I know you like to be informed of things like this.

>>When will this be resolved?

The journal has posted papers by Frank Legge which are peer reviewed on the topic. Scientific findings are typically not hashed out by groups on Internet forums, but are reached using the scientific method, testing hypotheses using the available evidence.

Many on the "no Boeing" and "Flyover" camps attempt to exclude all eye witness and other evidence which contradicts their claims. You cannot reach a resolution to any problem by excluding evidence that does not fit with a pre-determined claim. Examples include the claims that all witnesses were confused, lied, were plants, agents, etc. There is simply no evidence for these assertions.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Dr. Frank Legge

>>I have as yet found no reason to have anything but respect and appreciation for Barrie Zwicker

He has endorsed, supported and advocated the claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no one noticed. Many have lost respect for him because of that.

>>I'm thankful at this point that I haven't studied the events at the Pentagon and have almost no opinion

Even if you hold no opinion, this point still applies:

Summary and Conclusion

The evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is contradictory. It is likely that contradictory evidence has been deliberately provided. There are some who assert that there was not enough debris for a plane crash and that a plane could not have penetrated as far as the observed damage indicates, however the plane would only have had to destroy part of one wall for most of its material to be able to slide among the support columns. There is photographic evidence of plane parts that are undeniably from a 757, however they could have been planted. There is evidence of a powerful explosion which may have changed the structure of the plane and its
impact marks. If a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, something else must have made these marks and damaged the light poles.

There are three competing and contradictory stories about the flight path of the plane. The official flight path cannot be scientifically refuted by the available evidence. How are we to deal with this uncertainty and confusion?

There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies that a stand-down order existed, as appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not. This
implies that the provision of contradictory information is deliberate and has a purpose.

These provide prima facie evidence that the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists.49 This is more than sufficient to demand a new investigation, regardless of what hit the Pentagon.

I'm an understanding kind of mood, and I completely understand that you have these questions.

It would take any one of us exceedingly long to get you up to speed on this issue, and get you to understand why some of us are so upset. You should also know that there are sometimes lengthy e-mail discussions between groups and these exchanges are never seen by the public. Some of them include threats or harassment.

The problem with Barrie Zwicker is he snitchjacketed 911blogger, and some of us took that very personally. Please try to imagine how you would feel after doing 9/11 research for say 7 years and somebody labels you an "infiltrator" who spreads "disinformation". I tend to assume somebody is not an infiltrator or 'spy' or 'agent' until I have some really persuasive evidence, and even then, I'll try to remain cautious.

I recommend you follow the link above, and from there, read the other links as well. I'll leave it there, because I don't want to derail.

for an open forum on the Pentagon. Those who assert the plane flew over the Pentagon have come up with no new evidence for years. All they do is repeat the claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo service station therefore could not have done the observed directional damage.

The plane did not fly north of Citgo. The witnesses were mistaken. Here is the conclusion of the paper which sets it out:

Summary and Conclusion

The calculations we have displayed here show extreme values for the g-force required to deviate from the initial path to pass north of the Citgo service station, 4.3g being the lowest conceivable value, requiring that Morin’s testimony be totally set aside for no apparent reason, and the impossible 12.1g if some of Morin’s testimony is accepted. The bank angles are even more telling, since they would be clearly observable, 77° being the lowest possible. These values are confirmable by the reader using free software tools.

The force calculated is well beyond the legal limit for this aircraft, 2.5 g, and also above the likely strength safety margin. Control of the aircraft, even at the lowest computed g-force, would be impossible for other than a highly trained aerobatic pilot and the physical survival of the aircraft would be at least in doubt.

The bank angle would be so steep as to astonish observers and be well remembered and frequently reported, but steep bank angles were not reported at all. Nothing more than a slight bank was described, even by those observers who claimed to see the path of the plane clearly enough to feel sure it was north of the Citgo service station.

It is physically impossible for a passenger plane to pull sharply out of a descent at a steep bank angle. The plane was descending steeply but managed to quickly level off, hence could not have been steeply banked.

It is physically impossible for any plane to pass NOC at the reported speed without banking steeply, hence the few witnesses who claimed to have observed the north path were necessarily mistaken about the path of the plane. Several such witnesses reported that the plane was flying level in the vicinity of the Navy Annex, in complete contradiction of the curved NOC path.33 The NOC witnesses are outnumbered by witnesses to impact by about 10 to 1, or about twice that if we disqualify the NOC witnesses who contradicted themselves by reporting that they saw the impact. There is a complete absence of witnesses to the plane flying over the Pentagon, though hundreds of people were in a position to see it and the sight would have been striking, commencing, or approaching, with a remarkably steep bank.

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.31,5 CIT is shown to be presenting a hypothesis which is physically impossible. According to the scientific method this hypothesis must be abandoned.

It is to be hoped that those who have been puzzled by the apparently contradictory assertions surrounding the Pentagon attack, will now see that it is appropriate to withdraw support for the divisive notion that no plane hit the Pentagon. There are many disturbing issues related to the Pentagon attack, as have been clearly set out by Kevin Ryan and others, but the question of whether a plane hit the Pentagon should not be on that list.

conducted by various prominent 9/11 researchers, it would be unthinkable that these views were to be unrepresented in Toronto. Yet it's as if diverging from the "OCT" as far as possible is more important than truth. This is a well known problem, where "divergence from the OCT" is seen as synonymous with verisimilar, rather than simply looking at the facts and going from there.

I think anyone who cares about THE TRUTH should withdraw their support and decline to participate in this event.

My use of the word "deceived" in the above post was not meant to imply that the board had done anything improper. I am sure the board changed the plan of the Hearings with the best of intentions.

What I feel may be the case is that some party outside the board may have used arguments to include some support to the overfly notion and the board was persuaded to do so. I found this change most regrettable and perhaps fired off the above post without taking the time necessary to ensure a correct communication of a delicate matter. Had I spent the time I would have said it appeared that some party outside the board had deceived the board.

I apologize for concerns that may have been raised by my lack of clarity.