CIT's No Planes Nonsense Debunked in 3 Min. [Mock trailer. Contains some graphic images]
Flight 77 frame analysis by Adam Taylor
The Pentagon 9/11 Truth & Disinformation
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Even before reviewing any of the evidence at the Pentagon we know there was no way those who carried out the attacks could have known ahead of time that when it was all over that they alone would control all of the images and/or videos of the attack. The attack happened in a highly-exposed area on a busy weekday morning. They had to have presumed someone might record the attack. Even prima facie the claim that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon is an untenable. A single image would reveal the lie. Note that this is exactly what happpened in Manhattan, when a documentary filmmaker working nearby heard a plane low overhead and swung his camera upward, just in time to catch the North Tower impact.
That dozens of cameras ring the roof of the pentagon yet the only video released were five frames from a parking garage camera with a fish-eye lens is a transparent attempt to push the no Boeing 757 was there. But we know it was there based on a wide range of mutually supportive forensic eveidence. Just because footage of impact was never released does not mean it never existed. It means those in control chose to not release it and mostly likely, destroyed it. Read through the Analyses of watch Going Beyond Speculation. But there is NO question that a large Boeing plowed into the Pentagon, and no reason to not believe it was Flight 175.
The idea that no large commercial aircraft hit the pentagon was right out of the gate. Almost immediately following the attacks.The first person to put this idea into book form [published within months of the attacks and translated into dozens of languages] was French journalist Thierry Meyssan. His books making this claim have been reprinted again and again using different titles and for subsequent editions throughout the years that followed, i.e. "L'effroyable imposture", "11. September. Der inszenierte Terrorismus," "La Terrible Impostura," "Le Pentagate", "O pentagate", "L'incredibile menzogna. Nessun aereo è caduto sul Pentagono," "Pentagate Hunt The Boeing," "L'incredibile menzogna", "9/11: The Big Lie" etc. Based on nothing other than the deceptive use of photographs and mischacterization of the size of the hole.
No Planes claims are designed to do a number of things. Not least to be as offensive as possible by denying the victims even existed, or that they did not die there. It adds this massive complication but never the reason why? How did it b enefit the attack to use a "missle" or a" bomb" when Flight 175 is what they hijacked and planes were used in Manhattan and in PA.
An interesting comparison case is that of TWA 800, where the official story says that a missile was not involved. Yet 100 eyewitnesses all say they saw a missile hit the plane. It was a bltant cover-up. See the TWA 800 Documentary on YouTube. Eyewitnesses have no reason to lie. Although eyewitness accounts are one of the poorest forms of evidence in court, when there is a large body of mutually supportive accounts, their value as evidence greatly increases. In this case we have a catastrophic event in a very crowded area and with a large body of concordant eyewitness accounts. They make up one aspect of a much larger body of evidence showing that flight 77 is what hit the pentagon on 9/11 and all claims that it did not are rooted in an attempt to undermine 911 Truth.
Disinformation today is a finely-honed craft that exploits our knowledge of the way memory functions. Through the use of memes, i.e. particular keywords and associations that serve as triggers to conditioned mental/emotional response, ideas are spread, like a virus, from person to person through society, spreading that idea.
Today we have Sandy Hook 'truthers', Flat Earth 'conspiracy truthers, 'crisis actors' 'pizzagate', Moloch worshipers who want to enslave the planet, etc. Nonsense as a weapon is nothing new. What is particularly insidious about the claim that no plane hit the pentagon is that it works in tandem with the claim that no planes hit the towers, -that they were "CGI on TV only", a much more patently absurd claim. In this way, it hijacks the more plausible claim (based purely on a superficial review of the evidence) that Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon, of which no footage was ever released and no large plane debris remained, and associates the two using the same 'no plane/911 truth' meme in the minds of people who are already predisposed to not want to face the implications of 911, giving them the excuse they are looking for to dismiss it all as loony conspiracism.
Wayne Coste : Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11 Narrated by David Chandler.
Compilation of Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts
Honegger Hypothesis Refuted
Bringing Closure to a Manufactured Debate
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
Going Beyond Speculation - David Chandler