This disturbing photo is fake, of course. Images of a 757 in flight and an explosion have been layered into a photo of the Pentagon. A military jet could perform the maneuver depicted because that is what they are designed to do, but it is beyond the capacity of a large airliner to maneuver out of the low altitude and cramped space available in front of the building.
As far as I know, no serious (meaning fact-based) students of 9/11 accept this image as anything more than a manifestation of someone’s desire to comment on the events of that day. Apart from this, however, the image does present problems to the official narrative (as it was no doubt designed to do). First of all, it reminds us of the relative size of a 757. Surely a plane that large would have caused more damage, and left more debris behind, than available evidence suggests. Second, the image also reinforces our awareness of the difficulty that faced the pilot of a high-jacked commercial airliner who, flying at top speed, executed a 330-degree turn and then maneuvered the craft for some distance very close to the ground. If the official narrative is accurate, this was an astounding display of skill on his/her part.
I bring up this painful stuff because a conspiracy narrative is once again gaining ground in our public discourse–Trump’s handlers and supporters are claiming that the election will be “rigged” against them. This claim fits comfortably within the paranoia that saturates far-right discourse. Indeed, paranoia might be said to motivate right-wing conspiracies, most of which imply that Americans are about to lose their freedom or their livelihoods through the machinations of some hated and feared other: liberals, ISIS, the commies, little green men.
One of the more interesting features of 9/11 conspiracy discourse, OTOH, is that it is generally promoted by lefties. This reflects one big difference between leftist and rightist discourse (in America at least): the former is generally supported by investigation and factual evidence, while the latter relies on arguments from authority and the generalizations that rhetoricians call “commonplaces.”
To the extent that 9/11 trutherism is motivated by paranoia (and the media have done their best to criticize it almost into invisibility on that ground), the fear that motivates the discourse is generated by the possible culpability of named powerful actors–Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Saudi royal family–and suspicious events for which there are records–chase planes being sent out to sea rather than toward the high-jacked planes, and so on. Hence lefty 9/11 conspiracists are comfortable throwing shade on the photograph above, even though it might seem to support their overall claim that Cheney et al are lying about the events of 9/11, because the laws of physics render its depiction impossible.
In contrast, rightist conspiracy derives from voices that are considered authoritative in that community. Thus the community has fewer means of defense against deceptive depictions of what happened, because suspicion of authoritative voices can unravel the entire authoritarian world view. Limbaugh, Hannity, Jones, and now Trump are treated as the voices of God in rightist circles, voices that may not be gainsaid even if their message is confounded by evidence. For example, even though many women have now testified to Trump’s assault on them in language that perfectly fits his own account of his actions, wingers accept his repeated testimony that he didn’t do it. IOW, wingers cling to Trump’s pronouncements (and blame authorities they do not respect, such as the media) in order to keep their world view–perhaps even their identities– intact.
It is difficult for acolytes of an authoritative discourse to dissent without endangering their very selves (for proof of this, talk to any ex-Catholic who is now an unbeliever). Some years ago I read a number of accounts written by formerly evangelical Christians. To disentangle oneself from such a powerful discourse, one that is supported by an impressive network of institutions, is very very difficult. It takes many years, and those who have left the fold generally write that they have lost friends and family members and have become different people as a result of separating from that belief system.
If my analysis is correct, it imposes a huge moral burden on spokespeople who are deemed to be authorities in the winger community. That the Limbaughs and Hannitys prefer to maintain their status (and make millions into the bargain) testifies to their moral corruption.