How many Pentagon witnesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?

757 impact proponents seem to have no problem citing mainstream media reports with zero research, analysis, confirmation, or investigation.

Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.

Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently, anonymous blogger Arabasque.

CIT has shown you why we can't trust a lot of these suspect witnesses and why it's so important to seek out previously unknown witnesses if we want to find the real truth.

Due to the north of the citgo evidence we focus a lot of attention on the light poles and see them as the key physical evidence proving an outright deception on 9/11.

So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.

Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road. We recently spoke with Vin Naryanan who didn't even believe that ANY poles were hit at all.

Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says "Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects" (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.)

CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has failed to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.

I will now address each of the witnesses he presents in order to explain how the information Arabasque asserts is false and downright deceptive in how it is presented.

1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]

Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.

2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]

Utility pole guide wire? Bruce Elliot does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit at all. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabasque is 0 for 2.

3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]

Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? Arabasque is 0 for 3.

4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]

Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabasque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post over 4 months ago. That unfortunately proves he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.

TFM: Can you describe what it felt like to see the Pentagon in person, for the first time after the attack?

Lee Evey: It was a shock. Everyone has seen pictures of the outer wall. Naturally, it was shocking to see on the front page of the newspaper and on television. But believe me, as shocking as those things were, they didn't come anywhere close to the visceral response I got when I saw it myself.

5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]

Don Fortunato was at the Arlington County police department at the time of the attack, he drove to scene after the fact and saw the staged scene. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole and he couldn't have because, like Lee Evey, he was not a witness to the attack at all either. Arabasque is 0 for 5.

Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office, when he heard a muffled explosion—construction, he thought. Then his radio started squawking news of a plane crash at the Pentagon. “I grabbed my radio, ran to my car and pulled on my bulletproof vest and headed toward the thick, black smoke billowing out of the sky,” he said. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.

6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]

Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabasque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. "telephone poles" were downed at all. Arabasque is 0 for 6.

7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]

Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We weren't able to find any contact information for this individual but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. Arabasque is 0 for 7.

8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]

Like Lee Evey and Don Fortunato; Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabasque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.

My office is 8 miles from the site. The recovery teams working 18 hour shifts are just now getting to the body of the aircraft that went right through the outer ring at full power according to eyewitnesses.. Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.

9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]

Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabaque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.

10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]

Arabasque is well aware that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He is well aware that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He is well aware that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabasque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?

11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]

Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.

12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

View from Navy Annex parking lot where Terry Morin was located:

13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]

Vin Naryanan was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to have seen the plane hit any poles. He recently confirmed with us direct that he not only didn't see any light poles get hit....but he didn't even believe that any light poles were downed at all!

14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]

Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. She made these comments about the poles a year after 9/11. Her first account did not mention anything about them. Arabasque is 0 for 14.

15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”

Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. Arabasque is 0 for 15.

16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]

Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. Likely; Wanda is also deducing this and simply innocently embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. Arabasque is 1 for 16.

17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]

Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. From his position on the highway traveling southbound; we don’t even know if he could see the poles from where he was. Yet he mentions nothing about a cab IN FRONT OF HIM spinning out sideways with a pole sticking out of the windshield.

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. He claimed the plane hit the pole with it's lowered landing gear! This obviously did not happen, so how is this considered a genuine witness? And why is Arabesque omitting the part about the landing gear? Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.

19. “There were light poles down.”[404]

Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?

20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.

MIKE WALTER: There were periods where it seemed like the pilot was trying to stabilize it, I believe that may have been when it hit one of the light poles. But I don’t remember it hitting anything early on, although I am sure it must have hit one of the light poles right around the area where I was.

So why didn't he see it?

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done. Is there any proof he was on the highway? Has anybody interviewed him and confirmed his account? Without direct confirmation this is not valid evidence.

22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]

This 7 word sentence is attributed to an "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.

So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.

Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all, and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.

First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.

Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.

Citing mainstream media reports without investigation or confirmation as valid evidence for 9/11 truth is the virtually no different than accepting Bush and Cheney's word direct.

When this type of horribly bad "research" from anonymous bloggers who claim they are part of the truth movement is used in support of the official story to counter true investigative reporting from the streets that proves the official story false it becomes extremely damaging in our continuous fight to expose the 9/11 lie.


You didn't need to write it as a lengthy attack on Arabesque, however. Misinformation and disinformation are two different things. I don't believe Arabesque (who isn't actually anonymous) is saying things he knows to be false.

Next, you provide some sources, but you don't provide just as many. In a perfect world, we could go check everything you say.

It's true that media reports can be wrong, plainly mistaken, or deliberately misleading, and you have done some good work investigating.

Now. Is it your belief that the plane did not hit the pentagon, and flew over it instead?

Isn't that where this is leading?

the proof is the quote.

Please do check our sources but the proof is right in the quote itself most of time.

Just because a person mentions the light poles does not mean they "saw" the plane hit them.

You can not assume that they saw the plane hit the poles and make that claim based on assumption.

This is NOT a personal attack on Arabasque.

I am merely pointing out very important facts about the evidence.

It would not be disinfo if he wasn't aware of the mistakes but I have proven how he not only is aware but even promised to correct his errors and hasn't in over 4 months.

How long should he need to correct it?

4 years?

Sorry that is not acceptable while innocent people are dying every day in Iraq and Arabasque chooses to attack and neutralize evidence that proves the pretext was a fraud.

"researchers" who revel in personal attacks

"Their deal is they are being led by a cowardly, self serving, twenty-something yr old punk with a cyber chip on his shoulder and an in person fake smile when he sees you... Why do you think they keep banning us? Why do you think Russell flat out lies and distorts while Dylan sits by quietly? Why don't they come here and kick up some dust? Because they are cowards with an agenda."

"It has been deemed necessary by the bulk of active admins of this forum that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke CIT are no longer welcome here.
The reasons for banning are as follows:
- repeated behavior and threads/posts aimed at only causing trouble
- ignoring of repeated warnings and suspensions
- starting irrelevant threads in the pentagon section, even after previous ones were removed
- unnecessary character assassination i.e. "stop seducing married women, Russ" or "go smoke another blunt, Dylan"
- threatening Dylan that they were going to "expose" him

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.
No More Personal Attacks...

still won't address the evidence?

Or correct your admitted errors?

Quite interesting.

The fact that you are refusing to address a single point I brought up and instead chose to scavenge the internet to find a forum feud in a desperate attempt to fling mud as a diversion is rather telling. (You didn't even quote me!)

YOU came out of nowhere and attacked our research based on proven FAULTY, unconfirmed information without a shred of investigation to back it up.

Why have you promised to correct your blog twice now yet have still refused to do it?

Every day that goes by you are knowingly adding to the disinfo pool by disseminating this bad information which is ultimately THE biggest enemy to bringing the perpetrators to justice.

So are you anonymous or not?

Being part of the "truth movement"

"Every day that goes by you are knowingly adding to the disinfo pool by disseminating this bad information which is ultimately THE biggest enemy to bringing the perpetrators to justice."

You mean bad information like promoting the PentaCon without a single witness to support your claim the plane flew over the Pentagon?
You mean bad information like promoting the claim that there are no "contradictory statements" when your own witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon?
You mean bad information like pointless personal attacks and ad-hominems like accusations that I am not part of the 9/11 truth movement?
You mean bad information like endless 24/7 antagonistic fighting on forums and getting yourself banned for disruptive behavior?
You mean bad information like promoting the claim that the light poles were planted without any supporting evidence whatsoever?
You mean bad information like promoting the claim that all eyewitness statements can be controlled by the government, except for the ones who speak to CIT, and the ones who say it hit the Pentagon?
You mean bad information like promoting the claim that the plane parts at the Pentagon were planted without any corroborating evidence whatsoever?
And on and on?

You are the one promoting the ridiculously unsupported theory that a plane flew over the Pentagon.

“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst

Translation: We know 9/11 was an inside job because we have the confirmable evidence that is was an inside job. We don’t have evidence that a plane flew over the Pentagon because it does not exist and it did not happen.

Instead we have contradictory eyewitness statements 5 years after the fact who can't even remember where the light poles were knocked down and black box data that contradicts a supposed animation based on that data.

Sure this is all worthy of investigation and I don't have a problem with investigation, but to claim it proves an inside job is misinformation/disinformation.

For example, your hilarious claim that you are interested in "confirming" eyewitness statements is a typical misleading claim by CIT. If you were interested in "confirming" eyewitness statements you would have said it's a smoking gun the plane hit the Pentagon--as all of your witnesses, and every other witness said. Sure, you'll weasel your way out of this with pseudo arguments and circular logic, but you have appear to have not much interest in "confirming" witness statements if they disprove your theory! Your agenda appears to be to discredit anything and anyone that contradicts your theory. But hey, I'm not the one selling DVDs or promoting a SINGLE theory 24/7 as "part of the truth movement".

I've seen how you have attacked other researchers with ludicrous insinuations including Dylan Avery as I showed above. Attacking people takes motive, and it's quite telling that you have to resort to this tactic repeatedly to make your point. It's even more telling that you didn't address my complaint about it and complain that I haven’t addressed the evidence as if I haven’t done this already.

My response to your article is this: I recommend you apologize for the slanderous accusation that I am not part of the 9/11 truth movement. Why don't you read this for starters:

Calling me a "blogger" is another laughable ad-hominem and antagonizing insult that I’ve come to expect from CIT “researchers”. The fact is, that I have more recognition as a 9/11 researcher than you do, or ever will. Many have told me that they appreciate my hard work by email and they include many of the most prominent 9/11 researchers and activists. Unlike you, I have the class not to attack people simply because they disagree with what I believe/advocate. In my experience, the people who want to know my identity (and many prominent 9/11 activists know my identity) are the people who rely on personal attacks, antagonism and smear tactic insinuations such as seen in this article. In my experience, the people who resort to personal attacks have an agenda that does not coincide with 9/11 truth and justice. By intent or ego, their purpose is to disrupt 9/11 truth and justice.

Perhaps arguing your fly-over theory 24/7 on forums is your idea of being part of the truth movement, but it is not part of my idea. My idea of the truth movement means getting accountability for the crimes of 9/11 with verified (read: not internally contradictory) and confirmable evidence. Endless debates about physical evidence at the Pentagon are exactly what the perpetrators of 9/11 want. They don’t want you to look at building 7, thermite, the cover-up, the 9/11 commission report lies, and the NIST report lies. That’s exactly what they don’t want the 9/11 truth movement to look at, because it proves a crime was committed.

I have NEVER attacked you personally, and yet you accused me of "disinformation", "liar", and "not part of the 9/11 truth movement" along with other laughable insults and RIDICULOUS antagonism. This is the behavior of internet trolls not researchers. Personally, I only have so much time to do 9/11 research, and it is better spent than fighting with people who disagree with me.

Did you know that most credible 9/11 researchers believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon? The only credible researcher I can think of who advocates differently is David Ray Griffin, and even he has started to acknowledge the pro-757 arguments. Disagree? Webster Tarpley's credibility has been eviscerated after the Kennebunkport affair when he decided to call me COINTELPRO instead of apologizing for his personal attacks.

If you disagree, show me a list of credible 9/11 "researchers" (your term) who advocate no-757 crash at the Pentagon. I’m waiting.

I don't have a problem with doing research and investigating. My problem is when people do "research" and then IGNORE what the research tells you. For example, claiming that a plane flew over the Pentagon when your witnesses told you that it hit the Pentagon. Claiming that’s a smoking gun? And I’m the one promoting disinformation?

As part of the 9/11 truth movement (as opposed to the ego-glorification, personal attack, infighting, forum-disruption, speculation movement) I've got to make the best use of my time. I’ve written more than 100 blogs and detailed, 100 footnote long research papers. I’ve pushed 9/11 truth with VERIFIED evidence. I don't have the time to focus on the Pentagon and the fly-over theory/fantasy 24/7 days a week and sell DVDs about it unlike some people. I’m sure you’d like me to fight with you on the forums you spam your insulting posts on, but really, I’m not interested. You seem to manage fighting with people all by yourself.

If you attack me with slanderous accusations like this again, you probably won't like my next response even less than this one.

You're kind of trying to "prove a negative"

The absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

You seem to be flailing about, which is partly why I suggested before that you move on to bigger and better things.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

I never said this analysis proves the plane didn't hit the poles

That would be the corroborated testimony from the Citgo witnesses that does that.

This simply proves that the so called "evidence" used to cast doubt on the rock solid north side claim is not valid.

From The Center for an

From The Center for an Informed America:

Something else, by the way, that the Tattoo theorists [those who insist that a 757 struck the Pentagon] love to talk about is how the dastardly "no-planers" like to pluck portions of witness statements out of context, particularly in the case of oft-cited USA Today reporter/witness Mike Walter. Given the manner in which Mr. Bart presents the testimony of 'witnesses' like Scott Cook, I'm sure that those in the opposing camp will understand why I say: "pot, meet kettle." According to Bart (and, by extension, all the Tattoo theorists who have endorsed and/or re-posted his list), this is Cook's account of the Pentagon attack:

"It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon (...) As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion ..."

As presented, Cook's recollection appears to be a very specific account of the approach and crash of a 757 aircraft into the Pentagon. In fact, it appears to be an impossibly specific account, since no witness at the scene could have know, at the time of the alleged crash, that the plane had flown out of Dulles. But Mr. Cook never actually made such a claim. For the record, here is how Scott Cook's 'witness' account read before it was deceptively (and apparently quite deliberately) edited by Eric Bart:

"We didn't know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. (The more I’ve thought about it since, the odder the choice of the Pentagon as a target appeared. The Pentagon is a huge pile of concrete, the walls over a foot thick, and no plane is big enough to do more than superficial damage to it. Had the hijackers chosen to dive into the Capitol or the White House, much smaller sandstone buildings with little internal framework, the damage and the death toll would have been infinitely higher. Both houses of Congress were in session, and in addition Laura Bush was in the building, preparing to testify to some committee about school reading programs. I guess the symbolism of the Pentagon was more important to the terrorists, who blamed the US military for everything, much like Chomskyites blame everything on the CIA. As horrible as it sounds, the hit on the Pentagon may have been a blessing.) As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion ..."

It is quite obvious that what Cook actually said was that even though both he and his partner were positioned to witness the alleged plane and the alleged crash, and therefore should have witnessed the alleged plane and the alleged crash, neither one of them actually saw anything of the sort. Far from confirming the official account of the alleged crash, Mr. Cook appears to have been somewhat bewildered by it. Of course, you would never know that from reading through Eric Bart's 'witness' list -- which raises the question of why, if the 'witness' evidence is so compelling, Eric Bart felt the need to gild the lily.

i would trust you guys over

i would trust you guys over Hoffman and his various disciples any day.

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

Thanks Chris but......

We aren't asking you to trust us.

We are asking you to scrutinize the evidence and base your decisions on facts.

We aren't doing this to start fights.

We are here to PROVE a military deception on 9/11 with cold hard evidence obtained with true investigative reporting from the streets.

When proven faulty information is used to cast doubt on the groundbreaking and pivotal evidence we have provided we will not sit back and stay quiet about it.