Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” by Chris Sarns

Please go and visit the source of this post. The lively discussion on what did or did not happen at the Pentagon should be enlightening to many of my readers. We don’t have as active a comment sections as 9/11 Blogger, so I would recommend to scroll through the discussions being held there. What hit, or didn’t hit , the Pentagon continues to be quite the debate within the 9/11 community and essentially, quite the unknown.

by Chris Sarns   source: 9/11 Blogger   May 20, 2010

Like many others I was impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) video “National Security Alert” (NSA) when I saw it for the first time. I thought that the unanimous testimony of the witnesses confirmed the North flight path of American Airlines flight 77, but I could not see how that in any way proved their “flyover theory”. I did not give the “flyover” theory much thought because it seemed to be a minor point. As it turns out, the strong evidence for the north flight path was just the “hook”, and “flyover” was actually their main point.

I started to doubt the validity of NSA when I found out that CIT had misled me into thinking that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming the North flight path. That is not true. There are numerous south flight path witnesses including four that CIT had interviewed. CIT claims that these witness statements are “dubious” and this justifies not mentioning them in the video. CIT not looking for south flight path witnesses and excluding the ones they did find is like NIST not looking for evidence of explosives and excluding the FEMA C report. You can’t find something if you don’t look for it. A real investigative report would give all the evidence and let the viewer decide.

Like NIST starting with the conclusion that the plane impacts and fires brought down the Trade Towers, CIT started with the conclusion of flyover. They included the statements that supported that conclusion and left out any statements to the contrary. Most notably the clear, unambiguous and unanimous statements by the five witnesses CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon. They all said the plane hit the Pentagon. Four said they saw the plane fly into the building and the fifth said he “could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon” but it “was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [and it] collided”. CIT asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon and he said “NO”. Once again the viewer is given only the information that supports the flyover theory.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are not acting like investigators. They are acting like lawyers for the defense of the predetermined flyover theory and therefore not required to tell the whole truth.
This reply from Aldo is rather telling. At the “Pilots for 911 Truth” forum, I noted that CIT had included the part of Erik Dihle’s statement that seemed to support flyover and left out the part that supported fly into.

Chris: You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement.

Aldo: WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE’S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to?…

* * * * * * * * * *

The following is an analysis of the video “National Security Alert” by the Citizens Investigation Team, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis.

National Security Alert – Omissions and misrepresentations

1) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path.

2) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.

3) CIT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses.
They are not.

* * * * * * * * * *

1) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path.

At 7:45 of National security Alert
“Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station.”

At 15:30
“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.”

In “The 2nd Plane Cover Story” video at 13:35, Keith Wheelhouse drew the south path on the same satellite photo CIT had shown the north path witnesses in the other CIT interviews.
Ranke and Marquis use double talk and a double standard to discredit Wheelhouse. They write him off as “Some guy who lied . . . for attention.” They then use this as an excuse to not include Wheelhouse’s statement in NSA so they could claim the witnesses unanimously support the north flight path.
At 17:14, Marquis quotes the black box data of a jet traveling 530 mph despite the fact that CIT refutes this [at 46:25 in NSA] and claims the jet was going much slower.
At 17:20, Ranke says “Most of the genuine witnesses said they could only see the plane for one or two seconds.” and uses that to refute Wheelhouse saying he saw the plane for about a minute. These statements are in conflict with several other north flight path witnesses who said it was 10 to 13 seconds from the time they first saw the plane until it hit the Pentagon [10 sec. Naval Annex to Pentagon = 180 mph]. CIT tailors their misrepresentations to fit the situation and ignores the inconvenient fact that the “one or two seconds” and the “530 mph” also refute the north flight path witnesses who said they saw the plane for 10 to 13 seconds. I believe Wheelhouse’s recollection of time is simply inaccurate and his memory of the distance between flight 77 and the C-130 was also flawed, but this does not make him a liar. After all, he was interviewed 5 years after the event.
At 11:48, Wheelhouse says he was near the fence at the East end of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC).
At 9:36 Wheelhouse said ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.”
At 17:40, CIT shows a video they say was taken from the exact place where Wheelhouse was standing. It shows the view of the Pentagon mostly blocked by shrubs. But Wheelhouse had just drawn an X on a satellite photo of ANC. The center of the X was about 100 feet in diameter. Ranke and Marquis say Wheelhouse could not see the plane hit the Pentagon – but that is just supposition on their part.

CIT interviewed 3 other witnesses who said the plane flew the south path.
At 26:07 Ranke: “We’ve spoken with Mike Walter, we’ve interviewed on camera Joel Sucherman, we’ve interviewed over the phone Vin Narayanan.”
But did not include them in NSA because, according to CIT, these witness statements are “dubious”.

CIT claims 13 north path witnesses. There were only eleven witnesses who said the plane flew north of the Columbia Pike. The other two, Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle, were not north flight path witnesses.
CIT falsely claims that they are “flyover” witnesses.

Eleven north flight path witnesses and four south path witnesses is not “unanimous”. CIT is entitled to their opinion but they did not say it was opinion, they stated numerous times that the witnesses were “unanimous” as if it were a fact. It is not.

2) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.

Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
The three CIT witnesses at the Citco Gas Station who stated that they could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:

Ranke “Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?”
Robert “Fly over the Pentagon???” [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] “No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided.”

Ranke “Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: “Correct”

Ranke “Did you see the plane hit the building?”
Sgt. Lagasse “Yes”

Witness at Pentagon Heliport Control Tower
Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon.
He had the best vantage point, about 100 feet from the impact point.
Official interview 11-14-01
Page 11: “I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn’t veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building.”
“So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head.”

Witness in Arlington National cemetery
Keith Wheelhouse was in the Arlington National Cemetery.
At 9:36 ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.”

Ranke left these statements out of his video “National Security Alert” and claimed instead:
“But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone.”…
“ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit the Pentagon.”…

To justify this claim he says a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring) which is true. But then he claims that this is “proof” that the plane did not fly into the Pentagon and therefore the witnesses must have been deceived into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon. However, the flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane, such as explosives. If the directional damage was caused by something else in the flyover theory then it was caused by something else in the fly into theory. Therefore, there is NO “proof” that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon. Ranke just states it as if it were a fact based on his assumption that the plane on the north path flying into the Pentagon would had to have caused the directional damage while the plane flying over the Pentagon does not.

3) Ranke says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses.

Roosevelt Roberts was a security guard, in the Pentagon who heard an explosion, ran outside to the center of the south parking lot loading dock. He states that he then saw a plane flying away to the south-west. Ranke insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is not a flyover witness.
“coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27.. . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.

Image Hosted by
Sarns 12-20-09

The green line is the official flight path. The orange lines are the flight paths drawn by the CIT witnesses. The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw – a plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west. The red dots combine what the north path witnesses saw with what Mr. Roberts describes. As shown, the resulting turning radius is about 350 feet. But an airliner flying at 200 knots requires a turning radius of about 5,000 feet. So clearly the plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west.

Image Hosted by
Nate Flach screen capture 12-5-09 From Pilots for 911 Truth video at 14:40
The speed is 200 knots, the turning radius is 5,090 feet and the bank is 35 degrees.

Erik Dihle is not a witness, he only overheard conflicting accounts (by unknown persons who may not even have been witnesses).

“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

CIT misrepresented this hearsay account by including the persons Dihle overheard who thought the plane kept going and leaving out the part where someone said the plane ran into the building. It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made.

Maria de la Cerda is not a flyover witness. Here is the double talk and omission CIT uses to justify calling her one:
NSA shows the .pdf file of her statement. The camera zooms in, excluding “it seemed” and just shows “like it struck the other side”.
Center for Military History #567 pg 10
Maria says and the screen has the subtitle “Yea, my mind’s eye I saw it hit on top.”
They underline “I saw it hit on top” and ignore “my mind’s eye”.
My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top”.

In other words, she did not see impact or flyover with her eyes, she just thought it hit top. If her quote makes any point at all it supports the impact theory – not the “flyover” theory – however since she is not a witness for either the “flyover” or “fly into” theories, she should not be included as one.

CIT did not research what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, they set out to prove flyover and like Dick Cheney looking for evidence of WMD’s, they built a case on misinterpretation, assumption, omission and outright lies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: