Fitting the Five Point "Fingers" of Evidence in the Pentagon Glove

Categorizing the various Pentagon 9/11 Theories and determining
which ones are supported by the most evidence and witness testimonies

A Vision of Possibilities


The distance from Andrews Air Force Base to the Pentagon is about 9 miles.
There are also armed helicopters at the Anacostia Bolling Joint Base, 2.5 miles.
No helicopter or jet could intercept the approaching Flight 77 or protect DC within 1 hour?
- within minutes, not 1 hour 17 minutes    - Bike: 1 hour 14 minutes

In order for a theory about the Pentagon crash to be complete
it has to explain at least the Top 5 points of evidence.
Start with the Evidence. Then think back  logically to determine the cause.
Any theories better than the OCT warrant a new official investigation of 9/11.

Unless a theory explains or "deals with" these 5 well documented and witnessed areas of evidence, it lacks fullness, and is not a complete theory.  Preferably the theory will explain more than 5, not fewer.  A good theory should not simply discount one of the point as invalid.  It is not sufficient to say "we don't know that" or "it doesn't matter" or "they were deceived".  If a theory has to discredit one of the 5 points, basically chopping off a finger, then we would naturally be skeptical of this theory, according to this factual framework.  Such a theory would be "half baked" and incomplete.  A complete theory about the Pentagon should at least should have some explanation for the following 5 points:

Point Description Notes / Key questions the theory answers Mnemonic Memory aid
1 Aircraft What was/were the aircraft (or other object) that crashed in to the Pentagon, as reported by eye witnesses, or cameras (electronic witnesses).  If it was not Flight 77, modified or unmodified, then the theory should explain - what was it? Finger we point to planes with
2 People in aircraft What happened to the passengers?  Is there DNA of the victims of the crash, or was it staged?  If so, the theory should explain - how was this done? Sometimes pointed at people
3

Internal damage
in building

How does the theory explain the smaller than expected hole, fewer than expected wing and tail marks in the wall, and the larger than expected C Ring hole? Ring finger
4 External damage How did plane parts and debris found on the Pentagon lawn get there.  Were the light poles hit by a plane, or were they staged? External, outer finger
5 Aircraft approach direction What is the direction and angle of approach of the aircraft, such as North of Citgo (NoC) gas station path, or the Official story of the South of Citgo (SoC) path.  What verification is there for this direction from witness testimony? Thumb used to show hitching direction

We use the word "aircraft" to accommodate theories which involve a plane, missile, or other flying object.  Approach is a different category because some theories propose a plane on the Official South path, while other agree there was a plane, but on a different North of Citgo path.

An American Airlines Boeing 757-200, flight AA 77 from Dulles International Airport, was hijacked by five men of Middle East origin. Under the control of inexperienced pilot, Hani Hanjour, it was brought back to a point about 5 miles south west of the Pentagon, where it commenced a descending spiral to the right. After turning about 330 degrees, the course of the plane gradually straightened until it was aiming directly at the Pentagon. The plane continued its descent at high speed and hit the west wall of the Pentagon, which it largely penetrated, close to the ground. On the way it struck five light poles, a fence, a generator trailer and a low concrete wall. Inside the Pentagon the damage, debris and locations of human remains were all consistent with impact by a large aircraft, travelling in the direction delineated by the damaged light poles. This direction was about 61 degrees East of North, making an angle of about 52 degrees with the Pentagon west wall.   9/11 Commission Report and The Pentagon Building and Performance Report (PBPR)

There are other possible "fingers" of evidence.  For example a 6th finger would deal with why there was no intercept.  The OCT theorists would say NORAD reacted in a timely fashion, or change the time line again.  Most Truther theories would agree there was a Stand Down.  All of the following theories, except for the Official Conspiracy Theory, propose a "stand down" by NORAD, so that the planes were not intercepted in a timely manner.  But, to keep it simple, for now, we will stick with 5 fingers.

We can include videos and cameras along with point #1, which are mechanical "eyes" which have the ability to take "snap shots", while the human eye camera does not.  Video frames can be transmitted from one person to another through stop action photos.  We cannot (yet) transfer what one person sees to another person, as in the movie Brain Storm. Point #1 is about visual evidence regarding a plane hitting the Pentagon.  Only five Pentagon security photo frames were not released.  This may be to hide the aircraft if it did not match the stated approach angle or type of aircraft. 

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sherlock Holmes
These theories below may not explain exactly how 9/11 was done - but how it could be done.
Therefore, these plausible, alternative explanations have to be investigated and eliminated,
so we can get to the absolute truth.


Here is how we can apply the above framework
to the popular theories about the Pentagon

Top Theories of the Pentagon - in no particular order

1. Original Proponent: Paul Zelikow of the 9/11 Commission  

Official Conspiracy Theory of the 9/11 Commission Report

This is the theory of the Bush/Cheney Administration
and the report written by Phil Zelikow

Point Description Notes / Key questions the theory answers Objections/Questions
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was Flight 77, and a plane was viewed by many witnesses Agreed, but the plane was taken over by Remote Control
2 People in aircraft Crew, Passengers, and Hijackers were in the plane, and the DNA matches the passengers Agreed, but they were unconscious
3 Building damage Plane hit at a near 45o angle and proceeded straight through to the C Ring. Hole seems small for a plane.  No definite wing or tail marks. C Ring hole is so large, no large engines
4 External damage Plane hit the light poles, and pieces went flying out the hole and on to the lawn. The 6 poles would have made the plane uncontrollable. Pieces flew too parallel to the Pentagon wall to have come from inside the hole
5 Aircraft approach direction Plane went in on a South of Citgo path, and hit near 45 to the wall A dozen credible witnesses saw it on a North of Citgo path

Each  theory "stands on the shoulders" of other theories (below)
Thanks go to the following 9/11 Researchers and Theorists
for helping to formulate a theory satisfying all 5 major points.

NOTE: The Original Proponent of a theory may have changed his mind by now,
as new information comes to the surface.  Views can change in minutes.
The proponent is mentioned to just help the reader remember the theories.

2. Original Proponent: Operation_Terror movie

Operation Terror Movie
OperationTerror.com
YouTube.com, IMDB.com, Vimeo.com

Writer/Producer: Art Olivier   Director: Paul Cross

Interviewed by Dr. James Fetzer     Kevin Barrett
 

  Description Notes / Key questions the theory answers Commentary/Notes
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was a modified plane, such as an A3, Clipper or Sky Warrior, with enhanced Remote Control capability, so the planes could be pilotless.  Plane hit by RC with greater speed, accuracy, and coldness than any human could, but could be done with high speed computer control.
 
The theory assumed in Operation Terror is that a remotely controlled A3 shot a missile at the Pentagon and then followed the missile though the hole. A3's have folding wings so they can fit more of them on aircraft carriers.
2 People in aircraft Crew, and Passengers from other flights landed at Yeager Airport, and were combined into one plane, which flew to Cleveland.   The occupants were offloaded then herded into a NASA hanger. 

Art: Defense related occupations of the victims on the passenger lists. I suspect they were killed because of their knowledge of something.

The 4 planes were under-booked, yet had a high % of Raytheon engineers (with specialty in remote control aircraft), plus Price-Waterhouse-Cooper, which audited Raytheon.

Families of 9/11 Victims receive regular "hush money" Survivor Benefits payments (in the $ millions) as long as they keep quiet, and do not try to get a new investigation of what happened to their loved ones

3 Building damage Plane caused the external damage.
Explosives caused internal damage.
Note for WTC site: Building 6 was "gutted" with a hole in the center of the building, which indicates an explosion in the middle that did not reach the outer walls.  Debris from WTC 1 would not just fall in the middle.
4 External damage Hole in outer wall of Pentagon were smaller than expected.  Agent Delgado (the organizer in the movie) was very upset.
A remotely controlled A3 shot a missile at the Pentagon and then followed the missile though the hole
Light poles were not mentioned in the movie
5 Aircraft approach direction Aircraft approach was not mentioned in the movie. Ask Art if he believes North or South of Citgo.
3. Original Proponent: Rick Shaddock - Explains all 5 "finger" points of the evidence, and fits like a glove.

Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) of the FMS (Flight Management System)
and CAPOV (Suffocating Occupants) in Planes Containing Explosives
Hitting Buildings Containing Explosives

Similar to WTC: PPE/CD - Pre-Planted Explosives / Controlled Demolition

In a nutshell: Let air out of planes by remote control, suffocating everyone on board.  Pre-planted explosives in buildings during the modernization projects, and plane cargo area.  Remote Control Take Over to fly planes into buildings at high speed.  Voice morph calls.  Uses technology to exist.  Explains everything including DNA evidence at crash sites. 

Remote Control Take Over (RCTO)
RCTO could be developed under the cover of making jets "hijack proof".
Contractors and technicians would develop and install RCTO willingly.
If any planes are hijacked, the authorities can fly them to the nearest airport.
RCTO =  www.acronymfinder.com/Remote-Control-Take-Over-(aviation-technology)-(RCTO).html
Rick's blog
 

  Description Notes    See the Video at  https://vimeo.com/231003119 Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses

Many witnesses would have seen plane if it flew over. Some witnesses exaggerated.  Most saw a Fly Into.

Aircraft was the Boeing Flight 77, but modified, filled with explosives in luggage cargo, and hit the wall of the Pentagon. Enhanced Remote Control capability (RC of CAPOV and RC of FMS) was installed before the flights by agents in the ground crew.  Pilot Lock Out of Navigation and Communication.  Plane hit by RC with greater speed, accuracy, and coldness than any human could, but could be done with high speed computer control.  Boeing publicly patented the Anti-Terrorism Auto Land (ATALS) tech in 2003, so it was well under development by 9/11/2001. Remote Control of Flight Management System (FMS)
modifications for enhanced external control

Pentagon withholds info, such as camera views and plane part serial numbers to fuel speculation.

2 People in aircraft

Crew, Passengers, and Duped Alleged Hijackers (DAH) who were Confidential Informants on board to L.A. for their next assignment, so their DNA would be found in the crash, were suffocated during cabin depressurization and hypothermia around 30000 feet, with RC of CAPOVThen the plane proceeded by Remote Control of FMS. Plane hit, killing all, as verified by the DNA tests.  Voice Morphing of calls got the official story out, based on samples of victims' voices. Remote Control of  Cabin Air Pressure Outflow  Valves (CAPOV) causing cabin depressurization and hypothermia incapacitating everyone, preventing any attempt to regain control of jet.

Military announced unclassified version of Voice Morphing Technology in 1999

3 Internal damage to building Fragmented plane, which exploded just prior to impact, caused the smaller-than-expected hole in the outer wall.  Explosives pre-planted during the construction did the remaining damage, including larger-than-expected C Ring hole. The plane would hit more like gravel than a brick of equivalent weight.  Outer wall had been reinforced during the Pentagon remodeling project. Two sources for explosive damage:
1. in building, Accounting Dept. and
2. in plane cargo luggage hold
4 External damage Plane did not hit the 6 light poles or Taxi without scratching hood (ridiculous), which were staged.
Plane exploded just prior to impact, sending debris on the lawn in all directions, even parallel to the Pentagon wall (impossible from the inside).  Plane parts could not take a curved trajectory.  Pre-impact explosion explains wide dispersal pattern of plane parts.
Debris is from the plane, but the light poles were staged

I personally saw Pentagon debris on 9/11.  Jim Hoffman's article on debris.

5 Aircraft approach direction

Plane went in on a North of Citgo path, not the official south path. Either wind or overcompensation by remote pilot blew the plane off the planned South of Citgo course.  Plane hit near 90 to the wall, exploding milli-seconds prior to impact, followed by pre-planted explosions at a 45 angle inside the wall, consistent with the original planned approach.


Testimonies of two Pentagon Police Sergeants are credible
4. Original Proponent: James Fetzer, PhD  - proposes swapped aircraft, and plane parts

Captain James Fetzer, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota
Founder of 911Scholars.org

See many articles by Dr. James Fetzer on Veteran's Today
Dr. Fetzer at conference on CSPAN   JamesFetzer.blogspot.com
 

  Description Notes / Key questions the theory answers Commentary / Links
1 Aircraft witnesses

All 4 crash sites were fabricated.  Flight 11 and 77 were not even in the air that day.  The planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005. Witnesses were deceived.

Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo

2 People in aircraft

These were phantom flights with fictitious passengers.  If anyone claims that a relative or friend died in a plane crash, then they ought to demand an autopsy, because none of those four planes actually crashed.

The 9/11 Vancouver Hearings
3 Internal damage The internal damage was done by prepositioned explosive charges to create the false impression that a Boeing 757 had hit the building.  But not even the engines were recovered from the Pentagon.

The Official Account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy

4 External damage

The official account is aerodynamically and physically impossible.  A plane flew over the building at the same time explosive charges were set off to simulate the crash of a plane, which did not take place

9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I  
Part II

5 Aircraft approach direction A plane simulating Flight 175 approached on a due East trajectory north of the Citgo station, too high to have hit any lampposts, and swerved over the Pentagon at the same time explosive charges were set off. Were the 9/11 crash sites faked? (Seattle, Washington 13 June 2012) Part 1, Part 2
5. Original Proponent: Jim Hoffman - 9/11 Researcher

Jim Hoffman's Hypothesis

Jim Hoffman focuses mostly on the World Trade Center issues, but has written a paper:
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
He proposes that Pentagon Theory is a "booby trap".  (But no research is a trap if we apply logic to the available evidence.)

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Proposes Boeing plane, original Flight 77 Agreed, it was the original Boeing Flight 77 but was enhanced with RC for CAPOV and FMS
2 People in aircraft Passenger seats and remains of occupants were found Agreed, passengers were original occupants,
but unconscious from suffocation at high altitude
3 Building damage Pentagon facade damage fits a 757
96 foot hole
Interior damage is consistent with a 757 crash.
Claims hole in Pentagon is not too small.
Engine parts match a 757's engines
 
Generally Agree, however explosion in plane just prior to impact makes an even better fit to the damage. 
Yes, "lateral displacement of tail damage suggests explosion" (just prior to impact)
Pre-planted explosions, along with the plane's impact, make an even better fit.
4 External damage Debris is consistent with a jetliner crash
Debris from the attack plane is widely distributed
Damage to Surroundings fits a 757
Swath of downed lamp posts fits a 757's wingspan
Damage to generator and retaining wall fits a 757's profile
Positions of Cable Spools are consistent with a 757 crash
Generally Agreed
Plane hit generator and wall,
but not the light poles
At a near 90 degree hit, the positions of cable spools are more consistent than with the 45 degree approach
 
5 Aircraft approach direction Attack plane's approach is consistent with a 757
No Fly Over.  People would have seen it.
Final approach is consistent with an Auto-piloted 757
Generally Agreed, but it went NoC then into Pentagon
Agreed, plane hit Pentagon, not over
Yes, it was on RC/AutoPilot at the time of impact
6. Original Proponent Michael C. Ruppert, Detective

Remote Control of FMS in Planes Hitting Buildings Containing Explosives
Author: The Truth & Lies of 9-11, Crossing the Rubicon
www.FromTheWilderness.com

 

  Description Notes Commentary/Questions/To Do
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was Flight 77, but modified with enhanced Remote Control capability, so the planes could be pilotless.  Plane hit by RC with greater speed, accuracy, and coldness than any human could, but could be done with high speed computer control.  (under construction)
2 People in aircraft Crew, Passengers, and Duped Alleged Hijackers (DAH) who were Paid Confidential Informants on board to L.A. for their next assignment, so their DNA would be found in the crash)  Plane hit, killing all, as verified by the DNA tests.  How does Mike account for phone calls?
3 Building damage Plane caused the external damage.
Explosives caused internal damage.
Outer wall had been reinforced during Pentagon remodeling project.
 
4 External damage Light poles
Hole in outer wall of Pentagon
What about the light poles, staged?
5 Aircraft approach direction   Does Mike favor north or south of Citgo approach?
7. Original Proponent: David Chandler, American Association of Physics Teachers

David Chandler, Physics Teacher www.911SpeakOut.com  and
Jonathan Cole, Civil Engineer, Logic and Reason
A Joint Statement on the Pentagon, January 2011
Seem to be in general agreement with Jim Hoffman's Hypothesis (above)
www.scientificmethod911.org/docs

"Nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level."  Proposes Pentagon research is dead end.  (But no research is dead end unless we stop investigating.)

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses The original 757 hit the Pentagon Agreed, but it could have been under remote control at the time
2 People in aircraft Original passengers were on board Agreed, but they could have been unconscious
3 Building damage Physics of High Speed collisions is consistent with Pentagon, and fits the observed impact pattern. Agreed generally, but plane exploding just prior to impact makes an even better fit.
4 External damage Debris from 757 was scattered around the lawn.
Defends taxi driver's testimony on light pole through window
Agreed on plane debris
Disagreed on taxi cab window story. 
No scratches on taxi hood.
5 Aircraft approach direction Dismisses fly over, but also throws out NoC witnesses Agreed that plane did not fly over.
But there are credible witnesses for NoC, including Pentagon Police
8. Honegger Helicopter Hypothesis

Barbara Honegger Helicopter Hypothesis

A helicopter hovering around the Pentagon shot the approaching plane, then zoomed away

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses A plane was shot down as it approached the Pentagon
by a helicopter
 
2 People in aircraft Crew, Passengers, and Hijackers were on Flight 77  
3 Building damage "Hole is about 96 feet, ample to admit all the heavy parts of the plane"  
4 External damage Caused by the plane hitting the Pentagon, including poles  
5 Aircraft approach direction Official south of Citgo path  
9. Original Proponent: Frank Legge, PhD, has a peer reviewed paper coming on the topic

Dr. Frank Legge's Hypothesis

Dr. Legge's paper in Journalof911studies article about FDR and flight path. 
Seems to be similar to the OCT, and contains the following 5 points.

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. Agreed
2 People in aircraft Crew, Passengers, and Hijackers were on Flight 77 Agreed
3 Building damage "Hole is about 96 feet, ample to admit all the heavy parts of the plane" Many reported E ring too small, C ring too large
Where are the heavy parts such as 2 engines?
4 External damage Caused by the plane hitting the Pentagon, including poles Agreed
5 Aircraft approach direction South of Citgo.  "CIT witnesses are not credible", including 2 Pentagon Police Officers. We need a list of SoC witnesses. Where is it? Storti was discredited. Two Pentagon Police are credible. Relies on FDR data provided by the suspect, which of course supports suspect's story.

10. Original Proponents: Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD and Kevin  Barrett, PhD

Remote Control of the FMS with Pilot Lock Out of Navigation and Communications
in Planes along with Voice Morphing Technology for the calls

Materials needed: Remote control (RC) of Flight Management system (FMS) with Pilot Lock Out of navigation and communications, along with Voice Morphing Technology (VMT) to get the story of the hijackers to the public. 

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was Remote Controled, hitting buildings with greater speed, accuracy, and determination than any human could.

(Ask Bob & Kevin for more details)

Remote Control of Flight Management System (FMS)
modifications for external control
2 People in aircraft There is no proof that Hijackers were on board.  Crew and Passengers were trapped in the plane, without communications, when it hit, killing all crew and passengers, as verified by the DNA tests.  Phone calls used advanced and classified Voice Morphing Technology.
(Ask Bob & Kevin if this is stated correctly)

There are only a few photos of the hijackers at the airport, and none of them entering the planes.  Here, Atta is at the wrong airport, Portland Maine.

3 Building damage Building damage was caused by a plane
(Ask Bob & Kevin for their theory. What percentage was done by plane and what % by building explosives?)
4 External damage (Ask Bob & Kevin for their theory.  What about light poles?)
5 Aircraft approach direction (Ask Bob & Kevin for their theory.  North or South of Citgo?)
11. Original Proponent: Jeff Hill and others propose that the plane was Flight 77 and hit Pentagon and light poles

Jeff Hill of PumpItOut.com

Jeffrey Hill runs the PumpItOut blog and radio show.  He has interviewed many reliable witnesses, including a Fire Fighter on the spot, who state they saw the plane that hit the Pentagon.  Although he disagrees with the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) with respect to the WTCs in NYC, he agrees with the OCT as far as the Pentagon is concerned, as have Jim Hoffman, Eric Larson of 911Blogger, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and David Carnes of AE911Truth.   Jeff has done a lot of interviews, and gets the witnesses to talk much more than they initially said they would. 

Point Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was definitely a plane and was viewed by many witnesses
(Jeff no longer believes all photos were faked or speed was impossible.)
Agreed
2 People in aircraft DNA evidence proves there were people in the planes Agreed
3 Building damage Building damage was done as described in the OCT Generally Agreed. Some damage was done by plane, Some by explosives
4 External damage Plane parts on the lawn are from Flight 77
Plane hit light poles, and the Taxi driver was telling the truth
Agreed: plane debris was caused by the plane
Disagreed.  Light poles and Taxi were staged
5 Aircraft approach direction Plane went in on a South of Citgo path, and hit near 45 to the wall Disagreed: Pentagon Police officers saw NoC
12. Original Proponent: Dennis Cimino

Dennis Cimino
A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer
 VeteransToday.com 2012/03/13: 911 the official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Pentagon was reinforced with kevlar, and had BPDMS and Sparrow missile defense.  White House SS has Stinger Missiles.
 
 
2 People in aircraft Pilots had opportunity to call for help but didn't. Seems needlessly complex
3 Building damage Caused by swapped plane or drone  
4 External damage

Nothing much is seen on the lawn regarding verifiable plane parts.

 

 
5 Aircraft approach direction Questions Flight Data Recorder authenticity, due to inconsistencies  
13. Original Proponent: Rob Balsam of Pilots For 9/11 Truth

North of Citgo (NoC) Approach and Fly Over Hypothesis (P4T)

Rob Balsamo is the founder of Pilots for 911 Truth and has studied and measured the approach of the planes at the WTCs and Pentagon.  Additional supporters include Dwain Deetes, and Jesse Ventura.  This theory is similar to CIT's but may differ on specific points.

Point Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Planes were swapped with military drones.
An aircraft was viewed by many witnesses
But all witnesses were deceived in to believing it hit.  It flew over.  CIT cites Roosevelt Roberts as a witness to this.

We would expect more witnesses to a Fly Over.  However 911 calls have not been released.  Roberts does not say definitively "I saw it fly over" and believes the OCT.  About 20% of the locations on the roads give a good view of the Pentagon.

2 People in aircraft (ask Rob for clarification on this) No explanation provided on web site. Ask Craig.
3 Building damage Internal explosives were pre-planted in the Pentagon during renovation Agreed
4 External damage Plane did not hit light poles, which were staged earlier.  Pieces of aircraft were distributed on to the lawn Ask Craig how plane parts were distributed? 
5 Aircraft approach direction Plane went in on a North of Citgo path near 90 towards the wall then flew over the Pentagon Agreed: to NoC approach
Disagreed: Plane hit, and did not Fly Over
14. Original Proponent: David Griscom, PhD

Dr. Griscom's New Hypothesis - Drone Plane Substitution theory of 2010

Planes headed towards military airfields and were substituted with unmanned drones, which crashed into the buildings.  Two planes flying close to each other would appear as 1 "blip" on the Radar.   See: DavidGriscom.com and DavidGriscom.com/New911Hypothesis

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft, such as Flight 77, took off then was substituted with a drone near the west point of its flight path, while off Radar.  So witnesses saw the drone and thought it was the original plane.
or
Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, just as a second plane, coming from the north, hit the Pentagon.
Seems like there is too much room for error.
Why not just use the original plane by RCTO?
2 People in aircraft Crew, Passengers, and Hijackers disembarked and were killed or held prisoner somewhere.  
3 Building damage The drone plane made the reported building damage.  
4 External damage The drone plane made the reported external damage. To do: get clarification from Dr. Griscom on this
5 Aircraft approach direction The drone plane made the reported angle of approach near 45 to the wall To do: get clarification from Dr. Griscom on this
15. Original Proponent: David Owen has a theory that the plane flew NoC and hit the light poles and the Pentagon

David Owen / Broken Styx

Dave Owen a 9/11 researcher proposed a potential Unified Pentagon Explosion Theory (UPET), to reconcile CIT with OCT witnesses.  On his BrokenStyx YouTube channel a video, he displayed a simulation of a plane passing North of Citgo, then banking sharply right, then left, making an "S" path, then striking the light poles and hitting the Pentagon. 

This theory was the first major theory proposing an integration of the OCT with CIT's theories.  It explains a lot.  However Pilots For 911 Truth (P4T) showed that the "S" path could not be done by any fixed wing aircraft.  P4T says the bank angles are way too steep, and such banks were not observed by any witnesses on 9/11.  Here is the paper by pilot Rob Balsamo, who wrote this paper North Approach Impact Analysis showing the technical drawbacks of the "S" path theory.  However Rob's  paper did not analyze all possible paths or bank angles, only the one Dave happened to choose for illustration purposes (much less the near 90 degree angle).

"A passenger plane knocking down lightpoles and crashing into the pentagon is the only theory that fits all the evidence.  There is no evidence of anything else happening." 

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was Flight 77 "passenger plane", which was "crashing into the pentagon" was viewed by many witnesses Agreed
2 People in aircraft The original passengers were in the aircraft Agreed
3 Building damage Internal damage was cause by "plane...crashing into the pentagon" Why the small E ring and large C ring holes?
4 External damage "Plane knocking down light poles" by going in an "S" path. Plane pieces are from the plane hitting. Agreed on plane parts, but not on "S" path
5 Aircraft approach direction Plane went in on a North of Citgo path, turned, then hit near 45 to the wall. Agreed on NoC, but was 90, not 45
16. Original Proponent: Erick Hufschmid proposes a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon

Eric Hufschmid
Painful Deceptions - Global Hawk

 

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Proposes Global Hawk and missile hit the Pentagon Many military people around the Pentagon know the difference between a plane and a missile.
2 People in aircraft People were off loaded during radar blackout, killed, then DNA was sent to Dover  
3 Building damage Caused by Global Hawk  
4 External damage Caused by Global Hawk  
5 Aircraft approach direction Official path, but it was a Global Hawk  
17. Original Proponent: Jesse Ventura, Conspiracy Theory, TruTV

Jesse Ventura's Missile, Explosives, and Fly Over Theory

Jesse presents discussed three different general theories in his Conspiracy Theories TV Show on TruTV:
1. Charles Lewis - an "insider" who said he heard a missile hit the Pentagon
2. April Gallop - said she though it was a bomb that went off, and did not see plane parts
3. Dwain Deets discussed the Fly Over Theory (see above)

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Witnesses thought they saw a plane, but it really was a Missile
Not enough plane parts.  No jet fuel.
Disagree. It was a plane, not a missile
2 People in aircraft Passengers were presumably killed elsewhere Disagreed. Occupants died in the crash
3 Building damage E Ring hole was too small, C Ring hole was too big
April Gallop said she thought it was a bomb
Dwain Deets says C Ring hole is not consistent with a plane
Agreed, explosives were necessary
4 External damage Light poles were staged Agreed, light poles were staged
5 Aircraft approach direction Aircraft went North of Citgo, then over the Pentagon, according to interview with Dwain Deets Agreed: plane passed North of Citgo
Disagree. It hit the Pentagon, not flew over
18. Rebekah Roth  - proposes swapped aircraft (list under construction)

Rebekah Roth, Flight Service Specialist
Familiar with and trained in jet hijacking situations for 30 years
Author of MethodicalIllusion.com and MethodicalDeception.com

  Description Notes / Key questions the theory answers Commentary / Links
1 Aircraft witnesses (to be entered)  
2 People in aircraft    
3 Internal damage    
4 External damage
5 Aircraft approach direction    
19. Original Proponent: Citizen Investigation Team has proposed the plane flew North of Citgo, then over the Pentagon

North of Citgo (NoC) Approach and Fly Over Hypothesis (CIT)

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis run a forum at CitizensInvestigationTeam.com (CIT) and have interviewed many reliable witnesses, including two Pentagon Police Officers, who state that they saw a plane traveling towards the Pentagon on the North Side of the Citgo (NoC) gas station.  According to the Official Theory, it passed on the South Side.  CIT interviewed a cab driver who gave a dubious claim that a light pole went through his window without scratching the hood.  CIT first discovered the NoC approach, the reason for pre-planted explosives in the Pentagon.  CIT responded to Chander and Cole.  Craig blocks anyone who opposed the Fly Over Hypothesis from his forum. Craig has refused a phone debate challenge on this theory.

Point Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses Aircraft was Flight 77, and a plane was viewed by many witnesses
But all witnesses were deceived in to believing it hit.  It flew over.  CIT cites Roosevelt Roberts as a witness to this.

We would expect more witnesses to a Fly Over.  However 911 calls have not been released.  Roberts does not say definitively "I saw it fly over" and believes the OCT.  About 20% of the locations on the roads give a good view of the Pentagon.

2 People in aircraft CIT has no hypothesis for this yet other than they were staged Incomplete:
No explanation provided on web site. Ask Craig.
3 Building damage Internal explosives were pre-planted in the Pentagon during renovation Agreed
4 External damage Plane did not hit light poles, which were staged earlier.  Pieces of aircraft were distributed on to the lawn Incomplete
(Ask Craig how plane parts were distributed?)
5 Aircraft approach direction Plane went in on a North of Citgo path near 90 towards the wall
then flew over the Pentagon
Agreed: to NoC approach
Disagreed: Plane hit, and did not Fly Over

20. Original Proponent: Dean Hartwell

Dean Hartwell

  Description Notes Commentary
1 Aircraft witnesses

Swapped with smaller jet, such as A-3D SkyWarrior, painted as Flight 77 or a fly over.
VeteransToday.com 2012/03/13: The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy

Need to call Dean to ask him

2 People in aircraft

Original passengers were swapped during radar outage.  Some exited at another airport, to assume other identities; others killed. Passenger list problems cited at Veterans Today.com 2012/03/15: The 911 passenger paradox what happened to Flight 93

 
3 Internal damage Caused by swapped plane or drone.  
4 External damage

Nothing much is seen on the lawn.  Parts from other crashes could be dropped from C130 on to the lawn.

5 Aircraft approach direction North of Citgo approach of the aircraft, as discovered by CIT.  

See Fly Into vs. Fly Over Pentagon Debate

How911wasDone.Blogspot.com

www.facebook.com/groups/911AllTheories

More 9/11 theories from Six Possibilities from PentagonResearch.com

1) Hani Hanjour Flew the Aircraft per the Official Story.
2) Flight 77's Controls Were Remotely Overridden With No Hijackers Involved.
3) Flight 77's Controls Were Remotely Overridden With Hijackers On Board.
4) Brain washed, trained Suicide Pilot (not a hijacker) as a "Manchurian candidate".
5) Total Remote Control.
6) No Aircraft at All.

These various theories have been discussed and debated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

How to convince America's top Generals to go along with the 9/11 Plan

Theory 1 Cheney lied to the Generals Cheney promised the Generals "only a few will really get hurt, to save millions of Americans and our democracy."

"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled."
Mark Twain