How have investigators reconciled conflicting eyewitness reports about the Pentagon strike?

1. The basic, widely reported narrative — why investigators rely on multiple records

Contemporary mainstream summaries say American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon at 09:37, leaving video, physical wreckage and many immediate reports that news outlets used within minutes ^[2]. Investigators historically treat such incidents by triangulating physical evidence (impact damage, aircraft wreckage), telemetry or radar when available, and contemporaneous recordings — because these sources are less affected by memory distortion than later oral reports ^[2]. The presence of security-camera footage and the extensive, observable damage at the Pentagon are cited as anchors for reconstruction in encyclopedia-style reporting ^[2].

2. Eyewitness compilations and the diversity of accounts

Independent aggregations of eyewitness testimony, such as the 9/11 Research collection, document a wide variety of observations from multiple vantage points around the Pentagon, noting that traffic and people nearby watched an aircraft approach from the west and southwest before impact ^[1]. Collections like this show why eyewitness testimony can differ: observers were in different locations, had different sightlines, and experienced the chaos of a novel attack — circumstances that naturally yield inconsistent details across accounts ^[1]. The compilation demonstrates how raw eyewitness data can appear conflicting without necessarily disproving the core event; instead it underscores variation in perception.

3. What the supplied sources do not cover — methods for reconciling contradictions

The search results provided do not include reporting or official documents describing how investigators specifically reconciled conflicting eyewitness reports of the Pentagon strike, such as timelines of interviews, cognitive interview techniques, or forensics-driven adjustments to witness statements. Available sources do not mention whether investigators used cross-referencing of statements with time-stamped camera footage, air-traffic data, or phone records to resolve discrepancies in witness recollection ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Why differing eyewitness accounts persist — known psychological and situational factors

The independent eyewitness archive implies common reasons for divergent reports: proximity to the scene, angle of view, obstructions, and traffic conditions that affected what each person could see ^[1]. Memory research (not in these search results) typically explains variation through stress, the passage of time, and confabulation; the materials here show variation but do not provide a scientific reconciliation process used by investigators ^[1].

5. How physical evidence anchors the reconstruction

Encyclopedic summaries emphasize physical indicators — recorded impact time, recorded damage and the documented presence of Flight 77 — as the central evidentiary pillars establishing what happened at the Pentagon ^[2]. Where eyewitness accounts conflict on peripheral details, mainstream reporting treats those physical records as decisive for the overall sequence ^[2]. The supplied materials show that such documentary anchors exist even if detailed discussion of harmonizing witness narratives is absent ^[2].

6. A note on sources and transparency in contemporary Pentagon reporting

Several current items in the search results focus on Pentagon transparency and withholding of details in other contexts — from modern UAP reporting to classified briefings about strikes — underscoring that the Department of Defense’s handling of information often draws scrutiny ^{[3] [4] [5]}. While those items are about more recent Pentagon transparency debates, they illustrate a broader pattern: when institutions keep materials classified or release partial accounts, public reconciliation of divergent narratives becomes harder ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

Conclusion — what we can and cannot claim from these sources

The provided sources establish that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and that many eyewitness reports were collected and compiled by independent researchers ^{[2] [1]}. They do not contain reporting on the specific investigative steps used to reconcile conflicting eyewitness accounts, nor do they offer an authoritative, source-cited account of how discrepancies were resolved; for those details, the available sources do not mention investigative reconciliation methods beyond the existence of eyewitness compilations and the physical record ^{[1] [2]}.