Many 9/11 researchers including even Jim Hoffman and Pentagon research have made reference to a flight path map of alleged flight 77 by Former Air Force Pilot Steve Koeppel.
Unfortunately, this map is wrong. Any doubt of this fact has been removed in an excellent research piece by Caustic Logic:
“More people had fallen for [this map] at some point (besides me, not that I even looked close until now): Jim Hoffman at one point used Koeppel's map to illustrate a ‘Spiral Attack Maneuver Avoids Top Brass.’”
As indicated on the map below, there is no way that the plane could have approached from the north without radically altering its flight path from the east. In other words, the plane would have had to flown in an incredibly impractical direction before the approach as seen in Koeppel's flight path map.
Koeppel relied on a single, error filled source as Caustic Logic explains:
“As an ill-fated aside before explaining his sources, Koeppel pointed out “what's surprising is how many news sources got the information wrong. For example, look at this graphic from Reuters, which has the attack on the wrong side of the Pentagon:”
“[Below] is the graphic he used, labeled “The Pentagon Attack” and featuring a six-point timeline of events, along with a grossly incorrect impact point shown. What’s at least as surprising, in my opinion, is where Koeppel explains “I based my map of the attack path on a description of the attack (see Pentagon Attack) which said the plane was initially picked up on radar east-southeast of Dulles heading at high speed toward Washington.”  Red flag! He introduces the erred Reuters graphic, and then tells us his whole analysis is based on a single account, and it’s this same graphic.”
Significantly, Koeppel acknowledges that the plane flew east-southeast of Dulles, which would implicate that for his map to be correct, the plane would have approached at a very unusual direction as shown on the diagram second from the top. The implausibility inherit in this interpretation of the approach is obvious—the plane would have flown in a very unusual direction to approach from the north after heading east.
As Caustic Logic observes, “what’s surprising is that no one apparently caught on and this map became almost gospel.”
One mistaken piece of information leads to a 9/11 research piece that further leads to widespread acceptance—of a false claim! Unfortunately, this phenomenon is far more common within the 9/11 truth movement than it should be. Of course, the official story of 9/11 itself is filled with many such examples of misinformation/disinformation accepted as crude substitutes for the truth.
When the NTSB released their version of the official flight path for alleged Flight 77, the observable differences to Koeppel's flight path map are obvious.
Not only is Koeppel’s map contradicted by common sense, and derived from a faulty source—it is contradicted by the flight path map released by the NTSB. As seen in the second diagram from the top, the approach seen in the NTSB map would appear to be reasonably in agreement with the claim that the plane approached Washington from south of Dulles. Furthermore, the NTSB map does not have the aircraft flying over the river by the White House. As noted by Norman Mineta, “it was following pretty much the… down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol”
The flight path of the plane as it approached the Pentagon was reported by FAA officials, civilian air traffic controllers, Norman Mineta, and other sources, and is well documented by Paul Thompson’s 9/11 timeline. There are many reports of an unidentified plane (with transponder off) spotted on radar approaching Washington. As its transponder was turned off, it has never been definitely confirmed that this plane was Flight 77. It passed Dulles at around 9:30 a.m.
Norman Mineta’s testimony since 2002—even before his testimony to the 9/11 commission dramatically claimed that a plane was heading towards the Pentagon—seemingly without harassment by US air defenses:
“During the time that the airplane [alleged flight 77] was coming [towards] the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president ‘do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President [Dick Cheney] turned and whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??’”
Although Mineta’s testimony is corroborated by several sources, this isn’t the only damning evidence for a stand down. David Ray Griffin’s article The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales highlights credible evidence that clearly points to a NORAD stand-down on 9/11, and the effort of the 9/11 commission report to cover up and ignore many inconvenient reports. Griffin highlights the fact that NORAD changed its 9/11 timeline no less than three times, without giving any explanation for these changes, and that standard intercept procedures were not followed for the flights. The “NORAD live” tapes have not cleared up the controversy, and Griffin suggests they have been manipulated to create carefully designed disinformation. Although the 9/11 commission essentially blames the FAA for incompetence and the resulting military failures, testimony given to the commission (but omitted by the report) by Laura Brown, the Deputy in Public Affairs at FAA headquarters revealed:
“Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.”
Even Dick Cheney admitted on a live TV interview that “The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was…”
Cheney didn’t finish the sentence probably because it would have revealed that the government knew what was going on, and was tracking the “hijacked” flights—but still managed to do nothing to stop them. This is clear and incontrovertible evidence of a stand-down since the “official story” claims that the military was not properly informed about these flights by the FAA. As Laura Brown revealed, the FAA had open lines after the World trade Center was hit. This would mean that NORAD was made aware of the important planes, and that there is no compelling reason why they should not have been intercepted at the very least.
These issues were similarly examined in Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. NORAD’s explanation for what seemed to be a non-response to the 9/11 attacks was so problematic that even the anemic 9/11 commission claimed that “Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”
Of course, the same commission that blamed no insiders of incompetence ever insisted on a criminal investigation for official negligence of any kind. Maybe this had something to do with the fact that officials were essentially investigating themselves, and that instead of reprimands, officials in charge on 9/11 were outrageously promoted.
The flight path of the plane approaching the Pentagon remains a controversy for other reasons. While eyewitness reports of some kind of a plane strike at the Pentagon are conclusive, some witnesses are in disagreement over the exact flight path of the plane. Pilots for 9/11 Truth report anomalies in a flight path animation provided by the NTSB which have yet to be conclusively resolved. Nevertheless, Pilots for 9/11 truth admit they have proposed no “theory” for what happened at the Pentagon, and do not claim that “no 757 hit the Pentagon.” Their official position is that the data provided by the government contradicts their own account of what happened. Official sources have declined to comment on the discrepancies found in the data.
Other researchers maintain a more certain position about what happened at the Pentagon based on this and other evidence,  while others argue over specific details or perceived anomalies. It is a fact that no witnesses have ever confirmed that a large commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon. Many witnesses described seeing two planes, with the second—not the first flying over the Pentagon.
There is widespread doubt that Hanni Hanjour could have flown the plane into the Pentagon, since he was an incompetent pilot and the building was reported to have been struck on the bottom floors without the plane seemingly hitting the ground first. Michael Moore makes the point clearly here:
“I don’t think the official investigations have told us the complete truth—they haven’t even told us half of the truth… Let me just give you one thing that I’ve asked for, for a long time. There’s got to be at least 100 video cameras [surrounding] that building, in the trees everywhere. They’ve got that plane coming in at 100 angles. How come we haven’t seen the plane? …If you know anything about flying a plane, if you’re coming in at 500 miles an hour, if you’re off by that much—you’re in the river. To hit a building that’s only five stories high—that expertly… uhh, I believe that there will be answers in that videotape and we should demand that tape.”
In fact, many of these supposed “hijackers” have turned up alive, and as many as five others trained at US army bases suggesting that they were actually US sponsored assets. In any case, how could a supposed amateur who had never flown a real 757 before accomplish such precision flying into the Pentagon? In simulators, members of Pilots for 9/11 truth attempted high speed impacts into the buildings hit on 9/11 and found that they had great difficulty in hitting their targets; most could not hit the buildings until slowing down to landing speeds. Only after many attempts could some of these pilots hit even the World Trade Center at full speed. This has led many to believe that the planes on 9/11 must have been flown by remote control—as seen in actual military war game “live-fly” exercises that were taking place on 9/11. ,
Further throwing some confusion on the question of the flight path however, is the fact that there was another plane flying over the river by the White House during the time of the attack on the Pentagon. This plane was captured on video, as well as reported by eyewitnesses flying by the White House, which is east of the Potomac River. At least superficially, the flight path of this plane appears to have been similar to Koeppel's flight path diagram, which may or may not have been related to the cause of some of the confusion, since this plane was believed by many sources to be the one that hit the Pentagon. The 9/11 commission of course, makes no mention of this plane.
If this video of the plane was not enough proof of its existence, here is a summary of other evidence for this plane and its location near the White House:
“[it] had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.”
“They saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument.”
“About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”
“I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon.”
Richard Clarke reported in his book ‘Against All Enemies’ that an unidentified plane approaching the White House was responsible for a decision to evacuate the building. For unknown reasons, no such similar action was taken at the Pentagon.
Further evidence is seen in a news report indicating that at 9:36 a.m.—minutes before the Pentagon was struck, a report of an airliner approaching the White House set off a ‘frenzy’ at NEADS:
"Colin Scoggins at Boston flight control calls NEADS to report a low-flying airliner he has spotted six miles southeast of the White House. He can offer no details regarding its identity. The plane is reportedly Flight 77, but as it has its transponder turned off, no one realizes this at the time. The news of the plane ‘sets off a frenzy.’”
The plane was “reportedly” flight 77, but in fact, it was not. Mark H. Gaffney spoke to Scoggins about this incident:
“Scoggins told me that after the Pentagon strike he assumed, like everyone else, that this unidentified plane he reported at 9:36 AM was Flight 77. He was also under the impression that it made a pass near the White House. Scoggins is not alone in this view. Even today, many people think Flight 77 flew over Washington before striking the Pentagon. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer actually gave rise to one of these stories, which were widely reported in the media.”
One such report showed that there indeed was a plane flying by the white house, and again, some believed it to be flight 77:
"Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows. Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. ..."At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.”
“That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House.”
Here is the official flight path of the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon according to the NTSB data. Noteworthy is that the White House is not even visible on this map, as it is across the river, as circled in red.
The plane that flew near the White House clearly has four engines; completely ruling out a 757—the type of plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon. Noteworthy, is that no one reported seeing a four engine plane strike the Pentagon.
In an important article on this plane entitled "The 911 Mystery Plane," Mark Gaffney notes the plane to be a E-4B, as also discussed on a pilots for 9/11 truth forum. Gaffney explains the characteristic features of this plane:
“The plane is a modified Boeing 747-200. Notice the white color, the US flag painted on the vertical stabilizer (i.e, the tail), and the blue stripe and insignia on the fuselage. The clincher, however, is the "bump" directly behind the bulging 747 cockpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B, and is integral to the plane's military role as an airborne command center.”
He further observes of the plane, “Several close-ups of an E-4B clearly show that this blue spot is simply the place where the blue stripes painted on the fuselage come together at the rear of the aircraft.”
There appears to be enough evidence to suggest that this E-4B was a separate plane from the one approaching the Pentagon. The eyewitness statements at the Pentagon crash for example, claimed it had two—not four engines, was silver (backed up by silver pieces of debris at the crash site) and the radar data appears to indicate that there were two separate planes.
Noteworthy is that the transponder of the E-4B by the White House was turned off—just like the one alleged to have approached the Pentagon. According to Mark Gafney this could be explained by the fact that the E-4B has a military transponder that is unreadable to the FAA.
What was this plane doing by the White House near the time of the Pentagon attack? Gaffney provides a compelling possibility:
"According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian. The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness of the US military's command and control procedures involved in waging thermonuclear war. The 2001 exercise started the week before September 11 under the directorship of Admiral Richard Mies, commander-in-chief of STRATCOM. According to various reports, the drill was in "full swing" at the time of the 9/11 attack."
According to the report mentioned, “These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency.”
It is likely that this plane flying near the White House was involved in Global Guardian, one of the many 9/11 war game exercises widely documented to have taken place on 9/11. This was not a new exercise. In the 1980’s, the E-4B’s were used in similar drills in “top-secret exercises… testing a program called continuity of government (COG) that would keep the federal government functioning during and after a nuclear war.” Noteworthy is that “Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld participate in the COG exercises,” and they were “regular participants in top-secret exercises, designed to test a program called continuity of government (COG).”
Other similar exercises related to the events of 9/11 included:
- “Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC.”
- “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conduct[s] exercises simulating what the White House [later] says was unimaginable at the time: Hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of these imagined targets is the World Trade Center.”
- “A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a model Pentagon. Pentagon and Arlington County emergency responders assemble in the office of the Secretary of Defense’s conference room in the Pentagon for a mass casualty exercise (“MASCAL”). The exercise involves three mock-scenarios. One is of a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon and killing 342 people.”
- “…one of the scenarios that was considered for this exercise involved “a terrorist group hijack[ing] a commercial airliner and fly[ing] it into the Pentagon.” But the proposed scenario, thought up by a group of Special Operations personnel trained to think like terrorists, was rejected.”
- “Real events similar to the Unified Vision scenario unfolded in the attacks of Sept. 11. Ozolek will later remark, “Nostradamus couldn’t have nailed the first battle of the next war any closer than we did.… [T]his time we got it right.” He will say, however, that UV 01 did not foresee the severity of terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11, and involved terrorists attacking US military targets, rather than civilian ones.”
- “The next Amalgam Virgo exercise… will involve two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. Planning for the exercises begins before 9/11.”
- “NORAD is… planning for the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise. This exercise, scheduled for June 2002, will involve the simulation of two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One plane, a Delta 757, flown by Delta pilots, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists. The other plane will be a Navy C-9 bound from Oak Harbor, Washington to Vancouver, British Columbia, and will be “hijacked” by Royal Canadian Mounted Police.”
- “A mass casualty exercise, involving a practice evacuation, is held at the Pentagon. General Lance Lord of US Air Force Space Command, one of the participants in the exercises, later recalls: ‘[It was] purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building.’”
- “A tabletop exercise is held at the Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington, DC, as part of its preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City… ‘During that exercise, part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially hijacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event [of 9/11].’”
- There were previous drills in which a plane was simulated to fly into a “famous” US building.
- “Agency Planned Exercise on September 11 built around a plane crashing into a building,”
Officials claimed a “failure of imagination” to even consider these types of attacks, but these drills clearly contradict that idea. Furthermore, Exercises that simulated terrorist attacks such as these have been speculated to be used as a cover for these attacks to take place. Simply put, a plan is made to “simulate” an attack, and then the “simulated” attack suddenly becomes real. As Webster Tarpley notes in 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: “the most palpably subversive actions could be made to appear in the harmless and even beneficial guise of a drill.” Tarpley also argues that drills taking place during the London 7/7 bombing conspicuously became real-life; implying that they were actually state-sponsored attacks.
On 9/11, this phenomenon of “drills” turning into real-life appears to have occurred.
- “The first thing that went through my mind [after receiving the hijacking alert for Flight 11 on 9/11] was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?” General Arnold of NORAD
- “Tech. Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell of … Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, N.Y., took the first call from Boston Center. He notified NEADS Commander Col. Robert K. Marr Jr. of a possible hijacked airliner, American Airlines Flight 11. “‘Part of the exercise?’ the Colonel wondered. No, this is a real world event, he was told.”
- “At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airliner. ‘It must be part of the exercise,’ Deskins thought. At first, everyone did.”
As noted by Michael Kane, “War games & terror drills included live-fly exercises with military aircraft posing as hijacked aircraft over the United States, as well as simulated exercises that placed "false blips" (radar injects indicating virtual planes) on FAA radar screens. One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn't stop 9/11.”
There were also simulated hijack drills with "live fly" aircraft taking place on 9/11. Some reports suggested as many as 21 possibly "hijacked" planes during the attacks. This E-4B spotted by the White House could have been interpreted as one of those “hijacked” aircraft.
There were as many as 15 military war games and exercises taking place on 9/11.
- Amalgam Virgo Air defense against rogue state/terror cruise missiles, hijackings
- Vigilant Guardian Air defense against hijacking: “Part of this exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world… “ It involved “fake blips” or “injects” added to radar screens.
- Northern Guardian Air defense
- Vigilant Warrior NORAD exercise
- Northern Vigilance NORAD deploys fighters to Alaska, northern Canada
- Amalgam Warrior Large live-fly air defense and air intercept, tracking surveillance
- Global Guardian Nuclear warfighting, “Armageddon”
- Crown Vigilance Air combat command exercise
- Apollo Guardian Large scale live-fly air defense and air intercept, tracking surveillance
- National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Crashing planes into buildings
- AWACS AWACS over Florida, Washington DC
- MASCAL Fort Meyer, Virginia Firemen: “aircraft crash refresher course” for firefighters at the Pentagon.
- TRIPOD II, Manhattan Response to biochemical attack
- Timely Alert II Emergency response to bomb attack
Why these exercises were significant:
- Aircraft were diverted away from the Washington and New York on 9/11 in several exercises as far away as Alaska and Canada (Operation Northern Vigilance).
- This left only a handful of aircraft to defend the skies affected during 9/11: “NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on September 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert — armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes.”
- Live (“Live-Fly”), remote controlled aircraft are used in multiple hijacking exercises
- Aircraft “false blips” are added to radar screens including FAA radar; this results in FAA confusion and possibly ‘phantom flight 11’: “We may have to do a lot more than that, Dick. I already put a hold on all take-offs and landings in New York and Washington, but we have reports of eleven aircraft off course or out of communications, maybe hijacked.”
- CIA runs a NRO exercise which involves:”…a bizarre coincidence… one US intelligence agency was planning an exercise last September 11  in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.”
- Aircraft “false blips” were possibly not removed until after the pentagon was struck
- Firefighters near the pentagon participate in an “aircraft crash refresher course” [MASCAL] which is conveniently interrupted by a plane crash: “Soon after the Pentagon is hit, medical workers initiate their mass casualty plan (MASCAL) for dealing with disasters. Sergeant Matthew Rosenberg, a medic at the Pentagon’s DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, arrives at the center courtyard. Seeing smoke rising from the side of the building and patients staggering out, he radios the clinic: ‘You need to initiate MASCAL right now! We have mass casualties! I need medical assets to the courtyard! … ‘The saving grace to our efforts was the two MASCAL exercises we previously had conducted... Our scenario for both MASCALS was a plane flying into the Pentagon courtyard.’”
- Tripod II Placed FEMA near the Trade Center Towers the day before 9/11.
- FEMA was then used to participate in the WTC cleanup effort.
As if two planes were not enough, there was also a third plane by the Pentagon at the time of the crash. Amazingly, none of these planes were fighters sent in defense of the Pentagon—supposedly one of the most secure buildings in the world. Despite an airbase less than one minute away from the Pentagon, no fighters reach the Pentagon until after the strike.
At 9:36 a.m., a military cargo plane was asked to identify the plane approaching the Pentagon:
“Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it.”
Why was only a cargo plane sent to intercept the plane approaching the Pentagon? The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien describes what happened:
“When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane.”
It is noteworthy that witnesses observed two distinct planes at the Pentagon, and many described the C-130 in some detail. The Pilot continues his story:
“They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”
For unknown and inexplicable reasons, fighter aircraft only arrive after the Pentagon attack: “the Langley fighters will arrive over Washington some time around 10 a.m. "
While the Pentagon Strike remains a controversy there is enough credible and damning evidence to suggest insider complicity. There is strong evidence for a NORAD stand down, which allowed aircraft to hit their targets, and war games that helped to facilitate a successful stand-down by creating confusion and removing air defenses. Questions about the flight path however, while important, divert attention from more critical issues, such as the NORAD stand down, and why the Pentagon was ever attacked at all. However, Koeppel's map is wrong, and any implied conclusions that reference this map as legitimate evidence are also wrong.
Why a cargo plane would be sent to intercept alleged flight 77 instead of a military aircraft is one of the most damning mysteries about the Pentagon attack. Why would this plane be sent to intercept when it would have no chance to stop the plane from attacking the Pentagon or the White house—targets that anyone would reasonably assume would be worthwhile for the "terrorists". Speculation is not required to question why a C-130 asked to intercept an alleged incoming aircraft instead of a fighter plane. The E-4B plane by the White House is very suspicious. It is a fact that the plane was caught on tape, radar, and seen by witnesses, and yet is not mentioned in the 9/11 report, and could have been participating in Global Guardian—a military exercise. What was this plane doing by the Pentagon near restricted airspace at the time of the Pentagon Attack? The plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon was also captured on radar and seen by witnesses, but no videos have ever been released by the government to clearly show this plane. There is widespread doubt that Hanni Hanjour could have flown the plane into the Pentagon since even professional pilots have difficulty hitting buildings with pin-point accuracy. The fact that there were live-fly—remote controlled planes in “hijack” exercises strongly suggests that remote control could have been used to pilot the planes into buildings.
 Caustic Logic, The Frustrating Fraud, ‘Old’ 270° Loop Explained, The 270° Loop Around Rumsfeld—Where Did That Come From? http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/
 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. See also:
 Reference Unknown—will be updated
 Paul Thompson, The Complete 9/11 Timeline, American Airlines 77, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales: Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93, http://www.globalresearch.ca/. See also his books
 Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers.
 Dan Eggen, 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon: Allegations Brought to Inspectors General, Global Research, August 2, 2006.
 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, 277-295.
 Ibid. See also:
 Eyewitness statements are a typical source of controversy. See:
 JohndoeX, Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum, New Study From Pilots For 9/11 Truth, PRWeb- June 21, 2007.
“Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory. While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on the basis of the NTSB's own data factually contradicts the official account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon--if trends are continued beyond end of data records--and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the building based upon that data.”
 Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Official Account of 9/11 Flight Contradicted by Government’s Own Data
 Caustic Logic, Litmus Test for Rationality? Rebuttal to James Fetzer.
 We Are Change, Confronting Michael Moore and Amy Goodman with 9/11 Truth P2, Google Video, http://video.google.com/
"U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in [the 9/11] terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s." Newsweek, 9/15/01
See also, the Able Danger Controversy:
Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, The Able Danger Program
 Richard A. Clark, Against All Enemies, Free Press, New York, 2004, p. 7.
 Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, 9:36 a.m.: Report of Airliner Approaching White House Sets off ‘Frenzy’ at NEADS
Boston Globe, November 23, 2001; Daily Telegraph, September 16, 2001.
 Image taken from Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Forum. Image created by PentaCon researcher Craig Ranke.
 ‘BoneZ’, Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum, White Jet Analysis, Oct 21 2006. http://s9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php
 Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Before 9:00 a.m. September 11, 2001: Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, is Directing Global Guardian Training Exercise
Read more about Continuity of Government Exercises here:
Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of '(1992-2000): Secret Continuity of Government Exercises Prepare for Terrorist Threat'
 John J. Lumpkin, Agency Planned Exercise on September 11 built around a plane crashing into a building, Associated Press, August 21, 2002 7:45PM ET
 9/11 Truth.org, Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning: Documenting a demonstrable falsehood, Saturday, May 22 2004
Paul Thompson, Complete 911 Timeline, Military Exercises Up to 9/11
 Webster Tarpley, The London Explosions, the Rogue Network, Bush and Iran
 ABC News, September 11, 2002, Peter Jennings hosts 9/11 interviews. This confirmation referring obliquely to “the exercise” is a quotation taken from statements made by General Arnold to Charles Gibson.
 William B. Scott, “Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 3, 2002; ABC News, September 11, 2002.
 Hart Seely, “Amid Crisis Simulation, ‘We Were Suddenly — No Kidding — Under Attack,’” Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002.
 William B. Scott, “Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 3, 2002; ABC News, September 11, 2002.
 Scott Simmie, “ The Scene at NORAD on Sept. 11”, December 9, 2001, Toronto Star Pg. B05
 Mike Kelly, “NORAD confirmed two mock drills on September 11,” NJ.com, December 5, 2003.
 Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies, Free Press 2004, pp 4-5.
 John J. Lumpkin, “Agency Planned Exercise on September 11 built around a plane crashing into a building,” Associated Press, August 21, 2002 7:45PM ET. 16 http://www.thememoryhole.org/
 Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Soon after 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Pentagon Medical Staff Implement Mass Casualty Plan; Aided by Pre-9/11 Exercises
 Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, 9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77
 Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, 9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77