Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence
sponsored a Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence on May 4, 2019. The invited
speakers were Ken Jenkins, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Warren Stutt, and John Wyndham.
Seeing the Pentagon Plane
A Joint Statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity
If you watch our videos and read the links on this site you will understand why we assert
that the weight of the evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was orchestrated by insiders…
- with access to high tech military-grade nano-energetic materials (aka nano-thermite)
- with access to the infrastructure of some of the most highly secure buildings in New York over an extended period of time
- with the expertise to accomplish the most difficult demolitions in history
- with the ability to manage public perception of the event despite numerous contrary contemporaneous eyewitness reports
- with the ability to coordinate the take-downs of the twin towers with the airplane flights
- with the ability to coordinate with the military to not intercept the airplane flights
- with the ability to stage a highly coordinated cover-up, starting on the day of 9/11 itself
- with the ability to prevent ANY investigation for many months
- with the ability to stage-manage fraudulent investigations once the demand
- grew too loud (the 9/11 Commission report the NIST reports)
All of this evidence comes from the investigation of the World Trade Center, based on
public evidence and the laws of physics. The evidence is overwhelming, consistent, persuasive,
and broadly agreed upon by the “scientific wing” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The concrete
physical and video evidence leading to these conclusions narrows the field of possible perpetrators significantly.
There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion ,
have gotten some of the least attention.
- How could the Pentagon,
the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that
- it could be hit in the
first place, after the buildings in New York City had
- already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
- Why was Norman
Mineta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the
- approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
- Why was the target
the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily
- by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars
- announced just the day before?
- Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the
- Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices
- of the Pentagon high command?
- Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult
- ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
- How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers?
- plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what
hit the Pentagon. The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that
a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several
light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation
persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise
missile. The eyewitness testimony
Read through the many eyewitness accounts.
What is very clear is that there is a consistent and blatant ongoing cover-up at the Pentagon.
Those INSIDE the Pentagon have all the physical evidence and all the confiscated videos.
They undoubtedly have the definitive proof of what hit the Pentagon, and how it was done,
but they are not saying.
The problem with focusing on a protest of the Pentagon cover-up is that the population
at large attributes to the military the right to keep secrets. Secrecy in wartime is understandable,
if it is in furtherance of military objectives. It is not reasonable that the military should be
allowed to extend this privilege to the cover-up of evidence of a monstrous crime, but the
fact is, they can get away with it. The population is not willing to second guess military
prerogative in matters like this. Therefore despite the absolutely blatant cover-up of the
facts of 9/11 at the Pentagon, there is no public outrage, and there is no reasonable
possibility that the public can be aroused on this issue.
Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might
be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems
doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.
Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon
almost irrelevant. If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered at the
Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the thoroughness of the cover-up at the
Pentagon makes it an unlikely venue for significant new findings.
The Honey Pot
On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target
of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive
diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.)
This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited.
There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space
lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms.
What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories
that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?
Despite popular belief, the physical evidence does not rule out that possibility that it was
American Airlines Flight 77 that actually crashed into the Pentagon. Confidently asserting
otherwise, then being proven wrong and discredited for sloppy research, would be
disastrous for the credibility of the solid science-based research at the World Trade Center.
Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the Truth Movement onto the Pentagon?
Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we are being intentionally set up? We must remember
that we are in a situation where nearly 3000 people were murdered in a day not counting the
thousands who have died since, and millions killed in the resulting wars. If agencies of the US
government really are complicit, which the evidence shows to be the case, then the people
who really know what happened are playing for keeps. Any movement with real potential for
arriving at incriminating truth will certainly be highly infiltrated. This is not paranoia: it is a
simple fact. The 9/11 Truth Movement must respond by policing itself and holding itself
to the highest standards of intellectual rigor.
CIT (Citizen Investigation Team)
It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally
planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative.
The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.
The generally accepted story regarding the Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77
was hijacked and flown to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver,
approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia Pike, descended to
very low altitude, knocked over several light poles, damaged a generator sitting on the
Pentagon lawn, crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high
speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of the
Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of destruction.
Enter CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization consists
essentially of two individuals from California who fly back to Washington, conduct interviews
with a number of witnesses on video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years
after the event) as being significantly further to the north than the generally accepted flight path.
A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage, both inside and outside the
Pentagon, so this flight path would require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately
faked. CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent with the damage in the
building, the plane did not actually hit the building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the
Pentagon perfectly timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon. The plane was
hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with general air traffic. (How the
passengers were disposed of is left to speculation.) Interestingly, nearly all of the people
they interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none directly confirm the
flyover hypothesis. The best they can do is elicit sketches of northerly flight paths that
actually differ significantly from each other. They compile their thirteen interviews in a
feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared
with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present
the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical
sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.
Think about it just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major highways,
including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon
would have been witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a plane flew over
the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would
certainly think they were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were no such
reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to see any flyover,
said they did not see any such thing.
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative
of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous
with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses.
Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter
the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly
confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover. Some of the witnesses contradict
themselves, but this does not count against their credibility. Furthermore, there is no mention
of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the
path of destruction. Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review
within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their
methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. They
posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those
who disagree with them. [Ed. Note: we are not yet on that list, but after posting this essay
we will surely qualify.] CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own witnesses,
accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light pole of being a co-conspirator with the
perpetrators of the crime. CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive
issue in the 9/11 Truth movement. The “Flyover theory” had recent success in
getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory”
show. Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth
Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect. “Divide and Conquer” has a long history,
going back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before him. CIT is
attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11
Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited.
If the Pentagon issue intrigues you, we highly recommend that you balance your reading
with the literature that sets Pentagon theorizing into perspective. Here is a short
recommended reading list. (All of the authors are on CIT’s enemies
list, but read them and decide about their credibility for yourself.)
In conclusion, we urge you not to be taken in by divisive speculation masquerading as research.
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley
(This spreadsheet document requires spreadsheet software such as [Commercial] Excel,
or [Free but excellent!] Libre Office. You may need to tinker with the column
spacing to make this spreadsheet more readable in Libre Office.)
Pentagon — Exterior Impact Damage by Jim Hoffman
Exclusive Photos & Story, From Sarah Roberts (on Rense.com)
by Jim Hoffman
American Memory Project of the Library of Congress — Interviews shortly
after 9/11 by witnesses to various aspects of the Pentagon events.
Note in particular the interviewing style compared to the CIT interviews. There is no
leading the witness. There is no agenda to prove a particular point. The interviewees
are allowed to express themselves freely and fully with no coaching. Several of the witnesses
interviewed here are also on the CIT videos. Notice the differences in the overall tone as
well as the details of their stories.
Another great source for eyewitness testimony is provided on Jeff Hill’s website, pumpitout.com.
He has made a project of locating and calling witnesses and letting them speak for themselves.
The National Security Alert video and the
Mike Wilson of Integtrated Consultants, Inc. has constructed an animation based on a 3-D
computer model of the plane crossing the lawn and entering the Pentagon called,
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77. It presents the plane from various perspectives
including from the security cameras. If you have ever had questions about
the basic geometry of large plane impact, this is a very helpful visualization aid.
New Research on the Pentagon Events
Ken Jenkins and David Chandler recently took pairs of direct copies from the Pentagon
surveillance video cameras and put them together as you would see them in a blink comparator.
By doing this, the image of the plane “pops out.” The one shown here has been converted
to an animated gif. Converting to gif images degrades the color resolution, so an
alternate process is used here to blink higher quality png image. Watch the image cycle
a few times and the details of the plane are definitely visible. Hopefully this will go a long way
to take the air out of the “no plane” meme.
Since our joint statement was written
The previously published analysis omitted the last records and so appeared to be
inconsistent with the official narrative of the flight path of AA77 into the Pentagon.
This new analysis is consistent with the path of damage inside and outside the Pentagon
and the vast majority of eyewitness testimony. The article is published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Frank Legge and David Chandler have also done an analysis of the plausibility of a
“North of Citgo (NOC)” flight path, based on flight dynamics, concluding that even with
a broad interpretation of the data, the transition to the NOC flightpath would have been impossible.
These results have been published in two articles,
published on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice web site, and
published in the Foreign Policy Journal. Frank Legge published another summary paper in
the Journal of 9/11 Studies in 2012 with some additional information:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth attempts to prove that a large plane could not have hit the Pentagon
based on has an analysis of the g-force needed to level out in the last seconds. That analysis
is based on flawed calculations, as pointed out to them by the late Dr. Frank Legge over
5 years ago. They continue to promote the flawed analysis on their website.
Here is my own independent analysis (DC) that supports Frank Legge’s results.
Dwain Deets, flight research engineer, who once endorsed the CIT, no crash at the Pentagon
theory has revised his position and now argues in favor of a crash consistent with the
American Airlines Flight 77 aircraft. He presented a paper describing his reasoning at 9/11:
Advancing the Truth, a 9/11 Commemoration Conference, September 14-15, 2013 in
Physicist John Wyndham has written a comprehensive review of the literature in a paper
originally published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies with an updated version on the
Scientists for 9/11 Truth website. He concludes that “a large plane hitting the Pentagon is
by far the most plausible theory.”
The Physics of High Speed Collisions
This is what happens to a plane (F4 Phantom jet) striking an impenetrable barrier at 500+ mi/hr.
A plane moving at this speed has 25 times the kinetic energy of a plane moving at 100 mi/hr.
All that kinetic energy must be dissipated by the time it comes to rest. The results are not
intuitive. In the case of a passenger plane hitting the pentagon, or a plane hitting the ground
at Shanksville PA, if it is traveling at the same speed it has the same kinetic energy per
kilogram of mass. Therefore the same degree of destruction is to be expected. This is
the major fallacy of exercises such as “Hunt the Boeing” at the Pentagon. Look at this video
then I invite you to “Hunt the Phantom”
9/11 Film Festival, Oakland 2015
I did a presentation in Oakland on 9/10/2015 on the Pentagon evidence. At the time this
web page was started the primary concern was the theories being circulated by CIT.
The newest incarnation of speculative Pentagon theories center on Barbara Honegger.
(By agreement with the organizers of the event, I didn’t mention her by name in the talk,
but it is her theories I was addressing.) My talk was back-to-back with a presentation
of the eyewitness testimony in a short film by Ken Jenkins.
(This is one part of a longer work he is producing.)
(or view on YouTube here)
On a side note, several of the witnesses in the video were viewing the incident from upper
stories of buildings in Roselyn, VA, which is a little north of the Pentagon. They would
have been in a position to see the plane if it had flown over the Pentagon, but they testify
instead that it crashed into the Pentagon, which directly contradicts CIT’s speculation.
Also, (as Frank Legge has pointed out) several of the witnesses testify that the plane went
very low as it approached the Pentagon, so low that it disappeared from view before it hit.
Once the plane was that low that close to the Pentagon, it would have been impossible
to pull up in time and there was no place else for it to go. Therefore, even though these
people didn’t actually see the impact itself, they should be considered witnesses
to impact, because there is no alternative consistent with their testimony.
The 9/10/2015 Oakland talk was actually a preliminary sampling of the ongoing work by a
group of us who were working on a major paper refuting the Honegger hypotheses.
That paper is now available: The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted
Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham. This paper is long, because
Barbara Honegger’s speculations and inferences are so wide-ranging. In our view it was
important to address this theory (like the C.I.T. fly-over theory before it) because theories
that are this blatantly flawed can seriously damage the credibility of the scientific basis
of the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is still a topic of heated controversy within the movement,
but perhaps a slow read through this analysis can bring some light to the issue.
More on CIT
Although Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT have seemingly faded from the scene,
their surrogates appear to be actively promoting their theories and disparaging their critics
on Truth and Shadows and elsewhere. This has prompted me (David Chandler) to
write up something that has been brewing for a long time, a critique of the fundamental methodology used by CIT.
It centers on Craig Ranke’s telephone interview of Albert Hemphill. The techniques CIT
uses in their interviews do not qualify as “truth seeking” and the conclusions have no validity.