None Dare Call It Science

Frank Legge continues to post in his Journal of 911 Studies (he is one of the editors) with this short paper on the Pentagon. In typical conspiracy theory logic he argues that a plane probably did hit the Pentagon, which proves there was a conspiracy. A lack of falsifiability is the hallmark of crank science.

The position I hold is simple. In answer to the question "What hit the Pentagon?" I say I don't know and attempt to turn the discussion to the more fundamental question "Why was the Pentagon hit?". It should not have been. It should have been well defended. Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked, so there was ample time to confirm that real hijackings were taking place, not a war game, and ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were also anti-aircraft defenses
round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.

Of course good science isn't based on evidence or observation, but unsubstantiated presumptions. Later on he continues:

The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11 knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another. Like a good playwright they balanced contradictory evidence to keep the public guessing. On cue the media critics gave the NIST report high praise and we were left guessing about the actions
and motives of the people behind the curtain.

This probably won't make him popular with the CIT people, since he claims they are being misled, but that it is the evil NWO planting evidence that is the culprit, not their own warped thought process.

Update: I should also mention this section, which could be the textbook example of "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". I always shake my head at the fact that the troofers insist that Hani Hanjour could not have navigated successfully to the Pentagon, despite the fact that it is one of the largest buildings in the world, but then once he did, then he must have targetted the area he it because of its specific characteristics, not because it just happened to be from the side he was coming from.

Why did the plane aim for the reinforced section, which still had few occupants due to the recent renovation? Would al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? There were auditors in the damaged section who were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars. Most of the auditors died, which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill auditors?