A Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - Countering Disinformation and Misunderstandings (RECAP)

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.

CIT and Eyewitness Testimony

Based upon 13 eyewitness accounts Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) asserts that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. These witnesses testify that the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77 was slightly different than that of the official story and the testimony of many other witnesses. CIT sees this as proof, that in a massive slight of hand, the jet flew over the building while explosives were detonated. Ignoring the contradicting testimony and the massive amount of witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building, let's examine the many problems with basing a case solely on eyewitness testimony.



Want to hear about a mass case of faulty memory at an air show that directly correlates to the type of eyewitness testimony CIT has gathered? Even better, want to experience your own false memory? Grab a pen and paper and hit play!


"Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence. In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions". Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when 'far outweighed by evidence of innocence.' In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'" - Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification http://innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
Criminal Law Review Committee Eleventh Report, Cmnd 4991
Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Evidence 9 (1979).
Watkins v. Souders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting).

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

a talk by

Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology

and George Fisher, Professor of Law

Laura Engelhardt

"Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories." - Sources: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/f&tfootnotes.htm#5

Eyewitnesses who recalled explosions in the Twin Towers and Building 7 are supported by peer-reviewed scientific research. Nano-thermite is the murder weapon!

This blog entry is also posted at visibility911.com.

Related Info:

Debunking the Citizen Investigation Team Hoax

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION, PART 1: THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW REDUX: THE MASTER OPUS

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART II: THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE (summary)

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES