The paper was published in the Foreign Policy Journal on October, 7, 2016 and can be found at:
For over fifteen years the 9/11 truth movement and some of its most visible leaders have debated this question: Did a large plane, matching a Boeing 757 in general and Flight AA 77 in particular, hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? In the last several years a group of scientists and engineers have presented a number of scientific papers that answer both of these questions with a resounding “Yes.”
It’s time for the 9/11 truth movement to resolve its Pentagon debate by applying the scientific method to the Pentagon evidence. Doing so points conclusively to large plane impact.
John D. Wyndham
The International Forecaster – James Corbett August 13, 2016
CorbettReport - https://www.corbettreport.com/msm-finally-admits-their-bias-now-what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it/
…So that leaves us pretty much where we started: aware that the media is biased and aware that this is leading to an escalating cycle of hatred that is conveniently directed away from the powers-that-shouldn't-be.
So what do we do about this?
There are going to be many different answers to this question, obviously, but one of them is coming from Newsbud…. -(see video)-
NEWSBUD - http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/
“…Decades of these people writing a couple term papers a year, investigating, has done nothing, has gotten the system worse.
Independent Media Heads to New York to Confront NBC Over MSM Lies
August 3, 2016 by James Corbett (The International Forecaster and CorbettReport)
...yet another provable lie circulated by anonymous military sources through their propaganda arm, the US mainstream media. This story is a pretty straightforward example of a psyop designed to be spread throughout Turkey and used to defuse the Turkish public’s violent counter reaction to the coup.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan of “The 28 Pages” and the UK’s Margaret Thatcher involved in “…(the UK’s) biggest, most lucrative arms deal in history….”
~~~ The United Kingdom’s largest ever export contract and largest ever arms deal. ~~~
(Larger image) - http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/3/c/2/d/highres_451335405.jpeg
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 http://www.scientificmethod911.org or directly at http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Honegger_Hypothesis_042916.pdf.
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.
In March 2002, five frames from a Pentagon surveillance camera (which we shall call Camera 1) were released. It showed a smoke trail but no apparent plane. Any plane would have had to be hidden behind a foreground obstruction, and it seemed intuitively implausible to many people that a 757 would fit behind that obstruction. This series of frames did much to launch theories of the Pentagon attack asserting no plane, or a small plane rather than a 757, or a missile. More frames from the same camera and a second series of frames from a nearby camera (which we shall call Camera 2) were released in 2006, but they did not get the attention they deserved. The Pentagon had become a contentious issue in the 9/11 Truth Movement by then and many of us were focusing our attention on the World Trade Center and seeing the Pentagon as a diversion.
It has been a very long time since I have posted at 911Blogger, and it was this issue among others that were central to me losing interest in 911 Truth activism.
I simply don't want to be associated with people who put feelings before facts or ego investment before the scientific method.
I am hoping that the great work done here by David Chandler supported primarily by Ken Jenkins may finally start an ending to the speculation surrounding the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
In absolute support of this rational position presented by David Chandler, is the witness testimony collated in the this video by Ken Jenkins.
I would be disappointed if this material is not enough to convince activists that saying that "no plane hit the Pentagon" is not supported by the hard evidence at hand.
Why Did Navy Staffers at the Pentagon Fail to Respond to the Attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11?
of our people to respond is the second part of it."
- Admiral Robert Natter, commander of the U.S.
Navy's Atlantic Fleet on September 11, 2001 
Navy personnel at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, including some key officials, appear to have acted with a surprising lack of urgency after they learned of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
Even though the Navy--along with the rest of the United States military--was responsible for protecting America if it was under attack, its personnel at the Pentagon seem to have done nothing, or very little, to help defend the country after they learned of the plane crashes at the World Trade Center. Remarkably, many of them continued with their normal work duties as if nothing unusual had happened. Furthermore, the Navy's top officials appear to have issued no orders to their personnel, regarding what to do in response to the crashes.
A dozen Army personnel, including many senior officers, went ahead with a routine, previously scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001, in an area of the Pentagon that was severely damaged when the building was attacked at 9:37 a.m., even though a hijacked plane had crashed into the World Trade Center 14 minutes earlier and this incident had been reported on television since 8:49 a.m. Strangely, the officers were unaware of the crash when they went into their meeting and no one interrupted the meeting to let them know the U.S. was under attack after a second hijacked aircraft hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. They were consequently still continuing their meeting as if nothing was wrong, oblivious to the crisis that was taking place, when the Pentagon was hit and a huge fireball erupted into their room.
The immediate response to the 9/11 attacks of dozens of the most senior U.S. Air Force officials at the Pentagon who were together in a meeting when the attacks began appears to have been far from what we might reasonably expect, considering the serious and unprecedented crisis the officials had to deal with and the Air Force's key role in responding to it. Evidence suggests that after the first plane crash at the World Trade Center was reported on television on September 11, 2001, there was a delay of over 10 minutes before the officials' meeting was interrupted and the officials were alerted to the incident. The subsequent response of the officials appears to have been slow and lacking urgency.
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. He has contributed to two major terrorism investigations in the US and UK, the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest, and has advised the Royal Military Academy Sandhust, British Foreign Office and US State Department, among other government agencies. His new novel, ZERO POINT, predicted a US-UK re-invasion of Iraq to put down an Islamist insurgency there. Nafeez is a regular contributor to The Guardian where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises via his Earth Insight global column. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others.
Dr. Frank Legge Interview
Interview conducted March 1st, 2014
MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/484-int-49
What was it that blew a hole in the Pentagon on 9/11? Was it really American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757? Or was it a much smaller aircraft? A missile, perhaps? Or just pre-planted explosives?
Joining us to discuss these questions is Dr. Frank Legge, PhD chemist and long-standing researcher into 9/11, who shares with us from his research the many reasons why he believes it is now established beyond reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 did in fact hit the Pentagon that day.
Insisting nevertheless that the overall evidence of 9/11 unambiguously speaks of an "inside job", Dr. Legge warns of the dangers of dogmatism within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and explains why he sees 9/11 as a transnational elitist crime aimed ultimately at authoritarian One-World Government.
The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman, by John D. Wyndham.
This paper deals with issues raised in a November, 2012 letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. These involve eyewitness testimonies as analyzed by Jerry Russell and by David Ray Griffin in his book, “9/11 Ten Years Later,” together with other topics that include debris flow through the Pentagon interior, energy considerations, and questions previously unaddressed by the author.
Four appendices focus on inaccuracies in the Fletcher and Eastman letter; on David Griffin’s list of physical evidence items that, in his view, weigh against the 757 impact theory; on the testimony of the unfairly-maligned taxi driver, Lloyde England; and on Jerry Russell’s and David Griffin’s analyses of Pentagon eyewitnesses.
You can read the paper and submit comments for moderated discussion at:
John D. Wyndham
April 12, 2013
"The Pentagon announced it is boosting "cybersecurity" personnel to 4,900. Is this really a move for defense, or to ramp up efforts to spy on Americans?".
"The Pentagon has approved plans for a five-fold increase in its cyberwar fighting force. The U.S. Cyber Command would see its ranks jump from 900 to 4,900, including both uniformed and civilian personnel. Defense officials say the boost in the cybersecurity force is necessary because of the nation's growing vulnerability to cyber attacks and also the need to prepare for more offensive cyber combat operations. But there is already a shortage of cyber specialists, and the new recruitment effort would increase the competition for skilled personnel within the government and the private sector. Audie Cornish talks to Tom Gjelten".