Rock Creek Free Press covers CIT's evidence in detailed article

The Rock Creek Free Press has a circulation of about 18,000 papers mostly in the Arlington/DC area but also nationwide and the critical north side approach evidence is featured in their April 2009 edition that just hit newstands this last weekend.

Here is a link to the pdf version of the paper:

www.rockcreekfreepress.com...

The article begins on page 1 and is continued on page 7.

Reporter Sheila Casey did an amazing job as it's obvious that she researched the information thoroughly.

She is a credited professional journalist with mainstream as well as alternative media :


Sheila Casey's opinion pieces have been published by The Denver Post, Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, Common Dreams and Dissident Voice.

She also published the article with more images on her very informative blog here, and she put it up on "Reddit" here.

Thanks for helping spread the word about this important article that goes over the bulk of the large body of critical evidence we present in a concise well-written piece.

Here is an excerpt from the beginning:

Eyewitnesses Contradict Pentagon 9/11 Story
BY SHEILA CASEY / RCFP

Two California men who call themselves the 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 eyewitnesses 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: thepentacon.com, as well as in four DVDs containing interviews with 13 witnesses 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 he witnessed on a map; the compilation from all the witnesses is shown below (see page 7). The curved lines clustered together toward the top of the map are from the witnesses; the single straight 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 Board (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. 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 were 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.

(rest of article linked in source at beginning of post)

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Good post! Star and flag for you.
I believe she is right on the money!
What is your opinion to what caused the explosion at the Pentagon and the small hole, where the supposed plane had hit? I never bought in to the OS to start with, because it lacks all the evidences.

Sucks to be one of the posters here who have been trying to convince everybody that the subject of this debate is dead eh. Now it's hit mainstream press!

Well done C.I.T. give yourselves a pat on the back and a nice cold beer!

Originally posted by impressme

Good post! Star and flag for you.
I believe she is right on the money!

Thanks!

What is your opinion to what caused the explosion at the Pentagon and the small hole, where the supposed plane had hit? I never bought in to the OS to start with, because it lacks all the evidences.

Pre-planted explosives.

Nothing hit the Pentagon.

While it's safe to say that the physical damage is irreconcilable with a 757, the initial hole in the outer facade of the E-ring before it collapsed was actually larger than most skeptics think, and it almost seems as though they tried fabricating a cookie cutter "plane shape" albeit rather sloppily.

Here is a good composite image:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c2a8a3acbba.jpg[/atsimg]

The notion this was caused by a perfectly level 757 at 535 mph is really quite silly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbed22279667.jpg[/atsimg]

As far as the strange round alleged "exit hole" in the C-ring, the best working hypothesis is that it was a simple Rapid Wall Breaching Kit.

Here are some damage comparison shots:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88a89e190d55.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03943d96f46d.jpg[/atsimg]


Just like at the towers, we'll never know exactly what type of munitions were used to do the deed but we have proof the plane did not hit the Pentagon explaining why all these questions about the physical damage existed in the first place.

reply to post by Kryties


Well to be fair I wouldn't call this a "mainstream" paper.

Yes the reporter, Sheila Casey, has written for MSM in the past but this is definitely not in that catagory!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Yes, I reread your post and realised it wasn't what one would call a mainstream paper, but the point still stands that the word is getting out to more and more people, unlike what certain posters have been trying to convince us of.

You still deserve a pat on the back and a beer mate

Congratulations on the press article, I am fully behind your research because just living very close to the Pentagon and working downtown when it happened and being very familiar with the angles and approaches, I didn't need a whole lot of analysis to arrive at the conclusion the original flight path and story were impossible, the day that it happened alarms went off for me.

reply to post by Kryties


Yes that point most definitely does still stand.

This issue is FAR from dead.

Most have worked real hard to ignore it as much as they can but the cat is out of the bag and attention will only grow.

They won't be able to ignore it forever.

Awesome post! Not sure what the truth is here but something is definately not right with the official story. Perhaps the official story is correct--but then why so many discrepancies and oddities? Hats off to CIT! ATF needs more if this. People that actually go out and do in person interviews and onsite analysis and gathering of evidence. Whether it be someone who believes in the conspiracy or a skeptic, looking at the hard evidence and digging through it yourself is the path to truth.

reply to post by phinubian


Ahh yes this is an excellent point. Most throughout the world have never been to Arlington (or surveyed the topography with a skeptical or investigative approach even if they have been there) and do not have the benefit of understanding this.

But besides making the official story impossible due to the required G Loads for the final maneuver, understanding the complex topography and landscape is key to understanding how they were able to pull this off so easily in broad daylight.

As is understanding the fact that the Pentagon is right next to Reagan National Airport with low flying jets landing and taking off right over and next to the building all day long every day.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/313c827b9c28.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6bd523a4197.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23aae21456a.jpg[/atsimg]

A plane making a steep ascent over the Potomac River wouldn't get a second look.

Particularly after a big explosion while a massive fireball rose and the Pentagon burned.

The newspaper article might even shake loose some more people who saw things that didn't fit the mainstream version of the days events.

Great work. We have alternative tabloid style newspapers here in Toronto, but they have been oh so quiet on the subject of 9/11. I'm going to email them the link to the Rock Creek Free Press article. Maybe they will risk printing it, since somebody else already has.

Here is a copy of the email sent to Now Magazine, Toronto. The subject line was, "Please reprint an article from the Rock Creek Free Press, Washington D.C."

Dear Sir/Madam,

Now Magazine has a reputation for presenting fresh perspectives on what is going on around us as well as for comprehensive coverage of the entertainment scene in Toronto.

Recently Rock Creek Free Press, an independant and somewhat radical newspaper published in the Washington, D.C. area published a story detailing the investigations of a group of young Americans who have interviewed and brought forward witnesses who contradict the official government version of what happened on 9/11, 2001 at the Pentagon.

The story in the Rock Creek Free Press is entitled "Eyewitnesses Contradict Pentagon 9/11 Story."

Here is a link to a .pdf file of the current issue of the newspaper, available in the Washington, D.C. area.

www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV3No4-Web.pdf

I hope you will read the story found in the linked .pdf file and consider reprinting it in Now.

The article indicates that at least part of the official 9/11 story, which after all was the initial impulse leading to the war in Iraq, may have been as fake as Bush's story about WMDs.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Maybe it will increase publicity for a viewpoint almost completely neglected in the mainstream news media.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Congrats on your write up.

Not sure if you have talked about the RBWK device as being the thing that caused the damage to the c-ring hole but I figured I would reply here.

Question? It has been my understanding that these devices were made only to breach a hole the size large enough only for a man to crawl or step through. The cring hole is much larger than that. I have a hard time believing that there was a RBWK made that was that large. Do you have some sort of info that makes you believe there was one large enough to create the cring hole? Not to mention I was also under the impression they use very very high pressure explosives (to make the sharp outline cutting through concrete) which in turn are extremely loud. I don't know I'm curious what made you come to this theory, to me it seems almost as crazy as the flyover.

Great article. Finally we get some press. Couldn't help noticing that NIST's 2.25 second freefall admission got some press also on the front page and right alongside Eyewitnesses Contradict Pentagon 9/11 Story on page seven.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ac5c0fd80e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Rock Creek Free Press
Vol. 3, No. 4 April 2009

NIST’s Quiet Admission of Controlled Demolition

BY MATT SULLIVAN / RCFP
Has the government finally admitted, albeit
indirectly, that at least one of the buildings
destroyed on 9/11 was a controlled demolition?
The National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg
Maryland, is the government agency responsible
for investigating and reporting on the destruction
of the World Trade Center Buildings. In 2005
they published a very controversial report on
the destruction of the two WTC towers, but
the report did not address the third skyscraper
felled that day, WTC7. The report on WTC7
was delayed into the final months of the Bush
administration.

Most Americans are still not aware that a
third building fell on 9/11. World Trade Center
Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 in the evening,
seven hours after the destruction of the other
two buildings. It was a 47 story office tower
that occupied an entire city block and was
located across the street and over 100 yards
from the two towers. It collapsed completely,
in less than 7 seconds into a compact pile of
debris on it’s own footprint. The destruction of
WTC7 was witnessed by thousands of people
(not counting the live television audience) and
filmed from over a dozen different angles.
Critics of the government’s official story,
such as physicist Steven Jones, have pointed out
that the destruction of the buildings, especially
WTC7, have all the hallmarks of controlled
demolition including a period of freefall
acceleration. This point is crucial because
there is absolutely no way to explain a freefall
see FREEFALL p. 7

www.rockcreekfreepress.com...

Sheila Casey's blog is quite interesting and worth a looksee, with further pertinent information.

New Research Contradicts Pentagon 9-11 Story
published in the April, 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

CIT’s next move is to consolidate their research into a more concise format that edits all the lengthy interviews into a single 60 minute video called “National Security Alert.” The video will have no music or other artistic flourishes, which will make it suitable for informing government or media figures. Within the next 30 days, they expect to go live with a new website at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com

That site will have a link for free downloads of their new video, plus detailed information on how citizens can use the video to get action, including a series of steps to take if authority figures don’t respond.

Ranke and Marquis will be returning to the DC area to present a four hour conference in tandem with Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The free conference is sponsored by The Wisdom Fund and will be held at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) conference center in Arlington, from 10 am to 3 pm, on Saturday July 11.

www.sheilacasey.com...

Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams. She blogs at www.sheilacasey.com...

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

Question? It has been my understanding that these devices were made only to breach a hole the size large enough only for a man to crawl or step through. The cring hole is much larger than that. I have a hard time believing that there was a RBWK made that was that large. Do you have some sort of info that makes you believe there was one large enough to create the cring hole? Not to mention I was also under the impression they use very very high pressure explosives (to make the sharp outline cutting through concrete) which in turn are extremely loud. I don't know I'm curious what made you come to this theory, to me it seems almost as crazy as the flyover.

First of all no matter what explosives they used it would have been "loud" just like it would have been if a 757 hit the building so I'm not sure why that seems "crazy" to you.

Second of all I highly doubt they would have grabbed a standard issue RWBK from the broom closet.

No doubt they have different versions of them with larger amounts of explosives.

Even if they typically don't I'm sure the suspect in question has the technology and the resources to make one for this operation.

Agreed?

The point is that we will NEVER know exactly what combination of explosives, incendiaries, and shaped-charges were used nor does it matter.

The independent verifiable evidence proves the plane did not hit the building.

Time to do something about it if you believe in truth, justice, freedom, and are against deception, mass murder, and fraudulent permanent war.

It's that simple.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Great thanks!

This is the type of proactive effort we are going to suggest on our new site while laying out a full strategy complete with example letters and evidence to send.

We need to start going after mainstream media, politicians, and the authorities while literally demanding that they take action.

If they don't after they have been made aware of the evidence they are guilty of being complicit in the cover-up.

They need to be pushed and prodded to do something or ultimately be held accountable for their inaction.

Excellant post, star. The 9/11 attack wont be set to rest till we have all the guilty parties in cement shoes. This is why this is such a great site...brings us all together with all this intel.

Im not sure if this is the right video, im on my phone so im not able to watch but if it is the correct video it shows whatever it is hitting the pentagon from a helicopters view. Can someone tell me if this is real or photoshopped, it doesn't look photo shopped but the first time I saw the video was from youtube mobile.

m.youtube.com...

Can someone verify the authenticity of this video ? Sorry if it has already been posted.

"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards."
—CNN.COM, "Up to 800 possibly dead at Pentagon" , September 12, 2001

If the video is real then it could go along with what a eye witness told cnn. A cruise missile dressed like a plane... as crazy as it sounds maybe its true. Has this video been debunked ?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by bubblekush]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by bubblekush]

reply to post by bubblekush


That's fake.