The Pentagon and the Missile

Some say that it wasn't an airliner that struck the Pentagon on 9/11, but a missile.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies, History & Pseudohistory

Skeptoid #354
March 19, 2013
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Pentagon Crash
Flight 77 debris at the Pentagon
Public domain photo

Today we're going to delve once again into the depths of conspiracy theories. We'll take yet another look at the events of the September 11 attacks, this time focusing on the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington, Virginia. According to the generally accepted account of what was witnessed and recorded on September 11, 2001, the Pentagon was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a hijacked Boeing 757 on its way from Dulles to Los Angeles. 59 people on board the airplane plus 125 workers inside the Pentagon were killed, plus the 5 hijackers. And as pop culture would inevitably have it, alternate claims have arisen: mainly that the Pentagon was not hit by a hijacked plane at all, but by an American cruise missile fired as a false flag operation. Years later, is there sufficient reason to doubt the official story?

First of all, the phrase "official story" has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the "official story" is that the human body has 206 bones. The "official story" is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The "official story" is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the "official story", it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the "official story". In this sense, "official story" is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that's most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it's only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.

And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that's all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It's not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, "consistent with" is not "evidence of".

Let's look at the most popular such example:

Myth #1: The security video shows a missile hitting the building.

Of the 85 video tapes seized by the FBI that may have shown the plane strike the building, only one actually shows the impact of an object with the building. This is a Pentagon security camera pointed at a traffic gate along an access driveway. In the background is a white streak, visible in only a single frame, which is far too small and of low quality to make out any useful details. Missile theorists believe the depicted object is too small to be a 757, and is more consistent with a cruise missile.

So far as the object in the video appearing to be too small for a 757, that's correct, it is. But this is to be expected, since the lens of the security camera is ultra wide angle. The camera was intended to see as much of the vehicle driveway where it was positioned as possible, side to side. Thus it did not produce a rectilinear image with straight lines; the lines on the Pentagon building are clearly curved in the video. Yet, missile theorists have superimposed straight lines of perspective onto this image, in an effort to show that the height of the incoming object was too small for a 757. Because of the lens used, the plane does in fact appear far smaller than it would with a normal lens, consistent with what we'd expect of an ultra wide angle lens and a full-sized airliner.

Myth #2: Donald Rumsfeld's office was on the opposite end of the building.

The implication being that Rumsfeld, presumed architect of the false flag attack, was carefully protected by having the plane hit a far-away part of the building.

This is a perfect example of "consistent with" not being "evidence of". Sure, if Rumsfeld had masterminded the attack, he might well choose to preserve his own office. But by this same logic, you could point to anyone anywhere in the world whose office was not in the immediate vicinity of the crash site. This factoid is so irrelevant that I didn't even bother to look up where in the Pentagon Rumsfeld's office was. Whether it's true or not, it's useless information.

Now for an example of a claim that's just simply wrong:

Myth #3: There was no debris from an airplane at the site.

Thus there was no plane, thus it must have been a missile (even though that in itself is fallacious logic). Even after so many years have gone by, I still hear this assertion being made, in blatant defiance of virtually every photograph taken that day. Debris from the plane was everywhere, including easily identified mechanical parts from the landing gear and engines and lots of twisted aluminum painted in Boeing BAC452 Green Epoxy Primer. It's trivial to do a Google image search for "flight 77 debris" to see exactly what was reported by dozens of Pentagon employees, rescue personnel, and reporters, and observed live worldwide by millions of television viewers.

It's also easy to read the transcript from air traffic controllers who communicated with the plane, and to see the graphs from the flight data recorder, including the plane's altitude as it plummeted toward the Pentagon. Both are among the information available from the National Transportation and Safety Board. But I should be clear that pointing out such evidence, especially in the case of official documents, is not persuasive to a conspiracy theorist. In their theory, evidence consistent with the "official story" is simply part of the conspiracy, and is therefore unreliable and should be dismissed.

Myth #4: The approach path was impossible for a 757.

When the hijackers brought the plane to the Pentagon, they were still too high, so they flew in a circle to drop the altitude. A Dulles air traffic controller, Danielle O'Brien, said "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Conspiracy theorists often cite this comment as evidence that the controllers knew it was not a 757.

But this interpretation is only possible if you ignore the rest of what she said. O'Brien has been very clear that there's no question it was the 757, and that unsafe doesn't mean impossible. "It was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere," she said, and also correctly pointed out that unlike an airliner, a missile does not need to circle to lose altitude.

Myth #5: The Pentagon's missile defenses would have shot down an actual encroaching aircraft.

As the headquarters of the Department of Defense, you'd expect the Pentagon to be one of the best defended buildings in the world. But apparently, this alleged missile defense system is nonexistent. It was proposed by French conspiracy theory journalist Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11: The Big Lie. If such a defense system existed but was not used, not a single Pentagon employee complained about it. Even the friends of the 125 employees killed raised no objection.

In practice, it would be very difficult for the Pentagon to have such a system. The Pentagon's location was fixed in 1941, just weeks after the completion of what's now Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Planes landing at the airport fly right over the Pentagon all day long, at a very low altitude. The ends of runways 33 and 15 are just 1 kilometer from the Pentagon, in a direct line. Planners of such a theoretical missile defense system would have known that they'd have essentially no time to discriminate between normal traffic and hostile traffic and to make a kill/no-kill decision. Thus, it's not surprising that none of the hundreds of thousands of photographs and videos of the Pentagon show a missile defense system, nor do the blueprints nor construction photographs, nor has anyone who has ever worked there reported knowledge of such a thing.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

That's a really quick overview of only five of the many arguments made by the missile theorists. Apologies to those who were looking for a more in-depth analysis of all the many facets to this conspiracy theory, but there really is not sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to warrant much time or investigation. It's intellectually lazy to simply hunt for anomalies that might been seen as consistent with proving the "official story" wrong. That's the opposite of a responsible search for information and knowledge. If you want to know what happened on September 11, look at the evidence. Certainly you do want to pursue alternative explanations for the evidence, but you also want to make sure you're not changing the evidence to support your predetermined conclusion.

I want to encourage everyone to approach with great caution any alternative belief system that is founded primarily upon the assumption that accepted theory is wrong. In such a system, any alternative theory is acceptable, so long as it denies accepted theory. A familiar example of this is creationism. There are many different mutually irreconcilable versions of both Old Earth and Young Earth creationism: gap creationism, theistic evolution, day-age creationism, Omphalism, and so on. No two of them can be true, as they all represent radically different versions of history. But despite these profound differences, they're all allied with one another under the single banner of "Evolution is wrong". Competing theories are generally welcomed, so long as they embrace the assumption that accepted theory is wrong.

This is equally true of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Consider the number of theories that have been put forth to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center: Everything from holographic airliners, to controlled demolition, to robotic airplanes rigged with explosives, you name it; any theory is viable so long as it starts with the assumption that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 did not actually crash into the twin towers.

So keep a sharp eye on the motivations for your beliefs and theories. If you want to find out what's known, look to see what the evidence supports. But if you find instead that you're looking for only that which supports a specific belief or claim, be aware that you're doing things backwards. Hold the "official story" to a high standard, but don't simply be hostile to our existing knowledge base.

Brian Dunning

© 2013 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Dunbar, D., Reagan, B. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst Books, 2011.

Meyssan, T. 9/11: The Big Lie. London: Carnot Publishers, 2002.

Mikkelson, B. "Hunt the Boeing." Urban Legends Reference Pages., 8 Apr. 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. <>

NTSB. "Items Released Under FOIA." FOIA Electronic Reading Room. National Transportation Safety Board, 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. <>

Roberts, S. "Photos of Flight 77 Wreckage Inside the Pentagon." Jeff Rense, 4 Dec. 2002. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. <>

Williams, M. "American Airlines Flight 77." 911 Myths., 5 Nov. 2007. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <>

Yoon, J., Scott, J. "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation." Aerospaceweb., 12 Mar. 2006. Web. 16 Mar. 2013. <>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Pentagon and the Missile." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 19 Mar 2013. Web. 10 Oct 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 874 comments

The designation UNKNOWN is for flights, including Fl77, that show no :
Actual Departure Time
Actual Elapsed Time
Wheels-Off Time
Taxi-Out Time

American Airlines Flight 77 was a scheduled near-daily flight from Dulles to Los Angeles scheduled departure 0810.

A sample of all the days of August and the days of September prior to 9-11 show departures of aircraft with various tail numbers.

The exceptions are August 18 and September 5, where the UNKNOWN designation under Tail Number appears, quite obviously because there was NO FLIGHT, therefore no aircraft.

Just like 9-11, in fact. NO DEPARTURE, NO FLIGHT.

It's the first major hole in the US govt Official Story of the Fl77 conspiracy theory.

"On September 9 th 2011.." What about that date ?

"Its documented from the time it took off to shortly before impact..."

Evidence please. So far, there is no evidence for Fl77 to be identified during its alleged last moments prior to impact. Dulles ATC interview clearly states that everyone thought the primary (no transponder ID ) radar target was a military plane, a fighter, by the speed and the expert way it was being flown. The target disappeared at the last moments and they then learned that the Pentagon had been struck.

No evidence it was Fl77 at the beginning (BTS records), no evidence it was Fl77 at the end, not from Air Traffic Control anyway.

Macky, Auckland
September 21, 2015 9:43pm

So AAFL11. Had the same unknown BTS. Unknown designation. Lets debate wether that flight took off and hit the world trade center.......

Dave festa, florida
September 22, 2015 12:49pm

There was NO Flight 77 on 9-11. BTS records confirm it without question.

The BTS computer program that Dave refers to, performed its function on 9-11 day, and assigned the UNKNOWN designation to the tail number of the scheduled Fl77, JUST like any other cancelled flight on any other day. The computer did its job, as usual.

Hanjour, the alleged pilot and hijacker of "Fl77" was never proven to be even onboard. The list of "hijackers" "found in Atta's luggage" did NOT include Hanjour at first, until he miraculously turned up on it later, replacing a Mosear Caned. Therefore, ANY list of passengers presented as evidence MUST BE ALTERED, therefore fabricated.
That fabrication MUST extend to a complete bogus list of passengers.

There can't be any genuine Fl77 passenger list when there was no Fl77 ?
Whatever hit the Pentagon, IT WAS NOT FL77.

Almost the whole story of the hijacking depended on alleged Olson phone calls, the box cutters etc. Those phone calls never took place according to FBI evidence submitted at the Moussaoui trial.
The incoming aircraft tracked by Dulles ATC on primary radar performing like a military plane, a fighter (by O'Brien's own words) was unidentified. Only later they "learned" that it was "Fl77".

The Pentagon gate cam didn't identify the aircraft as Fl77. The FBI still withhold all other cams of the fly-in.
They have to, because according to the FBI and BTS OWN EVIDENCE, those cams show something other than Flight 77 of the 9-11 attacks.

Macky, Auckland
September 23, 2015 5:22pm

The US govt Party Line is that Fl77, a scheduled daily flight from Dulles to L.A. was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon by a Hani Hanjour, Islamic terrorist.


Fl77 never took place that day (BTS records)
A list allegedly found by FBI agents in car park later jumped into Atta's luggage.
Four names somehow changed on that list by magic. Hanjour's name appears for the first time.
"Fl77" passenger list MUST be fabricated because of all of the above.

After tranquil "hijack" "Fl77" turns back to Washington, "300 miles out".
"Fl77" "known" to be "hijacked", flies for 40+ minutes without a single jet fighter interception, while National emergency is in progress (NTSB) WTC towers hit before and during "Fl77 flight".

Inexplicable turn performed by "Fl77" before hitting the Pentagon. (NTSB Flight study)
Hanjour proven to be incapable of carrying out the entire "post-hijack" flight to impact (FBI file and 9-11 Commission Report)
Hanjour never proven to be on board flight.

Barbara Olson alleged phone calls to husband, the main evidence for hijack story, and the catalyst for public outrage, proven bogus (FBI file)

"Fl77" never identified by Dulles ATC performing like a military aircraft, a fighter,according to ATC O'Brien.

Gate cams do not identify "Fl77".
Cam shots show time and date stamps of the following day.

All fly-in Pentagon and other cams withheld by FBI.

Alleged FL77 hijackers never identified (FBI file)
Osama Bin Laden never indicted for 9-11 (FBI file)

Macky, Auckland
September 23, 2015 9:18pm

The whole "Fl77" US govt story revolves around a flight that never existed on 9-11 day.

It never happened. BTS records are clear about that.

Official US govt agency evidence against its own story is extensive, and conclusive regarding significant parts of what was supposed to be Flight 77, the alleged hijacking, the alleged perpetrators, who they were, where they came from, and who sent them.

All of the above has been debunked, including the alleged Olson phone calls from "Fl77", by BTS and FBI records/files, Dulles ATC interview, and the 9-11 Commission itself.

With the death and destruction at the Pentagon that terrible day, the public rightly demanded answers from their govt as to what happened, and how could it possibly have happened.

The US govt supplied a story that changed within hours and the following days, including the important information as to who the alleged "Fl77" "hijacker pilot" was.

That story has been proven by US govt OWN files as bogus.

If there was one or maybe two anomalies in the US govt story of "Fl77", one would have to consider that there may be some official errors etc.
That happens and is generally accepted, as long as said errors are corrected eventually.

But there is so much evidence against, from "start" to "finish" of "Fl77" that any normal court that was sitting, with a prosecution trying to convict Hanjour of the crime for which he has gone down in history as committing, would throw the case out.

"Normal" court. But not 9-11.

Macky, Auckland
September 23, 2015 9:42pm

You have ignored my request to debate fll11 existing and departing. As you well know it was another american airliner that was they sold and leased back..bacause of the tail number designation inputting by American Airlines ..that i described in prevoius post. Its showing an unknown designation in tge BTS data base....

Lets debate wether it was an actual flight that took off and impacted the WTC... I say it did

Macky. Straight out question possed to you think fl11 existed and flew into the WTC..?

You got fl77 incorrect lets see how if you get this question correct...

Dave festa, florida
September 24, 2015 12:47am

I've never done any research on Fl11. Nor will I bother.

One doesn't have to debunk all four flights in order to call into question the US govt story of 9-11.

All that is necessary is to prove one flight's Official Story wrong and that should encourage any thinking person to question the whole 9-11 thing.

That I have done using US govt agency files that clearly contradict the US govt story of Fl77, a flight that never existed in the first place.

There have been no comments from anyone on those files, and the BTS files are quite clear, the UNKNOWN designation of the tail number is because the flight, although scheduled, is cancelled.

Nothing to do with whether the aircraft was sold, leased, whatever, as previous days showing flights taking place with the same tail number prove.

I am waiting for two things from you Dave, or anyone else that thinks I've got Fl77 wrong.

Provide evidence outside the US govt that "Fl77" proceeded as the US govt story says, or try and debunk the evidence/proof that I have posted.

The links have been provided on Skeptoid and they are still current.

If you/they can do that, then I will change my views of the US govt Official Story of Flight 77, and state that I have been wrong in the light of better evidence than mine, detailing why, and acknowledging who posted said better evidence.

Dave says " You got fl77 incorrect ...." Okay, prove it.

Macky, Auckland
September 24, 2015 3:25am

When you your using the BTS evidence for fl77 that flight didnt exist. I can make your assuption worthless based on the same designation that fl11 had with the BST...


Dave festa, florida
September 24, 2015 5:30am

Macky you have a habit of using sources of information that when the source gives information that you use to form assumptions with to support your bias beliefs ..though ive noticed many times you disregard info from the same sources that dont support your beliefs....

If you can site the BTS . tgen so can i.... Its shows that in the case of fl11. That the. UNKNOW DESIGNATION. doesnt prove that flights dont exist.... And also do your resaerch fl77. Had a an arriving flight in La..scheduled as arriving..
Macky let me tell you why. It was a scheduled flight leaving Dulles..arriving in LA. Flight that take off need an airport to land at...

Dave festa, florida
September 24, 2015 5:55am

And your also 100% in correct.the BST designation isnt because the flight was because of conflicting tail numbers. Designations before and after the plane was sold and leased back.... Your claim that is cancelled in pour BS...based on some truther assuption...


There are no reported cancellations on fl77....if there were many people would have recieved phone calls from passengers to friends and family that the flight was cancelled or changed. There are no people claiming that they recieved calls from passengers about cancelled ir changed ir rerouted flights.. And also there wouldn't of been conversations with air traffic controll with fl77 and its pilot identifing himself as fl77...... Obvoiusly your trying very hard to make sure fl77 didnt hit the pentagon. Your trying to put a. Square peg into a Round hole... It will never fit ..its futile. And so is trying to prove fl77 didnt hit the pentagon....thank you for the morning looking forward to hearing more from you...

Dave festa, florida
September 24, 2015 6:21am

This episode is closed to further comments.


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

About That 1970s Global Cooling...
Skeptoid #487, Oct 6 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
The Flying Saucer Menace
Skeptoid #486, Sep 29 2015
Read | Listen (12:29)
Holocaust Denial
Skeptoid #485, Sep 22 2015
Read | Listen (12:54)
More Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #484, Sep 15 2015
Read | Listen (12:56)
Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #483, Sep 8 2015
Read | Listen (13:13)
#1 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#2 -
Read | Listen
#3 -
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Read | Listen
#4 -
SS Iron Mountain
Read | Listen
#5 -
A Skeptical Look at the News
Read | Listen
#6 -
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Read | Listen
#7 -
Ancient Astronauts
Read | Listen
#8 -
Myths of Alcatraz
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @skeptoid

Tweets about skeptoid

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.