Danielle O'Brien was an air traffic controller at Dulles on 9/11. She spotted a fast-moving blip on the radar as it approached the Pentagon, and her recollections were later used to suggest that this may not have been Flight 77 at all.
In The New Pearl Harbor (updated second edition), for instance, David Ray Griffin uses this quote (amongst others) as part of the justification for questioning the identity of the plane:
"Danielle O'Brien, one of the air traffic controllers who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25, said: '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."
The same quote appears in many other places, often in an attempt to cast doubt on what exactly hit the Pentagon. The site asile.org, for instance, came top of the Google list for one search, in a page entitled "EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS: Boeing 757 or military craft?"
Whatever you think of the theory, the asile.org does at least include a quote from O'Brien that Griffin and many others ignore:
O'Brien wasn't saying a 757 couldn't do what she'd seen, rather that it was being flown in a dangerous way. As the hijackers were about to fly it into a building this seems unlikely to have been a concern.
But is that just us offering a counter-interpretation of her words? No, because O'Brien has spoken out about this before. Here's a letter she wrote, responding to the interpretation of her words by Thierry Meyysan, who first popularised the "Pentagon was hit by a missile" theory:
Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability.
In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.
Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft. In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "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. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere. The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration. Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon. Where is this B757 now? There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.
Where are the crew and passengers from American 77? They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen.
Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew. Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude. A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.
The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.
If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available. There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control. In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.
Respectfully,
Danielle (O'Brien) Howell
(Source)
No matter how much Dr Griffin and others may want to pretend otherwise, O'Brien seems to have no problem at all in accepting that what she witnessed was not a military plane, just a commercial airliner being flown in a reckless and dangerous manner.