Unfortunately a lot of people, who understand that 911 was an inside job, think there is good evidence to show the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft. However, when one examines the crime scene there is actually no good evidence to support this hypothesis and plenty of evidence to show an aircraft impact.
For those that still think the Pentagon Strike didn't involve an aircraft it is time to carefully weigh up the data and ask why many respected 911 researchers, who know full well that the attacks were staged, have rejected this hypothesis.
Just as AE911Truth's Blueprint for Truth examined the World Trade Centre attacks using the scientific method, where evidence was tested by looking closely at various relevant details, one can similarly examine the specific claims made about the Pentagon Strike.
In these two short easy-to-follow videos we are given summaries of key evidence concerning the Pentagon Strike, often referring to 911research, with visuals to SHOW why there is evidence for the impact of an airliner. While the analyst may be abrasive he is nevertheless making a series of logical, evidence-backed points concerning specific details of the crash:
The Pentagon Entry and Exit Holes Explained and Clear Evidence of Aircraft Debris
Below is a further explanation concerning the aircraft wreckage and light poles, which are designed to fall over when hit. The analyst's analogy with the aluminium baseball bat is not great. Regardless, minor damage from light poles would, in all likelihood, not immediately hinder the aircraft. As independent thinkers, we can understand the point being made:
Engines at the Pentagon and light poles Explained
________________________________________
If you have not already done so, please make sure to visit the 911research site and go point by point through their analysis of the Pentagon Strike. There is no evidence to show it was hit by a Global Hawk Drone or Missile (part of the no Boeing/no plane theories) and there are plenty of witnesses that saw it hit the building.
When it comes to any issue, do not be dogmatic about what you think, or too hesitant to look at new evidence. If your position is correct, then you should be able to account for what is being presented. However, if you never take the time to reflect and re-examine your beliefs, you risk falling into the trap of assuming too much and are likely to be fooled by your first impressions, which can sometimes be wrong. Early researchers into the September 11 attacks seem to have fallen into this trap of first impressions.
The least you (especially those that don't think an airliner hit the Pentagon) can do here is to simply watch these two straightforward videos and then come to your own conclusions.
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
