"National Security Alert" (video)

[Beam Me Up]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

In this presentation, Citizen Investigation Team distills on-going research and investigation from the past three years, including that done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Total run time: 1:21:47.

In this presentation, numerous eyewitnesses to the plane flying toward the Pentagon are interviewed, most on location at the scene. The flight path that a plane would had to have flown to cause the physical damage observed at the Pentagon is clearly delineated. The problem is, all the interviewed witnesses saw the plane on a flight path that is irreconcilable with the damage path.

There are only three options here: Either all these witnesses are mistaken in the same way; either all these witnesses are lying about what they saw; OR the damage path is inaccurate. The damage path is very specific, leaving very little room for deviation. Any significant deviation from the path outlined would have resulted in a different set of physical damage. This basically leaves us with the first two options. Either the witnesses are mistaken or they are lying. Watching these witnesses give their reports it is difficult to find any reason why they would lie, especially since their reports contradict the physical damage. That leaves only the option of being significantly mistaken in their recollections. However, many of these interviewed witnesses were also recorded by the Library of Congress and/or the Center for Military History soon after the events of 9/11. Their accounts as presented here do not contradict their accounts as recorded by the LoC or CfMH eliminating the possibility of their memory having significantly changed through time. Although specific details of their accounts do vary, their overall accounts of an approach path significantly at variance with that a plane would had to have flown to cause the physical damage outside and inside the Pentagon, do corroborate one another. That all these witnesses could be mistaken about the approach path they observed seems highly unlikely. If we accept they are not lying and if we accept that their accounts as corroboration of a flight path other than that necessary to cause the physical damage, we have conclusive evidence that the plane they saw did not strike the Pentagon.

Included in this presentation is footage of taxi driver Lloyd England, whose taxi was allegedly skewered by the first light pole hit by AA77 just prior to the equally alleged impact, insisting unequivocally that he and the taxi he was driving was NOT at the overpass location necessary for his car to have been speared by the first light pole. He denies that he and his taxi were at that location despite clear photographic evidence that he and it were there. This is important because if the downing of the light poles was staged, which they would had to have been if the other witnesses are accurate in their accounts, only the damage to his vehicle would had to have been staged in real time. What this means is that, if all this is true, taxi driver Lloyd England is implicated as a participant in the cover-up of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

The presentation ends with a call to action, including a call for an independent prosecutor to investigate this matter and a moratorium on all military spending in support of the 'war on terror'.




edit html

[KDLarsen]

1. Still relying on the same old witnesses?

ie. the ones who also said they saw AA77 hit the Pentagon?

Also, when on earth are they going to let Lloyd England know what they REALLY think of him? They've been recording the poor guy for years now, pretending to be all nice and caring, only to turn around and start calling him everything from cover-up shill to murderer behind his back.