Editorial

The deep state does not respond to FOIA requests

Published in the September, 2009, Rock Creek Free Press

In an attempt to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, citizen investigator Aidan Monaghan has filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies such as the FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.  Agency after agency has refused to comply with his requests, instead claiming that the information cannot be found, does not exist, was never properly filed, or even, from the FAA, that it was simply “not in a position to release said records at this time.”

The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966.  It mandates that information held by federal agencies must be made available to any citizen requesting it, unless that information is exempt.  The Act specifies nine reasons why any given piece of information could be exempt, such as invasion of personal privacy, trade secrets, anything related to the supervision or regulation of financial institutions, and anything that could compromise either law enforcement or national security.  In addition, the FBI has put an exemption on all of their 9/11 information and will release information only if compelled to do so by a lawsuit, of which Monaghan has filed two.

Despite the persistent stonewalling, Monaghan has turned up some interesting discrepancies.   While it was widely reported in the media, such as by USA Today, that the flight data recorder (FDR)  also known as the “black box,” for American Airlines flight 77 (the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11) was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier.  In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.

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

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.

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.

Did a plane really hit the Pentagon? These researchers say no, and their evidence is compelling.

For those who can't make the free presentation in Arlington on July 11, Citizen Investigation Team's evidence can be viewed here.

Transcript of Richard Gage explaining controlled demolition on KMPH in Fresno

Is the dam beginning to break? 

In this seven minute interview, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, is given plenty of time to explain the overwhelming evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were not brought down by the impact of the planes and ordinary office fires.  Unlike the derision and condescension that typically greets 9/11 truth activists at mainstream outlets, these two anchors seem genuinely curious and open to the uncomfortable facts proving that explosives were detonated inside the Twin Towers. 

Transcript of Gage's entire interview on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, California is below:

Kim Stephens:  He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is touring the country with a controversial message about September 11. 

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Richard Gage is here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  Thank you so much for joining us.

Gage:  You’re very welcome, it’s great to be here.

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Well first of all give us a little bit more about your background.

Gage:  I’m an architect of twenty years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and have been studying steel frame fire proof buildings for about that long. 

Kim Stephens: We ask that for clarification because as we get into this we want people to make sure that you’re not just somebody with a wacky idea, you come with some science to you.  What is the official reason for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?

Gage:  Well we’re told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires.  The problem is that we don’t have large gradual deformations associated with collapses.  And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever.  And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, which most people don’t know anything about it.  We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  It’s dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  Two and a half seconds.  This is uncanny, there’s forty thousand tons of structural steel designed to resist this collapse. 

Video evidence that Lloyde England is lying to support the official story about the Pentagon attack on 9/11

For several years now, citizen investigators Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have been laboring to alert the world to the truth about what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01.  My detailed article about their research is here. 

I reported last month that Ranke and Marquis (who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT) were consolidating their hours of video evidence into a more concise format that edits all the lengthy interviews into a single 60 minute video called “National Security Alert.”

I spoke to Craig Ranke today; he told me that the new video is nearly complete.  As a bit of an appetizer, he has released a nine minute excerpt that focuses on the role of Lloyde England.  The new video has been posted at Rense as well as 911blogger and has already garnered 16,000 views on YouTube.

 

Here's some background from my previous post for those who need to be convinced that this video is worth their time to watch:

The most riveting segment in the CIT footage is of the interview with Lloyde England, a taxi cab driver who was photographed numerous times just after the attack.  In all the photos, England and his cab are on Route 27, on the bridge going over Columbia Pike.  The front windshield of his cab has a big hole in it and the cab is at a stop and straddling the lanes.  A broken light pole lies nearby. 

England’s story is that he was going 40 mph when he felt the jet go over head, and then the light pole came smashing through his front windshield.  He says he then skidded sideways to a stop, and that a stranger stopped and helped him remove the light pole from the windshield, and then left without ever giving his name, or even speaking a word.

England’s story is suspect because photos show the hood of his sedan untouched and gleaming like a mirror, although his front windshield was destroyed.  England is quite clear that it was not the smaller section at the top of the light pole that impaled his windshield, but the big, 40 foot, 247 pound pole.  He contends that after it pierced his windshield, with perhaps five feet of the top end of the pole inside the cab, that the other 35 feet stuck straight out into the air, not touching the hood of the cab. 

The question is, with the windshield destroyed, what held the pole up the in air?  CIT drove with England to his property in the country to inspect the cab.  They hypothesized that perhaps the narrow end of the pole had pierced the back seat or floorboards of the cab, holding it in place and not allowing it to touch the hood of the cab.  But their inspection showed that there was only an insignificant rip in the rear seat, and no damage to the floorboards.  Although the dashboard was damaged, no part of the hood, including the edge near the windshield, showed any damage.

What makes the story even more incredible is that England claims that as he was removing the pole from the windshield, he fell down, but managed, even as he was on the ground, to keep holding the pole in the air.  Remember that the pole is 40 feet long and weighs 247 pounds, while England appears to be about 65 years old. 

Pressed to explain how it can be that the pole never touched the hood of the sedan, England said only “The car speaks for itself.”  Unfortunately for England, the car seems to be saying that his account can not possibly be true.

In addition, with 13 witnesses saying that the plane went no where near those light poles, it seems clear that something else caused the damage to England’s windshield. 

The video with England validates CIT’s practice of keeping the camera rolling as much as possible, even during casual conversation, as the most damning statements from both England and his wife came out spontaneously and unexpectedly.  While Ranke and England’s wife were chatting at the Englands’ home, Ranke told her that they had determined that the jet never hit the Pentagon, but kept on going, and, amazingly, she agreed!  The audio is hard to hear and she then refused to say more, but her meaning was clear.  Mrs. England, who works for the FBI, also said that she knows why her husband’s car was not impounded as evidence, but wasn’t going to tell.

England spontaneously offered this damning statement:  “You gotta understand something.  When people do things and get away with it, you…eventually it’s gonna come to me, and when it comes to me, it’s gonna be so big, I can’t do nothing about it.”

CIT also kept the camera running during the 90 minute drive to see England’s car, and captured a few very interesting statements on tape.  Although England speaks generally and indirectly, in the context of a conversation about the attack at the Pentagon, his meaning is clear.  

England:  I wasn’t supposed to be involved with this, this is too big for me, man, this is a big thing.  This is a world thing happening, I’m a small man…I’m not supposed to be involved in this.  This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff. 

Ranke:  Your point that these people who have all the money… 

England:  This is their thing.

Ranke:  This is their event.

England:  This is for them.

Ranke:  Meaning they’re doing it for their own reasons…

England:  (with conviction)  That’s right.  I’m not supposed to be in it. 

-----------------------------

Ranke:  They must have planned it.

England:  It was planned.

-----------------------

England:  You know what history is?  It’s not the truth.  It’s “his story.”  Has nothing to do with the truth.

As someone who has been researching the 9/11 story for two years, and has experienced mockery, abuse and denials from the government and media, it was a thrill to hear someone who was directly involved in the cover-up to admit on tape that it was a big event, a world event, planned by rich people for their own reasons. 

Incredibly, once Ranke explained that 13 witnesses had all placed the jet at the north side of the Citgo station, on a trajectory that could not have knocked down the five light poles, England changed his story and declared that he was not where all the photographs show him to be, but actually well north of Columbia Pike – where no light poles were knocked down. 

Ranke showed England numerous photos of himself, his damaged cab and the downed light pole on the bridge over Columbia Pike.  Even faced with incontrovertible evidence of his exact location, England resolutely maintained that pictures don’t always tell the truth and that the accident with the light pole had taken place much further north.

After watching the 90 minute video of the interview with Lloyde England, the man is completely discredited.  Ranke points out that England may well be a victim himself, in that he may have been forced to tell the story of the pole impaling his windshield.  But his story is so incredible, and his protestations that he was not in the location where multiple photos and videos place him to be on that day are so absurd, that Lloyde England’s account now stands as perhaps the most vulnerable point in the edifice of lies that constitute the official story of the attack on the Pentagon.

Highly engineered explosives found in WTC rubble

This incredible discovery has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  Lead author Niels H. Harrit was interviewed for ten minutes on Danish television, and gave a concise and compelling explanation about the importance of this finding.  Watch him here:

As reported by Raw Story:

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

Dr. Stephen Jones explains what "peer reviewed" means here:

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team months of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including three papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a long paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with many color images and graphs. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University or by the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did not mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): unless an objector actually publishes his or her objection in a peer-reviewed established journal, (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.  You should not worry about non-published objections either. 

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection published in an established peer-reviewd journal?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands."

Chicago Sun Times picks up "Is it true that truthers never get laid?"

How Citizen Investigation Team Solved the Pentagon Riddle

published in the April, 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Two California men who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have compiled impressive video evidence that the plane seen flying towards the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 could not have caused the death and damage at the Pentagon, nor the damage to five light poles outside the Pentagon. 

Frustrated with the inability of 9/11 researchers to do anything other than speculate about what really happened that day, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis decided to take matters into their own hands.  They have repeatedly flown in from southern California, canvassed the area near the Pentagon on foot to find people who saw a plane just prior to the fireball, and then quizzed these eye-witnesses extensively on camera to establish exactly what they saw, when they saw it and where they saw it from.  

Their research is summarized at their website, as well as in four DVDs containing interviews with 13 people who attest that they saw a plane fly to the north of the Citgo gas station on Pentagon property, not south of the Citgo station as required by the official story. 

CIT had each witness draw the flight path they saw on a map; the compilation from all the witnesses is shown below.  The yellow lines clustered together towards the top of the map are from the witnesses, the straight blue line angling up from the bottom edge of the map is the official flight path of the plane, as described by the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB).

Taken together, the 13 witnesses deliver a devastating blow to the official story about the Pentagon attack.  Five 40 foot, 247 pound light poles were knocked down that day, and if the plane flew north of the Citgo station, it could not have knocked down those poles.  The west side of the Pentagon was damaged as if it was hit by a plane heading north, with the zone of destruction angling north.  If the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station before hitting the Pentagon, it would not have caused this kind of damage.

CIT’s evidence is compelling for a number of reasons.  Three of their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who were on duty at the time of the attack.  Most of the others were government employees at their jobs, and their presence at that place and time can be verified.  This stands in sharp contrast to the witnesses who claim they saw the attack from their cars, as their presence on the road cannot be confirmed.   

Physics so simple even a 9/11 truther can understand it

Now I get it!  It was right in front of my eyes all this time!

Doctors, lawyers, pastors and politicians form new 9/11 truth groups

As the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001, percolates out into the population, new groups have sprung up to reject the official propaganda and get the word out about how the wool has been pulled over our eyes.

I'll let these groups speak for themselves; their links are here:

Medical professionals for 9/11 truth

Lawyers for 9/11 truth

Religious leaders for 9/11 truth

Political leaders for 9/11 truth

These brave patriots join the many truth groups that already exist, such as:

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

Physics 911

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Plus, there are hundreds of local truth groups, from San Diego to Toronto, north Texas to Vancouver.  Where ever you are, there is most likely a truth group near you. 

What I'd really like to see, and what we most need to see, is a Journalists for 9/11 Truth.  When will that happen?

9/11 truth on KBDI Channel 12 in Denver

In connection with their fundraising drive, PBS affiliate KBDI is showing Aaron Russo's 180 minute film "Freedom to Fascism," and interviewed trial attorney Earl Staelin of Colorado 9/11 Visibility on the air. 

Big props to KBDI for surging out ahead and leaving all other TV stations in the dust! 

Denver listeners now have a chance to learn the truth about 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and the covert plan to lead us to a fascist one world government. 

Irish musician Jim Corr speaks out about 9/11 Truth

Jim Corr of the Irish band the Corrs gave an eloquent 10 minute interview back in June about the New World Order, 9/11 and the plan for a global dictatorship. He does a great job of explaining it to his apparently completely naive host. Thank you Jim for speaking out.

Jim has a website, here is an excerpt from his homepage:

The light at the end of the tunnel is that millions upon millions of people are waking up to this unfolding Orwellian nightmarish agenda which I have spoken about on radio, and which will be averted as soon as we collectively wake up! 



The unfortunate reality is that the mainstream media is failing the people in crucial areas. In order for us to get closer to the full truth, we need to circumvent it, because it's controlled and indeed mostly owned by a handful of elite multi-national corporations controlled by the global elite that have a vested interest in keeping the full truth from us lest we awaken to the real agenda that's being played out behind the scenes. Am I saying that Irish national television and radio for example could be lying to the people all the time? Of course not. But they are most likely getting their international news from the likes of either Reuters or the Associated Press which are controlled news agencies. This realisation by a lot of people goes some way toward explaining the dramatic rise in alternative media where more and more of us are now getting our news from sources we feel we can trust better, particularly on the internet.

You will meet people as I do occasionaly who are unable to grasp the reality of what's really going on. You may even meet them amongst family and friends but don't get frustrated, It is understandably inconceivable for some people the contemplation that some governments at the behest of their globalist puppeteers could be staging terrorist attacks against their own populations, particularly for people who's reality doesn't extend beyond the Television set which is being used highly effectively as a Weapon of Mass Deception.

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

--Dresden James

note:  I love this quote, but can't find any information about who Dresden James was. Anyone know?

One firefighters story and why he founded Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth

Published October 27, 2008 in the Chicago Sun Times and Reuters

Erik Lawyer, a 12 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department with Truck 3, founded Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and their website went up in August, 2008.  Erik's essay about how he came to 9/11 Truth is both moving and deeply honest.  He admits that he was blind, that he hadn't wanted to really look at the facts, that he in fact thought that 9/11 truthers were somehow unpatriotic or assisting the enemy. 

Eventually, at the prodding of a friend, he DID look at the facts and what he learned changed his life.  He is now on a mission to inspire other firefighters to stand up for the truth, and to harness their trademark courage into a mission more important than a single burning building; for right now our entire democracy and way of life is going up in flames. 

An excerpt from Erik's story is below.  The full text can be found here.

Erik Lawyer
Founding Member, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
August 23, 2008

"I’ve been a conservative my entire life; a registered Republican since I could vote.  I am a self proclaimed Patriot with George Washington as one of my all time heroes.  So when conspiracy theories quickly surfaced, and “Liberals” cried foul on the erosion of civil liberties, I chalked it up to their political beliefs and bitterness towards the Republican President.  I read many debunking articles - including Popular Mechanics - and watched many debunking videos including, Farenhype 9/11.  I was convinced that these “Liberals” were misinformed and were grasping at straws to discredit the “official” story.  Like most people with strong opinions, instead of looking at all the facts, I was specifically looking for anything that supported my own beliefs.  As soon as I discovered any inaccuracy in a conspiracy claim, I wrote it off.  My father, a big city cop and Korean War veteran, loved to say, “don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up!”  Well, I had my mind made up. I told conspiracy theorists like my own Truck Officer, Lt. Earl Emerson, that they were insane if they thought anyone other than the terrorists did this.  Heck, we have ID cards, security camera videos, Bin Laden confession tapes - how much clearer did they need it?  The years went on and I was satisfied in my beliefs.  I even believed these “Wackos” that doubted the “official” story were distracting our country from focusing on the real threat of terrorism.

Richard Gage on the Peter B. Collins Show on March 8, 2008

Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is an articulate, persuasive and personable debunker of the official 9/11 myth.

In this interview on a San Francisco radio station, he talks about eye-witness reports of a countdown ("three, two, one") and then a huge explosion just prior to the collapse of World Trade Center 7. He talks about Larry Silverstein saying on public television "we made the decision to pull it, and then watched the building come down."

Although Silverstein has since tried to cover his faux pas by protesting that he was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the building, this makes little sense.  As Gage points out in this radio interview, buildings do not spontaneously collapse simply because humans exit the building -- they collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint only when they are brought down by controlled demolition.

 

The Conservative Voice speaks out for 9/11 truth

In my experience, Republicans and those who identify with the conservative movement are the group that is most reluctant to look at the evidence that the US government lied to us about 9/11. 

Conservatives would probably say that it is just another example of bleeding heart liberals indulging in knee jerk Bush bashing, with the added bonus of providing a lily-livered excuse to end our glorious mission to bring democracy to the Middle East.  Cause we know that all liberals hate war, no matter how justified.  If hordes of angry Islamo-fascists with Uzis were scrambling up the beach at Coney Island, liberals would probably first want to try diplomacy, right?

If you find yourself nodding in agreement to what I just wrote, you should check out the column by Israeli Sam Vaknin in The Conservative Voice, which yesterday was a 6,048 word interview with Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin.  He provides a forum for one of the leading lights of the 9/11 truth movement to lay out his argument in a methodical fashion that will get even conservatives questioning the story we were all told about that fateful day. 

An excerpt from that interview:

First, President Bush was in a classroom in Florida when the second of the Twin Towers was struck. Although the first strike had been dismissed as an accident, this second one was taken as evidence that America was "under attack," as Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, reportedly whispered in his ear. Back in the White House, the Secret Service took Vice President Cheney down to the bunker under the White House. But the Secret Service agents with Bush allowed him to stay in the classroom for another 10 minutes, as shown by a video that was included in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." If the attacks had really been, as they seemed, surprise attacks by terrorists going after high-value targets, the Secret Service agents would have feared that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school at that very minute. Their failure to hustle Bush away thereby implied that they knew that Bush was in no danger because they knew who was in control of the planes. The White House's apparently belated recognition of this implication was manifested a year later (before the video had emerged on the Internet), when it started telling a different story, claiming that Bush left the classroom within seconds after being told about the second strike on the Twin Towers ("9/11 Contradictions," Ch. 1).

Second, the White House and the Pentagon also later found it necessary to distort the truth about where Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers were between 9 and 10 AM that morning. Richard Clarke reported in his book, "Against All Enemies" that Myers and Rumsfeld were in the Pentagon's teleconferencing studio participating in his White House video conference, but Myers and Rumsfeld both claimed that they were elsewhere. Although Clarke and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported that Cheney was down in the bunker before 9:20, the 9/11 Commission claimed that he didn't enter it until almost 10:00 (20 minutes after the attack on the Pentagon and just before the crash of Flight 93). And although Clarke reported that he received the shootdown order from Cheney by 9:50 (at least 13 minutes before Flight 93 went down), the Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue this authorization until after 10:15 ("9/11 Contradictions," Chs. 2-7).

Third, much of the evidence that the planes had been hijacked was provided by people who reported that they had received cell phone calls from relatives or crew members on board the planes. About a dozen cell phone calls were reported from Flight 93 alone. But after the 9/11 Truth Movement publicized the fact that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had not been technologically possible in 2001, the FBI changed its report, saying that the only cell phone calls from any of the four airliners were two that occurred when Flight 93 had descended to 5,000 feet (at which altitude they would have been at least arguably possible). This change of story meant, among other things, that the FBI, having stated in an affidavit in 2001 that American 11 flight attendant Amy Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call, needed to fabricate a very implausible tale to support its revised claim that she had actually used an onboard phone ("The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [henceforth NPHR], Chs. 3 & 6).

Fourth, the military's original explanation as to why it was unable to intercept the first three flights before they hit their targets was so obviously problematic that it needed to be changed. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had shown that, even if the FAA had been as slow in notifying the military as NORAD claimed in 2001, there had still been sufficient time for the flights to have been intercepted, especially Flights 175 and 77. So the 9/11 Commission in 2004 simply created a new timeline, claiming, wholly implausibly, that the FAA had not notified the military at all about those two flights ("9/11 Contradictions," Chs. 10 & 11).

Get Griffins six other points here.

Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again To Buy Sept. 11 Gifts

From The Onion, America's Finest News Source

September 1, 2008 | Issue 44•36

WASHINGTON—Busy dealing with important paperwork and other vice presidential duties in recent weeks, Dick Cheney was forced to put off until the last minute a cherished annual tradition: gift-shopping for his favorite holiday, 9/11.

"I looked at the calendar yesterday, and I couldn't believe my eyes—9/11 is almost here!" a rosy-cheeked Cheney said upon returning to the White House Sunday with two giant bags overflowing with gift-wrapped boxes and big red bows. "It's the most wonderful time of the year."

The vice president strolls happily down New York's Park Avenue, picking up the last few 9/11 presents for his friends at the Pentagon.

While Cheney is known by many to be cold and taciturn for the other 11 months of the year, those close to the vice president say there is something about the 9/11 season that puts a smile on his face and a spring in his step. Each Sept. 11 morning since 2001, Cheney has come to work donning a fireman costume and handed out small, thoughtful gifts to all White House staffers. In addition, at his home on 9/11 Eve, Cheney lays out large piles of presents for his children and grandchildren underneath the colorfully lit, six-foot-tall 9/11 towers that he sets up by the fireplace.

read the rest at The Onion

NIST discovers brand new property of the universe

Now that we know, thanks to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that small office fires can cause "thermal expansion" and bring down a building in a symmetrical free-fall collapse, our world is gonna change....