portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation | government

THE Pentagon "snuff films" are also valuable forensic evidence in this homicide investiga

This group has done everything in its power to marginalize evidence that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash. They worked on Richard Gage for a year and a half, finally convincing him to withdraw his stated support for the research of CIT. Gage released his withdrawal statement in February 2011, and he admits being "guided" by others in putting it together. Unfortunately, Legge is taken seriously by Gage who praised his "extensive" research in our interview in Montreal in April.

Many thanks for these:

 link to www.usmessageboard.com

 link to www.usmessageboard.com

In prior years (not so much lately), a high-ranking USAF pilot alleged to me
privately that the white Boeing 747 -- that was photographed circling D.C. --
was actually on the scene in order to record "snuff films"
-- to be sold promptly at premium prices to the elite.

Think on the order of $50,000 USD per snuff film.

Someone below (I cannot tell who it is), wrote:

"perhaps when those 85 videos are released at some distant point in the future"

Terral, is that statement accurate -- are there 85 known surveillance videos of the Pentagon events?

Or, was that a rhetorical statement -- rhetorical in the sense of roughly estimating
the sheer number of forensic evidence videos that have actually been concealed
by FBI et al.?

Out of sincere professional interest, and not mere curiosity,
do you include "snuff films" among those "85 videos"?

Also, I haven't read every word below, so I may have missed it.

That same USAF officer also reported privately to me that
Captain Gerald DeConto was on the telephone to
Secretary of the Navy Gordon England,
requesting specific verbal authorization to "engage the incoming":


My latest thinking on that report goes like this, for what it's worth:

(1) I visited the Pentagon when I was a political science intern from UCLA
during the Summer of 1969; I also volunteered to do some research on
failed Pentagon weapons systems, and had no problems visiting the
Pentagon's public library, to do that research e.g. in back issues of
Aviation Week and Space Technology;

(2) I was told, without confirming same (because of its classified nature)
that the Pentagon is ringed with a sophisticated array of anti-aircraft guns
that are installed below grade and just outside the exterior facade;

(3) those anti-aircraft guns are operated by an automatic fire control system;
you can compare a similar system in the U.S. Navy's AEGIS weapon;
Google "Aegis Anti-Aircraft Warfare" : it can launch a wall of lead in no time at all,
causing incoming objects to disintegrate that wall;

(4) it is very reasonable for me to believe that ONI was already onto the
conspiracy, which is all the more reasonable when all the prior warnings
are joined to ONI's extensive intelligence gathering capabilities and systems;
("ONI" = Office of Naval Intelligence);

(5) the story I subsequently received from U.S. Navy veterans
is that one goes to ONI for the real story, because ONI can frankly
run circles around the FBI and most other "intelligence" agencies
of the Federal government;

(6) putting all of the above together, I can visualize -- for purposes
of generating a scientific hypothesis about this aspect of the Pentagon events --
that Captain DeConto and his staff were carefully tracking all "incoming"
on their radar monitors, and thus realized that the Pentagon's automatic fire control
system had NOT engaged; one does not reach the rank of Captain in the
U.S. Navy without an extensive and honorable track record --
it's a very high rank; in the 1970s I was a research assistant
at U.C. Irvine to retired U.S. Navy Captain Daniel S. Appleton, Ph.D.;

(7) point (6) above is consistent with Secretary of Transportation
Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which
Mineta reported exchanges between Cheney and a certain staffer
inside the Presidential Emergency Operations Center ("PEOC");
that staffer must have been a radar operator, and/or he must have
had access to real-time radar tracking data, because that staffer
repeatedly informed Cheney of the forward movement of a certain
airborne object, as it progressed on a heading straight for D.C.;

(8) the failure of the Pentagon's fire control system to engage automatically
is certainly consistent with the USAF officer's report that
DeConto found it necessary to request specific verbal authorizations
to override that fire control system and to "engage the incoming";

(9) as that report continued, Gordon England kept DeConto
on the telephone, by stalling long enough for DeConto to be
incinerated instantly by the detonation of a depleted uranium
warhead installed on that incoming missile;

(10) the failure of the automatic fire control system to engage automatically
also strongly suggests that the incoming missile and incoming A-3
were both modified with a friendly transponder identification beacon,
thus fooling the fire control system into deciding that both incomings
were "friendly" and not "foe"; such friendly transponder beacons
could have been installed quite easily while extensive modifications
were performed on that A-3 at a certain aircraft hangar located
on the grounds of Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport;

(11) accordingly, keep your eyes open for any reference(s)
to "snuff films" (or similar terms) that were most probably recorded
by high-resolution video cameras deployed onboard the
white Boeing 747 that was seen circling D.C. that morning.

Thank you, again, for your major contributions to solving the homicides
committed at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001.

Because there is no statute of limitations for murder,
this is and remains a formal homicide investigation
for the duration:


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
 http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage compromised - in their denial of the Pentagon evidence and witness testimony

Hi guys:

Galen wrote: Dick, i think you know my research also points to an A-3 Skywarrior at the Pentagon. The A-3 was launched from a carrier just offshore, according to the Russians; it fired the cruise missile then smashed into the side of the Pentagon.

We agree. The A-3 was refitted with remote-control and Raytheon Hypersonic Missile capability at Fort Collins-Loveland Airfield in Colorado, during the time of the Peter G. Peterson Blackstone/TRW/Hughes-Raytheon merger and about the time that Peter G. Peterson purchased the WTC-7 mortgage. The A-3 approached the Pentagon from the north (not west) to descend 2.5 miles at 500 knots and release the hypersonic missile that traveled about 200 knots allowing the A-3 to lead the way using the south-of-Citgo flight path. The plan was to attack column line (CL) 11 and the eight columns to the south (right) over to about CL 18 in order to simulate a jetliner crash. CL 11 was chosen to utilize the control joint that would allow the E-ring roof to collapse from the simultaneous hypersonic missile strike and the A-3 strike that would take the roof down at exactly 9:31:39 AM. George Bush left the podium at the Sarasota elementary school at exactly 9:31:46 AM to begin Phase 2 of the Cheney/Rumsfeld Black Operation and without military escort for fear that the botched Pentagon attack and the murder of Navy Commanders/Defense Intelligence Officers would see everyone involved arrested for high treason.

The A-3 was about to cross Route 47 (Washington Blvd) on route to the CL-14 location, when the missile went hypersonic and threw the A-3 off course from the massive bow shockwave that took down four of the five light poles (all but #2 = clipped by A-3). The airman navigating the A-3 for the global guardian wargames lost control and feared crashing the flying bomb into the Pentagon lawn, so he pulled back on the joystick for the A-3 to fly over the E-ring roof, just after the missile strike at exactly 9:31:39 AM; which Barbara Honegger has documented very well. The airman flew the A-3 right over the White House for the second time (first time on entry and descent) to make a wide turn to the north, which is verified by the Citizen's Investigation Team through many witnesses. The A-3 returned to use the north-of-Citgo flight path and crash into the second-story concrete slab (starboard wing slightly lower) at exactly 9:36:27 AM, or 4 minutes and 48 seconds after the initial missile strike. However, demolition of the E-ring roof requires the 'two' explosions (missile and A-3) to apply lateral force and drop the E-ring wall/roof; which represented strike two for the Cheney/Rumsfeld Black Operation that was going to fail; except for the assistance of FBI Special Agent Chris Combs and his friend Chief Schwartz from the Arlington County Fire Dept who was made incident commander. Combs filed a false report about Flight 93 (crashed at 10:03:11 AM and verified by C-130 pilot O'brien 2 minutes later), which allowed the firefighters to be removed from the scene in order to drop the E-ring roof using controlled demolition charges at exactly 10:15:16 AM and not at 9:57 AM as stated in the ACAAR.

My understanding is that Peter G. Peterson/Blackstone-Hughes Raytheon moved six A-3 Sky Warriors to the Colorado airfield for refit operations by subcontractors for which two sets of time-change log books will verify once confiscated from the FBI. Here are links to my two posts on what happened at the Pentagon and what happened on 9/11 if you guys are interested.

 link to www.usmessageboard.com

 link to www.usmessageboard.com



Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:58:45 -0500
From:  denzen@umich.edu
To:  oldickeastman@q.com
CC:  terralcroft@hotmail.com;  denzen@umich.edu;  peter.sault@odeion.org;  s.1234567@yahoo.com;  whole2th@gmail.com;  9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com;  p-a-patriot@yahoogroups.com;  paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage compromised - in their denial of the Pentagon evidence and witness testimony

Dick, i think you know my research also points to an A-3 Skywarrior at the Pentagon. The A-3 was launched from a carrier just offshore, according to the Russians; it fired the cruise missile then smashed into the side of the Pentagon.

Best regards -- galen

On 9/16/2012 11:59 AM,  oldickeastman@q.com wrote:
Dear Terral,

As much as I wish I had researchers following your leads, I am but one old man writing from his basement with really all contacts with researchers broken except occasional exchanges with Sault, Galen and Honegger. I'm the has been who never really was. I've made one youtube video and I have one presentation up on rense. All of my other presentations have been taken down - including the one on APFN which was hacked with pictures deleted and others -- showing nothing, substituted. The opposition neutralized me. My effort which you read was more or less a spasm of protest at what happened. No one can do anything without an audience, without a community. I know Schwartz's work - but I never saw the A-3 in any of the pictures he sent -- and I thought he was going beyond his data to insist on this specific plane and no other possibility -- when there is just as much reason to view the killer object as an F-16 rigged for remote control combat -- one was retired to the General Dynamics museum in March. Schwartz came up with the A-3 almost two years after my fit of the F-16 (which I said was just one possibility that fit the known facts -- as he should have done) -- but he never cooperated or communicated with me when he was developing his A-3 idea? Why not? I know that I wanted all the help and cooperation in investigating that I could get. Well, there you are -- no I am too burned out keep pushing 9-11 -- my old friends agree with me -- and that is all that I can achieve at this point. The same is true for weaponized weather modification and, I am most sorry to say, for my economic analysis. I'm just another grumpy old man brooding over why he is a failure at the great things he purposed as younger man.

SO there you are. Good luck in finding help for your investigations and in getting out the facts. You have a lot to offer -- but I don't want to go around again on the A-3 -- so I bid you a fond farewell.

All the best,

Dick Eastman

----- Original Message -----
From: Terral Croft < terralcroft@hotmail.com>
To: DickEastman < oldickeastman@q.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:04:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage compromised - in their denial of the Pentagon evidence and witness testimony

Hi Dick:

Thank you for contacting me with information about David Griffin and Richard Gage and their denial of Pentagon evidence, which I was well-aware of years ago being a general contractor and member of AE911Truth.org. I am writing to see if your researchers are making headway in assimilating the evidence, or if perhaps your researchers are on the same page as the people I have characterized as a 'running-in-place' fake 911Movement. I cannot tell you how many times I have received emails recognizing the truth of my Pentagon Three Attack Explanation (9:31:39, 9:36:27, 9:42 AM) to never be heard from again for one reason or another. Years have passed and nobody has presented evidence leading to the moving a a single event on my 9/11 100-Event Timeline placing the top 100 events in chronological order and my suspicion is that nobody ever will. I realize that my work points fingers at the House of Rothschild, Federal Reserve, Peter G. Peterson and many members of the 911Movement as accomplices in the ongoing lettered agency-led disinformation program, but these conclusions were drawn after direct interaction with these people over the course of years and I just call them like I see them like everybody else. You appear to have a good solid group of gifted researchers well-able to substantiate my claims by careful interpretation of all the evidence laid out on the table for everyone to examine. I can put together a witness list (like Terry Cohen, April Gallop, Alan Wallace, Lloyde England, etc.) to tell 'the' story of exactly what happened at the Pentagon, even if each witness is missing part of the puzzle (like Barbara Honegger) allowing them to see the larger picture; or I can go back to my Project Black Star Investigation that will see eventual genocide of the planet population, as brought out in the Dakota Report sent to me by Jim Marrs who also works with Barbara Honegger.


This is the Dropbox Folder link to my research that I share with Terral's 2012 Newsletter Subscribers, but I want you to share this link with your people for free to help them connect the dots between Scripture, the Sumerian Text, 9/11 and Project Black Star.



These are the two links to the Dakota Report that some of your people might not know even exists.


This is the link to my Analysis Report of the Dakota Report sent back to Jim Marrs and his research groups that might have crossed the desk of one of your members. The front line of what is 'really' going on here, in the aftermath of 9/11, is coming from the Leo Constellation (under hind feet) moving towards Virgo 5.5 days for every 188 days; or just over 11 days each year according to my sources. The supposed-astronomer to discover the Eleinin Comet was Leonid ELEnin whose name is NinELE (911) backwards with a first name representing meteor showers in November. The perihelion date was 9/11/2011 from the very beginning with a backside alignment on 11/22/2011 the day Rothschild murdered JFK. The most important date on the Elenin orbit diagram was 9/26/2011 on the Sun/Elenin/Earth alignment date where the lettered agency psyop object crossed the celestial plane having a 0.00 declination. Then 9/26/2012 is also the next day on the 188-day cycle that includes such events as the Chile Quake on Feb. 27, 2010 and the Japan Quake (9.0) on March 11, 2011 where both events included Earth axis shifts. Then John Moore, Mike Harris, Kerry Cassidy, Dr. Bill Deagle and a host of others (TerraVivos.com) began sending out warnings about 8/17 and 9/26 this year that have been my currently developing timeline since last year. The point I am attempting to get across is that Dick Eastman and your researchers are standing right now on the threshold of seeing the big picture representing much more than ensuring 911Justice. You have the opportunity to see the connections between a variety of topics representing the same thing like chemtrailing, Rothschild/Rockefeller/Gates Eugenics, the Super Soldier Program, HAARP as the Artificial Intelligence Mainframe/Interface for nanotechnology component manipulation inside human hosts, the 1400-Hour Multi-Frequency Resonation Anomaly Carrier Wave Beta Testing Program, nanobot filament replication inhibitor countermeasures and, well, the rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper as to what is 'really' going on here.

The fascists that planned and carried out 911 are busy implementing their underground ark city contingency plans amid the ongoing counterintelligence disinformation program maintaining the smokescreen cover in preparation for the coming global economic implosion being synchronized like WTC-7 along side the Twin Towers during the 9/11 Inside Job. What is really going on all around us and inside of us is much stranger than fiction by design, so that even your gifted researchers are led to believe that I am either misinformed or completely insane; when in fact my developing investigation today is just as real as the three attacks on the Pentagon that the average bear and park ranger cannot even begin to comprehend. Genocide of this planet is coming through what has been characterized as Project Black Star with symptoms including rhythmic Earth axis shifts, parabolic move in 6-8 magnitude quake events since 2008, dynamic magnetic pole migration, ocean conveyor disruption, mass animal deaths due to cellular magnetite migration misdirection, super storms, rogue tides, sinking islands, anomalous sink hole formation, and a host of other symptoms like a 2012 Deep Impact Movie in slow motion. Your people can assist in connecting all the dots for conveying this vital information to the American people and world population in time to effect a change, or not.

Please write whenever I and my research groups can be of service.

Take care,


From:  oldickeastman@q.com
To:  s.1234567@yahoo.com;  rgage@ae911truth.org;  davraygrif@cox.net
CC:  denzen@umich.edu;  docbrosk@comcast.net;  bshonegg@gmail.com;  profsjones@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage compromised - in their denial of the Pentagon evidence and witness testimony
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:59:52 -0700

David Griffin &
Gage back Howard Cohen's documentary depicting with actors and script a
'Jewless' 9-11 Conspiracy documentary (saying Bush & Cheney cooked it up

Howard Cohen has paid for the movie rights to
Griffin's books:

have attached the script for your review.
Please write or call me so we can
discuss a role for you (in front or behind the camera) in what will become the
9/11 Truth Movement's "Weapon of Mass Instruction" - based on the books of David
Ray Griffin and supported by research and evidence provided by the leading 9/11
truth advocates and truth groups - including the nano-thermite team.

386-316-0842 (24/7) -- ENDS

Howard Cohen also writes:

...you've heard the expression. It means that when the
reigning monarch of a country dies a new one is immediately named to replace
him/her in power.

Such was the case with our feature film, "A Violation
of Trust".

Shortly after the January "Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth" newsletter featured a story about our proposed film I was contacted by
what I can only call a "Hollywood bottom-feeder" who informed me that he had
gotten hold of a copy of our script and "copyrighted our script" without our
knowledge and definitely without our permission.

He was trying to use
that copyright registration to extort money from us. Several attorneys informed
me that while this is both illegal and unethical, it's not the first time this
has happened in Hollywood.

Faced with lengthy and expensive legal
procedures to reverse this illegal copyright, we were advised to close down
production of the film based upon the illegally copyrighted script. That's what
we did.....

.....and then immediately turned this negative into a
positive - by having an entirely new script written that presents an even more
provocative and captivating film opportunity. A new script for a completely new
feature film that touches the human side of this tragedy - making it an even
"greater value" to the public - exposing not only the lies about the official
account of that day, but the consequences of those lies (such as the false
pretenses for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan) - which brings the movie into
the current political, social and economic climate we are all suffering through
as a result of whatever really happened on 9/11.


Charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (re: the Bush
administration) addressed in our new film:

1. Waging a war of
aggression against Afghanistan and the Afghan people (President Bush said it was
in self-defense - but our script proves it wasn't);
2. War Crimes
committed against the people of Afghanistan by the use of weapons of mass
destruction that make no distinction between civilians and the enemy. That cause
unnecessary injuries and suffering (fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs and munitions
containing radioactive depleted uranium - all illegal under international
humanitarian laws);
3. Crimes against Humanity in respect of the
depleted uranium weapons used on the people of Afghanistan to exterminate the
population and for the crime of "Omnicide" the extermination of life,
contamination of air, water and food resources and the irreversible alteration
of the genetic code of all living organisms including plant life as a direct
consequence of the use of radioactive munitions in Afghanistan affecting
countries in the entire region;
4. Crimes against Humanity for
exposing soldiers and other personnel of the United States and other soldiers of
coalition forces to radioactive contamination by the use of DU weapons,
hazarding their lives, their physiology, and that of their future progeny by
irreversible alteration of the genetic code.




Scroll down about a third of the
way on the home page. Look for "Trickery and Treachery" (our new film's title).

Thank you.

----- Original Message -----

From:Dick Eastman
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:17 PM
Subject: David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage compromised - in their
denial of the Pentagon evidence and witness testimony

In Yakima it's still eleven years after
9-11 -- and so I will put out one more post on that

I have found a few people who share my view
of the Pentagon attack -- I quote them below discussing Richard Gage and
David Ray Griffin.

But first you will read Richard Gage's
rejection of the "Citizen's Investigation Team" investigation which found
witnesses confirming the flyover thesis I reached years before the CIT took up
the question. Richard Gage has been sent my analysis of the situation even
before the CIT people joined the discussion. He has been sent enough
information to know that the criticisms of Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashely, Legge,
Gregg Roberts, Chandler and Hill do not apply to my work. Richard Gage has
written to me stating that he refuses to get involved with questions of who
might be responsible for 9-11. Now he has let himself be surrounded by
people who have persuaded him to drop the best evidence. He of course is
the great leader of the movement. I am a nobody who writes every day,
giving away my articles, and gets no response -- I who have been
rejected precisely because I do lead and I am not afraid to state my conclusions
come what may.

So I find people who agree with me.
You can read them below. But ironically, not one has heard of me. At
any rate, I wish them well, because I at least, know that they are

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

"The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to
educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest
agreement. " -- Richard Gage

The "Truth Movement" has rotten

Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barret, David Ray Griffin
and Richard Gage

Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT

by Richard Gage

In early 2009, I watched the "National Security Alert" video by the
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts
of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were
interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses' recollection of the path
being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled
was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts
CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage
trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the
three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on
the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT's presentation and, more
than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT
witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that
is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover
conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low
it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT
interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path
witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they
saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper
investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their
witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT's own
evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon.
(See Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" and other works listed
below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane
as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009
and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not
be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over
the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original
statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I
am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at
all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and
every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of
their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs,
and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT's
work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full
truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and
come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert
Summary and Analysis of
"National Security Alert", Chris Sarns, Feb 5,

Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon,
Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence
of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec

What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and
Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011
And critiques that examine CIT's earlier work "Pentacon" are helpful
as well:
Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing
PentaCon, by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con
a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show', Victoria
Ashley, July 2009
Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):

Flight AA77 on 9/11:

New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to
Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.),
Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11
Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009
(updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed
that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was
true. One could say that I "endorsed" the official story based on what I knew at
the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings
evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once
said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" A similar
evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT's work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened
at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions
by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have
come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection
of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority
figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to
arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.
One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to
adopt a "prudent approach" to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end
he wisely advocates the "precautionary principle" which is to "assert only what
we can truly know," given the contradictory evidence, misinformation,
disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the
difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that "the official
explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He
concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is "no proof that a 757
did not hit the Pentagon." And, since officials are holding the cards (videos)
as to what did or didn't hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge's recommendation is that
investigators "take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit
the Pentagon".

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to
violate the airspace of our nation's capital and hit the headquarters of the
most sophisticated defense system in the world - an hour and a half after the
assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort
to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest
Richard Gage, AIA

Whenever their is a leader, Mossad will
work on them with a team of psychologists and other experts to bring them under
control, to neutralize or discredit them. This happened with Richard Gage
and David Ray Griffin. I recently got a letter from Howard Cohen asking
that I not write to Griffin and Gage --

> Please remove my name and the names of David Griffin and
> Richard Gage from these emails you are sending around. I have
> removed them from this one already but would appreciate
> your removing them for the future.

Cohen indicated that he was acting on
their behalf. And sure enough I now hear that Gage, who knows very little
about the Pentagon evidence, suddenly declares that Flight 77 did indeed crash
there. Gage and Griffin have formed a new organization that includes Jim
Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley etc long-time critics of my Pentagon
findings -- criticisms which they never presented to me. They are
working with Howard Cohen on a new movie that will omit the Pentagon evidence.
I recall that they are consultants for this movie. (Are they being
paid by Cohen?)

Griffin wants nothing to do with me.
But he is having his photo taken in a buddy embrace with Jim Fetzer. That
was when he lost my last shred of confidence in DRG.

The Pentagon evidence immediately
implicates the Pentagon Jews in the 9-11 false-flag attack. The WTC does
not. (Of course if no Boeing hit the Pentagon they Pentagon leadership
would have to know about it -- they would have to be accomplices in the
big lie from the very first -- and that is what I have established and
that is why there is such a big effort to get control of anyone resembling a
leader among 9-11 investigators.

This is all I say on the subject. But
read what others say:

DRG remains naive or intentionally blind about the fact that
professional disinformationists such as Legge and Bursill are in our midst.
Trying to reach out to them as DRG is doing tends to lend them credibility as
legitimate truthers which they most certainly are NOT. DRG essentially gives
them a platform to continue their disinformation operation. Personally I am
disgusted by that. I am also disgusted with DRG and Richard Gage for essentially
stone walling all of us who have reached out to them on this issue. My stance at
this point is that if neither man can address these serious and legitimate
concerns we have raised then I will not support them or their work financially
or otherwise.Adam,
I agree about how bad these decisions by Griffin and Gage have been.
I think we need to be a bit careful about how we criticize them so that we don't
play right into the disinfo people's hands. They'd love it if Griffin and Gage
were totally neutralized as forces in the movement. With Richard, there's not a
lot we can do because he left himself little room to repair what he's done. I'd
love him to withdraw his withdrawal of support, but he's unlikely to do that.

But Griffin still opposes their Pentagon position, and that's
crucial. This is the jewel these assholes are going after, and that's why I
choose (when talking about the Pentagon, at least) to focus on how he has not
caved in to pressure on the impact question.
David needs to know that while some of us don't agree with his
compromises, we still support him on his key Pentagon position. He has to know -
and I'm sure he does - that reversing himself on this question would be
devastating to the movement and to his credibility. It would also cost him most
of his current support. He won't do it.
We're disappointed in some of what's happened, and with good reason.
And we should be free to say so. But ultimately, let's not let the agents have
the free ride they're after. Gage's and Griffin's accommodations of the
anti-Pentagon gang have been especially harmful because that group has
credibility they don't deserve. Let's put their record under the spotlight. Once
people see how hollow and dishonest their "arguments" are, then the
accommodations won't mean as much.
We've been on the defensive too long. It's time to turn the


Sunstein infiltrators would LOVE to see both RG and DRG neutralized as forces
within the movement. I think it is a little bit too harsh, particularly on
Griffin, to publicly declare that you currently do not support them at all. My
sentiments mirror Craig's; Richard Gage did far more damage. His statement was a
full blown endorsement of the official story, and he used his "leadership"
position to tell the global audience known as the truth movement, in essence:
"You needn't watch National Security Alert; others have watched it for you and
have debunked it, and it's a deceptive film and should be condemned. Vic
Ashley's excellent website and Frank Legge's scholarly paper prove the plane did

Griffin's compromises, as disappointing as they are, have not done the same
degree of damage to this issue that Richard did. But yes, Craig, that quote you
posted of page 265 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking is the David Ray Griffin I
know and love!

Griffin exemplifies the lofty academician who spends more time in the office
than out amongst the "streets," whether in real life or on facebook. It is clear
every time someone on facebook takes a poll on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon,
that virtually everybody rejects this official claim.

I consider 9/11 truth on facebook to be the online equivalent of a large
number of truthers gathered in, say, Central Park or Times Square. Griffin does
not get into these kinds of crowds very much, either online or in real life. He
stays in the professors' faculty dining room, having coffee with other
"academic" types. Because of this disconnect from the "popular pulse" of the
movement, so to speak, it was easy for ivory tower figures like Ryan, Chandler,
and Legge, and Elizabeth Woodworth to convince him that the "split" in the
movement over the Pentagon was (1) genuine [i.e. 50% of the movement believing
in no-impact while the other 50% believe in impact] (2) profound and (3)
destroying the movement from within. So he came up with this "consensus
approach" to try and repair bridges and mend fences. Unfortunately, as well
intentioned as it might have been, it only served to play into the hands of
those who would like to see some of our strongest evidence swept under the

I wonder if Griffin, since the 10th anniversary and particularly the fallout
within the consensus panel, has done some sober reflecting on his decision to
take the compromised position in order to accommodate the propaganda team.


18, 2012 at 7:39 am

Craig and Adam Syed,

I understand that you both feel I am being to harsh especially with DRG. I
disagree primarily because of the stone walling they both do which you didn't
address. I agree DRG did not do as much damage as Gage but he does stone wall
all of us and I find that to be not only unacceptable but also a strong warning
sign that something is seriously wrong.

After over 10 years in the truth movement I have seen it all, argued about it
all, and fought for it all. I have to be honest with myself and admit that what
I have been doing and what we have been doing isn't working. It isn't getting
results. I know that if we continue along the same path we will get the same
results, namely none.

I do not consider DRG or RG to be leaders because they have simply not
demonstrated leadership. They are doing the same thing they have always done
which is talking about the evidence but they are NOT taking any bold action. For
example they are not confronting the pentagon issue head on and taking a god
damn stand. Real leaders take real stands in spite of peer presure.

The evidence DRG and RG talk about and present is solid and I have not
changed my opinion about it nor am I rejecting that evidence. I am simply
rejecting the concept of the two men as leaders to be respected above others. I
don't respect stone wallers or people who sling mud and then refuse to debate
it. Both types of people I consider to be cowards. REAL leaders and REAL
truthers do not hide from opponents or critics, they confront them head on with
better arguments and if they cannot they admit they may be wrong. CIT did that
when they responded to David Chandler's piece of crap paper on the pentagon.
Chandler did not act like a truther or a leader in response, he ran away! Now
DRG and RG both work directly with this clown who has been debunked CONCLUSIVELY
and comprehensively. Yet there is Chandler on DRG's panel and DRG has done
nothing but brush the issue under the rug. NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! No true leader
would do that. RG uses Chandler's bullshit hit piece as a reference for his
withdrawel of support for Christ sake. How can I consider him to be any kind of
leader or example when he does that? I can't.

The truth movement in my opinion is dying the same death as the USA is. Well
intentioned people are speaking out about 9/11, that is true, but when push
comes to shove no REAL resistance to these wrongs is being offered. Take the
Occupy wall street protests for example, when the police moved in on the LA
group they were simply not prepared to stand their ground. A few individuals did
stand their ground but the vast majority turned tail and fled. They obviously
had the idea in their heads that if they held up signs and camped out on the
lawn for long enough that they would effect change. WRONG! The only way for them
or us for that matter to actually cause change is to put our asses on the line
and face billy clubbing, arrest, intimidation, and harrassment AND NOT GIVE UP.
Had OWS stood their ground in mass and come back again and again and again after
city hall was fenced off they and us would be celebrating at least one major
victory right now.


By Craig McKee
The co-ordinated group that wants the
Pentagon out of the 9/11 truth discussion has won some key victories to be sure.
But there's one battle they haven't won, and it really bugs them.

The group I described in my recent post, 'Propaganda team' uses contrived
Pentagon fight to derail 9/11 Truth movement (Kevin Ryan, David
Chandler, Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, John Bursill, and others)
can't stand the fact that David Ray Griffin continues
to stand fast in his position that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.

It seems to be their mission to convince all of us that we just don't know
what happened and we probably never will. They attempt to do this by talking
incessantly about areas of evidence that they think we shouldn't talk about so

With his "consensus approach" Griffin accommodated this small group by
concluding that we all agree it is "relatively unimportant" whether a 757 hit
the Pentagon but what can be agreed upon is that Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda
did not. Griffin gave them six inches, now they want the whole foot.

Instead of doing what Griffin now advocates, which is seeking consensus
within the Truth movement on where the official story can be shown to be wrong,
this group pays lip service to wanting consensus at the same time they're
pretending to represent a significant and growing block in the 9/11 Truth
movement in saying that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. They don't, it's not,
and it didn't.

The most recent additions by the real "fringe" element of the movement to the
discussion have come from Legge and Bursill (I erred in leaving him and John
Wyndham off the team the first time). They have each contributed some
deliciously absurd statements intended to attack the no-757-impact position.

But the position they're trying to defend is so indefensible that it forces
them to make statements that most people would be embarrassed to make. And
they're statements that neither Griffin nor any of the other reasonable people
in the movement would ever find persuasive.

In Chapter 7 of his most recent book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State
Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Griffin makes a strong case for no plane
impact and shows how weak the positions of Chandler, Legge, Cole, and Hoffmann
really are. That was the good part. But he also gave way too much emphasis to
their opinions by quoting them repeatedly. He bought into their con that they
represent a significant part of the movement.

The other disturbing thing was that Griffin ignored CIT and Pilots for 9/11
Truth in his book, something that prompted outrage from former Consensus 9/11
Panel members Paul Zarembka, Barrie Zwicker, and Shelton Lankford. This,
however, delighted Legge and the propaganda team.

Legge has latched onto to this omission in his most recent piece of
"research." In "The
9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus," published in the
Journal of 9/11 Studies, Legge addresses Griffin's Pentagon position and his
omission of CIT:

"It is interesting that Griffin makes no mention of CIT in his latest book.
One wonders whether consideration of this probability, and the relevant
evidence, is leading him toward withdrawing his support for their
no-plane-impact, flyover theory."

You can wonder all you like, Frank, but it's not going to happen. By the way,
did you even read the chapter? Are you actually suggesting that it points to
Griffin abandoning his no-757-impact position? In fact, it does just the
opposite. Is this an oversight or a deliberate mischaracterization of Griffin's

Bursill also dipped in the team's current talking-points playbook in his recent
appearance on The Kevin Barrett Show. He, like his pal Legge,
predicted that Griffin was moving towards their position that a plane did

"That's why David Ray Griffin is winding back his position on the Pentagon,"
Bursill said.

"In the last few years he's been more and more careful about what did and did
not happen on the Pentagon, and people are arguing in the scientific community
that he should take a position that we don't know what happened and there is
evidence that a plane did hit there. And I believe this will end up being his
position as time goes by and more and more people get involved in the argument
on the Pentagon."

Legge, Bursill and others in their group seem to think we have to start with
absolute proof of what did happen before we begin to question the official
version. There's no requirement for the government to prove that a plane hit,
for example.

Here's how Legge explains it in his paper:

"As there is so much evidence for official misconduct, it is enticing to sift
through the evidence in the hope of finding proof that the Pentagon attack was
not as officially described. There is no doubt that there are suspicious
features about the attack, such as the impact point being at the recently
strengthened section of the Pentagon, still only sparsely occupied, and the
failure to intercept the plane, but care is required to ensure that all claims
are soundly based if credibility is not to be put at risk."

I thought it was the government's claims that we were examining and refuting.
But it's Legge, Bursill and their gang who are throwing credibility out the
window. They want us to, "Look at the science!" but then they make statements
like Bursill did about why the engines didn't leave a discernible mark on the
Pentagon wall:

"There was only enough place for the large, super-heavy parts to go through
at the ground floor," he said.

There was room for the super-heavy parts, but what about the regular heavy
parts, and whatever is left after that? Where did they go? He is clearly stating
that the hole is not big enough for the whole plane. And yet we were left with
no major pieces of wreckage outside the building.

He explains the unbroken bullet-proof windows by saying that it's reasonable
to think a "sheet of aluminum" hitting the window would bounce off. This doesn't
quite jibe with his description of the incredible kinetic energy involved in
this alleged crash that propelled the plane through the reinforced wall and into
the building.

Please explain, John, how a piece of the aluminum plane can bounce off a
window but not end up outside the building. Did you mean the familiar little
piece with the red and blue American Airlines markings? I suppose you could make
the case that this "bounced off."

The thing that made listening to Bursill and his Pentagon views bearable was
how Barrett stood up to him. My favourite part was when Barrett said Legge was
full of hot air, prompting Bursill to react with alarm: "It's not hot air, it's
science!" Priceless.

But Barrett was having none of it. He made his position clear:

"I have a very different opinion on that debate because Frank Legge's work
looks to me to be completely ludicrous in terms of his argument that a big plane
could have hit on the official flight path; I mean it's completely

All the way through the show, when Bursill would hear even one word he didn't
like he'd jump in with no regard for the person he was interrupting. In terms of
quantity, he was the clear winner. Many of his most ridiculous comments revolved
around the idea that, "We just don't have the data!" He seems to feel that when
there's any unresolved element at all, we should all default to the official
story. That's the one where Flight 77 hits the Pentagon, right?

Not to be outdone, Legge continues to try and convince members of the 9/11
Truth movement that he is a credible researcher on the subject of 9/11.
Unfortunately, he keeps writing articles that prove otherwise.

In his new paper, he writes: "There are good reasons to believe the reported
northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail
which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were
in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon, as
have many other people (bold added)."

So, the witnesses had "poor recollection of an unimportant event." Seriously?
This is your explanation for Chadwick Brooks, William Lagasse, Ed Paik, Sean
Boger, William Middleton Sr., Robert Turcios, Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford,
George Aman, and Maria de la Cerda?

Legge will take as credible the accounts of those who claim to have seen the
bodies of passengers inside the building, but he writes off as "poor
recollections" the numerous witnesses who clearly establish that the approaching
plane flew on a path north of the former Citgo gas station. This path, of
course, is incompatible with the damage to light poles and the building.

Even more incredibly, Legge claims that anyone who believes the plane hit or
that it was too low to miss is by default a South of Citgo witness because SoC
is the official flight path. This is an incredible example of circular

He puts the number of witnesses supporting impact at 93 (60 who believe the
plane hit and 33 who believe it was flying too low to miss). He therefore states
that it's 93 for SoC and 13 for NoC (those interviewed by CIT). He doesn't like
the fact that Griffin found a number of these witnesses not to be credible.

First of all, the notion that anyone fooled by the Pentagon illusion is by
default someone who thinks the plane flew to the south of the gas station is
ludicrous. All of the NoC witnesses think the plane hit, too. Does that make
them SoC witnesses?

Legge also ignores the many other witnesses who made statements consistent
with the northern flight path. I refer you to an excellent compilation by
Onesliceshort, a valued contributor to this blog, on the CIT forum.

In his conclusion, Legge makes a truly astonishing statement: "The great
majority of the public believes that a plane hit the Pentagon, therefore if an
activist tells people that there was no plane at the Pentagon, they will find
the activist untrustworthy. How then can we expect them to pay attention to the
far more important evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Center,
and falsely denied by NIST?"

Think about that for a minute. Take your time.

If we tell people that what they've been told isn't true, they won't think
we're trustworthy. But if we reinforce the false notion they've been fed by the
government and the media, they'll trust us. So why don't we avoid telling people
that explosives were used in the towers? We're willing to risk being seen as
untrustworthy to make that point.

Given the above quote, how can anyone find Legge trustworthy on anything?

This group has done everything in its power to marginalize evidence that the
Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash. They worked on Richard Gage for a
year and a half, finally convincing him to withdraw his stated support for the
research of CIT. Gage released his withdrawal statement in February 2011, and he
admits being "guided" by others in putting it together. Unfortunately, Legge is
taken seriously by Gage who praised his "extensive" research in our interview in
Montreal in April.

The propaganda team pressured others including Barrie Zwicker and Peter Dale
Scott. Scott caved, Zwicker didn't. The reversal of Gage and Scott gave team
member Chris Sarns reason for optimism when he addressed Scott on

"I am now very confident that others will join you and Mr.Gage."

But they didn't.

Griffin compromised with his move to the "consensus approach" on the
Pentagon, but at least he didn't drop his support for the no-757-impact
position. He has maintained this position throughout. And Griffin makes a very
strong case in support of the no-impact position. But the team wants total
capitulation. And they won't stop pushing until they get what they want.

To all the members of this co-ordinated effort: he doesn't agree with you.
He's not going to agree with you just because you push and push and push. Most
of the Truth movement doesn't agree with you. Your arguments for a 757 impact
are ridiculous. There is a consensus in the movement - that you are wrong.

To conclude my remarks, I'll take you to the beginning of Legge's paper. He
opens with this nugget of dishonesty.

"Strenuous efforts are being made to inform the public of this heinous crime
but many activists are now concerned that this process is being hampered by
ongoing dissension about what happened during the attack on the Pentagon."

I'd rephrase it this way:

"Strenuous efforts to keep the evidence that a large plane did not hit the
Pentagon from the public are being made by a small group of activists who are
pretending that real dissension exists in the movement when it is they who are
creating that dissension - deliberately."

Okay, it might not flow as well, but at least it's true.


i called out bursill for his position on the pentagon which was that
unless we could prove exactly what happened there, we need to accept the
official position.

i'd say cit's nsa has the culprits at the pentagon mightily concerned, hence
the attack on drg, who i very much hope holds his ground on this issue, and even
comes back to the right side (affirmatively endorsing cit's nsa).

FYI, John Burill is an Aircraft Engineer (not a Pilot) and Frank Legge is a
Chemist (also not a Pilot).


What I find ironic is that I have not found EVEN ONE mainstream media hit
piece attacking the Vancouver Hearings. Or, for that matter, even Screw Loose
Change. The entire world (mainstream wise) ignored the existence of that event.
So the idea that an event featuring "crazy" theories being discussed is an
invitation for FOX, CNN, etc. etc. etc. to come out of the woodwork and do
multitudes of hit pieces seems to be a non-starter.


There are several prominent truthers who claim that saying no 757 ever hit
the Pentagon on Sept. 11 will make the movement look foolish, perhaps when those
85 videos are released at some distant point in the future. Better to stick to
ideas the public can swallow more easily, they tell us.

One is John Bursill who made this very point on 911blogger in 2009:

"... if the media/military produce a video tomorrow of a plane hitting the
Pentagon we are as a movement dead in the water."

So instead of attacking the many gaping holes in the government's Pentagon
scenario, Bursill and others prop it up, focusing instead on how Hani Hanjour
didn't have the piloting skills to pull off the "attack." They continually warn
us about the dire consequences of exposing ourselves to ridicule if we don't see
things their way.

In their paper attacking Citizen Investigation Team last year, David Chandler
and Jonathan Cole used the fear of ridicule to scare us off considering the
evidence that no large plane hit the Pentagon, even implying that CIT's Pentagon
position could be intentional disinformation:

"... the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of
speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories ... this is not the
only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited."

They go on: "Why, then, the strenuous push to focus the attention of the
Truth Movement onto the Pentagon? Does it sound too cynical to suggest that we
are being intentionally set up?"

Then there are those who offer compelling evidence that a plane didn't hit -
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. They are perhaps even more extreme in their
belief that any questionable comment or association will cause terrible damage
to them and to the movement.

It is ironic that CIT takes very much the same approach in this regard as do
their harshest opponents. They don't want the purity of their north side
evidence (which I continue to support) to be tarnished by coming into contact
with the "bad" evidence like video fakery, mini-nukes, or directed energy
weapons bringing down the towers.

In fact, my tolerance for discussion of some of these issues in the comments
section of Truth and Shadows has led CIT's Marquis to ask me to stop mentioning
CIT or him by name in my articles. He thinks my ardent support for CIT's
conclusions is harming their efforts. Ouch. The request was, of course,

Major 9/11 conferences have also been affected by the trumped up fear of
ridicule. The organizers of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings in 2011 did everything
possible to avoid "controversial" subjects like the Pentagon. They wanted to be
nonthreatening for the mainstream media, and they were, receiving limited
coverage in Canadian papers like the National Post.

CIT wasn't invited, and Ranke says they wouldn't have gone if they had been.
CIT was invited to the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings but they declined. They
didn't want to be on the same stage as those offering presentations on Judy
Wood's work, video fakery, nuclear devices at the towers,

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity: New Members 1
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest Unsubscribe Terms of Use.