Discussion Page for:
John D. Wyndham
The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published: Journal of 9/11 Studies, December 2011, Version 1 - See
Revised: Scientific Method 9/11, March 2013, Version 2 - See
Revised: Scientific Method 9/11, April 2016, Version 3 - See
View Author Details for: Wyndham
Discussion for Version 1, December 2011
Comment 1: - By: John D. Wyndham - Posted: March, 2013
Before the creation of this website, the following changes were made in Version 1 in response to comments and criticisms from different sources, including the author.
- Page 7: Referenced Jerry Russell for the “31” eyewitnesses to plane impact (reference 20).
- Page 9: In the main section “Eyewitness Testimony,” subsection “Category 5,” removed a questionable speculation about
AA Flight 77’s clock being fast, and referred to a new paper by this author, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited.”
- Page 20: Rewrote the section “The Event Time – Stopped Clocks” in Appendix A based on further research detailed in a new paper
by this author, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited.” This paper includes a full description of the opposing
views in the evidence assembled by Barbara Honegger and Adam Larson. The “stopped clocks” evidence was found by
experiment to be untrustworthy. The evidence points strongly to an event time close to the official time of 9:37:45 am.
- Page 24: In Appendix B, “April Gallop’s Testimony,” changed Gallop’s title from “Army officer” to “Army Specialist.”
Also modified and amplified the description
of Gallop’s escape route which was through a window and not, as she later claimed, through the impact hole that was an inferno at the time.
- Page 25: Referenced a new paper by this author, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” in the second paragraph,
section “Barbara Honegger’s Work,” Appendix B.
- Page 30: Corrected an estimate of the length of a second floor gash from 20 – 30 feet to 70 – 80 feet, based on a reevaluation of the
photograph which was taken during clean-up. This photograph is of a portion of the building that was still standing after
the impacted portion collapsed. See “Explaining the Interior Column and Other Damage and Interior Debris,”
subsection “Large Plane Impact Theory,” Appendix B.
- Tables 3, 5, 6, 7, 8: The text in “Eyewitness Testimony” was amplified to better illustrate what is meant by eyewitness
testimony for the particular theory.
Discussion for Version 2, March 2013
Comment 1: - By: John D. Wyndham - Posted: 04/24/16
These changes were made to Version 2, March 2013.
- Page 24: The distance from the impact hole to Gallop’s desk is now
estimated at 150 feet (Honegger, Seattle talk, 2013).
- Page 30: The second floor gash description has been removed. There was no such gash.
What appeared to be a gash (as seen in the photograph) was actually the collapsed portion of the second floor.
Discussion for Version 3, April 2016