9-11 Research does not endorse all of the conclusions of this presentation.
For analysis of this issue, see The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
See the comments below.
<< PREVIOUS Credits NEXT >>

Thanks to the Researchers of the Pentagon Attack

This presentation is almost entirely a synthesis of facts and analysis compiled by other researchers. Many people made this work possible, from the people who took the photographs shown here, to those who created the photo-montages showing the extent of the damage to the Pentagon. Some of the researchers deserving credit are:

page 36 Copyright 2003-2007 911research.wtc7.net
<< PREVIOUS INDEX NEXT >>
Comments by 9-11 Research added on 7/3/05

911Research re-evaluated the evidence of the Pentagon crash in much greater detail in mid-2004, arriving at the conclusion that the heavily promoted theory that something very different from a Boeing 757 crashed at the Pentagon is likely an elaborate hoax. A key proponent of this view is the creator of OilEmpire.us, whose Pentagon page provides a wealth of evidence that the no-Boeing theory is a hoax.

Several of the sources cited above have helped to propagate gross errors in describing evidence of the attack.

  • Thierry Meyssan was most successful vector of the Pentagon no-Boeing theory through his two books, which were effectively marketed and translated into dozens of languages. Meyssan's work contains gross errors in evaluating evidence, such as using a photograph of the facade in which fire foam spray obscures the first floor to conclude that the impact hole was 18 feet wide.
  • SilentButDeadly is the source of the graphic reproduced on the previous page, which deceptively implies a jetliner is a solid stainless steel object that should produce a hole matching the full extent of its profile. This idea is debunked here. The voila site also presents the two eyewitness accounts that describe the aircraft as a commuter jet, while ignoring the numerous accounts that it was a large jetliner. Several pages of the site use the five frames of video leaked by the Pentagon to amplify the idea that the attack involved a small plane, while failing to note any of the frames' features that indicate forgery.