Transcript for National Security Alert - The Pentagon Attack

National Security Alert

Sensitive Information enclosed

The Pentagon Attack

Outline

A. A prima facie case for deception

B. The required south side approach as per official data, reports, and the physical damage

C. A.The north side approach evidence

D. A.The flyover/flyway evidence

E. A.Taxicab driver Lloyde England and light pole #1

Epilogue

In the following presentation, we will expose to you independent, verifiable evidence

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack

was a state sponsored, false-flag, “black” operation involving a carefully planned

and skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon.

Relying on detailed interviews with eyewitnesses to the event

the flight path of the jet that allegedly struck the Pentagon

and was seen flying treetop level over Arlington that day is conclusively established.

As you will see, this flight path is very different from what the government reports

and we will explain the significance of this discrepancy momentarily.

But first we’ll go over what initially made people suspicious of this event.

A prima facie case for deception

Unlike the attack on the World Trade Center

the attack on the Pentagon was not broadcast on live television

In fact, within the first hours of the attack

the FBI had confiscated video footage from dozens of locations

the vast majority of which has never been released.

All of the images that the public does have

were taken in the aftermath of the event.

These available images left many puzzled as to how the damage

could have been caused by the impact of a Boeing 757.

There was a distinct lack of visible airplane debris on the lawn

in front of the building and very little reported inside.

Although a few relatively few amount of scraps and plane parts were photographed

none have been positively identified as belonging to Flight 77 or tail #N644AA.

And there were no photographs of large fuselage sections

wings, or recognizable pieces of the tail

as is usually the case after a plane crash.

Additionally, although this image of the damage after the roof collapsed

is typically what is used by the media

the pre-collapse damage of the building seemed incompatible with the dimensions of a 757.

Windows were still intact where the vertical stabilizer would have hit.

Although these windows were considered “blast proof”

it is not reasonable to suggest that they would be 757 proof.

Oddly, just beneath these windows, right in the center of the hole

column 14AA on the 2nd floor remained intact.

The columns in the area where the right wing and engine would have entered

appeared to have been blown up and out as opposed to having been pushed in

as would be expected if a plane had impacted.

The damage is primarily at ground level

indicating that the massive Boeing would had to have slid on its belly

into the bottom floor of the building

with the huge RB-211 engines digging into the concrete

and yet there is a conspicuous lack of damage

to the foundation in all of the aftermath photos.

The following plane crash examples show how damage and charring is to be expected.

plane crash example

impact area with debris removed

not charred

Yet none of these images from the Federal Emergency Management Agency

taken by photographer Jocelyn Augustino on September 21st 2001

a mere ten days after the event show any signs of damage to the foundation at all.

The lack of visible foundation damage is underscored by an important scientifically validated fact

that also fatally contradicts what we have been told.

Using the reported speed and other values

from the 2006 released NTSB alleged black box data,

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has calculated the G forces required

for a 757 to descend to the level of the light poles and pull up

to enter the building low and level as required by the physical damage

and found it to be aeronautically impossible.

This is the case if we simply consider the obstacles and decline in topography

in relation to the official flight path,

but it gets much worse if we factor in the NTSB

reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level.

So the physics of flight mathematically prove the official story impossible.

All calculations demonstrated with scale animations are available in the presentation,

“9/11: Attack on the Pentagon” by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

These dubious facts concerning the physical evidence and the physics of the event

added with a deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities

when it came to the evidence in general led many to doubt

the official account of what transpired that day.

Numerous alternative theories were put forth, but they were mostly speculative.

Something more needed to be done.

In 2006, Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the event.

We traveled to Arlington, VA to speak with eyewitnesses,

who were on the scene that day, especially individuals who had a good view of the final seconds

of the plane in flight before it allegedly impacted the building.

The purpose of this expedition was to establish the true flight path

during this critical period as reported by the independent eyewitnesses

on the scene in order to compare this information with the physical damage

as established by photographs, video, and official reports.

In tandem with the inception of this independent investigation,

the government has responded to this effort

with the quiet release of significant official data sets,

most notably “Flight Data Recorder” information

allegedly from the black box of Flight 77

as released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006,

and the alleged radar data

released by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) in 2007.

The NTSB data definitively establishes

the officially required flight path of the attack jet,

and the 84 RADES data establishes where all the planes

in the airspace near the time of the attack had to be

according to the officials in control of this data.

However, the true flight path as reported by the independent eyewitnesses

definitively contradicts this government controlled and supplied evidence,

proving it has been manipulated

as part of a very deliberate deception and cover up.

The very notion that the government would manipulate their own data is alarming enough.

However, there would be a second implication

that is much more disturbing, yet equally unavoidable.

That implication is this:

If the plane did not fly where the physical damage

and the government-supplied data says it did

in the final seconds before the explosion at the Pentagon,

it did not hit the building.

Naturally this would explain why the physical damage

has been considered so questionable and anomalous.

In the final seconds before the alleged impact,

a plane on the officially required flight path would have flown south of Columbia Pike,

south of the Navy Annex, and south of the former CITGO Gas Station at all times.

As it turned out the eyewitnesses reported the complete opposite

proving the plane did not hit the building

and that the physical damage had to have been staged.

Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points

unanimously confirm the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike,

flew directly over the Navy Annex

and north of the former CITGO gas station,

irrefutably contradicting all official reports,

released data, and all physical damage

alleged to have been caused by the plane.

First we will present the required south side approach

as indicated by all official reports, data, and the physical damage.

The required south side approach as per official data, reports, and the physical damage

1. The 9/11 Commission.

John Farmer (Senior 9/11 Commissioner during 9/11 Commission hearings):

The following is a time lapse depiction of the flight path of American 77.

South of the Navy Annex and south of the former CITGO.

2. The alleged black box data released from

the national transportation safety board in 2006.

Scale animations created by FAA certified pilot and founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth,

Robert Balsamo based off heading provided by the NTSB.

The NTSB says it flew south of Columbia Pike,

just south of the communications antenna on the Virginia Department of Transportation’s property,

south of the former CITGO gas station,

and directly over the route 27 overpass bridge to hit the light poles

and enter the building entirely on the bottom floor.

Take special note of the location of the bridge and the depicted trajectory of the plane.

But don’t forget, although the southern approach heading reported by the NTSB

does match with what was reported by the 9/11 Commission,

the final altitude reported was 699 feet above sea level,

making the final descent and pull up to hit the light poles and be low and level

as shown in the Department of Defense 2006 released security video physically impossible.

2006 released Pentagon security video

3. The physical damage starting with the downed light poles as depicted by defense contractor Integrated Consultants

and officially endorsed on the State Department website usinfo.state.gov

The plane has to fly directly over the bridge in this exact trajectory in order to hit the light poles.

Light pole one on the south edge of the bridge allegedly speared the windshield of Lloyde England’s taxicab.

Light pole two on the north edge of the bridge was hidden on a steep hill in the bushes

completely unnoticeable to passing motorists.

Light pole 3 was off to the side in the median of a clover leaf exit ramp.

Light pole 4 is concealed on a decline with a guardrail in front of it.

Light pole 5 is also concealed on a decline.

So the exact location of the light poles is only acknowledged by corporate proxy

as they have failed to address this in any official report.

In fact, the Virginia Department of Transportation is in control of light pole maintenance

and when asked via Freedom of Information act requests,

they denied having any documentation as to the exact location of the poles

that were allegedly downed on 9/11 and later replaced.

The reason the exact location of the downed light poles and taxicab is so important

is because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot.

Even a minor deviation in approach would have left one or some

of the light poles untouched and resulted in a different damage pattern.

Despite a clear effort by the officials to not report on the light poles

and keep the specific details ambiguous,

their exact location has been independently established by the photographic evidence,

as just demonstrated by defense contractor Integrated Consultants,

and further demonstrated by this image taken before the attacks in May of 2000,

showing pole numbers 1 and 2 intact on either side of the bridge.

In this image from 9/11, both poles are downed.

These 2 poles on the bridge in particular are the most important of the 5 poles

that were downed because they were the furthest south,

making it physically impossible for them to be downed by any type of aircraft at all

approaching from the north side of the gas station, as reported by all the known witnesses in this critical area.

4. The officially commissioned “Building Performance Report” by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

They published the following images depicting a southern approach angle of the plane…

But the true purpose of this report was to document the damage to the building.

They covered each and every damaged column

and depicted the overall damage as being directional,

exclusively requiring the depicted southern approach angle of the plane

as referenced in all official data and reports and published in these images.

Note the definitive trajectory of the damage to the building depicted.

Starting with the anomalous alleged impact into the outer facade of the building’s E ring

ending with the curious almost perfectly round alleged exit hole in the C ring.

The ASCE also established the required low and level impact into the bottom floor of the building.

They reported on page 28:

“The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first floor slab on grade and the second floor”

Note how they depict more than half of the left engine burrowing into the foundation

that photographic evidence shows was left undamaged.

Yet they didn’t depict or report any foundation damage.

The required low and level first floor impact was also depicted in a project published by Purdue University.

Note how they avoided the problem caused by the low hanging engines of the plane

by simply not including them in the animation at all.

The plane absolutely has to be south of the navy annex,

south of the gas station,

and directly over the route 27 overpass bridge

to hit the light poles and cause the low and level directional damage to the building

as documented and reported.

There is no room for error in the official flight path at all.

So these critical details should have been easily confirmed by the witnesses,

but as you are about to see for yourself,

they independently and unanimously reported the opposite,

proving the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

The north side approach evidence

Virtually all of the following first-hand witness accounts were video-recorded on location

and have been categorized into 5 separate and opposing vantage points.

Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or Library of Congress

only weeks after the event placing the plane in the same location.

This eliminates the notion that their accounts are inaccurate from faded memory

due to the amount of time between the event

and their recorded independent interviews a few years later.

The independent interviews in this presentation have been edited for conciseness but the complete interviews

as well as the transcripts and recordings of all referenced official interviews

are available to view for free at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com.

Vantage point #1 from the south side of the navy annex

Edward Paik – auto mechanic – independent interview recorded November 4th 2006.

The following flight path images illustrated by Edward Paik.

All of Ed’s illustrations have the entire plane crossing to the north side of Columbia Pike headed directly over the Navy Annex.

All animations of witness vantage points were created by Pilots for 9/11 Truth for their presentation, “9/11: Attack on the Pentagon”

and are based off a hypothetical average of all witness illustrations reported.

This is a reconstruction of what Ed describes.

Note how the aircraft continues directly over the Navy annex as illustrated by Edward.

If the aircraft were on the south path as required by the physical damage and official data

this is what Ed would have seen from his position.

Ed does not describe anything as such and has the entire plane on the north side of Columbia Pike

and directly over the Navy Annex where it was picked up by the next witness

who is an aviator, adding professional credibility to his account.

Terry Morin – program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex.

Independent interview recorded June 8th, 2008.

The relatively slow speed as described by this professionally qualified witness

does not match the 460 knots as reported by the NTSB.

Vantage point #2 the former CITGO gas station.

Robert Turcios – station employee, independent interview recorded November 5th, 2006.

The plane can not pick up at this point in order to hit the building low and level

as required by the physical damage and depicted in the security video.

Robert describes the plane on a path that is irreconcilable with the physical damage

but corroborates what was reported by Edward Paik and Terry Morin.

He describes it as being on the north side of his place of employment

the former CITGO gas station, and actually pulling up over the highway.

As demonstrated earlier, all physical damage and government data require the plane to approach on the south side.

Here is what the plane on the official south side flight path would look like from Robert’s point of view.

As you can see this puts him on the complete opposite side of the plane from what he described and illustrated.

As an employee who works there every day

this would be a wildly drastic mistake for him to make.

But Robert’s general placement of the plane on the north side has been proven to be factually accurate

with corroboration from all other known witnesses at the station that day.

Officer Chadwick Brooks – Pentagon police

Library of Congress interview recorded November 25th, 2001

independent interview recorded November 7th, 2006.

This is an approximate reconstruction of the event

when considering Brooks’ statements and observations of the plane on the north side.

Here is what it would have looked like for him with the plane on the official southern approach.

Once again this would place him on the complete opposite side of the aircraft from his crucial perspective

a ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make

let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report.

Of course all of the other witnesses in this area prove

that he was not mistaken about this simple detail.

Officer William Lagasse, Pentagon police, Library of Congress interview recorded December 4th, 2001

Independent interview recorded November 7th, 2006.