The explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center is the strongest and most rigorously verified evidence-based theory that the U.S. Government's claims about 9/11 are fraudulent. By contrast, the 9/11 Truth Movement's most contentious and divisive issue has been the question of what really happened at the Pentagon.
Figure 1: Composite image showing damage to the facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 showing 100 feet of bashed in first floor wall.
(Image by Pier Paolo Murru) Details DMCA
The early study of the Pentagon was plagued by lack of information, as well as misinformation, much of which has persisted. Even though more evidentiary information has been released, many popular stories about what happened at the Pentagon fail to acknowledge the full range of available evidence. The focus of many stories has been on fragmentary tidbits requiring the dismissal of the large body of evidence for the actual mechanism of damage, which is undoubtedly a momentum-based large plane impact.
Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence
On May 4, 2019 Scientists for 9/11 Truth, in conjunction with the International Center for 9/11 Studies, sponsored the "Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence." The key word for the conference was "evidence." The conference organizers set about addressing all of the currently known relevant evidence, which is a crucial component of the scientific process. The goal of the conference was to present evidence that any viable theory must address, thus putting the discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on a solid scientific footing.
The conference opened with an introduction by Fran Shure plus a showing of two videos: "9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary" and "Trailer for The Pentagon Plane Puzzle" by Ken Jenkins. These videos covered many aspects of the physical and eyewitness evidence that support a large plane impact.
Ken Jenkins, with post graduate studies in psychology, presented "How We Got Here." Jenkins traced the process starting before the early writings of Thierry Meyssan, where many in the 9/11 truth movement arrived at the viewpoint that no large plane hit the Pentagon. Jenkins then presented the many different ways in which viewpoints, although contradicted by evidence, entrench themselves in peoples' minds. One noteworthy example was "Wishful Thinking."
David Chandler, a retired physics teacher, gave a talk entitled "Evidence for Large Plane Approach to the Pentagon." In tracing the path of the large plane from the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel to the impact at the Pentagon's west wall, Chandler showed that damage to several impacted objects quantified the actual wingspan of the imcoming plane. Matching the dimensions of a Boeing 757-200, the wingspan, location of the engines and indentation onto the diesel generator trailer by the right wing-flap mechanism suggest the impacting plane was similar to the reported American Airlines Flight 77.
Wayne Coste, an engineer, presented "The Trail of Damage at the Pentagon." He discussed the design of the "blast-resistant" E ring wall, a severed tree and other impacted objects. He also reviewed the damage from plane impact onto the faà §ade with an impact sequence illustrating yaw motion of the plane caused by impact with the diesel generator. The momentum allowed heavy plane parts to reach and impact the inner C ring wall creating a ten foot diameter hole. Coste also discussed the effects of the plane's trailing air mass on the distribution of light debris outside the Pentagon.
Warren Stutt, a computer scientist, gave an engaging talk entitled "The Flight Data Recorder." Stutt showed how the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data support AA Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. Stutt was able to convey to the audience a basic understanding of his highly technical analysis of the FDR data. Stutt reviewed many of the claims that have been made against the authenticity of the FDR data and showed them to be unfounded.
The final presentation by John D. Wyndham, with a Ph.D. in physics, was "The Pentagon Event on 9/11 - Problems with Hypotheses Alternative to Large Plane Impact." In the presentation, Wyndham compared six different hypotheses about what could have caused the damage at the Pentagon against ten different criteria using eyewitness and hard, physical evidence. Wyndham showed that a large plane impact was the only hypothesis that could explain all the evidence items and the only hypothesis that could justly be termed a theory.
The conference concluded with a panel session where questions from the audience were answered.
Cementing the Theory with Evidence
One of the persistent complaints against the concept of a large plane impact given by proponents of alternative hypotheses centers around what appears to be an intact vertical column in the 18 foot opening on the second floor above the impact area (Column 14AA). It was argued, before and after the Conference, that this column would have been severely damaged if the upper part of the aircraft actually impacted there. Figure 2 shows a close-up of this area from a widely circulated composite photograph of the damaged facade. From the angle of the image used in the composite, the column does indeed appear vertical.
Figure 2: Composite image showing Column 14AA on the second floor. Image used for this area was taken from the southwest.
(Image by Pier Paolo Murru/Wayne Coste) Details DMCA
However, upon reviewing other pre-collapse photographs and videos column 14AA is seen hanging from the third floor and angled into the Pentagon interior. The angle of this column is consistent with the direction of the impacting plane. Other severed and hanging columns along the plane's path exhibit this same orientation.
Figure 3 shows column 14AA clearly hanging and oriented in the direction of the plane impact. (See also image at 16:23 in CBS 5 video)
Figure 3: Column 14AA hanging in the direction of the impact from the Will Morris photo from the north side.
(Image by Will Morris/Wayne Coste) Details DMCA
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
1
1
