The USA Today Parade (featuring Joel Sucherman & Mike Walter)

This presentation shows you the actual point of view that witnesses on Route 27 would have of the Pentagon attack. Not that many would be in a position to see the plane at all; but most of those who could see it still wouldn’t have been able to see the alleged impact. We examine the suspicious coincidences surrounding the high number of USA Today reporters and editors and feature our exclusive interview with Joel Sucherman.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3506984191989953274

Interesting video, thanks for continuing to document...

the Pentagon anomalies...

I have a quick question to CIT, who I regard as the forefront researchers regarding the Pentagon.

I mainly research the WTC but recently spent some time researching the E-4B witnessed in Washington airspace on Anderson Cooper 360.

Blog Link : http://www.911blogger.com/node/11324

---

Whilst reviewing the live CNN feed for that morning, the following was mentioned.

At 9:48am, a senior airforce officer who was outside, saw a military helicopter circle the building, disappeared behind the building where the heliport is and witnessed a fireball rise into the sky.

Does CIT know who this is ? Being an airforce officer it's very unlikely he is mistaken...

---

Video details etc can be found at : http://www.911blogger.com/node/11324?page=1#comment-161001

---

Thanks for all you guys do, please keep up the great work

Best wishes

helicopter and E4B

Thanks 911veritas!

There was no helicopter crash. There were lots of strange things initially reported and this was one of them.

You said: "Being an airforce officer it's very unlikely he is mistaken".

I sure wouldn't go that far! This could certainly be disinfo put out there to help sow confusion or they may have seen a real helicopter and simply thought it crashed.

I lean more towards disinfo because we also get this in Mikey Bell's 2nd hand account told by his boss Jack Singleton of Singleton electric who was a contractor working for the "renovation" project.

Any "witness" who was part of the renovation is automatically suspect. Particularly Frank Probst and Don Mason who had a special place in the ASCE report.

Perhaps not so coincidentally all 3 witnesses featured in the ASCE report were part of the renovation project.

As far as the E4B goes we believe it was merely called in, like the c-130, to provide a 2nd plane cover story for anyone who may have seen the plane fly over the building.
More about that here: http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic5.htm
(that doesn't mean they were in on the operation. In fact we believe the c-130 pilot is an innocent dupe because he did not see the attack or even know the smoke was coming from the pentagon at first because he was so far away)

It's quite odd that CNN would out of the blue do this piece on the E4B and link it so heavily to "conspiracy theorists".

We have spoken with many genuine witnesses who describe "the" plane that flew tree-top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion as "white".

I'm talking about previously unpublished witnesses from the neighborhoods that we found from canvassing.

So it makes sense that they would continue to trumpet reports of the E4B and C-130 for the purpose of confusing any witnesses who saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

Some Points

Interesting interview and nice shots of the Pentagon highway but I'm going to have to once again add my 5 cents.

1. Even if the trees (partially) blocked the view of the Pentagon, would they block the view of the plane flying over the Pentagon? As you can see, it wouldn't. In fact, there are highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides. The cars there wouldn't miss the plane flying by the other side.

2. The trees would not block witnesses from seeing the plane approach the Pentagon. I don't think you would debate this point, but it needs to be made.

3. Why fly a plane over the Pentagon in the first place, when it would be much easier to fly it into the building and make the hijackers look guilty?

4. A passenger jet is not something you plan to hide with a bunch of trees. Come on. In fact, many described the plane as "at tree-top" height before its impact. It would be a pretty stunning flyover if it flew over the Pentagon that low. And yes, someone would have reported it. They didn't.

5. Still no one has come forward to claim a passenger jet flew over the Pentagon. Sorry, those C-130 witnesses (most of whom claimed there were two separate planes and claimed the first hit the Pentagon) don't count.

6. As Sucherman says, there was "heavier than usual traffic", and therefore many potential witnesses to the attack with a highway literally right next to the Pentagon. You would have to fool a lot of people simultaneously to pull off a flyover, and then--for what motive? To save the plane? To potentially make the pilot look it really was an incompetent hijacker (who never flew the planes before) and thus exposing the entire official story as a farce?

7. Sucherman says there were "no trees": he's relying on his memory of 6 years ago. Memories are unreliable. Enough said.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

obviously you missed the point.

This presentation has nothing to do with the flyover hypothesis. It demonstrates the extreme control the complicit mainstream media has over the previously published accounts that you so fervently tout without lifting a finger to bother trying to confirm or refute.

Your faith in mainstream media is more than a bit hypocritical.

1. Irrelevant to the presentation. The 911 calls were confiscated and this presentation demonstrates how the media reports were controlled. Yet you are content to accept what they report as the definitive and final truth while simultaneously claiming 9/11 was an inside job. Go figure.

2. The point also needs to be made that anyone at the end of that .16 mile stretch would NOT be able to see the plane approach from behind them according to the angle required in the official story. So since the better part of that .16 mile area had the alleged impact point covered by trees.......the amount of people who would be able to physically see the alleged impact are greatly reduced.

3. What does this have to do with the presentation? Nothing. But the reason is because they wanted complete control of the damage to their own headquarters and they wanted to minimize chances for failure. The topography is complex with many obstacles and it would be quite difficult to even fly a drone with perfect military precision low and level to the ground with a radical descent after the navy annex without risking the plane crashing before it hit the desired target.

4. The plane would only be visible for about 2 seconds and the explosion and subsequent fireball would divert everyones attention AS WELL AS concealed the plane as it flew away. YOU DO NOT KNOW what people reported because the 911 calls were confiscated and the mainstream media controlled the info, planted witnesses, and controlled the situation.

5. The C-130 witnesses are lying because the c-130 did not shadow the plane and veer off over the pentagon immediately after the explosion. Why would they lie? Because it's a cover story. The 911 calls were confiscated and the mainstream media controlled what was reported as this presentation fully demonstrates. Why do you have so much faith in the mainstream media? Why do you think you know what people saw when you haven't bothered calling a single witness to confirm their accounts?

6. Clearly you have not been to the area, surveyed the topography, or analyzed the flight path. Nobody on route 27 would see much at all. Sure someone may have seen the plane fly over from Pentagon City or on the other side of the Pentagon but they were simply told it was a 2nd plane. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

7. Sucherman, Walter and all the USA Today/Gannett employees who were allegedly and conveniently within that .16 of a mile stretch claim they saw the impact. That is not a memory issue.

You have made the point loud and clear that you have 100% faith in the mainstream media regardless of the dubious and contradictory details surrounding what they report Arabasque. Your intellectually dishonest approach to 9/11 truth is fast becoming legendary.

The ad-hominem is intellectually dishonest

"Your intellectually dishonest approach to 9/11 truth is fast becoming legendary."

Your attempts at comedy are noted and ignored.

“One of the telltale signs of disinformation is that the people promoting it engage in [ad-hominems]. Such attacks have been effectively used to intimidate logical critiques of nonsensical theories.” Jim Hoffman

Jim Hoffman comments on the PentaCon flyover theory (linking to my review):

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/911weknow.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/pentacon.html

"PentaCon:

Asserts a credulity-stretching theory that the Pentagon attack plane overflew the building:
Without being noticed.
Implying that all the damage to the building and surroundings was faked.
Bases entire case on selected statements from four eyewitnesses 3-5 years after the fact.
Ignores testimony of three of the four same witnesses that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
Ignores the extensive body of eyewitness accounts, which roundly contradicts the theory."

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

That is the best you have?

Hoffman has made no direct reference to the evidence whatsoever and his statement is nothing but an argument from incredulity. Everyone please see my response to him here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302551/pg1

LEH wisely stated: "Griffin points out that when witness statements contradict each other, greater emphasis should be given to the ones which are in conflict with the official story, all else being equal."

I replied:

This is why it makes infinite more sense to accept the corroborated north side claim from the Citgo witnesses over their belief of the impact.

Both claims can not be simultaneously true so everyone MUST choose one. The north side claim proves a military deception and their belief in the impact supports the official story.

How could any 9/11 truth fighter dismiss evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job based solely on the fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived as intended by the perps?

Craig, You are absolutely

Craig,

You are absolutely correct that one has to spend time scoping out various sight angles on the ground in order to see that any one view of the alleged trajectory of the plane would be extraordinarily brief. As well, very low flying aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon is the rule, not the exception. When driving between the Pentagon and National Airport, many planes coming in for a landing appear to be flying low over the Pentagon.

Griffin points out that when witness statements contradict each other, greater emphasis should be given to the ones which are in conflict with the official story, all else being equal. The reason is that if one believes that certain elements of the OCT are false and misinformation is planted early on -- such as Harley Guy and the early, curiously prescient explanations for the collapses inserted into real-time coverage of the WTC -- one should assume the possibility exists for similar machinations at all the sites. The desire to plant information or solicit retroactive statements to support the official version of events is clear, but what are the motivations of the witnesses who report anomolies?

The USA Today/Gannett witnesses can claim some conflicts of interest. Gannett is the publisher of Army Times, Navy Times, Defense Weekly, etc. In addition to the propaganda fed daily though USA today, it is essentially a publishing arm of the military propaganda machine. (Remember that the full background of Oswald, indentified as the "man who killed Kennedy," was published in newspapers before he'd even been charged in Dallas.) Still wonder why nine out of ten of the USA Today witnesses were so conveniently postitioned to give statements? Only one claimed to see it from the USA Today building.

What are we to make of the witnesses -- or those quoting witnesses -- who claim to have experienced the impossible, such as seeing the pilot standing in the cockpit at 400+ mph, noting closed window shades during same, experiencing no bodily harm while in a car whose antenna is snapped off by the plane? We KNOW from those statements that lies were told. If the official Pentagon narrative were true and obvious, why the need to bolster it with such nonsense?

Debris from the Challenger disaster was spread over several states, yet it was carefully gathered, meticulously reconstructed, and photographically documented. I'm still waiting for my tour of the hangar containing Flight 77. If we throw away all of the witness statements altogether, and just seek evidence of a 757, a different story emerges. I have posed this before to Arabesque and the Hoffman squad: evidence of much wider damage than shown in LC doesn't add up to a Boeing; that damage is only along the first floor. A Boeing's wings are too tall to cause that low, wide damage unless the engines were deeply submerged in the ground, plowing up a small mountain of lawn against the facade. Something else caused the extended first floor damage. As Dave McGowan pointed out, we are not asked to believe that the Boeing disappeared into a 7-story building -- we are essentially asked to believe that it disappeared into a 2-story building.

You get it.

Notice how Arabasque will not reply to the information directly and instead proceeds to attack the flyover alternative that is not even mentioned in the presentation.

>>>>>Griffin points out that when witness statements contradict each other, greater emphasis should be given to the ones which are in conflict with the official story, all else being equal.

Exactly!

This is why it makes infinite more sense to accept the corroborated north side claim from the Citgo witnesses over their belief of the impact.

Both claims can not be simultaneously true so everyone MUST choose one. The north side claim proves a military deception and their belief in the impact supports the official story.

How could any 9/11 truth fighter dismiss evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job based solely on the fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived as intended by the perps?

That would be like suggesting that claims of controlled demoltion of the WTC should be dismissed because witnesses were fooled into believing the collapse was the result of the impact from the planes.

The logic is ludicrous.

deleted.

double post.

Your 5 cents? Your money is no good here, friend.

I know Craig responded to this, but I will give my response to as well. Some points may be repeated.

=============================================================================

Interesting interview and nice shots of the Pentagon highway but I'm going to have to once again add my 5 cents.

>>>>1. Even if the trees (partially) blocked the view of the Pentagon, would they block the view of the plane flying over the Pentagon? As you can see, it wouldn't. In fact, there are highways surrounding the Pentagon on all sides. The cars there wouldn't miss the plane flying by the other side.

--Again, if the plane flew over or away, at the speed it was travelling the sequence would be undetected. You see a plane, you see an explosion-the plane is gone. Remember, the plane keeps moving, it does not stand still...it would have been gone- up and over the river. If the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in", like one WUSA reporter said a witness told him, that means it would have banked to the left and out over the river, possibly even pulling a high G turn out of there. Regardless, people did report the plane crash down on the other side of the Pentagon,
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5524

The 911 calls and transcripts were confiscated and sequestered as Craig pointed out.

And what if someone did see or think it flew over or away from that position? What next, Arabesque? You see Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman talking about how they saw an American Airlines impact the building. Yet you think you saw it fly over or away. What then? Do you challenge every lying operative or asset that they used? Would you be incredibly scared after seeing a story develop that you know didn't happen? Do you go around contacting the media telling your story??? What would they do? AA and the American Gov't is telling the world American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Do you expect a mob of these flyover witnesses to come marching down Pennsylvania Ave? Is there a support group where they all meet and recount their experiences and what they saw???? Is every single flyover/away witness a conspiracy minded people or do they believe in gov't benevolence? Meaning, would they believe the second plane cover story? What about people on the impact side? Wouldn't some think it hit, while some though it went over??? Which would the reporter interview? The impact or the flyover witness? Remember two planes just hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack. Would reporters be confused? Why did the reporter speaking with Isabel James ask her very slowly and clearly if she "*actually* saw the plane hit the building" and if she "only saw one plane"? Perhaps because she was confused by reports and accounts of the plane not hitting and a plane flying away??????

What about witnesses around the highway? Are they not subject to these same conditions? What if they did see a plane fly over or away? Have you ever been there? Do you realize how far the pentagon is from that highway in relation to the naked eye? Do you realize planes fly over or by EVERY 3 minutes?!?!?! (In fact, Levi Stephens said, while on the phone with his sister in his delivery van, that when he saw the plane come over the Navy Annex he didn't think anything of it since planes fly over all the time, it's only when he saw it turn OR BANK toward the pentagon that he began to take notice and think something was seriously wrong.) Do you realize how small a 757-737 is in relation to the Pentagon???? If someone is driving down 395 S, isn't it possible like most normal people they are looking straight ahead, then see an explosion, which catches their eye which leaves them OBLVIOUS to the jet flying AWAY from them, UP RIVER??? In fact, here is an overhead shot showing you the spots where you can see the Pentagon/flyaway(green) versus not being able to see them(red). This is only for Southbound, because northbound lanes would not have a view, because their backs would be turned. I do concede there is one portion of 395 North where you might be able to see the fly away, but you can't see the impact.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/395ActualPOV.jpg

You would know this if you actually went there and documented things in person, Arabesque.

You would also know, if you actually spoke with witnesses, that people are scared. I can personally attest to this. People in Shanksville have said they DO NOT want to talk about the little UAV, because "the have kids and lives". But you wouldn't know that because you are confined behind a computer writing blogs, and not critically analyzing and thinking or investigating. The ironic thing, is you yourself go around posting as the anonymous Arabesque, unless you post your name somewhere and I don't know it. And you have the nerve to post something from Jim Hoffman that calls US disinformation.

>>>>>2. The trees would not block witnesses from seeing the plane approach the Pentagon. I don't think you would debate this point, but it needs to be made.

--Well, no of course not, that is if they are twisting their head around to see it approach, since it would have been coming from behind them and to the left, considering the whole event was 1-3 seconds for any of them who were genuinely on the highway at the time that it flew over the highway. So what if they saw it approach? Does it negate the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo? Did you interview any witnesses who say otherwise?

>>>>>3. Why fly a plane over the Pentagon in the first place, when it would be much easier to fly it into the building and make the hijackers look guilty?

--Well why didn't he fly it over the mall and into the front of the Pentagon where the top brass was at, when he was approaching DC? (Yes, it did come over the old DC/DRA approach, NOT the NTSB approach-we can prove it.) Even if it did, why didn't he just make a left and dive? Why make the unecessary and risky spiral turn to the SW??? Why come in low over complex and obstacle ridden topography:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=8369&vie...
What about the VDOT antenna?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/IMG_9209.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/IMG_9205.jpg
What about the overhead sign and VDOT camera mast?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/382.jpg
Do the remote controlling perps have software that can accurately tell where the obstacles are at while it is moving at 530 mph? Do you have proof of this software? Do you have any links for this software? Or do I need to use my imagination? How does it come in low and level over the lawn with the required descent angle??? So did the perps know that the poles would just snap and fall over when hit by the wings or did they just cross their fingers and hope the plane would pull it off and not wreck it's wings, impeding a successful impact???? The fact is the flight path the perps chose alone DOES NOT make the hijackers look guilty.

>>>>>4. A passenger jet is not something you plan to hide with a bunch of trees. Come on. In fact, many described the plane as "at tree-top" height before its impact. It would be a pretty stunning flyover if it flew over the Pentagon that low. And yes, someone would have reported it. They didn't.

--Treetop level is just a term. You do know people generalize don't you? No one is saying they hid it behind the trees, we are saying they would have not had a clear view of the impact. So any details would be fabricated. LIKE MIKE WALTER'S.

>>>>>5. Still no one has come forward to claim a passenger jet flew over the Pentagon. Sorry, those C-130 witnesses (most of whom claimed there were two separate planes and claimed the first hit the Pentagon) don't count.

--And I explained why. The fact is, there is a "second" plane/jet veering away or over the Pentagon at the time of the "impact"/explosion/fireball. You simply can't refute it. There is only ONE "C-130 witness" that has it over the pentagon or veering away, and that is Kieth Wheelhouse. Everyone else in that category calls it a jet or a plane, in fact, Sucherman would not commit to it looking like or being a C-130.

>>>>>6. As Sucherman says, there was "heavier than usual traffic", and therefore many potential witnesses to the attack with a highway literally right next to the Pentagon. You would have to fool a lot of people simultaneously to pull off a flyover, and then--for what motive? To save the plane? To potentially make the pilot look it really was an incompetent hijacker (who never flew the planes before) and thus exposing the entire official story as a farce?

--Why not? They have incredulous truthers like you to help obfuscate the story. The motive? Accuracy and precision? A convincing news story complete with planted plane and body parts? Targeting a specific area with specific targets deep within wedge 1?????

>>>>7. Sucherman says there were "no trees": he's relying on his memory of 6 years ago. Memories are unreliable. Enough said.

--Please. Memories had nothing to do with it. He would know that the trees blocked his view of the impact point. He would have seen the plane pull up. Speaking of memories, what about this really fresh and confused one...

Skarlet: It made no sense. (...) A huge jet. Then it was gone. (...) "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?" That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did. (....) There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and *banked up* at the very last minute.

Are you trying to AGAIN insinuate that the witnesses we interviewed all MISREMEMBERED the same event? So what about Levi Stephens, him too? And our other star witness, him too?

This is so pointless it's embarrassing

The Gannett News building was a few miles from the Pentagon, and these people were on their way to work. You find that suspicious? Do you honestly think that a black ops team somehow fixed the traffic and paid off these reporters so that these folks would be on the highway at 9:30, and then planted plane parts on the Pentagon lawn after shooting a missile or global hawk into the Pentagon?

Do you really think that a few trees would obstruct one's impression of a JUMBO JET flying closely overhead and crashing into a building at 500mph?

Look, if you want to use your time wisely, why don't you take your cameras to whoever is in charge of not releasing the Pentagon videos and ask them why they won't release the videos? Or write FOIA requests for the videos?

Yes, the Pentagon has some anomalies; but this video is barking up the wrong tree. Consider what your theory would imply. That is, try reverse engineering your theory, and see if it makes any sense. Are you really setting out to prove that every single eyewitness (who number in the dozens) at the Pentagon is lying or was paid off or something? Or was told be sitting in traffic at exactly 9:37 on 9/11?

You don't get it.

Read LEH's post and get a clue.

>>>>The Gannett News building was a few miles from the Pentagon, and these people were on their way to work. You find that suspicious?

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the presentation. It was 9:30 and Sucherman admitted he was LATE for work. But even if he weren't how often do you think you are within .16 of a mile of at least 5 co-workers whom you all PERSONALLY KNOW on a busy highway in a major metropolis? Then add that with the fact that this was a world historical event and this was the prime location to view the plane in the final moments and ALL were reporters or editors of a mainstream media propaganda arm of the government with well known military ties. And you DON'T find it suspicious??

>>>>>Do you honestly think that a black ops team somehow fixed the traffic and paid off these reporters so that these folks would be on the highway at 9:30, and then planted plane parts on the Pentagon lawn after shooting a missile or global hawk into the Pentagon?

Nope. There is no proof that any of them were there at all other than Mike Walter. Although I do believe what few scraps of a plane were found most definitely WERE planted our team has fully debunked the missile and global hawk theories. Perhaps you should watch our full presentation www.ThePentaCon.com

>>>>>Do you really think that a few trees would obstruct one's impression of a JUMBO JET flying closely overhead and crashing into a building at 500mph?

After passing the highway, according to the official story, the plane would be a few feet off the ground. The trees most certainly DO completely block their view of the alleged impact point. This is clear from the video and images and from Mike Walter's own admission to Bryant Gumbel on 9/12/2001. Are you sure you watched the presentation?

>>>>>>>Look, if you want to use your time wisely, why don't you take your cameras to whoever is in charge of not releasing the Pentagon videos and ask them why they won't release the videos? Or write FOIA requests for the videos?

Haha! Comical! You are literally suggesting that we stop our on site guerrilla citizen investigation in favor of simply ASKING the perpetrators to give us proof that they did it. Is this a joke?

>>>>>>Are you really setting out to prove that every single eyewitness (who number in the dozens) at the Pentagon is lying or was paid off or something? Or was told be sitting in traffic at exactly 9:37 on 9/11?

Absolutely not. What you are failing to understand is that the topography of the area is so complex that virtually nobody would have a good view of the alleged impact point. Our presentation deals with the the best view possible which is a mere .16 of a mile stretch and EVEN THERE you can't see the impact point until you move underneath the official flight path.

Most of the witnesses are honest people who saw the plane, heard the explosion, and therefore simply deduced the impact. They were fooled by the military sleight of hand deception just like the entire world was fooled into believing the collapse of the towers that they watched live on tv was a direct result of the planes.

Of course some are complicit operatives who are lying. It's our duty as citizens to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. You can not believe that 9/11 was an inside job without understanding that real people (and a significant number of them) were involved. It makes zero sense to act incredulous over "black ops teams" and planted witnesses if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Who do you think rigged the WTC for demolition? Little elves?

I must say, Craig...

Though I've reserved comment on your work previous (being critical of your certain suppositions I find summing at only 2/3rds), your point-counterpoint here has raised my eyebrows. Sussing this out completely is still a tough road ahead, but you deserve overdue credit. Thank you.

As for me, I've felt a stedfast confidence in my grumpy opinion that IF an FAA certified A+P maintained commercial jet had actually smashed into the Pentagon as per the Official Narrative, somewhere between Commander "half-ass-pilot" In Chief Boy Bush, to the FBO (Fixed Base Operator) greasing the points and time/wear changing thousands of mandatory document source-to-junk parts on that plane... some CS should have produced a logbook indicating the same, and cross-check proving the demise of THAT jet in full view of the public. Clear provenance security video would have helped too.

That elements within the U.S. Government, and her now many complacent/complicit faculty, chose to cast this truly harmless procedure into a bullshit encasement of National Security ... became their own indictment of direct involvement in a massive deception against the American people, and further most fully mangled her already questionable relationship with the rest of the globe.

Such intentional destruction of a tenuous tranquility, by denying this issue such an easy solution... is capital treason. Period. The appearance of having intentionally fueled the fire of deeply divisive conspiracy culture, casting bother against brother, friend against friend, coworker against coworker... is incitement of domestic discontent beyond measure... beyond words mere language has yet crafted.

The charge of inside job is an inescapable conclusion, just as the aether knows we Americans have an inescapable responsibility to hold our own to account... or risk our collective peril.

Hope we can meet. I'm in the neighborhood. And again, thank you.

e

No thanks necessary as it is my duty.

But thank YOU for recognizing logic, truth, evidence, and facts over dogmatic beliefs and for being willing to speak out.

That is beyond what most people can ever mentally accomplish.

The notion that the work of CIT could be considered "controversial" for a single moment strains credulity beyond belief. We are not making things up based on speculation and a desire for conspiracy. We are reporting information that we obtain FIRST HAND and back up with video taped evidence.

There is no debate about the north side claim. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and CONTINUES to be supported beyond what we have presented as of yet. All the movement needs to do is focus serious attention on this evidence and the light poles and a new "investigation" will be all but guaranteed. Between the anomalous FDR and the fact that all the witnesses saw the plane in the WRONG place a military deception has been thoroughly established.

The fake "divide" in the movement is merely that. I have presented at 3 9/11 truth conferences this year and at all it was clear that no less than 95% of the people who show up do not accept the notion of a 757 impact for a second. There are a few loudmouths online creating the impression of a "division" but it's not real.

In the neighborhood?

Of COURSE we can meet!

cit@thepentacon.com

Flight 77 didnt hit the

Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon. the usual suspects spend so much time trying to prove that it did but have so far failed as much as the government has in trying to prove the official Pentagon story.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA