Solid Takedown of the Pentacon

Proving once again that the 9-11 Deniers are capable of solid work when debunking theories that they don't agree with, Arabesque does a masterful job of demolishing the Pentacon movie.

The fatal Special Pleading argument of the PentaCon in summary:

A person saw X and Y. X and Y could not have both happened—it is impossible. Therefore X happened and Y did not.

“The PentaCon witnesses saw a plane fly north of the CITGO Gas station (X) and the plane hit the Pentagon (Y). It is impossible that they witnessed both. Therefore the plane did not hit the Pentagon.”

If both X and Y could not have happened, what basis do the filmmakers have for ignoring the possibility that Y happened instead of X? They don’t have any basis—they simply claim that they saw X, therefore Y didn’t happen. They don’t consider the opposite possibility. Actually their argument is even more absurd than this:

The problem facing anybody trying to make a buck off the 9-11 Denial Movement is that they must come up with something that is a) new, b) fits the currently accepted general theory, and c) is not so kooky that it's going to "discredit" the movement. The Pentacon succeeds on a) and b), but falls apart on c).

Update: More excellent analysis here.