What Hit the Pentagon?

Version 3. This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and
defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official
position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help
provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.
The strategy I follow is simple. If asked "What hit the Pentagon?" I avoid answering and turn
the discussion to the far more fundamental question "Why was the Pentagon hit?".1 It should
not have been. It should have been well defended. American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757,
was the third plane hijacked that day, so there was ample time to confirm that information
received was about real hijackings, not parts of war games, and not accidents. There was ample
time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were
also anti-aircraft defenses round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.
Crucial to this debate is the video testimony of the Secretary for Transportation, Norman
Mineta, to the 9/11 Commission. He entered the PEOC2 (Presidential Emergency Operations
Center) under the White House and saw that the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was already
there. A young man came in and said to Cheney "The plane is 50 miles out", then "The plane is
thirty miles out", and when it got down to 10 miles out the young man also said "Does the
order still stand?" and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did. Shortly after this something
catastrophic happened at the Pentagon, causing many deaths. There is little doubt that Cheney
had it in his hand to shoot down this plane but had a reason not to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
There is also little doubt that those who were following this object on radar did not think it was
anything other than a plane.
It is important to note that Cheney later lied to the 9/11 Commission, denying that he was in
the PEOC at this time.3 The most likely inference from this deception is that he wished to
conceal his involvement in the unfolding events that morning, thereby exonerating himself at
the expense of some other party, that party presumably being the officially designated
perpetrators of the attack: al Qaeda, led by Bin Laden. There is no doubt that many Muslems
hate America, as President Bush has stated, but they do so for good reason,4 and it is no proof
that any Muslem group was behind this attack. Cheney’s presence in the PEOC during this
critical period clearly provides grounds for a fresh investigation.5
1 The reason for using this strategy is that if a clear answer is given at the outset, those with a predetermined belief
may simply reject the answer and no useful discussion will develop. Events following the initial publication of
this essay confirm that this strategy is effective and I recommend it to readers.
2 PEOC. Previously the word “bunker” was used here. This may have given the false impression that the structure
lacked communication facilities and thus could not have been used as a command centre.
3 David Ray Griffin, http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/230108_cheney.htm
4 http://fallofhate.blogspot.com/2009/01/they-hate-us-because-of-our-freedoms-or.html
5 The language used here is restrained and perhaps does not indicate the seriousness of this observation. It can
hardly be argued that Mineta gave false testimony to the 9/11 Commission, therefore it appears that already there
is a prima facie case that Cheney has obstructed the course of justice. If obstruction is found, it is hard to see how
investigation of the obstruction would not include consideration of the possibility of treason and murder.

There are now several theories about how the Pentagon was damaged. One is the official
description: hijacked AA flight 77 approached at a low angle, struck light poles, then struck the
Pentagon close to ground level. The outer masonry wall was destroyed to an extent sufficient
to allow the heavy parts of the plane to enter and slide into the Pentagon at ground level,
between the supporting steel-reinforced columns, many of which were bent and broken.
A large number of eye witnesses reported that something hit the Pentagon. A substantial
proportion of these described a large passenger jet, and a similar proportion stated that the
plane hit the light poles.6 The trail of damage to the support columns and the exit hole was in
line with the damaged light poles. The lighter parts that failed to penetrate the wall would have
been fragmented by the high velocity impact.7
The early alternative theory, promoted by several websites, was that a missile hit the Pentagon.
This concept apparently originated from the difficulty in seeing evidence for a sufficiently
large entry hole in the outer wall and observation of the remarkably circular shape of the exit
hole in the inner wall. The concept was further augmented by implausible interpretations of the
video clips released to Judicial Watch, as discussed by Peter Wakefield Sault.8
Then there is a theory that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, its passage obscured by the fireball
created by an explosion, which would also have created the observed severe damage. This
concept is currently presented by the Citizens Investigation Team, as will be discussed later.9
There has been heated debate about what hit the Pentagon. At first glance it appears that the
757 could not have hit the Pentagon because there appeared to be too little debris, and too little
damage at the impact site. It is very attractive to find evidence to support these claims because,
if true, it would prove once and for all that the official story is a pack of lies, and many people
have tried very hard to do so. However if you look at the evidence carefully you will find that it
cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon. This doesn't matter in the overall
9/11 analysis, however, because there is ample physical evidence that explosives were used at
the World Trade Centre. That is sufficient to prove that the official story is false and that the
NIST report and 9/11 Commission report are simply parts of an artful cover-up.
The first thorough scientific exposition of the evidence for controlled demolition, using
explosives, at the World Trade Centre was that of Professor Steven Jones in 2006. There is
now an updated version of this paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Comp
letely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
A summary of some of the scientific milestones in the development of the explosive
demolition theory is presented here:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf
6 Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw an
object hit the Pentagon. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html
7 The fact that a high velocity impact of an aircraft with a substantial obstacle produces an extremely high degree
of fragmentation is shown by the F4 experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz5vhNvskk One would
therefore expect two types of debris from the 757: larger pieces where the mass of material was sufficient to
breach the wall and enter the Pentagon and a small amount of very small pieces from the lighter parts, the outer
parts of the wings and the tail fin, which would largely fall outside.
8 http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html
9 http://thepentacon.com/

The debate
The argument that something other than flight 77 damaged the Pentagon is based on several
assertions as follows:
1. Too little debris. There is at least one photograph which shows ample small fragments
scattered over a wide area. The debris reaches past the helicopter landing pad, some distance
away from the impact site.
Given the density of fragments observed here on the concrete surface, one can conclude that
the many photos which were taken across the lawn would have had a similar density of debris,
but the small size of most of the fragments would allow them to be hidden within the texture of
the lawn. Also the foreshortening which occurs when the camera is at a distance, and close to
the ground, would limit observations.
There are photos which show debris identifiable as the engine rotor, combustion chamber and
wheel of a 757.10 Critics may of course argue that these pieces did not come from the Pentagon
crash site.
There are photos which show men in white shirts and black trousers, not ordinary workers,
hastily collecting debris from the lawn.11
A point often missed is that the interior walls did not reach the ground so once the outer wall
was penetrated there was little to restrict the debris from sliding among the support columns.
The authorities released a video purporting to show what hit the Pentagon but it did not do so.
The video did, however, show some substantial pieces of debris flying high up in the frame.
See it at Judicial Watch, video 1, or click this link:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg
You will also see five pieces of debris land and bounce across the road just in front of the
camera.12 Consider the force required to project the pieces so far. If there are similar amounts
from here all the way to the impact site, and on the other side as well, there will be a very great
10 The aerospaceweb article http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml also points out that a
photo of a rotor was presented at the Moussaoui trial which again is consistent with a 757.
11 http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/lawn4.jpg
12 Anyone skeptical of this evidence for an explosion may be basing their view on clips which have been stopped
too soon. Please check the linked video. Assess the distance the debris is projected.

Number of pieces not previously taken into account. 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.13
If explosives were used to destroy the plane you would not expect it to make a perfect impact
mark on the Pentagon, as happened at the towers, but even if explosives were not used one
would expect the effect of the impacts to be very different due to the very different
construction of the buildings.14
2. Hole too small. The photo most often displayed shows a hole too small to admit a 757,
however the lower part of the photo is obscured by water spray from a fire truck. This question
has been carefully studied. Jim Hoffman has collated photographs from a number of sources,
taken prior to the collapse of the front wall, which show that the entry hole is indeed wide
enough to admit both motors and at least the lower and heavier parts of the fuselage of a 757.
There are marks visible beyond this. He shows that the damage to the building, to objects in
front of the building, and to the light poles, more closely matches a 757 than a smaller aircraft.
It may of course be argued that the pole damage was faked.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
It is not surprising that the marks on the wall are hard to see as that section of the Pentagon had
recently been reinforced. Why was the plane aimed at the reinforced section, which still had
few occupants due to the recent renovation? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? Would
al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? There were auditors in the damaged section who
were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars. Most of the auditors were killed,
which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill
auditors?15 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/pentagonkilled.html
3. The plane could not have withstood the spiral dive observed. This is not true. The
angle of bank required would have been higher than normal for a passenger plane but
calculations show that the g-force on the plane created by the turn was well within design
capability. http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
4. The pilot was not competent to perform the navigation or the accurate approach.
There is evidence that the hijackers were more interested in learning to fly than to take off or
land. That was suspicious in itself and caused some FBI reports to be made which were
apparently blocked. It is the release of the so called “Phoenix memo” which has exposed the
13 It has been argued that this video has been tampered with and this has produced the white flash. This is possible
but why would the authorities wish to create the impression that an explosion occurred at or before impact? There
are many witnesses who describe a white flash preceding the red fire ball.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061202230503/eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv2.html
14 This is not just about the effects of a possible explosion. It is also important to note that the tower wall supports
were steel columns, covered with aluminium cladding, an ideal system for accepting an imprint. The malleable
aluminium of the cladding was caught between the similarly malleable aluminium outer wings and the steel
columns. Contrast this with the reinforced masonry wall of the Pentagon: it had no cladding to accept indentation.
Where the mass was not sufficient to dislodge the wall, little impact mark would be expected.
15 Some critics have argued that I have erred here and have strayed away from the science-based evidence that I
usually adhere to. I point out that I am not using this as proof of anything. I even use the word “speculation” to
make it clear that this is not intended as proof. The use of speculation is legitimate if it is to encourage the search
for scientific evidence, as is the intention here. Speculation is in fact the normal precursor to research.

Improper actions of the FBI at this time.16 Michael Ruppert suggests it was Dave Frasca who
saw to it that the reports did not get through,17 thus allowing senior staff to claim “plausible
deniability”.
People who assert that the poor flying skills of Hani Hanjour provide proof that the official
claim that the 757 hit the Pentagon is false are failing to take into account the possibility that
the plane was hijacked by an on-board device pre-programmed to take over the autopilot. The
ability to fly planes without pilot assistance was established well before 9/11.18 Investigation of
the wreckage was carried out by the National Transport Safety Bureau (NTSB), as is usual,
however this was not an accident but a crime, hence control was in the hands of the FBI. This
secretive organization would not be expected to reveal any information if it would incriminate
it, so if a control device was found we would not expect to know about it.19
It is also reasonable to believe that, with use of GPS, a poorly trained hijacker could have
navigated close to his target, and it may not be too hard to point a plane at a wall with some
help from the autopilot. If the hijackers had not been wasting training-time learning to land and
take off, they could have become quite proficient in operating the autopilot, especially if they
had focused on the autopilot mode called Control Wheel Steering (CWS).20
16 This is at least criminal negligence and, much more likely, a criminal conspiracy, requiring a new investigation
by itself. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072701phoenixheadquarters
17 http://www.scribd.com/doc/12965815/Michael-Ruppert-Crossing-the-Rubicon-Decline-of-the-American-
Empire-at-the-End-of-the-Age-of-Oil
18 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf
19 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&ntsbno=DCA01MA064&akey=1
20 The remark in the previous version of the paper “…it is not hard to point a plane at a wall” attracted intense
criticism. It is important to note that this entire debate about the skills of the hijackers is not relevant to the central
issue of this paper as it is possible that the planes were not controlled by the hijackers at all, as stated in the
previous paragraph.
Nevertheless we will consider what the hijackers might have been able to achieve. Some pilots have said that it
would have been impossible for any of these poorly trained hijackers to have hit their targets. They say that as
speed increases, the plane become increasingly difficult to control accurately, and finally, impossible to control.
One thing we can be pretty sure about is that none of these pilots has ever flown a Boeing 757 at the reported
speed, 530 miles per hour, as it is well above the legal limit, though not above the airframe rating at sea level. We
have however the testimony of John Bursill that he flew a simulator, configured as a Boeing 767, at up to 700 mph
and found it was not hard to maintain a steady attitude and direction manually.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20232 Some have alleged that the simulator could not have been sophisticated
enough to handle correctly at this speed. Bursill disputes this, claiming that the simulator in question is state-ofthe-
art.
Be that as it may, we also know that there are eye witnesses of flight 77 who confirm the official report that the
motors increased power in the last few seconds. This is an important point as it means the plane would have been
accelerating and would only have reached the stated speed of 530 mph at or close to impact. Even if the plane had
become uncontrollable in the last couple of seconds it would also have become impossible to deflect significantly,
due to its enormous momentum. Provided it had been set up correctly some distance back, something very close to
the desired impact point would inevitably have been reached.
Furthermore it is reasonable to believe that the pilot might have utilized the manual over-ride autopilot
mode called Control Wheel Steering (CWS) found on the 757. When this mode is turned on the plane does not
follow a pre-programmed course but simply maintains its present heading and attitude. If the pilot sees that a
course correction is required he can nudge the control to steer to a new path, which the plane then follows by
itself. It is of interest that in the final few minutes of flight 77 we see that the autopilot is turned off and wild
variations in altitude occur. Then, for the last minute and a half, a very steady descent occurs, not quite as precise
as in a preset autopilot mode but smooth enough to suggest that the pilot may have turned the autopilot back on in
CWS mode and that he was adjusting the course, little by little, as the target was approached.

The FDR record of flight 77, using pressure altitude data ,21 shows a short period on the return
leg, and another near the end, in which substantial erratic fluctuations in altitude are observed,
as might occur when an inexperienced pilot turned off the autopilot.22 The record also shows
that the controller of the plane performed a descending circuit to lose height, close to the
Pentagon, thereby exposing the plane to much greater risk of detection and interception. Both
these observations suggest inexpert human control.
While the need for certainty of outcome strongly supports the use of on-board equipment to
control the autopilot, the motion of the plane, implying that the autopilot was turned off on two
occasions, suggests human control. It is of course possible that on-board equipment could have
been programmed to give the appearance of inexpert manual control in order to create the
impression that the plane was controlled by unskilled hijackers, in accordance with the official
story.
Whether the planes were flown by hijackers or by pre-programmed on-board devices is still an
open question; neither is ruled out by available evidence, but the answer is not essential to the
case developed in the conclusion to this essay.23
5. Ground effect would have prevented the 757 from hitting at ground level. This is
often repeated but is not valid. The plane, in its last few seconds, was descending at an angle of
about 1 in 2024 which is close to normal for a plane on final approach for landing. Anyone who
has learned to fly a plane knows that it is essential to pull back on the control column before
touch-down. The pilot thus terminates the descent and then holds the plane off the runway
while speed declines. This is known as the “flare”. Without a flare there will be a very severe
impact with the runway, so clearly ground effect is not sufficient to keep a descending plane
off the ground, even in a normal approach. The high approach speed at the Pentagon would
have made ground effect even less effective, being present only in the last couple of seconds of
the approach. This could not significantly deflect the plane, given its huge momentum at high
speed.
21 Erroneously described as radar data in the previous version.
22 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
23 It is often asserted that the accuracy with which the planes hit their targets is proof that they were not controlled
by inexpert pilots. There is a logical fallacy here in that we do not know the exact location of the targets. In the
case of WTC 2 the impact is at a steep bank angle, suggesting a late, sharp course correction to the left, and even
then the hit was far enough off to the right, apparently, to interfere with the demolition process, as we saw red hot
metal pouring out of the building. This obviously could not have been intended. In the case of the Pentagon it is
highly likely that the impact was substantially below the intended point as it would have been very risky to plan to
fly so low as to hit the power poles and nearly hit the ground. It is highly likely that this plane was flying at the
lower bound of its probable error range and that its target was several metres higher. It appears the precision was
not as high as often claimed and the perpetrators were a bit lucky to have been so successful.
24 This slope, about 6 degrees, is based on the known height of the impact on the light poles and on the Pentagon.
http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/index.html#finalapproach

Calum Douglas Flight Data Recorder Presentation
This excellent presentation,25 which can be viewed at the home page of the website of Pilots
for 9/11 Truth http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/, shows an animation of data provided by the
NTSB, purportedly showing the flight path of flight 77. The data terminates near the Pentagon
at an altitude far too high to have enabled hitting the light poles, and coming from the wrong
direction, passing to the north of the Citgo service station. The animation shows the path is
mostly smooth and consistent with a plane flying on autopilot, but there is a short section on
the return leg, and another near the end, in which there are wild variations in altitude, which
appear to correspond with the deviations in the pressure altitude graph already mentioned.
Douglas reports that concerns about this clearly erroneous flight path led to further requests to
the NTSB, resulting in receipt of a raw data file supposedly direct from the flight data recorder
(FDR). This data showed the plane coming in at the right angle, to the south of the Citgo
station, but still too high to have hit the Pentagon.
The Over-fly Theory
As a plane on either of the above paths could not have produced the observed damage to the
Pentagon, being too high, some have argued that the plane flew over the building and that the
damage was caused by something else. The over-fly theory is currently presented by a twomember
group known as the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT).26 This theory requires the plane
to depart the scene in full view of hundreds of people.
It is part of this theory that the view was obscured by the effects of an explosion which caused
the damage to the Pentagon. While this might have obscured the view of the departing plane
from observers in line with the approach path, there would have been many observers with a
clear view from different directions. In particular the view over the roof of the Pentagon from
the south would inevitably produce numerous eye witness reports. Given the failure of such a
body of reports to arise, it is not surprising that this theory has received substantial
opposition.27
Review of Course Theories
The point to note is that there are now two theories about the course of the plane, which both
differ from the official report. CIT asserts that the plane passed to the north of the Citgo service
station and then flew over the Pentagon. They base this on interviews with a small number of
eye witnesses and do not rely on the FDR to establish the altitude of the plane.
In contrast Pilots for 9/11 Truth accepts the official description that the plane passed to the
south of the Citgo station, in line with the observed damage trail, as in the FDR raw data. This
line has the plane passing over a high antenna. To cause the observed damage the plane must
have been flying at an altitude lower than the FDR indicates. On their website Pilots for 9/11
25 Calum Douglas’s presentation in London, dated 18 June 2007, provides a thorough analysis and appears logical
in all details but one. He is sure that the damage at the Pentagon was done by “an aircraft of some sort” but finds a
conflict in that a 757 should have knocked over some spools on the lawn, seen in a particular photograph which he
shows. Jim Hoffman appears to have resolved this by pointing out that photographs from a different angle show
the spools were far enough away from the building that the plane would have passed above them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#surroundings
Some additional calculations are shown in “Flight of American 77”, also found on the Pilots’ home page.
26 http://thepentacon.com/
27 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

Truth show that the plane could not have pulled out of the dive required to descend from the
top of the antenna to strike the lamp poles, as the g-force would have been far too high. They
do not, however, provide evidence that the plane did not pass to one side of the antenna and
thus avoid the steep descent.28 While the flight path described by the FDR data implies that a
757 could not have caused the observed damage, they are careful to assert that they do not take
a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon. They simply, and very reasonably, contend that
the conflicts between the FDR flight path, the NTSB animation and the official story are
sufficient to demand a new investigation. Their requests to the NTSB and the FBI for
discussion of these conflicts have been rebuffed.29
It is clear that there is a range of contradictory views about what happened at the Pentagon,
arrived at by reference to conflicting evidence.
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
various reasons. 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 skillful
playwright they balanced contradictory evidence to keep the public guessing. On cue the media
critics gave the NIST report high praise and we were left guessing about the actions and
motives of the people behind the curtain.
The Precautionary Principle
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 confusion serves their
purpose. The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in
reserve which will prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. This evidence would be their
insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a
new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions,
they will produce this evidence. As many members of the 9/11 truth movement believe that no
757 hit the Pentagon, this evidence will throw the movement into disarray and create crippling
28 Given that the height of the plane in its final stage, as shown in the FDR data, is contradicted by the many eye
witnesses who saw the plane hit the building, it seems reasonable to not trust the data regarding the exact compass
heading of the plane. It would not have to move over far to miss the antenna and thus be able to fly substantially
lower in that area and thereby reduce the change in descent angle and hence the g-force on the plane. As far as I
am aware there is no published calculation of the g-force which a plane would be subjected to if following the
most favourable path toward the light poles and the Pentagon. Thus there is no published scientific proof, based
on airframe stress, that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
29 I have inserted this new paragraph here to clarify the distinction between the views of CIT and Pilots for 9/11
Truth, as I understand them. While both dispute the official story they also radically conflict with one another.
This serves to illustrate the reality of the basis of this paper and affirms the need for the wider truth movement to
develop ways to handle such conflict in order to maintain and enhance credibility with the public.

loss of credibility over issues which are far more important. It will become very difficult to
argue convincingly that explosives were used at the WTC.30
Those who are not of the opinion that a 757 hit the Pentagon should bear in mind that it is
possible that they have been deliberately deceived by false evidence and have been set up by
this evidence to serve the purpose of the perpetrators, when the time comes.
Application of the precautionary principle would result in investigators taking care to avoid the
assertion that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
The motive for this essay is the hope that promotion of the precautionary principle will make
this crippling scenario less likely to occur and, if it does occur, provide some protection from
its effects.
Summary
The evidence for what hit the Pentagon is contradictory. It is likely that contradictory evidence
has been deliberately provided. There are some who assert that there was not enough debris for
a plane crash and that a plane could not have penetrated as far as the observed damage
indicates, however the plane would only have had to destroy part of one wall for most of its
material to be able to slide among the support columns. There is photographic evidence of
plane parts that are undeniably from a 757, however they could have been planted. There is
evidence of a powerful explosion which would have changed the structure of the plane and its
impact marks. If a missile had been involved, something else must have been involved as well
to make these marks and to damage the light poles. If a 757 was involved, as seems highly
probable, there are three competing and contradictory stories about its flight path. How are we
to deal with this confusion?
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.31 This is more than sufficient to demand a
new investigation, regardless of what hit the Pentagon.
30 I am indebted to Kevin Barrett for pointing out that the majority of 9/11 truth movement members already
believe that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, thus the first step of the case made here is already in place – it is as if
the premium on the “insurance policy” of the perpetrators has been paid and they can claim on the policy when
the need arises.
31 Due to the position taken by some critics of the original paper I find it necessary to point out that if one accepts
that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by flight 77, as stated in the official report, that this is only part of the
official story and does not mean that one accepts the rest of the report. It is logically false to assert that acceptance
of the 757 impact is to retreat from MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). The first page of this paper, and its
footnote #5, make my position on this abundantly clear.

by Frank Legge (PhD)