Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

The paper was published in the Foreign Policy Journal on October, 7, 2016 and can be found at:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

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.

This paper is also listed on the Scientific Method 9/11 website in the Pentagon section and comments can be sent to moderator@scimethod911.org .

Sincerely,
John D. Wyndham

Additional Reading – Websites, Papers, Articles and Videos

Websites and Owners/Sponsors

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows – Jim Hoffman

Pentagon Attack Errors – Jim Hoffman

Evidence: The Pentagon Attack – Victoria Ashley

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras – Ken Jenkins

The Pentagon – A joint statement – David Chandler and Jonathan H. Cole

The Science of 9/11, Pentagon – Frank Legge

Warren Stutt’s Home Page – Warren Stutt

Papers on the Pentagon – Scientists for 9/11 Truth, various scientists

Papers on the Pentagon – Scientific Method 9/11, John D. Wyndham

Papers

Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, July, 2009.

David Chandler (based on Ken Jenkins), “Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon,” 911Speakout.org, 2016.

Frank Legge, and Warren Stutt, “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path…“, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January, 2011.

Frank Legge and David Chandler, “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path,” STJ911.org, September, 2011 and its AddendumForeign Policy Journal, December, 2011.

John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, November, 2011. Revised version (3), ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.

Frank Legge, “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, June, 2012.

John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, March, 2013.

John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2013.

Victoria Ashley et al., “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.

Articles and Videos

Jim Hoffman, “Pentagon – Exterior Impact Damage,” 911Review.com, February, 2003.

Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” 911Research.WTC7.net, November, 2004.

Victoria Ashley, “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’,” 911Review.com, July, 2009.

Jim Hoffman, “Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce,” 911Research.WTC7.net, July, 2009.

Frank Legge, “Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, April, 2014.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler: “Pentagon Plane Puzzle + David Chandler: Going Beyond Speculation,” YouTube, September, 2015.

Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins, “Why Not Use a Plane?,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, January, 2016.

Share on These Popular Social Networking Websites

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on reddit
Reddit

From the Podcast Archive