Penny Schoner has done a compendium of witness reports, which she mainly draws from other Flight77Sites. In contrast to the scientific method, she starts her paper with her conclusions which she does not substantiate, all of which are false:

1. The United States is known to be capable of attacking the Pentagon (e.g. AGM-86) and is known to have planned attacks on the United States in the past (e.g. Operation Northwoods).
2. The flight path of what hit the Pentagon is rank speculation, but if the news reports are to be believed, the plane that hit the Pentagon descended too quickly and in too tight a turn for it to have been a Boeing 757 (see below).
3. The eye witness reports don't "firmly hold" anything: they're all over the map. As Holmgren,Gerard shows in his in-depth study of the Flight77Witnesses, they must be painstakingly examined, and as we note above, complete lack of consensus amongst the witness accounts indicates it was not a large slow plane like a Boeing. Schoner's failure to address Holmgren's work, as well as the three reviews of the witnesses we also cite, all of which conclude the opposite to what she firmly holds, discredit her and her methodology.
4. Jet fuel was not all over the Pentagon walls and inside the building, and the inside of the second story offices that would have been directy hit by the fuel tanks in the wing can be clearly be seen to be remarkably free of fire damage: e.g. 8125 8148 8158. There is also no jet fuel fire at all on the lawn just in front of the point of impact, where about 10 tonnes of kerosene would have been splashed from the shattered wing tanks if it had of been a Beoing 757.
5. Amongst the plane parts that were not seen anywhere on the area outside the Pentagon are two 7 tonne Rolls-Royce engines, the 15 m. high tail, any piece of fuselage bigger than what a FBI agent can easily carry (Local Copy), or any trace of an airliner seats, luggage or passengers. There is indeed a theme in the witness reports that a metal "confetti" rained down on the surrounding area; the only thing that we can think of that would do this is a warhead on-board a small plane, that pulverized, and then blew backwards, the fuselage.
6. The hole in the Pentagon where the plane entered is the about the diameter of the fuselage of a Boeing, which proves it could not have been an airliner: there is no damage from the shoulders (where the wings join the fuselage) which is the strongest part of a Boeing 757, and much are wider than the diameter of the hole.
7. There is no evidence that what clipped off the lamp posts was the wings of a jet, much less that such a supposed jet would have had to have been a Boeing. The clipped lamposts do not appear to have all fallen in the same direction, and there are other possibilities for what brought down the lamposts (for example blow-back from a ShapedCharge).
8. The sounds of a jet do not prove that jet was a Boeing; in fact the quite the opposite: one witnesses reports the "high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet".
9. The radar tracking the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, namely the air traffic controllers at Dulles ATC (where AA77 took off) not only did not identify the plane as AA77, but are unequivocal in their conclusions that it could not have been a Boeing 757:

   "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner."

10. Although the AirForceStanddown of military defense systems does show U.S. govt. complicity, there is no evidence that the perpetrators of the PentagonAttack were from an outside nation. The one of the HijackersPatsies that the FBI finally settled on as being "the perpetrator of AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon", who couldn't even fly a Cessna 172 well enough to be allowed to rent one less than a month before 9/11, got his visa to enter United States from a CIA program at the US consulate in Jeddah.

Not only are all of her conclusions both unsupported and false, she uses the witness statements collection from Eric Bart, one of the best of the Flight77Sites, to come to the opposite conclusion he does ("it was a plane-bomb") without the intellectual honesty to even cite, let alone explain, the contradiction.

This paper cannot even be considered research, and we will class any work that cites this work in support of its conclusions to be Misinfo.