Discussion for Version 1, September 2011
Comment 1: - By: David Cole - Received 02/09/15 - Posted: 02/28/15
“There is a considerable amount of argument going on in the HR428 email list about the Pentagon … … I also must point out that you
choose to leave out certain inconvenient testimony. I'm talking about Brooks, LaGasse and Boger. Why can't you mention that all three
were certain the plane they saw was north of the CITGO?
Looking through the various reports you authored, doing keyword searches, reveals that very little regarding the three are being used,
EXCEPT where it supports the hypothesis. Yes they said they saw the impact, but Brooks also says he looked to his left which is contrary
to the official flight path and pole damages. He couldn't be mistaken about this simple fact.
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr335a01.mp3. Listen at 1:45.
Both he and LaGasse drew similar flight paths.
I don't know what happened at the Pentagon, but all of us must hold onto credible testimony until we do find out.”
Comment 2: - By: John D. Wyndham - Reviewed by: Frank Legge, David Chandler - Posted: 02/28/15
Response from Scientific Method 9/11
Abstract: As shown in this response, witness “certainty” about one detail does not trump physical evidence or conflicting witness
testimony. LaGasse’s testimony, examined in detail, supports the South path. In his original testimony, Brooks sighted a large
plane to his “left” when sitting in his car, not when he exited and faced the Citgo station and Pentagon. When Brooks drew the
flight path, he was standing in a different place and facing a different direction than on 9/11. Under these circumstances,
given his belief five years after 9/11 that the plane passed North of Citgo, he could not help but draw a flight path similar to LaGasse’s. The testimony
of Brooks, LaGasse and Boger regarding a plane flight path North of Citgo is not credible when compared with the hard physical and other evidence.
[Moderator Note: Since the questioner did not indicate a specific paper, the moderator has selected The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path  by Frank Legge and David Chandler as the
most appropriate paper on this site for our response. See also the Addendum to this paper .]
The essence of David Cole’s questions appears to be this: How could these three witnesses, two policemen and an air traffic controller,
be wrong about the plane’s path? After considering the hard, physical and other evidence, one might reasonably ask this counter question:
How could these three witnesses not be wrong on this issue?
David Cole writes: “… I also must point out that you choose to leave out certain inconvenient testimony. I'm talking about Brooks,
LaGasse and Boger. Why can't you mention that all three were certain the plane they saw was North of the CITGO?”
The short answer to this question is: Legge and Chandler, in their paper, did mention that these three witnesses were North of Citgo
(NOC) witnesses. All three witnesses saw a large plane impact the Pentagon. Hard evidence fully supports the South of Citgo path, and
there is no corroborating physical evidence for a NOC path. Thus these three witnesses are mistaken about a NOC path.
Our long response is this: Legge and Chandler did mention Brooks, LaGasse, and Boger as NOC witnesses – that is, as witnesses who
stated implicitly or explicitly that the plane flew North of the Citgo station. See the section Discussion in the above paper .
However, if these witnesses were “certain” about a NOC path, then they were also certainly mistaken. As shown below, Brooks and LaGasse
have memory lapses and LaGasse’s emphatic certainty (“100%” sure about events) is simply not credible when seen in the light of his
Apart from a few other witnesses cited by CIT (Citizen Investigation Team), who viewed the plane from the Arlington cemetery and
were in a poor position to judge where the plane flew with respect to the Citgo station, there is not a shred of hard, physical or
other supporting evidence for the NOC path. In addition, these three witnesses are a very small minority of the total number of
eyewitnesses to the plane’s path and impact, many of whom saw the plane clip the light poles that, with the entry hole, define
the plane’s path.
The physical evidence, as seen in the damage trail (downed light posts, damaged low concrete wall and generator, interior damage
by way of bent and missing columns, the location of the C ring exit hole, and the debris in the AE driveway), points unequivocally
to a South path that makes a 52 degree angle with the impacted wall of the Pentagon. In addition, three sets of radar data and the
FDR (Flight Data Recorder) data confirm the South path. No deviation around the North side of the Citgo station is possible, since
this would require a very obvious steeply-banked aircraft and all witnesses described the flight as level or made no comment about
the angle of bank . An approach over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo station, followed by impact, is completely ruled out
by the exterior and interior damage trails. No reliable witness reported seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon, and the notion
that the observed damage might have been staged, unnoticed by scores of witnesses, is beyond credulity  .
This is the point at which a competent natural scientist might stop and declare the witnesses to be mistaken. Hard science and
physical evidence overrule human memory of long past and fleeting events. However, the doubts of non-scientists may continue.
For those still curious, the only possible remaining questions are these: How did Brooks, LaGasse and Boger arrive at their
faulty statements about the plane path? Can their recollections after five years be trusted?
In answer, Legge and Chandler point out that the circumstances under which the NOC witnesses made their statements to the CIT investigators are
highly questionable. The witnesses are being led to recall several years later something that they arguably would have paid little
or no attention to at the time. The startling observation, in a space of a few seconds, of a large, low-flying plane headed toward
the Pentagon would reasonably overshadow any detailed observation of the plane’s position relative to its surroundings. Recalling
a fleeting detail after five years have elapsed could severely challenge the witnesses’ memories. In addition, the witnesses are
constantly being asked to respond to leading questions designed to evoke confirmation of the interviewer’s own viewpoint. At times
the interviewer adds evaluative comments and refers to what other witnesses have said. The witnesses are unaware of this agenda,
and in a poor position to couch their statements in language that avoids misinterpretation. Rather than being part of a
dispassionate interview, the witnesses are unknowing participants in an assertive, directed dialog designed to lead them to a
conclusion pre-determined by the interviewer.
Reasons to Doubt the Reliability of Witness Testimony about Details
Witnesses are most reliable when testifying about a significant main event. On 9/11 at the Pentagon the main event was a large
low-flying plane coming from the West and hitting the Pentagon West wall. Secondary to this are details about the plane’s markings,
color, attributes, or whether it hit light poles. Possibly even more susceptible to error are questions about the plane’s exact
direction of flight, since the observer’s focus will be on the plane and the impending disaster rather than its position relative
to the ground over which it is flying.
It is instructive to examine and compare the witnesses’ initial testimonies with their later accounts obtained by CIT. The reader is
advised to pay careful attention to the testimony and to listen to and watch the recordings. As will be shown, Brook’s and LaGasse’s
memories five years after the event are deficient and not credible in very significant ways. Their recollections cannot fully be
trusted. This is no reflection on their competency and professionalism as police officers. They are human beings and it is well
known that “to err is human.”
LaGasse’s accounts are discussed first and in detail since he is by far the most emphatically certain but conflicted and mistaken witness.
[Note: Times in the recordings are given as mm:ss or as hh:mm:ss. Times may not be exact.]
Testimony of William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer
LaGasse's Original Testimony, 12/04/2001
William LaGasse’s original audio interview by Jennifer Brennan can be found at the Library of Congress September 11, 2001,
Documentary Project, at this location or by clicking
LaGasse talks essentially without interruption and gives the following information
- He was refueling his police cruiser at the Citgo station (now Navy Exchange or NEX) 1/8 miles from the Pentagon Heliport. [00:20]
- He was standing outside the vehicle when he saw an American Airlines 757 fly about 100 feet above ground and 60 feet in front of him,
with estimated speed of about 400 mph. [00:30]
- The wind blast from wing vortices knocked him into the vehicle. [01:10]
- He reported by phone that an aircraft had flown into the side of the Pentagon building. [01:15]
- He arrived at the renovation area near the Heliport 15 to 20 seconds later, but soon had to leave and come back because of smoke and
secondary explosions from compressed natural gas used for welding. [01:25]
- He spent the day (17 hours) in the search/recovery of evidence from the aircraft and in helping victims. [02:15]
- About 45 minutes after his arrival at the Pentagon, he was interviewed by the FBI to whom he gave these details: the plane had its
landing gear up, flaps retracted, and window shades down. [07:00]
- The largest piece of plane debris he saw had the letters “Ameri” on it. A calculation shows that such a piece would be 18 feet in
length considering the relative sizes of the lettering on the plane and the plane’s length. [07:25]
- He saw the light poles that the plane had hit and knocked down. [07:30]
LaGasse’s value measurements are inaccurate, the distance wildly so. In the CIT interview, he refutes his original assertion about vortices.
LaGasse's CIT Interview, 11/07/2006
William LaGasse’s video interview by CIT's Craig Ranke begins at 38:51 in the CIT video which can be viewed at
this location or by clicking
As the video begins, LaGasse is standing by his white police cruiser parked at a gas pump on the North side of the Citgo station.
The cruiser faces in an almost NE direction (55 degrees E of N) (LF in figure 1). LaGasse answers Ranke’s questions and gives the following information (highlights only recorded here):
- On 9/11, LaGasse was standing by his open driver side door talking to his working dog in the back seat. The pump was pumping
with the handle lock on. [39:30]
- Out of the corner of his eye he saw something and turned to look at it. [Here Lagasse turns left and faces about 35 degrees W of N]. [39:54]
- He saw a plane and heard it after he saw it. He identified it as an American Airlines plane (aluminum, red/blue stripes, landing gear and
flaps up, the window shades down). The plane yawed and flew at an angle into the Pentagon less than a second later. [40:00]
- The plane came from left to right (W to E). [42:50] It never crossed over the station. [44:32] LaGasse then changes the direction in which
he saw the plane to about 10 degrees E of N. [44:50]
- He flinched, ducked into his car and called the event in on the radio. [45:40] He did not hear the plane until it passed him – because of
the “Doppler Effect.” [46:09]
- The plane hit the Pentagon and disappeared. [48:33] He did not see the plane hit any light poles. [48:50] When he got to the scene he saw
the downed light poles on route 27 in an area on or to the left of his line of sight to the impact hole. [49:10] He saw the plane for one second at most.
[49:50] He is 100% sure the plane came between the Navy Annex and Arlington Cemetery. [51:30]
- Upon Ranke’s questioning, LaGasse begins to realize he is at the wrong pump. Ranke mentions the Citgo security video showing him at the
rear pump and walking over to an SUV to talk. LaGasse, in words and gestures, shows considerable surprise at this realization. [52:35]
- LaGasse draws his recollection of the flight path on an aerial photograph. LaGasse immediately says of the path: “Obviously it’s the
wrong angle.” [56:35]
- Asked about the “vortices” that knocked him into his car (original testimony), LaGasse replies “Reason I know I said that is because
I read that I said it.” He denies at length being blown into the car. He felt the heat from the explosion, but felt no vibrations. [57:05]
- LaGasse states he is 100% sure of the North of Citgo path. [01:04:15] He states that the impact was not an explosion but a deflagration. [01:04:30]
- LaGasse states that you cannot easily see the light poles from here. [01:05:00] He is emphatic that none of poles near the bridge,
were knocked down, and nothing happened at the bridge. He says two downed poles were on route 27 where his drawn flight path crosses 27. [01:06:00]
He says “the only indisputable fact is the angle was different.” [01:06:30] He states that Lloyde England’s taxi was at that location also. [01:07:42]
He has never seen anything that said five poles were knocked down.
Reasons to Doubt William Lagasse’s Testimony and Memory
- In earlier testimony, LaGasse said the plane’s vortices knocked him into his car. In his CIT interview he says this was not so.
Here he withdraws significant earlier testimony.
- For 15 minutes of his CIT interview, Lagasse was at the wrong pump. He was actually at the rear pump on 9/11, and walked over to
an SUV to talk with “SWAT guys” before returning to pump gas. He failed to remember a location he was at for about four minutes.
- LaGasse says two light poles on route 27 were knocked down at a location which is on his drawn flight path but north of the two
poles closest to the Pentagon that were actually knocked down. His memory of the location of stationary, visible objects is inaccurate.
- LaGasse is positive that no light poles were knocked down at or near the bridge where Lloyde England’ taxi cab and downed
pole #1 can be seen in photographs. LaGasse is adamant about this, repeating over and over that nothing happened at the bridge. Ranke
informs him of the South path and location of the downed light poles by pointing to the bridge on a photograph. LaGasse responds
“no chance.” [01:06:00] Here he is adamant about being right but is actually 100% wrong.
- At first Lagasse says he saw the plane about 35 degrees W of N. Later he says “When you think about it, things change.” He then
changes the direction in which he saw the plane to about 10 degrees E of N, a 45 degree change from his previous direction.
- LaGasse says he saw the plane before hearing it, because of the “Doppler Effect.” This is scientifically incorrect. The Doppler Effect
describes the change in the pitch of sound as heard from a moving object, as distinct from the visual-sound delay due to the speed of
sound (1100 ft/sec) from a distant noise source. As will be shown, his statement, that he saw the plane before he heard it, weighs
significantly against his NOC testimony.
- After drawing his perception of the flight path LaGasse immediately says: “Obviously it’s the wrong angle.” Later he says the
flight path may have been closer to the South path. His drawn path and the South path differ by only 20 degrees. He emphasizes with
his hands that the plane went in at an angle on a path coming from the south west.
- To summarize, LaGasse says he saw the plane for a second or less, but he cannot remember some major details that he might
have observed for minutes. He is adamant but wrong on some significant facts. Thus his recollection of the actual plane path five
years after the event must be regarded as highly dubious.
What Did LaGasse Observe?
Here are some clues in LaGasse’s testimony that indicate he is mistaken about the NOC path. These clues support the South path (refer to Figure 1):
- In his original testimony, LaGasse says he saw the plane in front of him.
- He was talking to his dog in the back seat through the open driver side door of his four-door car. He saw something [the plane]
out of the corner of his eye.
- He demonstrated how he turned to look, which was counter clockwise, or to his left.
- He saw the plane before he heard it.
- He realized his drawn flight path made the wrong angle with the Pentagon west wall, and showed with his hands a more acute angle with the west wall.
- He stated that, a second or less after he saw it, the plane hit the Pentagon.
When analyzed, these statements weigh against a North path and support a South path (refer to Figure 1).
Figure 1: Aerial View of Pentagon Impact Point, Light Poles, and Citgo Station
- I = Impact point (entry hole)
- p1, p2, p3, p4, p5 = Five downed light poles
- L = LaGasse position under canopy at Citgo station
- B = Brooks approximate position
- SI = South Path
- NI = North Path (LaGasse drawing)
- LF = LaGasse front view direction (perpendicular to long side of station)
- LP = LaGasse view direction toward light poles p1 and p2
Analysis of What LaGasse Observed
- Clue 1 indicates that LaGasse saw the plane to his front, that is, in the general direction his car was pointing (LF). In
this direction he could see the Pentagon. He was not looking NW or N as he indicated to CIT five years later. [Note: L is LaGasse’s
position; his car was headed in a direction perpendicular to the long side of the Citgo canopy; hence the line LF makes a right
angle with the long side].
- Clue 2 tells us that he faced his dog in the back seat. An imaginary straight line, LP, drawn between his eyeballs might
make an acute angle of about 35 degrees with LF. [Note: Stand at an open driver-side door of a car and talk to someone in the back
seat. The acute angle just mentioned might be anywhere from 25 to 45 degrees].
- Clue 2 tells us he saw something out of the corner of his eye, and turned to the left to see it (clue 3). Out of the corner
of which eye did LaGasse glimpse the plane? (a) If the right eye, the plane would be roughly west of his location and at a distance.
(b) If the left eye, the plane would have been on the South path and near or over the bridge where the sequence of downed light poles began.
If the right eye as in (a) above, the plane would be traveling roughly toward him at 792 ft/sec. The emitted noise would be traveling
at 1100 ft/sec so that he would be bound to hear it as it got closer and closer, passed behind his back close by the short, North side
of the station, and flew further east to the point where he claims he first saw it when he turned to his left. But he did not hear it
before he saw it as indicated by clue 4. Also he would be looking to his rear, not his front, and a rear view violates clue 1. In
addition, if he glimpsed the plane out of his right eye, he would have turned to the right to see it, not to the left, violating clue 3.
Clues 1, 3 and 4 all weigh against the right eye. Therefore he did not see the plane out of the corner of his right eye.
If the left eye as in (b) above, he saw the plane as it came into view after passing behind the station convenience store. He could not
see through the store, and the store and its canopy blocked the sound. So he turned to the left, saw the plane first and then heard it,
which agrees with clues 1, 3 and 4. This supports the left eye. Therefore he saw the plane out of the corner of his left eye, and the
plane was on the South path (SI).
- Clue 5 favors the South path (SI). LaGasse’s initial path had to move by only 20 degrees to coincide with the South path. Also,
LaGasse saw two downed light poles, (probably light poles #4 and #5 as these were closest to his drawn path), but on his drawn path
the plane could not have knocked these down. To knock down even one of these poles, the plane would have to fly directly over LaGasse’s
position, as described by witness Robert Turcios. LaGasse would then see the plane to his front as he stated in his original testimony (clue 1).
- Clue 6 favors a plane location near the bridge on the South path when LaGasse first saw it. The travel time, of a second or
less from observation to impact, agrees with the bridge to entry hole distance of about 800 feet since the plane was traveling at 792 ft/sec.
Conclusion: The plane was on the South path, and it traveled from right to left in LaGasse’s view, not left to right as he recalled
five years later. The only evidence from LaGasse for an NOC path is LaGasse’s emphatic but changeable and mistaken memory as to direction.
All his other details support the South path.
Testimony of Chadwick Brooks, Pentagon Police Officer
Brooks’ Original Testimony, 11/25/2001
Chadwick Brooks’ original audio interview by Jennifer Brennan can be found at the Library of Congress September 11, 2001,
Documentary Project, at this location or by clicking
Brooks talks essentially without interruption and gives the following information:
- He was parked in a lot across the street from the Citgo station and was doing paper work in his car. [01:55]
- He glanced to his left and saw a plane approaching. 02:13]
- A few second later he heard a noise, as if behind him, and saw a low flying plane at his left. [2:22]
- A few seconds later he saw the plane going down and got out of his car. [02:50]
- A few seconds later he saw the plane nose dive into the Pentagon at full throttle. [03:08]
- He saw the plane clip a lamp pole. [03:33]
- He heard a loud boom as the plane hit the building. He got into his car. [03:55]
- The plane flew awfully low at full speed into the building and hit the lamp pole like a toothpick. [06:15]
- He stated that some thought there was a bomb and wondered where the plane was, but the plane just disintegrated. [10:45]
Brooks’ estimated time intervals (three intervals of a few seconds each) are most likely exaggerated in length, but indicate that
he saw the plane at a distance as it approached. Note that he twice uses the word “left” but this is relative to his position
sitting in the parked car, not to his position when he is facing the Citgo station.
Brooks’ CIT Interview, 11/07/2006
Chadwick Brooks’ video interview by CIT's Craig Ranke begins at 30:56 in the CIT video which can be viewed at
this location or by clicking
As the video begins, Brooks is standing by his silver or light blue police cruiser at the Citgo station close to the road.
Brooks answers Ranke’s questions and gives the following information (highlights only recorded here):
- Brooks stands by his car some 25 feet from the northenmost Citgo pumps. He says he was refueling “right here” “where that gentleman
is right now” “on the very end.” The camera pans to a man pumping gas at the far left Citgo pump. Ranke says “Okay, so, on the far right”
and Brooks re-echoes “the far right.” Here Ranke and Brooks both confuse left with right. [31:55]
- [They move across the street to FOB 2, lot 6]. Brooks stands where he was when he exited his car to watch the plane.
He stands between two parallel white parking lines. His car is parked improperly across the lines and is facing approximately NW. The Citgo station
is in the background on the left, the Pentagon building is visible on the right. Brooks say the plane flew to the left of the station. [32:56]
- The view to the SW is not blocked by trees (see 32:43 and 58:20 and later). Brooks indicates to Ranke that he saw the
plane in a NW direction, which would be a left view out of his improperly parked car. However, in this NW direction there is a row of
tall trees, so that Brooks could not have seen the plane at a distance as his several groups of a “few seconds” indicates. [34:40]
- Brooks indicates he saw the plane pass over the Citgo station. [34:30] He saw the plane hit the building after
a “quick second.” [36:20] When asked if he saw the plane hit any light poles, he replies “We didn’t see it hit any light poles.”
[36:55] He says the trees were blowing. [Note the use of “We.”]
- Brooks describes the plane as off-white in color, with a regular logo in blue letters that spelled “United.” [37:20]
[His testimony ends here but starts again at 58:20, where Brooks is now with LaGasse and Ranke on the short, North side of the
Citgo station and under its canopy].
- Brooks draws his version of the plane flight path while standing at a different location from where he stood on 9/11.
He looks NW, moves his head mostly to the left, sometimes to the right. He draws a flight path very similar to LaGasse’s. [58:24]
- Brooks states again that he did not see the light poles hit. He does not contradict his original testimony but appears
to have forgotten it. [01:05:10]
Reasons to Doubt Chadwick Brook’s Testimony and Memory
- At the start of the CIT interview, Brooks confuses left with right and shows that he is easily led by Ranke.
- In his original testimony, Brooks stated that he saw the plane hit the light poles. In his CIT testimony he appears to have
forgotten this, and states he did not see the poles hit. His use of “We” implies he has discussed this with someone else. Later he
and LaGasse claim they had not discussed any of the details. [01:00:10]
- In his CIT interview, Brooks parks improperly across parking lines. His car faces NW. The view from the car to his left is
obscured by tall trees, so that Brooks could not have seen the plane approaching from a distance. If Brooks had parked properly on 9/11
(between the white lines) his car would be facing approximately SW and he could have seen on his left the plane coming on the South path from a distance,
as indicated by his time estimates of a “few seconds.”
- Brook’s identification of the plane as a United Airlines plane contradicts LaGasse and other witnesses. Brooks fails in this detail.
- Brooks draws his flight path while looking in the wrong direction (at right angles to his real view on 9/11) and while
standing at the wrong location (close to where LaGasse was). In such a situation he could not help but draw a flight path similar to LaGasse’s.
Conclusion: Brooks’ memory of an event five years ago clearly fails him in important details such as light poles, plane markings,
a distant view to left, etc. His improper parking is not explained. He could not have seen the plane at a distance if his car was
headed NW. Brooks draws a flight path from a wrong location and direction – which invalidates his path completely. Brooks does
remember a large plane flying from a location near him to impact the Pentagon. All other evidence shows that this plane flew
from right to left in Brook’s view. He saw a light pole impacted by the plane and the impact location in the building which together define a South path.
Testimony of Sean Boger, Heliport Air Traffic Controller
Boger’s Original Testimony, 11/14/2001
Sean Boger’s original interview by the U.S.A. Center for Military History can be read here.
Boger gives the following information:
- Looking out the window of the Heliport control room, he sees the nose and wing of an aircraft coming at him without veering.[page 11]
- He heard the noise, and the plane hit the building and went all the way in. The building shook. [page 11]
- Once the plane went into the building it exploded. [page 11]
- He hit the floor and covered his head. [page 11]
- “I was looking at a plane fly into the building.” [page 13]
- The plane was a “pretty big aircraft” – a “757 or 767.” [page 16]
Boger’s CIT Interview, 11/01/2007
Sean Boger’s phone interview by Craig Ranke beginning at 45:11 can be heard at
this location or
There is also a 13.43 video at this location or
[Times are from the 13:43 minute video.]
- Ranke begins the phone conversation with Boger in an abrupt manner, indicating that this is not the first conversation between Boger and CIT. [03:50]
- Boger was looking out the Heliport Tower window and saw the plane coming directly at him. [06:30]
- He looked at it and fell to the ground and covered his head. [06:45]
- He saw the plane for 8 – 15 seconds before it hit. [07:00]
- The plane was practically in front of the Navy Annex. It was coming at an angle with tilted wings, banking right toward the Pentagon. [07:20]
- Relative to the Citgo station it was on Boger’s right, which would be NOC. [08:00]
[At the start of the 13 minute video, Craig Ranke states it would be impossible for the plane to be both where Boger and other NOC witnesses
saw it, and to also hit the building, because these claims are” mutually exclusive.” Ranke also states that Boger must have ducked before
he saw the plane enter the building. Aldo Marquis says the same, noting that Boger was adamant about the plane hitting, but, to
paraphrase, “you still have to account for the generator trailer, light poles and the people who saw the plan fly away and we’ve got
one of those [a witness to flyover]”.]
Reasons to Doubt Sean Boger’s Testimony and Memory
Legge and Chandler have discussed Boger’s testimony in depth. Boger told CIT he saw the plane “practically in front of the Navy Annex.”
Upon being questioned about its position relative to the Citgo station, Boger chose the right side as seen by him (NOC). This can easily
be interpreted as an approximation, indicating that he did not notice the plane until it was close. Boger’s time estimate is grossly
exaggerated, as is that of an Arlington Cemetery witness, William Middleton Sr. (10 to 15 secs) since the plane speed would then 200 mph
or less if timed from the Navy Annex.
It is important to note that Boger said the plane “didn’t veer”, indicating that it was flying straight. Straight flight rules out the
North path, given all the testimony and data confirming the plane was near the Naval Annex. Boger does state that he saw the plane bank
to the right but clearly this cannot be the astonishingly steep bank required for the turn around Citgo. The FDR file shows a very
brief bank to the right of 6 degrees, so brief as to cause no noticeable change of heading .
Conclusion: It is not clear whether Boger is certain about the NOC path. Boger was certain the plane hit, even “adamant,” as Aldo Marquis
says. Craig Ranke says the two claims, “hitting” and “NOC” are mutually exclusive, which is true. All the physical evidence and the vast
majority of witness testimony support a plane hitting the Pentagon on the South path. There is no reason to choose Boger’s statement
about NOC five years later over his other testimony and the physical evidence. Ranke’s and Marquis’ decision to choose Boger’s NOC
statement over physical evidence and to contradict Boger’s testimony as to when he ducked is very questionable. CIT’s failure to examine the
consequences of its NOC suggestion and flyover by explaining how the damage was staged is also a failure to follow the scientific method.
The three witnesses, LaGasse, Brooks, and Boger all testify to plane impact. All have inconsistencies, some serious, in their accounts,
and the details of LaGasse’s CIT account support the South path as do LaGasse’s and Brooks’ original testimonies. To summarize, hard,
physical evidence and scientific analysis completely rule out a NOC path. Those who propose, advocate, or testify to a NOC flight path
are simply mistaken.
 Frank Legge and David Chandler, "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path," September, 2011.
 Frank Legge and David Chandler,
"Addendum to The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis …," December, 2011.
 Frank Legge and Warren Stutt, "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path...," January, 2011.
 John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact," March, 2013.