Anyone who questions the official government narrative about the events of September 11, 2001, inevitably gets called a “conspiracy theorist”.
Even just observing basic documented facts can get you dismissed as a kook.
It doesn’t help the truth movement when bad information gets propagated with the good.
The claim that no plane hit the Pentagon is one of those that has long been used to discredit the whole movement.
It’s important to separate the wheat from the chaff, information-wise, if we are to make progress toward awakening the masses to the evidence of foreknowledge and use of 9/11 as a pretext to advance a predetermined foreign policy agenda.
Younger generations of readers may have no knowledge of any of this, but it was actually my questioning of 9/11 that got me started on the path that has led me to doing independent journalism.
For those who are familiar with the controversy, I understand why many people believe no plane hit. Very early on, when I first saw the viral photo seemingly showing just a small hole punched into the wall, I also wondered how it could have been a 757.
As I later examined more photographic and other evidence, it became clear to me how deceptive that cropped photo was, and I was convinced by the totality of evidence that there was no fakery here: a plane certainly hit the Pentagon.
As publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, I published the following two articles examining the evidence and countering “no plane” claims:
- Frank Legge and David Chandler, “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path”, September 6, 2011
- John D. Wyndham, “Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate”, October 7, 2016
David Chandler has also published a lot of great videos on 9/11, and I highly recommend the following two about the Pentagon.
First, there is the security camera footage that people have puzzled over because you’d think if a 757 was in the frames, it would be obvious. Chandler shows in this video that, actually, you can see it.
Second, in this video, Chandler delivers an excellent presentation on how the evidence incontrovertibly shows that American Airlines Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon.
A related claim that was very popular in the truth movement was that the names of the alleged hijackers did not appear on the flight manifests. I corrected the record on that in this article:
- “9/11 Hijackers Not on Flight Manifests?”, April 5, 2010
That’s not to say that it must have been al Qaeda operative Hani Hanjour who was piloting Flight 77. I detailed the evidence on the question of his piloting capabilities in this article (and, no, it isn’t a simple matter of the Pentagon being a large building, hard too miss even for an unskilled pilot like Hanjour):
- “Hani Hanjour: Al Qaeda’s Top Gun”, April 17, 2010
As Chandler emphasizes in his video, the problem has been that the truly misinformative claims have been lumped together with legitimate analyses and research findings in a way that serves to discredit any kind of skepticism of the official narrative.
Chandler was himself instrumental in getting the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to acknowledge that World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but that also collapsed completely on 9/11, did achieve free-fall acceleration.
NIST first tried to deny this in a draft report on its investigation into the collapse but was confronted for its unscientific analysis. Being forced to do a proper measurement of the downward acceleration, NIST admitted it collapsed at a rate statistically indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity.
Yet, it then also tried to reconcile that observation with its fire-induced collapse hypothesis by claiming that free fall occurred during a “Stage 2” of collapse, in which the load-bearing columns had lost all resistance after a “Stage 1” of column buckling.
I showed in a video analysis, however, that NIST’s “Stage 1” was a fabrication, and that free fall in fact occurred with sudden onset:
Chandler subsequently cited my analysis in a presentation he gave at “The Toronto Hearings” in September 2011. In the following more recent post, I provided the video along with a detailed explanation, with full documentation, of how NIST engaged in scientific fraud:
- “David Chandler on WTC 7 Free Fall and NIST’s Scientific Fraud”, September 30, 2025
Here’s a subtitled and edited excerpt from his presentation in which my analysis is cited:
To be clear, neither Chandler nor I are proposing a conspiracy theory here. We are making scientific observations.
The free fall collapse isn’t a “conspiracy theory”. It’s an observable, measurable fact.
If the logical corollary of that observation is that a conspiracy must have occurred, well, we have to go where the facts lead us. Here is the bottom line, simply stated:
The sudden free-fall collapse of WTC 7 means that all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
In other words, NIST’s hypothesis is falsified by the observation of free fall. That leaves but one remaining hypothesis…
[Correction appended, February 22, 2026: This article originally described Flight 77 as a 747. It was a Boeing 757. Thanks to Tom L. for bringing the error to my attention.]
