Two new papers have appeared recently. One is by John Wyndham in which he examines the evidence and applies the scientific method to it. Here is his abstract:
The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.
The other paper is by David Chandler and myself. It is an addendum to our previous paper showing that the North of Citgo flight path could not have occurred as it would produce a very steep bank angle and no such angle was reported.
The addendum draws on two additional pieces of evidence to show that the required bank angle could not be survived.
The north path is thus shown to be not merely improbable, based on conflicting witness testimony, but impossible, based on the laws of physics.