COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

The Pentagon strike

Was it a Boeing 757? The missile theory, the hole, the videos and the evidence

← Interactive guide and chronology · The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file · What people say ↓

What the engineers found

The damage path matched a 757, wings and all.

The American Society of Civil Engineers team, which worked with the Pentagon’s renovation office, reconstructed the impact from the damage, photographs and eyewitness interviews. It found the plane, weighing about 181,520 pounds, struck at about 460 knots (780 feet a second), nearly level and at ground level, at an angle of about 42 degrees to the wall. [1]

The facade damage stretched roughly 90 feet at the entry point. The team concluded that the outer parts of both wings did not enter the building; the damage extended about 230 feet through the first floors of rings E, D and C, ending at a hole in the inner wall of Ring C. [1]

Air-traffic and radar records follow Flight 77 from Dulles through its turn and dive. [2]

What we can’t tell you. The engineers’ access was limited by the rescue and recovery; they did not examine aircraft debris in detail.

The sources

  1. ASCE (Mlakar et al.), January 2003: The Pentagon Building Performance Report (NIST copy) ↗

    Engineers’ study of the damage path from Flight 77 through the building.

  2. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1: “We Have Some Planes” ↗

    The minute-by-minute account of the four flights and of the FAA and NORAD response, including the 10:03:11 crash time of United 93 and when the shootdown order reached the pilots.

The missile theory

Why some people think no plane hit, and what the record shows.

The no-plane case rests on three points: early photos showing a hole that looks too small for a 757, the absence of large pieces of wreckage on the lawn, and the government’s refusal for years to release video. The film Loose Change, whose makers debated the editors of Popular Mechanics on Democracy Now! in 2006, made it famous; one of its researchers called the missing plane “our best evidence.” The film quoted CNN’s Jamie McIntyre saying there was “no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon”; the rest of his sentence was that the only crash site was the building itself. [4]

Against it: the damage on the facade was much wider than the hole people focus on, which is the exit hole in the Ring C wall; the engineers found a damage pattern matching a plane’s fuselage and inner wings. The engineers recorded an eyewitness who saw the plane strike three light poles on its way in. Items recovered from the crash site and shown at the Moussaoui trial include a partial ID card reading “ALHAZMI.” [1][3]

The two security-camera videos released in 2006 are low frame-rate and show the plane only as a white blur near the ground before the fireball. That has kept the argument alive, but it is a limit of the cameras, not evidence of a missile. [2]

What we can’t tell you. Most of the FBI’s Pentagon evidence was never published as a full public report.

The sources

  1. ASCE (Mlakar et al.), January 2003: The Pentagon Building Performance Report (NIST copy) ↗

    Engineers’ study of the damage path from Flight 77 through the building.

  2. CBS News, 16 May 2006: Pentagon makes public 9/11 footage ↗

    The release of two security-camera videos after a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.

  3. U.S. District Court (E.D. Va.): United States v. Moussaoui, prosecution trial exhibits ↗

    The 2006 trial exhibits, including the cockpit voice recording transcript and the phone-call records from the four flights.

  4. Democracy Now!, 11 September 2006: Loose Change filmmakers debate Popular Mechanics ↗

    A long, even-handed debate between the two sides.

Why so little video

The withheld tapes and the 2006 release.

The Defense Department kept the security-camera footage back until the Moussaoui sentencing trial ended, saying it was evidence. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request in December 2004 and released the videos when the Pentagon handed them over in May 2006. [1][2]

Judicial Watch’s president, Tom Fitton, said he hoped the release would end the theories that something other than Flight 77 hit the building. It did not: people still ask why a building that heavily guarded had so few cameras covering that wall. [1]

What we can’t tell you. Other footage the FBI collected from nearby businesses has been released only in part, through FOIA.

The sources

  1. CBS News, 16 May 2006: Pentagon makes public 9/11 footage ↗

    The release of two security-camera videos after a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.

  2. Judicial Watch, 2006: Defense Department FOIA release on the Pentagon attack ↗

    The Defense Department’s FOIA response. Scanned PDF.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

4 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

All 162 rated claims ↗

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.