It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CIT claims (1) that the plane approached the Pentagon along a path too far north to have done the observed directional damage, (2) that all the damage was faked and (3) that the plane flew over the Pentagon. The apparently surprising claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon is a necessary part of the CIT position as it explains the lack of damage in alignment with the north path inside the Pentagon. CIT supports its theory with the testimony of a small number of selected witnesses, presented in selectively edited video interviews, who state that the plane passed north of the former Citgo service station. 1
The FDR data extends the radar data for about 6 more seconds (Fig. 1) and shows no deviation right to the Pentagon. The testimony of the witnesses cited above is in reasonable conformity with the path defined by the radar data, the FDR data and the damage trail.
Pilots For 911truth have shown in their DVD Pandora’s Box Volume 2, that the NTSB CSV and flight animation data, corrected for errors, suggest the aircraft was much higher than am impact with the Pentagon would require, passing far from the alleged downed light poles, and appears to have done a fly-over. (Dick Eastman first proposed the fly-over theory: The 575 flew just over the Pentagon, while the Pentagon is hit by another airplane.) Detailed results, as well as a list of conclusions, are available on the pilotsfor911truth.com website. See especially the visualization.
Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesi
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path
If, as we have shown, the plane did not fly north of the Citgo service station there is no reason to suspect that it did not hit the Pentagon. If it was flying close to the ground in the vicinity of the light poles, as described by many witnesses, it could not miss. The FDR file, the damage to the light poles, the fence and the generator and the shape of the damage on the face of the Pentagon all indicate impact. All arguments used to suggest that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon have been shown to be unfounded. 37 6 CIT is shown to be presenting a hypothesis which is physically impossible. According to the scientific method this hypothesis must be abandoned.
Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham
John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator. You can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.