Proof that "no plane at the Pentagon" theories are disinfo

[operator kos]

tl;dw: Part 1 of the video shows a selection of the 100+ witnesses who described seeing a large jetliner hitting the Pentagon. In Part 2, prominent NIST critic and long-time truth advocate David Chandler uses scientific reasoning to dismantle some of the specious claims made by Barbara Honegger and other "no planers".

There is abundant evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part, by a rogue cabal within the U.S. government. Easily disprovable claims like "no plane hit the Pentagon" only distract from the real evidence and help the perpetrators escape justice.

[seemslikeadream]

yes but

[MacCruiskeen]

Thanks for that, kos. Haven't listened to it yet, but certainly will when I have more time, esp. since it's David Chandler who's presenting it.

Respect to him, the high school physics teacher who forced NIST and Sunder to eat their words about WTC7.

[BrandonD]

tl;dw: Part 1 of the video shows a selection of the 100+ witnesses who described seeing a large jetliner hitting the Pentagon. In Part 2, prominent NIST critic and long-time truth advocate David Chandler uses scientific reasoning to dismantle some of the specious claims made by Barbara Honegger and other "no planers".

There is abundant evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part, by a rogue cabal within the U.S. government. Easily disprovable claims like "no plane hit the Pentagon" only distract from the real evidence and help the perpetrators escape justice.

Thank you for this information, the compilation of witness testimony in one video is valuable in itself.

[8bitagent]

Most the popular 9/11 theories are disinfo(however unintentional), but we already knew that

[tapitsbo]

Do you feel these hoary old theories blame patsies on the periphery for the benefit of the predictable ptb - or that the truth is much more uncanny and inscrutable

Or both or neither of these ideas

[slimmouse]

Do you feel these hoary old theories blame patsies on the periphery for the benefit of the predictable ptb - or that the truth is much more uncanny and inscrutable

Or both or neither of these ideas

Do I feel sorry for my own belief that no plane hit the pentagon, or that the buildings didnt collapse
due to genuine laws of physics?

I would be deeply sorry if I have been conned into believing that both of these incidences are traps. Cos they sure as fuck caught me.

However, this led me to look further into 9/11, whereupon I realised that regardless of what the physical arguments were, the whole 9/11 story is still little more than a conspiracy theory, desperately clung on to by both a posse of disinformation specialists ( for the pay check) but more importantly an increasingly skeptical western audience.

For some people the very idea that 9/11 is a clear bare faced fucking lie is just too hard to take, regardless of how you acquire this understanding.

I still like this video though....and I also know that this community is experienced enough to take such understanding.





What I might suggest to the deliberate disinformationists of all colours, is that once youve dealt with those physcial evidence problems in the above, to begin to unpack the rest of the lies and combine it with your own personal current empirical gnosis.