Editorial

Chemistry professor from the University of Copenhagen: we've found nano-explosives in the dust from the twin towers

The Fed Under Fire: new short film on the secrecy of the Federal Reserve

Researchers release 9/11 Pentagon Attack report

published in the July 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Download July 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Among 9/11 truth activists, there is little disagreement about what happened at the World Trade Center and at Shanksville. Although it’s not possible to know all the details of what transpired until there is an independent, impartial investigation, there is wide agreement among 9/11 researchers that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and that the hole in the ground that was presented to us as the crash site of flight 93 in Shanksville does not contain the remnants of an airplane.

But when it comes to the Pentagon, the truth community has yet to reach a consensus, and 9/11 forums are filled with bitter arguments from proponents of one view or another.  It is assumed by most savvy 9/11 activists that the truth movement has been infiltrated by intelligence agents tasked with crippling the movement in any way possible, and that many of the most strident arguments come, not from sincere researchers, but from disinformation agents intent on spreading confusion and discord.  These agents are in a position to know the truth about what happened, and can be expected to mount vigorous arguments against that truth, the better to keep the movement divided and to prevent a clear, cogent message about what happened at the Pentagon from reaching the masses. 

To many activists, the Pentagon attack stands as the single most incriminating feature of 9/11.  The official conspiracy theory (OCT) would have us believe that the world’s only superpower, with the most massive military that has ever existed, was unable to defend its own headquarters 51 minutes after the north WTC tower had been hit, 34 minutes after the south WTC tower had been hit, and 41 minutes after the FAA knew that there was an emergency aboard flight 77 (the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon).  Regarding flight 77, Wikipedia states: 

By 08:56, the flight was turned around, and the transponder had been disabled. The FAA was aware at this point that there was an emergency aboard the plane. By this time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 175 was known to have been hijacked and within minutes of also striking the World Trade center.

Where was America’s air defense during the 41 minutes after it was known that flight 77 was hijacked and before the Pentagon was attacked?  In highly incriminating testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta stated that while he was in the bunker with Dick Cheney:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

A few minutes later, the Pentagon exploded in flames, killing 125 unsuspecting workers in the building.  No evacuation order had been given.

Norman Mineta’s testimony was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.  Download 911 Commission Report

Given these facts, plus many other anomalies about the OCT, it is no surprise that millions of people have concluded that the government is lying about what happened at the Pentagon.  With the scene of attack completely controlled by the primary suspect, and with all video of the attack confiscated from nearby businesses by the FBI within minutes of the attack, for years 9/11 researchers wondered about what had actually transpired at the Pentagon, with little hard evidence to guide them.

Frustrated with idle speculation, two men from Southern California, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, joined forces to form Citizen Investigation Team (CIT).  They traveled to the Pentagon and sought out eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon.  They interviewed their eyewitnesses, on camera, at the location where they had been standing on the morning of 9/11 when they saw the plane, and had all but a couple of the witnesses draw the plane’s flight path on a map and sign it. 

A pattern began to emerge, and the more witnesses CIT interviewed, the clearer the pattern became:  the plane had not taken the path claimed by the government, and the path that it did take proves that the plane did not hit the building.

CIT interviewed three Pentagon police officers, two of whom witnessed the flight path from the Citgo gas station (Officer William Lagasse, Officer Chadwick Brooks and Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.); five Arlington Cemetery workers (Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton Sr. and George Aman); auto mechanic Edward Paik; Citgo gas station attendant Robert Turcios; air traffic controller Sean Boger (who was at the Pentagon Heliport at the time of the attack); Terry Morin, a project manager for Sparta (saw the plane from the Navy Annex); courier Levi Stephens (saw the plane from the Pentagon’s south parking lot); and Maria de La Cerda, a career musician with the Army band, who saw the plane from Arlington Cemetery.

Every one of these people clearly recalls seeing the plane take a path that disagrees with the government’s story.  Most of them saw the plane fly north of the Citgo station prior to the fireball at the Pentagon.  One witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., saw the plane after the explosion, banking low over the parking lot.  None of them report seeing the plane fly south of the Citgo station, where it would have had to have been to have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Although there are other witnesses who claim the plane took the south path, they can be dismissed if they also claim absurd things, such as that the plane cartwheeled into the building, or if they were not in a position to see the things they claim to have seen. 

There is a zone of destruction heading towards the Pentagon, and into the building, that corresponds with a south side flight path.  Five light poles were destroyed, and the damage in the building lines up perfectly with those five light poles. 

Under most circumstances, physical evidence would trump eyewitness testimony.  But in this case, the crime scene was controlled by the primary suspect, tainting the credibility of the physical evidence.  In addition, there are many anomalies with the physical evidence. 

Right from the beginning, questions arose.  Where was the plane debris?  Photos taken immediately after the attack show no wings, tail or fuselage.  No luggage or bodies.  The damage to the building is inconsistent with the crash of an airliner with a 44 foot tall vertical stabilizer and 125 foot wingspan.

Even the downed light poles are suspicious.  Compared to a light pole that was knocked down by wind, and has a jagged edge where it broke at the base, the light poles downed on 9/11 appear to have been cut, neatly and cleanly.

This photo (below) clearly shows a long scratch mark on the asphalt where the 247 pound light pole -- that supposedly had been taken out of Lloyd England's windshield -- was dragged into position in front of his taxicab.

On top of this odd physical evidence, we now have 14 eyewitnesses who have stated that the plane was not where it would have needed to be to down the light poles and hit the Pentagon.

CIT is not the only group concluding that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon.  Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group of 200 aviation professionals who all agree that, according to the data released by the government, the government story is not correct. 

In August 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the Flight Data Recorder data for flight 77.  According to Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the last recorded altitude for the plane (one second before the alleged impact) shows an altitude of 480 feet above sea level.  The top of the Pentagon is 112 feet above sea level.  Given this data, the plane cleared the building with 368 feet to spare. The NTSB has refused to comment on this.  

For the contingent within the 9/11 truth movement that is convinced that a plane did hit the Pentagon, the most convincing evidence comes from the dozens of witnesses who believe they saw the plane hit the building.  Six of these witnesses are editors or reporters for USA Today, and all claim to have been on the same quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27, heading the same way at the moment of the attack, late to work at the USA Today building in Rosslyn, three miles away. 

In a ten minute video called “The USA Today Parade,” CIT has demonstrated that the Pentagon is not visible for most of that quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27.  With video taken in a car driving that same route, it is clear that the Pentagon only becomes visible at the point at which the plane would have been over or behind the car. For much of the route, the Pentagon is obscured by large, bushy trees.  CIT interviewed alleged witness to the Pentagon impact and USA Today editor Joel Sucherman on camera in his office.  Sucherman insists that he saw the Pentagon at a location which CIT’s video clearly shows does not have a view of the Pentagon. 

USA Today is owned by the Gannett company, which also owns Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times and Navy Times.

In the 9/11 truth movement, CIT’s work has been controversial.  They are banned from posting on the largest 9/11 truth forum, 911blogger.  Recent threads demonstrate that 911blogger has a pronounced preference for the “yes, a plane hit the Pentagon” version of events, with frequent anonymous contributors vehemently defending that point of view. 

The primary criticism of CIT’s work is that all of their witnesses believe the plane impacted the building.  As I reported in my story about CIT in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press:

All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible.  This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.

Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball.  Most people were aware that an attack was underway.  If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball.  To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.

For those who actually saw the plane fly over the building, there was a convenient cover story:  the second plane that came along three mintues after the first and flew over the building.  Anyone who saw the truth of what happened would conclude that they were seeing the second plane. 

The attack at the Pentagon is best understood as a gigantic magic show.  How many of us have ever seen a fireball hundreds of feet in diameter?  I am sure that if I were to see one, my eyes would be riveted on it and for at least a few moments I’d be completely unaware of anything else in my environment.  This is the essence of the magician’s trade – with flourishes and fanfare, he makes you look where he wants you to look, so you never see him slip the card behind his ear or up his sleeve.  With the news media batting clean-up, only witnesses who confirmed the OCT were given airtime, and any doubters who were interviewed were simply edited out of the evening newscast. 

In an effort to hold media and government officials responsible for their evidence, CIT has created a new film, National Security Alert.  This 80 minute video compresses all of the CIT interviews into a concise and serious presentation (sans music) that summarizes their evidence clearly and soberly.  Their site will also contain a section where citizens can record which officials have received a copy of the video, and their response (or lack thereof).

CIT will be showing excerpts of National Security Alert and addressing the implications of their findings at a free conference in Arlington, VA called Deconstructing the Pentagon Attack. The conference will also feature Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC (retired), a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions, 10,000 hours of flight time, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. As of publication, attendance by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is unconfirmed.

Held at the NRECA Conference Center at 4301 Wilson Blvd, in Arlington, the event will run from 10 am to 2:30 pm on Saturday, July 11, and is sponsored by The Wisdom Fund. Both the conference and parking are free.

SCOTUS considers lifting limits on corporate campaign contributions

Even The New York Times calls this a "nightmare vision."  We just keep diving deeper and deeper into fascism, and if corporations are free to given unlimited quantities of cash to the candidates of their choice, we are past the point of even pretending to have free elections.

Of course this gets no attention on the Grey Lady's front page, where millions would see it.  Sexy pictures of Barack take precedence over the end of our republic.

The editorial in The New York Times starts:

With a little-noticed order last week, we fear the Supreme Court has set the stage for dismantling the longstanding ban on corporate spending in elections for president and Congress. If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy.

The justices considered a case this term about an election-year documentary made by opponents of Hillary Clinton. The issue was whether the film could air in the 60 days before an election, a period during which the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law imposes particularly strict limits on election-related communication.

The case would have been easy to resolve on narrow grounds. Instead, the court declared that on Sept. 9 it would hear arguments on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce — an important campaign finance precedent from 1990 — and parts of a more recent case should be overruled.

Austin upheld a law prohibiting corporations from spending their money to elect particular candidates. The Supreme Court rightly pointed out that corporations, as opposed to individuals, benefit from special laws, including tax advantages, that assist them in accumulating large amounts of money. The ban on their spending is needed to prevent the political process from being overwhelmed and corrupted. The Supreme Court has upheld the restriction repeatedly.

Continue here. 

Goldman Sachs: "great vampire squid... jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money"

There is no warm cranny in my heart for Matt Taibbi.  He penned one of the most viciously irrational hit jobs on the 9/11 truth movement ever.  But he has now written something of value:  a hit job on an operation that deserves it, Goldman Sachs.  Taibbi's article begins:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

Taibbi acknowledges that there's nothing the ordinary  (or even extraordinary) citizen can do about Goldman's massive rip-off of investors, homeowners, taxpayers and gasoline buyers.  Still, there is some satisfaction in knowing exactly how one is being screwed.  You're still being tortured, but the hood is off and you can watch while they disembowel you. 

The rest of this Rolling Stone article is here.