Frequently Asked Questions: The Pentagon Attack
9-11 Research provides abundant evidence and analysis concerning the nature of the attack on the Pentagon. See this directory. Nonetheless we frequently receive questions that do not reflect a familiarity with that material. This FAQ attempts to clarify what conclusions we think are supported by the available evidence. Other questions are addressed in other FAQs.
- Does 9-11 Research reject the account that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
- Does 9-11 Research accept the official story that Hani Hanjour flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon?
- If evidence for Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon is inconclusive, what does the public evidence support?
- But wasn't the damage to the Pentagon's facade inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner the size of a Boeing 757?
- But don't photographs immediately after the attack show that there was no plane wreckage?
- If the Pentagon really was attacked by Flight 77, then why doesn't the government release more evidence to prove it?
Does 9-11 Research reject
the account that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
No. Neither do we think that that the government has conclusively proved its case that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was Flight 77, since it has failed to make evidence supporting that conclusion public. However, rejecting the crash of crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon requires that:
- Flight 77 and its passengers were disposed of at another location
- A plane other than Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon
Does 9-11 Research accept the official story
that Hani Hanjour flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon?
No. Hani Hanjour was, by several accounts, a terrible pilot, and had never even flown a jet. In contrast, the approach maneuver performed by the Pentagon attack plane was so demanding that it may have been beyond the piloting skill of even the most experienced jetliner pilots.
Furthermore, even if it were physically possible for the maneuver to have been executed by a suicide hijacker, that scenario wouldn't make sense for several reasons:
- The portion of the Pentagon attacked was sparsely occupied, nearing completion of renovation. Why would an Islamic terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that would cause the fewest fatalities?
- Accepting the conclusion that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were felled by controlled demolition implies that the entire attack was engineered by insiders. It would not be rational for the planners of such an attack to entrust a key component of the operation -- the piloting of the jetliners -- to any human pilot.
If evidence for Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon is inconclusive,
what does the public evidence support?
Extensive bodies of evidence, such as eyewitness reports and post-crash photographs, strongly support the conclusion that the Pentagon was attacked by a twin-engine jetliner with the approximate shape and size of a Boeing 757.
But wasn't the damage to the Pentagon's facade inconsistent
with the crash of a jetliner the size of a Boeing 757?
No. Contrary to misleading descriptions popularized by popular books and videos, damage to the facade included punctures extending about 100 feet in width on the first floor and about 18 feet on the second floor. Damage on either side of the impact punctures extends about as far as the profile of a 757's wings. Lacking an example of a closely comparable crash, claims that the Pentagon's crash damage is inconsistent with the impact of a 757 lack scientific merit.
But don't photographs immediately after the attack
show that there was no plane wreckage?
No. First, since most pre-collapse photographs were taken from the highway -- more than 500 feet away from the crash site -- they fail to show debris fields near the building. Second, the impact punctures were large enough to allow vast majority of the plane's mass to enter the Pentagon. Third, other crash examples show that such a high-speed crash could be expected to shred the aircraft into small, mostly unrecognizable debris.
If the Pentagon really was attacked by Flight 77,
then why doesn't the government release more evidence to prove it?
Those benefiting from the programs predicated on the official story of 9/11 (such as the 'War on Terror') are served by misinformation that muddles the case for official complicity in the crimes of 9/11/01. It is possible that the Pentagon attack was engineered with the aim of creating a distracting debate that continues for years without resolution. See the essay The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics.
back to FAQs