on a 9/11 Conference call 20 to 3.
Below is the peer reviewer's review for the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Dr. Timothy Eastman Review of
"The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted"
by Ashley et al.

Though I was pleased to see that the authors conclude (p. 66) that "these events... are best approached with a commitment to... examining all the evidence, eschewing all personal bias and other personal considerations and by testing each hypothesis for its consequences”, this paper does not live up to its stated goal.

It assumes the validity and integrity of official evidence while omitting compelling evidence against the official story compiled by Ms. Honegger, and my reading revealed at least 25 direct or implied personal attacks on Ms. Honegger (e.g., p. 43: "Her contention here is scientifically naive..."; p. 63: "Honegger's scenario is divorced from reality”), all of which should be expressed in a neutral way in a scholarly paper. While the authors make more than 20 claims as to how "scientific" this present work is and how Ms. Honegger's work is "unscientific”, they apply clearly inconsistent logic in an attempt to refute a central pillar of her thesis, claiming that only clocks stopped earlier than the official story time are the result of minute hands having been moved due to dropping, but not also clocks stopped closer to the official story time. I find Ms. Honegger's clock analysis more believable, in terms of overall coherence and consistency, than to assume that only the "9:37 clocks” should be believed and that all other timepieces -- including April Gallop’s 9:30-stopped watch and the digital-clock time of 9:34:10 for the initiation of the black smoke cloud embedded in the Doubletree Hotel video -- should be dismissed. Indeed, if there is as much failure associated with minute hands as the authors

claim, why should we accept any clock readings? Questioning of clocks should apply to all of them, not just to those not giving close to the official time.

Most importantly, for a paper whose title is “The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted”, the authors seriously misstate that hypothesis, making much of the paper a series of straw man arguments. They falsely claim in the abstract and throughout the paper that Ms. Honegger attributes "all" damage and deaths at the Pentagon “solely” to pre-planted explosives, whereas her clearly stated findings are that the damage, fire and deaths are the result of both explosives and the explosion of a large plane at the heliport area further north and earlier than the official story time. The other main difference is that the authors assume and state that the plane at the Pentagon was “likely” and “probably” Flight 77, whereas Ms. Honegger marshals the evidence the authors omit that it could not have been Flight 77 (i.e., that there was destruction, fire and deaths in the A and B Rings further in than the C Ring opening; that American Airlines’ press release stated that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) reportedly found just inside the C Ring opening was the wrong kind for any AA airliner on 9/11 and thus that the FDR reportedly found near it, on whose data the authors heavily rely, also had to be of the wrong kind, etc.) Further, the authors base the majority of their analysis on a previous ‘Behind The Smoke Curtain’ video and not on the revised, updated second edition ( published months before this paper was written and submitted, and do not include

a citation to Ms. Honegger’s peer reviewed chapter in the “Toronto 9/11 Report” along with the links to the video presentations.

In my view, the authors' claim to have accessed "all the evidence" is also problematic for a number of reasons: (1) "all the evidence" is clearly not available because much evidence remains behind the "security curtain" or suppressed through extensive censorship; (2) the authors omit critical evidence refuting their position presented

by Ms. Honegger and others; (3) much of the witness testimony, which is ‘all over the map’ -- it was a ‘large plane’, a ‘small plane’, a ‘757’, a ‘737’, a ‘747’, a ‘missile’, etc. – must be critically eliminated in any serious analysis; (4) much of the available"evidence" is seriously compromised [e.g., as stated by the authors themselves "the FDR file...[has] various modification dates...[and] time stamps indicate the FDR data was downloaded four hours before the FDR was reportedly found" (p. 13), yet the authors claim "nothing would indicate the file had been tampered with"]; (5) as they note, "footage from the only two surveillance cameras with any known useful image information about the Pentagon event is fuzzy, vague and unsatisfactory", and such poor quality affects a high percentage of all available data for the Pentagon event; and, finally, (6) "all the evidence" is itself ambiguous: do the authors mean just the direct quantitative data; that plus "all" qualitative data; all these plus "all" associated metadata; or the full context for available data?

In my view, the overly ambitious claims made in this paper severely undermine its credibility. Progress can be made on such issues but given the rather poor quality of most data, I think the authors should be much more sanguine about being able to apply “the scientific method" to reach any type of "proof.”

More specifically, I do not agree with the central claim of the authors the E Ring opening was “big enough for the fuselage and most of the wings to enter" and that plane fragments "traveled as a highly focused stream of debris fragments that [created the C ring exit hole] (p. 27).” The reasons are as follows: (1) direct eyewitnesses and photographs do not support the claim of a fuselage + wing-sized hole in the exterior wall, as shown by numerous researchers, including Ms. Honegger.

In particular, I talked in person with a first responder eyewitness -- a member of a fire department team that arrived prior to west wall collapse -- who told me that there was no visible hole adequate for the entry of a large vehicle of any type, much less a large aircraft; and (2) at the Sept. 2013 Sept. 11 presentations held at the Pentagon Sheraton Hotel, a former NASA Director of Research Engineering,

Dwain Deets, discussed experimental tests of a high-speed aircraft impacting a hardened concrete wall like that at the Pentagon. The results (Fig. 1) showed either no penetration or at most only very minor penetration, precluding a significant portion of a large plane being the cause of the internal damage at the Pentagon as the authors claim, and any that did penetrate would rapidly be laterally dispersed in any case (Fig. 2, from the Purdue University simulation) and thus incapable of causing the near-round opening in the C Ring wall more than 300 feet into the building.

Regarding the Daryl Donley photos cited by the authors, he began taking these "within a couple of minutes of the plane crash" and its massive fireball. His Image 14 captures a major explosion clearly later than that initial fireball [i.e. “a couple of minutes” plus the time required to take 14 successive photographs] -- as the black smoke cloud is already well established in the photo -- just where the official story claims a plane impacted. This Image 14 clearly documents an explosive event well after the initial fireball and I do not find plausible the authors' speculation dismissing it as a mere "minor secondary explosion" (p. 59).

Given the above many serious concerns with this draft paper, I do not recommend publication in anything like its present form. With some major revisions to correctly state and analyze Ms. Honegger’s hypothesis, base the analysis on her most recent work, consider all the relevant evidence including that which weighs against their position, mitigate inflated "science" claims and eliminate personal attacks, I would be willing to entertain a second look. At the very least, whether in its present or revised form, this paper should be accompanied by a simultaneous reply by Ms. Honegger, to advance the dialogue about these critical issues. Unfortunately, the present paper is more focused on polemics than on advancing an unimpassioned scholarly debate among the community of researchers.