Sheila Casey

Did a plane really hit the Pentagon? These researchers say no, and their evidence is compelling.

For those who can't make the free presentation in Arlington on July 11, Citizen Investigation Team's evidence can be viewed here.

Transcript of Richard Gage explaining controlled demolition on KMPH in Fresno

Is the dam beginning to break? 

In this seven minute interview, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, is given plenty of time to explain the overwhelming evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were not brought down by the impact of the planes and ordinary office fires.  Unlike the derision and condescension that typically greets 9/11 truth activists at mainstream outlets, these two anchors seem genuinely curious and open to the uncomfortable facts proving that explosives were detonated inside the Twin Towers. 

Transcript of Gage's entire interview on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, California is below:

Kim Stephens:  He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is touring the country with a controversial message about September 11. 

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Richard Gage is here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  Thank you so much for joining us.

Gage:  You’re very welcome, it’s great to be here.

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Well first of all give us a little bit more about your background.

Gage:  I’m an architect of twenty years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and have been studying steel frame fire proof buildings for about that long. 

Kim Stephens: We ask that for clarification because as we get into this we want people to make sure that you’re not just somebody with a wacky idea, you come with some science to you.  What is the official reason for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?

Gage:  Well we’re told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires.  The problem is that we don’t have large gradual deformations associated with collapses.  And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever.  And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, which most people don’t know anything about it.  We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  It’s dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  Two and a half seconds.  This is uncanny, there’s forty thousand tons of structural steel designed to resist this collapse. 

Video evidence that Lloyde England is lying to support the official story about the Pentagon attack on 9/11

For several years now, citizen investigators Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have been laboring to alert the world to the truth about what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01.  My detailed article about their research is here. 

I reported last month that Ranke and Marquis (who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT) were consolidating their hours of video evidence into a more concise format that edits all the lengthy interviews into a single 60 minute video called “National Security Alert.”

I spoke to Craig Ranke today; he told me that the new video is nearly complete.  As a bit of an appetizer, he has released a nine minute excerpt that focuses on the role of Lloyde England.  The new video has been posted at Rense as well as 911blogger and has already garnered 16,000 views on YouTube.

 

Here's some background from my previous post for those who need to be convinced that this video is worth their time to watch:

The most riveting segment in the CIT footage is of the interview with Lloyde England, a taxi cab driver who was photographed numerous times just after the attack.  In all the photos, England and his cab are on Route 27, on the bridge going over Columbia Pike.  The front windshield of his cab has a big hole in it and the cab is at a stop and straddling the lanes.  A broken light pole lies nearby. 

England’s story is that he was going 40 mph when he felt the jet go over head, and then the light pole came smashing through his front windshield.  He says he then skidded sideways to a stop, and that a stranger stopped and helped him remove the light pole from the windshield, and then left without ever giving his name, or even speaking a word.

England’s story is suspect because photos show the hood of his sedan untouched and gleaming like a mirror, although his front windshield was destroyed.  England is quite clear that it was not the smaller section at the top of the light pole that impaled his windshield, but the big, 40 foot, 247 pound pole.  He contends that after it pierced his windshield, with perhaps five feet of the top end of the pole inside the cab, that the other 35 feet stuck straight out into the air, not touching the hood of the cab. 

The question is, with the windshield destroyed, what held the pole up the in air?  CIT drove with England to his property in the country to inspect the cab.  They hypothesized that perhaps the narrow end of the pole had pierced the back seat or floorboards of the cab, holding it in place and not allowing it to touch the hood of the cab.  But their inspection showed that there was only an insignificant rip in the rear seat, and no damage to the floorboards.  Although the dashboard was damaged, no part of the hood, including the edge near the windshield, showed any damage.

What makes the story even more incredible is that England claims that as he was removing the pole from the windshield, he fell down, but managed, even as he was on the ground, to keep holding the pole in the air.  Remember that the pole is 40 feet long and weighs 247 pounds, while England appears to be about 65 years old. 

Pressed to explain how it can be that the pole never touched the hood of the sedan, England said only “The car speaks for itself.”  Unfortunately for England, the car seems to be saying that his account can not possibly be true.

In addition, with 13 witnesses saying that the plane went no where near those light poles, it seems clear that something else caused the damage to England’s windshield. 

The video with England validates CIT’s practice of keeping the camera rolling as much as possible, even during casual conversation, as the most damning statements from both England and his wife came out spontaneously and unexpectedly.  While Ranke and England’s wife were chatting at the Englands’ home, Ranke told her that they had determined that the jet never hit the Pentagon, but kept on going, and, amazingly, she agreed!  The audio is hard to hear and she then refused to say more, but her meaning was clear.  Mrs. England, who works for the FBI, also said that she knows why her husband’s car was not impounded as evidence, but wasn’t going to tell.

England spontaneously offered this damning statement:  “You gotta understand something.  When people do things and get away with it, you…eventually it’s gonna come to me, and when it comes to me, it’s gonna be so big, I can’t do nothing about it.”

CIT also kept the camera running during the 90 minute drive to see England’s car, and captured a few very interesting statements on tape.  Although England speaks generally and indirectly, in the context of a conversation about the attack at the Pentagon, his meaning is clear.  

England:  I wasn’t supposed to be involved with this, this is too big for me, man, this is a big thing.  This is a world thing happening, I’m a small man…I’m not supposed to be involved in this.  This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff. 

Ranke:  Your point that these people who have all the money… 

England:  This is their thing.

Ranke:  This is their event.

England:  This is for them.

Ranke:  Meaning they’re doing it for their own reasons…

England:  (with conviction)  That’s right.  I’m not supposed to be in it. 

-----------------------------

Ranke:  They must have planned it.

England:  It was planned.

-----------------------

England:  You know what history is?  It’s not the truth.  It’s “his story.”  Has nothing to do with the truth.

As someone who has been researching the 9/11 story for two years, and has experienced mockery, abuse and denials from the government and media, it was a thrill to hear someone who was directly involved in the cover-up to admit on tape that it was a big event, a world event, planned by rich people for their own reasons. 

Incredibly, once Ranke explained that 13 witnesses had all placed the jet at the north side of the Citgo station, on a trajectory that could not have knocked down the five light poles, England changed his story and declared that he was not where all the photographs show him to be, but actually well north of Columbia Pike – where no light poles were knocked down. 

Ranke showed England numerous photos of himself, his damaged cab and the downed light pole on the bridge over Columbia Pike.  Even faced with incontrovertible evidence of his exact location, England resolutely maintained that pictures don’t always tell the truth and that the accident with the light pole had taken place much further north.

After watching the 90 minute video of the interview with Lloyde England, the man is completely discredited.  Ranke points out that England may well be a victim himself, in that he may have been forced to tell the story of the pole impaling his windshield.  But his story is so incredible, and his protestations that he was not in the location where multiple photos and videos place him to be on that day are so absurd, that Lloyde England’s account now stands as perhaps the most vulnerable point in the edifice of lies that constitute the official story of the attack on the Pentagon.

Highly engineered explosives found in WTC rubble

This incredible discovery has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  Lead author Niels H. Harrit was interviewed for ten minutes on Danish television, and gave a concise and compelling explanation about the importance of this finding.  Watch him here:

As reported by Raw Story:

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

Dr. Stephen Jones explains what "peer reviewed" means here:

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team months of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including three papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a long paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with many color images and graphs. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University or by the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did not mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): unless an objector actually publishes his or her objection in a peer-reviewed established journal, (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.  You should not worry about non-published objections either. 

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection published in an established peer-reviewd journal?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands."

Is it true that truthers never get laid?

There are some nasty insinuations put out by the MSM about so-called "conspiracy theorists."  They don't bathe. They live in their mother's basement.  They can't get chicks.  (The assumption being that they want to get chicks, as for me, I don't.)

The real perpetrators of 9/11 and the real killers of JFK and MLK get a lot of mileage out of convincing everyone that only losers with greasy comb-overs would suspect that they (the true perpetrators) are guilty.  Of course!  If they never fall under suspicion, they are unlikely to be found out.  So the only people who have figured out how effing guilty they are need to demonized.

Hence the stereotype of the moon batted, tin-foil hatted, whack job conspiracy theorist has been promoted relentlessly by US intelligence agencies and their shills in the mainstream media.

That may be about to change.  Daniel Sunjata, a gorgeous former football star and TV actor, is an unashamed conspiracy theorist, and in the upcoming season of Rescue Me, he will be showing millions of viewers just how wrong all those stereotypes are.

Watch him here:

New Research Contradicts Pentagon 9-11 Story

published in the April, 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Two California men who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have compiled impressive video evidence that the plane seen flying towards the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 could not have caused the death and damage at the Pentagon, nor the damage to five light poles outside the Pentagon. 

Frustrated with the inability of 9/11 researchers to do anything other than speculate about what really happened that day, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis decided to take matters into their own hands.  They have repeatedly flown in from southern California, canvassed the area near the Pentagon on foot to find people who saw a plane just prior to the fireball, and then quizzed these eye-witnesses extensively on camera to establish exactly what they saw, when they saw it and where they saw it from.  

Their research is summarized at their website, as well as in four DVDs containing interviews with 13 people who attest that they saw a plane fly to the north of the Citgo gas station on Pentagon property, not south of the Citgo station as required by the official story. 

CIT had each witness draw the flight path they saw on a map; the compilation from all the witnesses is shown below.  The yellow lines clustered together towards the top of the map are from the witnesses, the straight blue line angling up from the bottom edge of the map is the official flight path of the plane, as described by the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB).

Taken together, the 13 witnesses deliver a devastating blow to the official story about the Pentagon attack.  Five 40 foot, 247 pound light poles were knocked down that day, and if the plane flew north of the Citgo station, it could not have knocked down those poles.  The west side of the Pentagon was damaged as if it was hit by a plane heading north, with the zone of destruction angling north.  If the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station before hitting the Pentagon, it would not have caused this kind of damage.

CIT’s evidence is compelling for a number of reasons.  Three of their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who were on duty at the time of the attack.  Most of the others were government employees at their jobs, and their presence at that place and time can be verified.  This stands in sharp contrast to the witnesses who claim they saw the attack from their cars, as their presence on the road cannot be confirmed.   

Physics so simple even a 9/11 truther can understand it

Now I get it!  It was right in front of my eyes all this time!

Doctors, lawyers, pastors and politicians form new 9/11 truth groups

As the truth about the attacks of September 11, 2001, percolates out into the population, new groups have sprung up to reject the official propaganda and get the word out about how the wool has been pulled over our eyes.

I'll let these groups speak for themselves; their links are here:

Medical professionals for 9/11 truth

Lawyers for 9/11 truth

Religious leaders for 9/11 truth

Political leaders for 9/11 truth

These brave patriots join the many truth groups that already exist, such as:

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

Physics 911

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Plus, there are hundreds of local truth groups, from San Diego to Toronto, north Texas to Vancouver.  Where ever you are, there is most likely a truth group near you. 

What I'd really like to see, and what we most need to see, is a Journalists for 9/11 Truth.  When will that happen?

9/11 truth on KBDI Channel 12 in Denver

In connection with their fundraising drive, PBS affiliate KBDI is showing Aaron Russo's 180 minute film "Freedom to Fascism," and interviewed trial attorney Earl Staelin of Colorado 9/11 Visibility on the air. 

Big props to KBDI for surging out ahead and leaving all other TV stations in the dust! 

Denver listeners now have a chance to learn the truth about 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and the covert plan to lead us to a fascist one world government. 

Irish musician Jim Corr speaks out about 9/11 Truth

Jim Corr of the Irish band the Corrs gave an eloquent 10 minute interview back in June about the New World Order, 9/11 and the plan for a global dictatorship. He does a great job of explaining it to his apparently completely naive host. Thank you Jim for speaking out.

Jim has a website, here is an excerpt from his homepage:

The light at the end of the tunnel is that millions upon millions of people are waking up to this unfolding Orwellian nightmarish agenda which I have spoken about on radio, and which will be averted as soon as we collectively wake up! 



The unfortunate reality is that the mainstream media is failing the people in crucial areas. In order for us to get closer to the full truth, we need to circumvent it, because it's controlled and indeed mostly owned by a handful of elite multi-national corporations controlled by the global elite that have a vested interest in keeping the full truth from us lest we awaken to the real agenda that's being played out behind the scenes. Am I saying that Irish national television and radio for example could be lying to the people all the time? Of course not. But they are most likely getting their international news from the likes of either Reuters or the Associated Press which are controlled news agencies. This realisation by a lot of people goes some way toward explaining the dramatic rise in alternative media where more and more of us are now getting our news from sources we feel we can trust better, particularly on the internet.

You will meet people as I do occasionaly who are unable to grasp the reality of what's really going on. You may even meet them amongst family and friends but don't get frustrated, It is understandably inconceivable for some people the contemplation that some governments at the behest of their globalist puppeteers could be staging terrorist attacks against their own populations, particularly for people who's reality doesn't extend beyond the Television set which is being used highly effectively as a Weapon of Mass Deception.