Dr. Frank Legge

• Website: The Science of 9/11 (http://scienceof911.com.au/)
• Papers by, and recommended by, Dr. Legge (http://scienceof911.com.au/papers/)
• Dr. Legge's position statement on the Pentagon (http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/)

Special Note

Dr. Legge would like to point out that the early history of 9/11 research was not covered in this interview. He recognises the work of Jim Hoffman, in particular, who has provided a large and detailed resource used by many authors, including himself, when seeking reputable data and analyses for scientific papers: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman). He also draws attention to an essay by Jim Hoffman which provides an interesting study of how some of the (what Dr. Legge considers to be) erroneous ideas about the Pentagon attack became widely distributed: (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html).

Websites especially recommended by Dr. Legge

• Scientists for 9/11 Truth (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/)
• Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)
• Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org/)
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (http://stj911.org/)
• Jim Hoffman (http://911research.wtc7.net) (http://911review.com)

Papers mentioned in (or otherwise relevant to) the interview

• Frank Legge, "What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth", (October 2009) [external PDF]
• Frank Legge & Warren Stutt, "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon", Journal of 9/11 Studies (January 2011) [external PDF]
• Frank Legge & David Chandler, "The Pentagon Attack: A Refutation of the Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path", (September 2011)
• John D. Wyndham, "The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact" (27 November 2011) [external PDF]
• Frank Legge & David Chandler, "Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis", Foreign Policy Journal (27 December 2011)
• Frank Legge, "The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus", (June 2012) [external PDF]
• A. K. Dewdney & G. W. Longspaugh, "The Missing Wings : A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building", (revised December 19, 2004) (http://physics911.net/missingwings/). (This paper, which was referred to in the questioning, is not endorsed by Dr. Legge who wishes to state that "the idea that the wings should have been 'sheared off' to be found later on the ground recognizable as wings is contrary to evidence. The F4 Phantom experiment shows clearly that high-speed impact of an aircraft with a resistant object causes complete fragmentation.")
  • Evidence which refutes the 'wings sheared off' claim: (http://www.sandia.gov/vqsec/SON-ST.html)
    
  • A refutation of the 'wrong engine' claim: Joe Yoon & Jeff Scott, "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation", Aerospaceweb.org (12 March 2006, updated 6 May 2006)

Other items mentioned in (or otherwise relevant to) the interview

• David Chandler and Jon Cole (http://911speakout.org/)
• Our interview with Dr. Niels Harrit on nanothermite in the WTC dust.
• Photographs and analysis of the "Pentagon - External Impact Damage" (http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html)
• David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Olive Branch Pr; 8.7.2011 edition (September 6, 2011)
• Norman Mineta's testimony to The 9/11 Commission
• Norman Mineta sticks to his testimony

Acknowledgements

Podcast theme music, Chillout Me, kindly provided by Antony Raijekov, from his Jazz U compilation (CC BY-NC 2.5).

Slide show image source: "Pentagon on Sept 14" by slagheap on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0); re-sized, cropped