Monday, July 5, 2010

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack


Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming
August 30t 7:42 AM _Print _


Witness flight path vs official flight path
Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the
government's story to be a "monstrous lie"
A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack
on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the
Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation,
"conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the
violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a
surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation
involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."
They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video
presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect
and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists,
writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.
The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in
Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data
related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens
of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact
locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building
that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo
Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.
"There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the
world who were suspicious of the government's story about what had
happened at the Pentagon that day," Ranke explains. "The doubts were initially
fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a
757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and
many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional
pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request
in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines
Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too
high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either
the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had
released fraudulent data, or both."
"We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the
dead-end theorizing that was taking place", says Marquis of the project's
genesis. "We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really
happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and
interviewed everyday people about what they saw."

Investigation Team_ ( on _Vimeo_ ( .When
these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing
picture, say the researchers.
"To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very
specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon
in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles
that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage
to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society
of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew
on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the
most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously,
and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that
the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building.
It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory
would have caused a very different damage path."
It wasn't just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that
the team spoke with, however.
"We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw
the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion",
says Marquis. "We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on
the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched
it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of
A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that "More than a third
of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11
terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could
go to war in the Middle East." Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge
it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that "criminal
elements within the U.S. government" were complicit in the attacks.
"If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not
blame you," reads a note on the front page of their website, "We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we
want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own
eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the
eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did."
Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has
already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their
website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind
Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the
caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements
on the website includes praise from a wide
array of distinguished and well-respected Americans.
Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild,
Ed Asner, calls the film a "reasoned, and methodical look at witness
testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th".
Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of
the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film "successfully
rebuts the official account of Flight 77's flight path on 9/11 as it
approached the Pentagon".
"If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously
reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security
Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon
on 9/11/2001", says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo.
Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbour Revisited: 9/11,
the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is "pleased to be
able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm", while scholar,
author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves "that the
official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack
must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamikaze crash of a
hijacked commercial jet."
Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says "The
DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness
evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming
argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11".
Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth (, a coalition of over 700 professional architects and
engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction
of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade
Center 7), calls the film "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and says that
it "deserves serious attention".
Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National
Security Alert "the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time" and "a must see
for every citizen in our country".
"Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do
so at their own peril", warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine
pilot who has flown 303 combat missions.
The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at _here_
( .
National Security Alert can be viewed for free online _here_
( .

( - We are an organization of independent citizens who have embarked on a guerrilla reporting effort to get to the bottom of the truth behind the
9/11 attack on the Pentagon.
Here is an outline of a suggested strategy. Sample letters will be live
soon, and will be in Rich Text Format (RTF). Copies of National Security
Alert can be obtained _here_
( .

Preparation: Compile a list of media figures, authority figures, and
elected representatives (politicians), both local and national. Obviously the
list could be endless, so prioritize and maintain a manageable workload.
Perhaps set a goal to send out letters to a certain number of individuals
every week. Also, make sure to always address specific individuals by name.
This is critical if we expect to ever force accountability.

Stage 1: Send each individual on your list a copy of the National Security
Alert DVD, along with a personalized letter requesting that they view the
evidence and respond appropriately depending on their position. Request that
media people report on it. Request that elected representatives and other
appropriate authorities seek indictments. If you can afford to send all
or some of them registered mail that would be ideal for documentation

Stage 2: Send them a personally addressed follow up letter two weeks later
asking if they received the first letter and have viewed the evidence.

Stage 3: If you have still not received a response by the time two more
weeks elapse, send a third letter suggesting that their failure to respond and
act on the evidence is being documented and will be published if they
continue to fail to take action. Request a response by a certain deadline as to
what they plan to do about the information. Be firm, but polite.

Stage 4: If you still haven't received a response by your declared
deadline, send them a final letter telling them that you are deeply disappointed
that they have failed to respond appropriately and informing them that
their failure to respond has been documented and will be published. The same
can apply even if you have received a response and they simply refuse to act
on the information. Such a failure to act on the part of politicians and
authority figures is particularly problematic for them since their inaction
to the information is tantamount to the crimes of _obstruction of
justice_ ( ,
misprision of treason_ ( , and
_misprision of a felony_
( . Since this is the final letter, remind them of
this with one final request for a response.

Stage 5: Report back to this website with your results after you feel you
have exhausted all efforts with any particular individual. We will
maintain a published list of individuals who have failed to respond or take
action, and we will build a case for the aforementioned crimes when appropriate.
The more evidence of your correspondence you can make available the
stronger case we will have.

However much pressure you decide to put on any specific individual is up
to you, but the more aggressive you get within legal boundaries the better.
For instance, you may want to show up and confront some of the most
critical individuals on your list in person if they insist on being complicit in
the on-going cover-up. Get them to tell you to your face (or your video
camera) exactly why they refuse to do anything about the evidence, if that is
the case. This type of action is not the least bit out of line or uncalled
for given that the implications of the information you are providing them
with are literally a matter of life and death.

This is strictly a non-violent campaign, and again, it is an organized
effort with the main goal of seeking out honest people who are able to
understand the implications of this evidence and who are in a position to do
something about it in the public and/or legal arenas, while putting legal
pressure on those who insist on keeping this important information suppressed.
Statist, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Facist, Bolshevist, Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian, Financist but instead, a Promoter of Liberty Under God For
Christians and Non-Christians Alike.
....................................................For a copy of
Amendment 28: E mail _Restoreusa@aol.com_ (

No comments:

Post a Comment