The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed
By: Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
August 4th, 2008
www.ThePentaCon.com
Video presentation to accompany this
article available
here. On September 11th, 2001, while thousands of eyewitnesses in Manhattan
and millions of television viewers worldwide
were attentively watching the north tower of
the World Trade Center burn, one of the most
incredible events in history occurred right
in front of their eyes: a second low-flying
plane appeared, slamming into the south
tower and forcing the world to face the
horrible reality that the burning north
tower was not the result of an accident. The
amazing and terrifying footage of this event
was replayed so frequently that it is
difficult to find a person in the United
States, or the world for that matter, who
has not viewed it.
In clear contrast, all video footage of
the Pentagon attack was quickly confiscated
and sequestered by the authorities. To
say that there has not been full disclosure
of the evidence surrounding the Pentagon
attack is an understatement to be sure;
the secrecy and cover-up is pervasive to the
point of being arguably criminal
(particularly when one considers the nature
and implications of the crime and its use as
a pretext for a permanent global "war on
terror"). In light of these circumstances, and countless other dubious details
surrounding this attack, the question of
what exactly happened at the Pentagon has
become one of the most hotly contested
mysteries of 9/11.
The lack of
disclosure and rampant secrecy on the part
of the government has left researchers and
citizen investigators with precious few
avenues for obtaining evidence
as a means to verify or refute
the details of the "official"
(government-endorsed) explanation.
Because of this fact, eyewitness testimony
leaps to the forefront as the primary, and
virtually only, means to obtain independent
verifiable evidence.
Those who are familiar with Citizen
Investigation Team (CIT) know that we have
made it our mission to shed light on this
event by locating and interviewing
eyewitnesses. We refuse to take the media
reports at face value so we have made a
point to contact dozens of the previously
published witnesses, whose statements had
been used to help sell the official story,
in order to confirm their accounts first
hand. In order to minimize any possible
ambiguity in their accounts we have filmed
our interviews with these individuals on
site (that is, in the precise location where
they witnessed the event that they are
describing) whenever possible or recorded an
interview over the phone if necessary. We
sought to confirm their exact location on
9/11 and would physically go there to
analyze their actual point of view in
relation to the topography and landscape.
Confirming these accounts was only part of
our job, however. We also canvassed the
neighborhoods to seek out previously unknown
witnesses who had not been talked to by the
government or used as a part of the media
campaign to support the official line. We
consider this particular witness set to be
the most important source of truly
independent and verifiable evidence, so a
number hours were spent knocking on doors
and adding new information to the public
record.
Our primary goal thus far has been to establish the true flight path of
the Pentagon attack jet as reported by the
eyewitnesses. We can then use this
information to determine whether it
corroborates or contradicts the "official"
data provided by the government, most
notably the data released by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006,
which is allegedly from the flight data
recorder (blackbox) of Flight 77, and the
alleged radar data provided by the 84th
Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES). If it
were to corroborate this data it would be
helpful in putting alternative theories to
rest.
However, what would it mean if the flight
path reported by the eyewitnesses
definitively contradicted this data?
One of the implications would be obvious:
that the government had manipulated their
data. However, there would be a second
implication that is less obvious, and it
answers the "why?" question that naturally
arises as a result of the first. That
implication is this:
If the plane did not fly where the
government-supplied data says it did in the
final seconds before the explosion at the
Pentagon, it did not hit the building.
This is an extraordinary implication, but it
would be absolutely undeniable. Why? It is
because the flight path denoted by the
government-supplied data is also the flight
path implied by the physical damage. In
other words, the plane had to have flown
along this exact path in order to be the
cause of the five downed light polls and the
damage to the Pentagon as outlined in the
American Society of Civil Engineer's (ASCE)
"Pentagon Building Performance Report". If
it had hit the building from any other
trajectory the physical damage would have
been completely different. Since it was
not, an approach from any other trajectory
is mutually exclusive with the notion that
the plane hit the building. Although we understand the general fallibility of eyewitness accounts,
when scrutinized in detail and independently
corroborated on a mass level, clear patterns
emerge in contrast to all official data,
reports, and physical damage. It is now
apparent that the true flight path as
reported by the eyewitnesses reveals
numerous fatal contradictions that prove a
complex well-orchestrated military
deception. For the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 to be
entertained as false, one must consider the
fact that we are talking about a
psychological deception like no other.
Naturally the hysteria of the extreme
tragedy of that day had the population in a
very vulnerable position on a psychological
level. While reviewing the evidence we are about to present in this article,
it's important to understand how the genuine
witnesses were of course just as susceptible
to psychological manipulation as the rest of
the world and this greatly facilitated their
vulnerability to deception. All were aware of the tragedies in New York and therefore aware that
the nation was under attack as they had the
unfortunate experience of being surprised by
a low flying aircraft dozens of feet away
from them headed straight for the Pentagon
timed perfectly with a massive explosion and
fireball. Taking the extreme trauma of such an experience into account and the
general tendency for eyewitnesses to deduce,
embellish, or misreport, CIT emphasizes the
obvious importance of corroboration when
trying to determine accurate information.
The more a detail is independently
corroborated the more likely it is true.
Furthermore the more simple and general the
corroborated detail is, the more likely it
is to be true. The core of the evidence CIT has uncovered proving a deliberate
psychological deception on 9/11 is based on
an extremely simple and highly corroborated
detail that at this point is validated to
the point of redundancy. In February of 2006 we released the documentary,
The PentaCon (Smoking
Gun Version) that included on
site interviews we conducted with 4
witnesses who independently corroborate the
simple claim that the plane flew past the
north side of the former CITGO gas station
right in front of the Pentagon seconds
before the explosion and fireball. Mechanic Edward Paik, gas station employee Robert Turcios, and Pentagon
police officers Sgt.'s Chadwick Brooks and
William Lagasse are all unanimous in their
placement of the plane on the north side of
the station. 
All known researchers, aviation experts, and even detractors to CIT
have been unanimous in their agreement that
this claim is irreconcilable with all the
physical damage, most obviously the downed
light poles and curiously turned generator
trailer. Furthermore the north side claim is
mutually exclusive to the witnesses' belief
that the plane hit the building.


As a result of this evidence exposing an undeniable and fatal
contradiction to the official data, reports,
and physical evidence, the next logical step
was to seek out further validation or
refutation of this claim.
Of course locating witnesses who were in a position to have an
effective enough vantage point is not an
easy accomplishment. This is particularly
the case since nobody can have a better
vantage point of north or south of the
station than the witnesses who were on the
station's property. Enter the U.S. Government (official documentation). The Center for Military History (CMH) reportedly conducted over a
couple hundred interviews in the weeks and
months immediately following the event. None of these interviews have been openly published but in 2008 a few
dozen were released via FOIA with the names
redacted. So in essence this data amounted to nothing but a bunch of anonymous
transcripts that have been sequestered,
vetted, and provided for solely by the very
suspect we are investigating in this crime. Unless of course we could figure out who the alleged witnesses were,
get a hold of them, and confirm their
accounts first hand. Only at that point
would their witness accounts become
independent verifiable evidence. Enter CIT (independent confirmation). Of the few dozen transcripts released, only a small handful even claim
they witnessed the plane as most were simply
part of the recovery efforts or involved
with the event in some other way. We focused on the alleged plane witnesses and paid special attention to
those who may have had a vantage point
allowing them to distinguish if the plane
was north or south of the former CITGO gas
station. Of course the interviews were
conducted on a human interest rather than
investigative level so finding specific
details regarding the flight path proved
difficult. We were however able to ascertain
certain clues in this regard and many
pointed to the notion that some witnesses
did indeed further corroborate the unanimous
north side claim from the witnesses at the
gas station. We quickly determined that the most important of these CMH accounts
were from individuals who were at Arlington
National Cemetery (ANC) located directly
north of the gas station right where the
witnesses we already spoke with all placed
the plane. 
We were able to determine the identities of and obtain interviews from
5 of these CMH accounts as well as obtain
additional interviews from another 6
witnesses. All but 2 of these 11 new
confirmed accounts were able to support the
previously established north side evidence
giving us 9 more witnesses on top of the
initial 4 at the gas station for a total of
13 who all definitively corroborate the
north side claim. 
One of these 11 new confirmed witnesses did not see the plane on the
approach but saw the plane flying away from
the building
after the explosion
providing for us the ultimate validation
that the north side evidence is accurate.In the absence of any independent first hand confirmation of the
official south of the gas station flight
path the implications should be clear. With
each level of corroboration of the north
side claim the notion that all the witnesses
were so drastically mistaken about such a
simple detail, yet in the exact same way,
becomes exponentially more difficult for
intellectually honest observers to suggest.
Only two out of the 11 new witness accounts denied us permission to
publish their interviews. Video taped and
phone recorded interviews with the ones who
granted us permission to publish can all be
reviewed in our latest video presentation:
The North Side Flyover

The rest of this article will be dedicated to describing the details
surrounding all 11 of the new independently
verified witness accounts in question.
1. Darrell Stafford
CMH interview:
NEIT 420 
Darrell is the Internment Foreman for Arlington National Cemetery and
was at work in front of the maintenance
buildings when he saw the plane on 9/11. He
was with employees Darius Prather and Donald
Carter whose accounts will follow. Darrell's
CMH account is from December 13th 2001 and
in it he describes the plane as being
directly over the Navy Annex and the parking
lot in front of the maintenance buildings
which is of course north of the gas station.
The interviewer didn't press for specific
details regarding the exact location of the
plane but all indicators point to the notion
that Darrell was describing a north side
approach. This of course was independently
confirmed in our June 2008 interview with
Darrell on location so now it can not be
denied that Darrell 100% supports the north
side evidence. Here is the flight path he
illustrated:

A key part of Darrell's account is the fact that he is able to describe
the bank the plane made in detail because
unlike the witnesses who were at the gas
station he watched the plane as it
approached.

This bank is 100% irreconcilable with all the physical damage and
official data yet perfectly supports what
CIT has been claiming the plane had to have
done. Darrell also saw a "2nd plane" come in about a minute later which was a
C-130 piloted by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. But
Darrell reports it as approaching from the
northwest while the official alleged radar
data released from 84 RADES in 2007 has the
plane approaching from the southwest.
Darrell's account of this 2nd plane matches
what we had earlier interpreted the C-130
flight path to be based off statements from
the pilot himself. This blatant
contradiction strongly suggests that the 84
RADES data has been manipulated as cover for
the flyover.

2. Darius Prather 

Darius was not interviewed by the CMH but he was with his boss Darrell
Stafford at the time of the attack and
corroborates his account perfectly. He
describes the bank in detail and clearly
remembers the plane as coming directly
towards them at the maintenance buildings
from right on top of the Navy Annex.
Darius poignantly notes how they were all running for their lives away
from the plane and the Pentagon during the
explosion and were more worried about being
wiped out by the explosion or debris as
opposed to whether or not the plane hit the
building. He said, "nobody was trying to
look see if it was actually going to hit the
building or not hit the building. So
everybody was running in the opposite
direction for their lives."
Like Darrell Stafford, Darius also has the C-130 coming from the
northwest as opposed to southwest as
depicted in the 84 RADES data. This
extremely important piece of evidence is
strong corroboration that the C-130 story
has been manipulated as cover for the
flyover.
3. Donald Carter 

Donald was also at work with Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather on
9/11. He corroborates their accounts
perfectly. Besides being very lucid and
quite nonchalantly certain about the banking
north side flight path, Donald was very
descriptive in how the plane "glided" or
coasted over the Navy Annex into the bank
before gunning its engines to complete the
maneuver.Donald also supports the northwesterly approach of the C-130. 4. William Middleton
Sr. 
William was interviewed for the CMH but it has not been released via
FOIA as of yet and I would be surprised if
it ever was.

William's account is significant in our presentation because he
corroborates Darrell, Darius, and Donald
from a completely different perspective from
the cemetery at the northeast corner of the
Navy Annex.He didn't have as good of a view of the bank and he recollects it as a
"wobble" which isn't surprising from his
perspective. He deduced the plane as coming
straight up the road on the north side of
the Navy Annex (Southgate Rd) even though he
did say he saw it coming "between the
Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex"
which is quite accurate and further
demonstrates how his perspective of the
angle of approach could be easily skewed
from that location. But what's notable is
that he likely would not have seen the plane
at all on the official flight path and speed
of 535 mph. This is also irreconcilable with
his description of a relatively slow
approach taking "10 to 15" seconds to reach
the Pentagon. Even though he was right beside the Navy Annex he also describes it as
gliding or coasting to the bank before
wobbling or weaving and then gaining control
and kicking it into gear corroborating
Donald Carter's account of this. Another extremely important point in this crushing account is the fact
that William saw the plane as it made it's
approach loop from the airport or east of
the Potomac River. This simple detail
corroborates the account of charter boat
captain Steve Chaconas who saw the plane
approach from east of the river from over DC
skies and fatally contradicts the approach
loop depicted in the NTSB data. (See the
critical witness account of Steve Chaconas
here.) 

Furthermore William describes the plane as white. Since of course this
detail has been corroborated many times by
independent previously unknown witnesses as
shown in our previous presentation,
"Flight 77" The White
Plane, and since of course
American Airline (AA) jets are not white,
this detail is rather notable.Granted we have come across many conflicting reports regarding color of
the plane but at this point most of the
independent descriptions we have obtained do
not match an AA jet and "white" seems to
come up more than any other color. Like all the ANC witnesses presented, William's point of view of the
Pentagon was blocked by trees so when we add
this to the fact that he describes how
scared out of his senses he was it perfectly
explains why he did not see the flyover. What can't be denied is that everything William Middleton describes is
100% fatal to the official story and when
considering the plane needed to be
completely on the south side of Columbia
Pike, which he could not see at all, the
notion that he was simply "mistaken" is not
a viable response to his account.
5. George Aman CMH interview:
NEIT 419


George's account is an interesting one as he strongly corroborates all
of the witnesses so far but from yet another
perspective as he was inside his office in
the maintenance building looking at the
plane through his window. In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly
describing the plane north of the gas
station and right over the parking lot in
front of the maintenance buildings where he
was in his office. In the CMH interview George describes seeing people in the plane. While
deduction and embellishment is a typical
eyewitness tendency the fact that he could
even consider it remotely possible is a
strong indicator that the plane was north of
the gas station and certainly not on the
extremely fast and straight official flight
path much further from his view. In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically
describes the plane as "turning and gliding"
which instantly supports the north of the
gas station bank as described by all the
other ANC workers. George is now retired and I was able to get his phone number from a
different employee on the lot after asking
around for him. Now that he has been asked the right questions on an investigative
level there can be no denying that he
corroborates all the other witnesses and
fatally contradicts the official story. 6. Sean Boger
CMH interview:
NEIT 299 
Sean Boger was the air traffic controller at the heliport tower right
next to the alleged impact point.


He is a well known previously published witness who has always been
used as a strong witness for the plane
impact.
Sean does in fact state that he watched the plane enter the building
which would seem to be hard to deny coming
from someone who watches aircraft for a
living and saw the plane approach but of
course the CMH failed to ask him any
specific questions as to where he
saw the plane. Naturally when we spoke with Sean in order to get these details he
corroborated all the other witnesses by
specifically and definitively placing the
plane banking on the north side of the gas
station. 
This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated. He
has also claimed since day one that he hit
the deck so the obvious conclusion here is
that he reacted as anyone would and hit the
deck as the plane approached headed right
towards him and simply missed the pull up.Sean also corroborates William Middleton Sr.'s account of the
relatively slow north side bank as he
estimated it took "8 to 15" seconds to reach
the Pentagon. Further evidence that Sean deduced the impact is the fact that he was
literally arguing with us about the low and
level approach as shown in the security
video. 
He said that he does not believe it was level or that low. He claims it
was on a descent and that it was between the
2nd and 3rd floor (which is equal to his
height in the heliport tower) rather than
beneath his point of view on the first floor
as depicted in the ASCE report and required
by the physical damage. 
At this point the fact that he corroborates all the other witnesses
regarding the north side claim is a strong
indicator that he was deceived and this
categorically outweighs his belief in an
impact when considering the entire body of
evidence.
7. Levi Stephens
Levi is a previously published witness and his initial interview can be
read in this article in a military
publication, Stars & Stripes from 9/12/2001:
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091201i.html
Levi certainly believes the plane hit the building but when we got a
hold of him and asked the investigative
questions regarding the flight path he once
again corroborated everyone else by placing
the plane on the north side of the gas
station.
What's also very important is that Levi was most definitely surprised
that the plane was supposed to be an
American Airline. He seemed genuinely
concerned about this and even remembered
questioning it when he got back to his
office on 9/11 and heard the first reports
that it was supposed to be an AA jet. Levi
declined to allow us to publish his
interview. It's clear he does not want to be
involved so we will respect his wishes and
not publish it but we still must report what
he told us. Here is his confirmed location: 
He admits he did not see the plane hit any light poles despite the fact
that they were right in front of him plus he
does not describe the plane as being over
the bridge that close either. He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the
Pentagon at the time of the explosion which
would explain why he missed the pull up and
flyover. But again, he confirmed the plane was on the north or Arlington
Cemetery side of the gas station and he
described the plane as not looking like an
AA jet, specifically as being two tone and
having a tan belly.
8. Maria De La Cerda
CMH interview:
NEIT 567 Maria is a member of the Army band, Pershings Own. She was performing
at a "full honor" ceremony for a funeral at
Arlington Cemetery when she saw the plane
and the big explosion. Here is a view of the Pentagon from her approximate location.


Admittedly Maria is one of the weaker witnesses in support of the north
side evidence because she could not see the
gas station at the time of the attack and
because of her hazy memory in regards to the
plane in general. But this is why her officially documented CMH interview from
February 6, 2002 is so important. In it she says how she initially thought that it "seemed
like it hit the other side"!
She describes how she was perplexed by the damage as her unit provided
support for the recovery efforts in the
coming days.She confirmed this to us in our interview but at this point her memory
turned it into the fact that she initially
thought the impact was "on top". She ended
up reconciling this in her mind by the fact
that this is "where the fireball was" so
this is what likely caught her eye.
Her account is a prime example of how people who were initially
confused about what they saw were able to
simply reconcile the discrepancies in their
mind in order to accept what they were told
happened. That is the power of illusion/deception in contrast to the
vulnerability of the human mind.
But Maria does support the north side evidence because she believed
without hesitation the plane was closer to
the cemetery and also because she likely
would not have seen it at all from her
location if it was on the official flight
path.
9. Terry Morin Terry was at the Navy Annex at the time of the attack. He is a well
known previously published witness and you
can read his first hand written account
here:
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm
He describes the plane as directly over him. We knew that if he meant this literally it would support the north side
flight path and fatally contradict the
official flight path that requires the plane
to be on the south side of Columbia Pike at
all times. 
So I went to Terry's house to see if I could get him to confirm or deny
this detail. He confirmed it with flying
colors. I interviewed him for an hour on his
front porch but like Levi he was the only
other witness who refused to grant me
permission to publish his interview. But I can report that he was absolutely certain the plane was entirely
on the north side of
Columbia Pike as it passed over him while he
was between the wings of the Navy Annex.

He said he only saw the belly of the plane and could not tell that it
was (supposed to be) an AA jet.This fact alone proves that he supports the north side path. He says he then ran out from between the wings and saw the tail of the
plane as it reached the Pentagon. The obvious problem with this claim is that you can only see the very
top of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex
property.

Since the physical damage requires the plane to enter the building at
the bottom floor this means the only way he
could have seen the plane at that point is
if it was flying over the building.Terry Morin therefore is a definitive north side witness. What also contradicts the official story is the fact that like William
Middleton and Sean Boger, Terry believes the
plane was going a lot slower than officially
reported. He claims it was "12 to 15
seconds" from when he first heard it until
the explosion and we know he saw the plane
directly over him and the Navy Annex only "1
or 2 seconds" after he first heard it.
William, Terry, and Sean provide an
extremely compelling case for this slower
speed since they all had very different
perspectives. Not to mention the fact that
Terry is a trained aviator and Sean is an
air traffic controller so both could fairly
be considered expert witnesses in this
regard. As a side note he told me he is this person in this famous image:

The false conjecture of the truth movement assuming that they were
carrying away parts from some secret
military craft in that "box" is rather
ironic since Terry ended up proving the
official story false in a much different
way.
If you look closely you can see they are carrying an empty tent with no
bottom.
10. Russell Roy
CMH interview:
NEIT 428


Russell is not a north side witness or a witness to the Pentagon attack
jet at all. He was inside the bay at the
time of the explosion and unlike the other
bays the opening to this particular one
faces the opposite direction of the plane
approach. Russell didn't come out of the bay
until after the explosion and only saw the
"2nd plane" or the C-130 piloted by Lt. Col
Steve O'Brien. It seemed low to him but this
makes sense without having seen the Pentagon
attack jet to compare it to which was much
lower at the time. But Russell's account of the C-130 is extremely important because the
direction he saw the plane coming from
corroborates all of the other ANC witnesses
who saw the C-130 but also 100% contradicts
the alleged radar data released by 84 RADES
in 2007. 
Furthermore since he was facing the opposite direction he would not
have seen or been so alarmed by the C-130
banking around and turning away if it
happened way up by the Navy Annex as shown
in the data. Therefore Roy's placement of
the bank further east is also contradictory
to the data.

It's important to not overlook or minimize the significance of evidence
surrounding the C-130 flight path. In
essence it proves evidence tampering. All it
would take is a simple subpoena of Lt. Col.
Steve O'Brien to get him to testify as to
his exact flight path and a military
deception has been implicated by the
tampering of the 2007 released alleged radar
data. O'Brien's previously published
statements about his flight path fully
support the ANC employee's quadruple
corroborated account of his approach and he
has curiously stopped responding to us since
the released of the 84 RADES data in 2007.We are now publicly pleading to O'Brien to speak out further regarding
exactly where he flew on 9/11 because at
this point the evidence demonstrates foul
play from the officials when considering
this specific detail.
11. Roosevelt Roberts
Jr.Find Roosevelt Robert's name under this index at the Library of
Congress website to download his officially
documented interview:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/91...ecordingI1.html
Or download direct:
Real Audio
MP3
WAV
Download our independently confirmed interview with him here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the
Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all.
He only saw it immediately
after the explosion
as it banked away from the Pentagon. He was at the east side of the loading dock when he saw the plane over
the south parking lot of the Pentagon.

Roosevelt says that the plane was 50 to less
than 100 feet above the light poles in the
south parking lot and was banking around.
His exact direction of the bank is a bit
unclear from the interview but it sounds as
though he has it banking around to the north
since he says towards the "mall entrance
side" which is on the north side of the
Pentagon. He says "southwest" but we think his directions were confused at that
moment since it sounds like he is struggling
to visualize and verbalize the proper
cardinal direction which is to be expected
from eyewitness recollection. He does
clarify further when he says it was not
banking towards the airport meaning it
wasn't banking southwest after all. As much as we would like to clarify his account further either
Roosevelt got scared or somebody told him
not to talk to us because it was clear he
was avoiding us after promising follow up. As discussed in the documentary we were able to eventually reach him
again weeks later after trying maybe a dozen
times. Eventually we got a hold of him again and basically explained the
implications of what he saw in a last ditch
effort to get him to talk to us in more
detail. After that discussion he agreed to
an on camera interview for one week later on
Sunday June 8th. Unfortunately when I called
to confirm he backed out. At this point it's clear that Roosevelt is nervous regarding the
implications of what he saw and prefers to
not put himself in a difficult position by
implicating his boss and no doubt as far as
he is concerned jeopardizing his livelihood. This does not change the fact that he already officially reported this
jet in 2001 and has independently confirmed
this to us in 2008. There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than
the flyover. The C-130 came in significantly later, was not nearly that low, and was
not anywhere near the south parking lot and
didn't even fly over the Pentagon. Plus
Roosevelt is certain what he saw was a
silver commercial aircraft/airliner with jet
engines, and not a C-130 with propeller
engines. To dismiss all of these accounts as a fluke is illogical. The extreme
level of validation of the north side
flyover combined with the obviously
questionable nature of the physical evidence
not to mention the fatal contradictions in
the officially released data leaves us no
conclusion other than military deception on
9/11. We are calling on all citizens to help us force a congressional inquiry
into this extremely dire matter that has
major implications on a global scale. Watch full video presentation here.
|