Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ April Gallop Sues American Airlines, But Claims There Was No Plane?

Posted by: BlueSky Mar 24 2011, 12:20 PM

The documents shown on this forum thread: http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread424507/pg1 are quite.... bad if she is going to go to court again.


Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110324050310393

What is the deal with this lady?

Posted by: amazed! Mar 24 2011, 03:25 PM

She was also briefly interviewed by Jesse Ventura in his TV piece. Better questions could have been asked of her by Jesse, but no big deal.

I wish her all the best.

My cynical view is that the judiciary in this country is largely corrupted. Like the Qui Tam case by Woods, I doubt this woman will prevail within the corrupt system.

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 24 2011, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (BlueSky @ Mar 25 2011, 01:50 AM) *
The documents shown on this forum thread: http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread424507/pg1 are quite.... bad if she is going to go to court again.


Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110324050310393

What is the deal with this lady?



Dear BlueSky

I have tried to followup the thread you have given, but cannot get anything, what are the things you find 'quite bad' please.

Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 24 2011, 10:44 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 25 2011, 04:55 AM) *
She was also briefly interviewed by Jesse Ventura in his TV piece. Better questions could have been asked of her by Jesse, but no big deal.

I wish her all the best.

My cynical view is that the judiciary in this country is largely corrupted. Like the Qui Tam case by Woods, I doubt this woman will prevail within the corrupt system.


Dear Amazed.

There is such a thing as 'International Law', which I think eventually the 'American State', will find it is not above.
Thank goodness this woman, survived the murderous attempt upon her life.
What every American needs to consider, it could just as easily have been them.

Robert

Posted by: paranoia Mar 25 2011, 12:23 AM

QUOTE (BlueSky @ Mar 24 2011, 12:20 PM) *
The documents shown on this forum thread: http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread424507/pg1


-the link does not work, please (if possible) fix it.

Posted by: paranoia Mar 25 2011, 03:31 PM

my apologies bluesky - i forgot that you can not post links to ATS here, UNLESS you put them in code tags. unfortunately, without the info in that thread its hard to be sure what you're contending, but -

QUOTE
What is the deal with this lady?


QUOTE
April Gallop Set to go to court again, but should she be supported?


-are you taking issue with ms.gallop saying there was NOT a plane inside the building? or are you misunderstanding her claim? she is not saying that "no plane" flew in the area overall (she wouldnt know either way since she was INSIDE and could not have seen the plane that flew by and DID exist), but she is saying she walked out of the hole where there should have been a plane and that she didnt see any plane inside the building, so the jist of her contention (as i understand it) is that whatever plane it was that was involved did not impact nor penetrate into the pentagon.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 25 2011, 04:08 PM

Robert

International law?

Well somehow it seems to have scared Dubya into not visiting Switzerland a few months back, but that's about it.

Bush & Co, Tony Blair and all the rest of the war criminals are still collecting very nice fees for retelling their lies in public.

International law is almost as big a joke as US law. laughing1.gif

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 25 2011, 05:54 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 26 2011, 05:38 AM) *
Robert

International law?

Well somehow it seems to have scared Dubya into not visiting Switzerland a few months back, but that's about it.

Bush & Co, Tony Blair and all the rest of the war criminals are still collecting very nice fees for retelling their lies in public.

International law is almost as big a joke as US law. laughing1.gif



Dear Amazed.

As you probably anticipated, I do not subscribe to your general note of cynicism.
I clearly take your point about those who work against our better interests.
History is full of such people.

But I think you misunderstand my consideration, in the term of 'International Law', and in fairness to you I realise that I have to make it clearer.
Yes,
'Law', is a set of rules, brought about by 'Legislation', ultimately enforced by the 'Courts'.
But,
Legislation is brought about by members elected by the 'you's and me's' of this world.

'International', is the conglomerate of the above, which is where the ultimate power to bring about countering change, to the 'status quo',resides.

This will never occur unless the 'you's and me's' do something about it, with positive steps, as little as they may be, but the biggest fear of all 'tyranny', has always been, and still applies, THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, which is mounting steadily, despite the efforts of those you mentioned, who are showing them selves up as complete 'wimps'.

Robert

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 25 2011, 07:27 PM

I say good luck to her.
Certain sections of the "Truth Movement" failed to acknowledge the fact that April's case wasn't just about the Pentagon but the entire 9/11 scenario.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4988/gallupcheney.jpg

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7131/gallupcheney1.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9679/gallupcheney2.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7852/gallupcheney4.jpg

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2056/gallupcheney5.jpg

And the reason it was dismissed out of hand and why Amazed! is spot on in his comments?

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9472/gallupcheney6.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1573/gallupcheney7.jpg

Certain people at TrueFaction have labelled her a "moneygrabber", a "liar" and make dumbass videos casting aspersions on her even though she is a victim whose son was partially braindamaged. Her crime? That she dared voice anything about "no plane hit the Pentagon".

It's the closest anybody has got to bringing 9/11 into the judicial system (even as a gesture/protest) and some who claim to "represent the victims' families" have kept their big mouths shut at the blatant attacks on her right under their noses. Assholes.

Hope that helps BlueSky.

Posted by: BlueSky Mar 25 2011, 09:01 PM

ok, didnt know abovetopsecret site was censored (dont blame them!)
so its abovetopsecret dot com /forum/thread424507/pg1

The only reason why i brought this issue up is because i was debating with some bush subordinates about april gallops upcoming appeal and they produced this ATS page as a debunker.

On the page it has copies of notices to sue american airlines, it appears that she settled with american airlines out of court, to me that translates to acknowledging that american airlines is liable, so if it wasnt an AA plane, why would she accept a settlement?

There is kind of two different signals coming from april gallop, well to me anyway.

It just makes the picture slightly more murky.

Posted by: BlueSky Mar 25 2011, 09:04 PM

I do wish anyone the best in seeking justice for 9/11, the only reason why i brought this up is because i think it conflicts with the 'recent' finding that the black box data doesnt match a aa plane.

Also, it was quite strange to see bush subordinates using abovetopsecret as an authentic source of information ... lol ... crazy planet

Posted by: elreb Mar 25 2011, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 25 2011, 10:08 AM) *
International law is almost as big a joke as US law. laughing1.gif

Well, at least Rachel Maddow agrees with you.

She just stated that the “US government” is nothing more than a puppet to Military Contractors and big Money.

She claims that her company…General Electric [the world’s second largest company]…is only required by Law…to pay 6% in income taxes on their $751 Billion…while the average American pays 25%...

Posted by: 23investigator Mar 25 2011, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (BlueSky @ Mar 26 2011, 10:34 AM) *
I do wish anyone the best in seeking justice for 9/11, the only reason why i brought this up is because i think it conflicts with the 'recent' finding that the black box data doesnt match a aa plane.

Also, it was quite strange to see bush subordinates using abovetopsecret as an authentic source of information ... lol ... crazy planet


Dear BlueSky.

Thankyou.
Have you by any chance sighted the action that was lodged against American Airlines???

Robert

Posted by: amazed! Mar 26 2011, 04:33 PM

Thanks Robert, for an honest and civil reply.

I am a cynical bastard, and have been for years.

I really hope you're right. I think part of that civic effort that you advocate can be channelled through the Jury system. People could easily and quickly begin practicing nullification and other anti-government actions. Trouble is, most of them don't even know it.

Posted by: Ricochet Mar 27 2011, 02:02 PM

These law suits serve one purpose and that is to get thrown out. This stops any real court case with real evidence from occuring. She goes to court puts up a weak arguement, case tossed case closed. Now anyone wishing to show real evidence is shut down. The same with respect to her first law suit, try and take any of the Bush administration to court and they will cite the Gallop case saying it was already done and tossed out. She crawled out the flaming hole??? Give me a break. Read that again and think about it. Firemen and rescue personael all around and a soldier with her weeks old infant crawl out the entry/bombed out hole where they are pouring on the water and foam she valiantly escapes and no one notices her and it doesn't make headlines in a time where miracles seem to happen. This story did not surface for 3-4 years after 9/11. It should have been in the news that day. It was manufactured, like all "news" in the US. When this law suit fails, not "if", when, no one can ever go to court in the US and claim no American Airlines plane hit the pentagon.

Posted by: amazed! Mar 28 2011, 04:43 PM

My goodness Ricochet, you're a cynical fellow.

And maybe the Canadian legal system is different than ours, but your statement that the Gallop or Woods case might be cited as precedent in future cases is absurd. Don't give up your day job and go into the practice of law without some formal training.

Now maybe I'm gullible, but I happen to believe April Gallop. She's kinda like any other whistle-blower against the lies of government.

But you see her as a false witness. I must disagree.

The paid witnesses the government puts up act differently than she has. The government written statements by various witnesses sound alot different than hers.

Posted by: albertchampion Mar 28 2011, 07:19 PM

ah, you cannot be cynical enough when inquiring into the machinations of the u.s. federal judiciary.

in my involvement with it, i have always considered it a kind of mule. a hybrid resulting from the breeding of intell services, organized crime, and the bankers.

if i wanted to waste some more time with this, perhaps if you ask nicely, i shall.

Posted by: elreb Mar 28 2011, 09:17 PM

The key word is “Federal”…

The Federal Government's endeavors to prevent anything but the vague semblance of a fair trial were funneled mainly through the federal judge presiding--one Kent Dawson, may his name forever live in infamy. Here is some of what he has done to preserve the revenue base of his employer.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=111&contentid=2941&page=2

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 29 2011, 02:58 PM

Is somebody else going to actually bother their arse to go to court in the near future? First I heard about it.

Why not knock on the bastards' doors for a change?

Posted by: elreb Mar 31 2011, 09:46 PM

What do wealthy people covet the most?

To own the rights of others…without blame or guilt of wrong doing…

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 2 2011, 08:55 AM

I see http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-03-25/895-germans-doubt-oct-army-spc-april-gallop-sues-bush-administration-april-5th#comment-247908 are getting their knickers in a twist on other forums too about not only the lawsuit but April Gallup herself.

QUOTE
Set-up to fail.

This has nothing to do with heroic acts, wishes or intentions.


Read between the lines.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 4 2011, 12:44 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 31 2011, 11:55 AM) *
I see http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-03-25/895-germans-doubt-oct-army-spc-april-gallop-sues-bush-administration-april-5th#comment-247908 are getting their knickers in a twist on other forums too about not only the lawsuit but April Gallup herself.



Read between the lines.



OSS, i think it's pretty clear where she comes from.

I even get the feeling that she would 'love' to become

a member of the so-called "elite" herself!! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: amazed! Apr 5 2011, 04:00 PM

Well here it is April 5th, the day. And I just aground to using the link provided.

Bill Veale is the attorney at Center for 911 Justice in California.

Will Justice prevail in this case?

Posted by: tit2 Apr 6 2011, 07:37 AM

See : « April Gallop, Military Officer, Pentagon 911 Victim, Sued Cheney, Was In Court Today~News BLACKOUT »

http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/april-gallop-military-officer-pentagon-911-victim-sued-cheney-was-in-court-todaynews-blackout/

Quote :

"April 6, 2011

Judge John Walker (Cleared of Police Officers Death 2007) is GEORGE W. BUSH’s COUSIN!!!

Walker was on the panel who heard her case today.  If her appeal is granted, she will be assigned Judge John Walker – then the case will be thrown out and buried just like the silence in the media that you heard today!!

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 6 2011, 11:14 AM

QUOTE (tit2 @ Apr 6 2011, 12:37 PM) *
See : « April Gallop, Military Officer, Pentagon 911 Victim, Sued Cheney, Was In Court Today~News BLACKOUT »

http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/april-gallop-military-officer-pentagon-911-victim-sued-cheney-was-in-court-todaynews-blackout/

Quote :

"April 6, 2011

Judge John Walker (Cleared of Police Officers Death 2007) is GEORGE W. BUSH’s COUSIN!!!

Walker was on the panel who heard her case today.  If her appeal is granted, she will be assigned Judge John Walker – then the case will be thrown out and buried just like the silence in the media that you heard today!!


I know I shouldn't get pissed at this news but...f*** me..

QUOTE
They argued before an appellate panel of three judges: Judge Ralph Winter, Judge Marina Corodemus (a potential SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) nomination), and Judge John Walker (all Yale law school grads). Of course, Ms. Gallop’s attorneys filed for dismissal of Judge John Walker, which was denied. Clearly, they do not care that the judge hearing the case suing the former Vice President is the former President’s cousin. Ms. Gallop’s attorney’s then made a motion for an appellate review of their decision to keep Judge Walker on the case, which was also denied. And the whole time in court, the arguments of Ms. Gallop’s attorneys were completely ignored and instead were questioned with very demeaning inquiries by the judges, such as:

Do you even have a law degree?
From what law school?
Are you licensed to practice in the 2nd Circuit?
Have you ever represented a client in the 2nd Circuit? etc.


Arse....holes.

I'm swinging in the dark here but isn't it a conflict of interests when the cuz of the accused is sitting on the panel???

Posted by: amazed! Apr 6 2011, 11:18 AM

The US Judiciary is as corrupt as either the White House or the Congress.

Posted by: Ricochet Apr 6 2011, 11:51 AM

Hell ya I'm cynical.

Posted by: tit2 Apr 6 2011, 03:54 PM

Quote :

« And the whole time in court, the arguments of Ms. Gallop’s attorneys were completely ignored and instead were questioned with very demeaning inquiries by the judges, such as:

Do you even have a law degree?
From what law school?
Are you licensed to practice in the 2nd Circuit?
Have you ever represented a client in the 2nd Circuit? Etc. »

In reality it is possible that these judges have fully understood that the elements included in the lawsuit of April Gallop would be dangerous for senior Bush administration officials cited by the lawsuit. That's why they ask no questions about the complaint itself. They are seeking a way to dismiss this complaint while avoiding any investigation about it, because an investigation would be dangerous for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

Their purpose is not justice, but to protect murderers. As the media which does not say a word about the lawsuit of April Gallop.

Posted by: elreb Apr 6 2011, 04:53 PM

This is why I was using Judge Kent Dawson as an example…

Judge Kent Dawson…"I will not allow the law in my courtroom!"

Schiff: "But the Supreme Court said ..." Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

Schiff: "The Supreme Court is irrelevant?" Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

"Here we have a federal judge railroading an American citizen by saying Supreme Court decisions are irrelevant." [In his court room]

Posted by: amazed! Apr 6 2011, 09:30 PM

Would that be Irwin Schiff?

Posted by: elreb Apr 6 2011, 09:45 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 6 2011, 03:30 PM) *
Would that be Irwin Schiff?

Yes Sir…

I studied to be a CPA and understand “Tax” law…I did both corporate and personal taxes for years…

Most American citizens are getting screwed…by way of extortion and fear…

god damn it...when is someone going to get pissed off/

Posted by: tit2 Apr 11 2011, 06:20 AM

« Veale, amidst frequent interruptions from the three judges, managed to point out Cheney's direct involvement in tracking and dealing with the airplane that was heading for the Pentagon, as reported to the 9/11 Commission by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. » See:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42469680

The three judges probably understood that an investigation concerning the testimony of Norman Mineta would be very dangerous for Dick Cheney, therefore they tried to forbid William Veal to recall this testimony. What were the orders of Dick Cheney, why the plane that allegedly approached the Pentagon was not shot down? Why no action has been taken to inform the occupants of the Pentagon of approach of the plane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

An investigation on these three questions which would be very easy to do, might send Dick Cheney in Hell. The three judges are not idiots. They have realized this. Therefore they will try to prevent any investigation on this subject, as on all others points of the complaint.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 11 2011, 08:57 AM

QUOTE
The Tuesday appeal followed a ruling by then District Court Judge Denny Chin, dismissing Ms. Gallop's lawsuit with prejudice, writing that the allegations are "implausible" and the product of "cynical delusion and fantasy." The judges were apparently unaware of growing world doubts about the official story of 9/11, including a recent poll by Germany's prestigious Emnid Institute, reporting 89.5% of Germans in doubt.

...

Judge Cabranes gave no sign of being familiar with the allegations in the Complaint concerning conflicts about the flight path of AA 77 (which allegedly hit the Pentagon) between the National Transportation Safety Board and the 9/11 Commission



Weird seeing that in print on a "mainstream" (?) site.

Posted by: paranoia Apr 19 2011, 12:49 AM

QUOTE (BlueSky @ Mar 25 2011, 09:04 PM) *
I do wish anyone the best in seeking justice for 9/11, the only reason why i brought this up is because i think it conflicts with the 'recent' finding that the black box data doesnt match a aa plane.

Also, it was quite strange to see bush subordinates using abovetopsecret as an authentic source of information ... lol ... crazy planet

thanks for clarifying the link blue. i read the whole thread and imo on page 3 craig made valid points and compelling arguments that i fully agree with, but perhaps you see it differently - ( ats /forum/thread424507/pg3) :

QUOTE (craigranke)
QUOTE (Originally posted by Camron Fox)


LMFAO. Dude, what don't you get? She is claiming the plane never hit the Pentagon... AFTER she accepted a settlement from the airlines!!


So what?

This is a COMPLETE non-issue and has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of this new lawsuit.

April was told an AA jet hit the Pentagon.

April certainly DID believe what she was told because she was told it.

April and her child were permanently disabled from the attack and April lost her career as a result.

April was screwed by the govt and all the so called "victims advocate" groups who have failed to provide her with the assistance she needed to pull her life back together.

April deserves compensation from any lawsuit to help victims who have been denied the assistance they deserve.

As more and more evidence came to light, April started realizing that not only was she screwed for assistance, but the entire event that has in essence destroyed her life was a deliberate deception.

April files new suit based on this evidence.

It's as simple as that and she has every right to seek further compensation in any manner possible given the fact that there is now plenty of hard PROOF that they lied to her about the AA jet hitting the building.

It's not her fault that they lied to her and the rest of the world and that she accepted compensation from a suit based on that lie to help her survive virtual destitution.

The fact that YOU take issue with it as you ATTACK this victim from the comfort of your anonymous screen name on a conspiracy forum is despicable.

The good news is that your opinion is irrelevant and nobody cares about your anonymous cowardly attempts to spit in the face of a 9/11 victim seeking justice as you furiously and desperately work to defend mass murderous war criminals and the blatant slaughtering of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians justified from this deception.



QUOTE (craigranke)
She was inside the building. She did not see the plane.

Is the fact that she survived at all supporting evidence that no plane hit? OF COURSE!

That has not changed and can not change no matter what she ever says or does.

But the fact that I wasn't compelled to participate in this absurd smear thread that is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the evidence certainly DOES NOT mean that we have "abandoned" April OR thrown her "under the bus".

We support her 100% and she deserves anything she can get as this lawsuit has FULL and COMPLETE merit as I'm sure the original suit against AA did as well.

There is every reason to believe that a deception on this level would have utilized the assistance of at least some major power-brokers at AA and many other corporations.



QUOTE (craigranke)
Whatever hypothesis you choose to accept regarding what really happened is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the fact that April's survival is direct evidence that no plane hit.

Take away all the north side evidence, take away all the witnesses to the plane, take away ALL other evidence, and hypothetically assume that April has filed a million lawsuits (even if they are all completely frivolous and unjustified although I do NOT believe that about any of her previous lawsuits) and that can still NEVER change the FACT that April's survival is supporting evidence that no plane hit the building.

That has nothing to do with a flyover nor have I ever said that it does.


imo april's law suit and or her acceptance of compensation from aa is a seperate issue from the claim that an aa plane did not hit building. but regardless of that - and i speak only for myself - i say she was, is, and always will be entitled to money for damages done to her, as long as she was actually in that building in an area that was directly hit by the explosives. she's not alive because the perps intended for her to survive the bomb blasts, she's here by sheer luck or a blessing from some higher power. whoever did blow up the pentagon didNt care if she lived or died that day and being seated feet away from explosives that eviscerated many others is indeed worthy of a payout from whoever you can get to cough up some money, wether that be the government or some airline company. besides, aa and united are complicit on at least some level or other in 9/11 and its aftermath, given the disappearance of their planes, their crews, their passengers, and the absence of any objection or outcry by them against the "official story" - and dont forget the 40 billion dollar handout the "airline industry" received in the days after 9/11. since AA aint ever gonna cough up THE TRUTH, damn right they should be named in lawsuits and damn right they should cough up some compensation, and damn right people who sufferred directly should be provided money (yes money) to help them rebuild their lives - especially in these damned tough economic times.

so to me its fine that gallop took aa money. was it hush money? has she been quiet? no, not at all. was the "aa payoff" to try to taint her credibility? even though it fails to do so (imo), that thread at ats is a great example of an attempt to make the compensation she received seem like some sort of dubious or sinister act, so that money has made her a target for such accusations. but can someone accept money from a perp and still hate them and still want the truth about what that perp did to come out? sure, why not? is gallop sincere in wanting truth and consequence? only she would know for sure, but i havent seen anything yet that would make me doubt her sincerity in that specific regard.


NOTE FOR THE RECORD that dennis hazell, american airlines' general manager at dulles on 9/11, never testified before the 9/11 commission:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/ -use the search function and you'll get the following (below)
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/GovinfolibraryUNT?hl=en&hq=inurl%3Agovinfo.library.unt.edu%2F911&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=hazell

-if anyone could answer for AA at dulles for any and or all events that took place on 9/11, mr.hazell could AND SHOULD. but his account of what happened at dulles on or after 9/11 is conspicuously absent. i for one find it very odd (an injustice actually) that an american airlines plane would allegedly get hijacked from dulles and this guy who managed for AA at dulles has never gone on record about it - anywhere, even outside of the commission.





QUOTE (ricochet)
These law suits serve one purpose and that is to get thrown out. This stops any real court case with real evidence from occuring. She goes to court puts up a weak arguement, case tossed case closed. Now anyone wishing to show real evidence is shut down. The same with respect to her first law suit, try and take any of the Bush administration to court and they will cite the Gallop case saying it was already done and tossed out.


is it indeed a legal fact that the existing specific outcomes of her lawsuits make any future pentagon or 9/11-related lawsuits untenable? does gallop hurt, help, or not affect at all any potential future lawsuits? read the lengthy legal description of "precedent", and see that its not by any means so cut and dried as some like to suggest:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/

QUOTE (small excerpt)
Arguments from precedent are a prominent feature of legal reasoning. But what exactly is a ‘precedent’? A precedent is the decision of a court (or other adjudicative body) that has a special legal significance. That significance lies in the court's decision being regarded as having practical, and not merely theoretical, authority over the content of the law. A decision has theoretical authority if the circumstances in which it was made (the identity of the decision-makers, those involved in arguing the case, the availability of evidence or time) provide good reasons for believing the decision to be correct in law. If there are good reasons to believe that an earlier case was correctly decided, and if the facts in a later case are the same as those in the earlier case, then there are good reasons for believing that the same decision would be correct in the later case. In some legal systems earlier decisions are, officially, treated in just this way: cases are cited to courts, but courts may only justify their decisions by reference to other legal materials such as legislation. As a consequence the decision in an earlier case is not in itself regarded as a justification for reaching a decision in a later case...


-there's a whole lot of legal stuff to be argued before precedent (or analogy - which is a step down) can be officially determined, so gallop's case supposedly closing the door to "future lawsuits" is actually a matter of proper legal maneuvering and the legal conclusion highly dependent on the lawyer(s) making the attempt. but to really put this thing in proper perspective: arent we in agreement that the u.s. court system is rigged? so dont we agree that ANY truth that can hurt the gov's version of events will never be allowed to actually reach justice? so dont we agree that any 9/11 truth court case, even one or especially one with merit, will be kept out of or squashed court regardless of any past, present, or future cases? so wouldnt that mean that whatever's happened with gallop's case has no bearing either way on the gov's need to suppress (and continued suppression of) the truth?




QUOTE (ricochet)
She crawled out the flaming hole??? Give me a break. Read that again and think about it. Firemen and rescue personael all around and a soldier with her weeks old infant crawl out the entry/bombed out hole where they are pouring on the water and foam she valiantly escapes and no one notices her and it doesn't make headlines in a time where miracles seem to happen. This story did not surface for 3-4 years after 9/11. It should have been in the news that day. It was manufactured, like all "news" in the US.



for the record, some related info - video of her that day:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfwsjF8X5U&feature=player_detailpage#t=1269s




her story was public in at least as early as december 2001. note that
in the pic she looks pretty pissed off, and also note the claim
(by the military publication) that her son was "unhurt".

december 2001:
http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2001/12/Documents/Steele_Recognition_1201.pdf



caption:Spc. April Gallop, wounded in the Pentagon attack, and her son, Elisha.
Elisha was visiting his mother’s office when the plane struck. He was blown out of
his stroller and ended up on top of a pile of debris, unhurt except for dust in his eyes
.


i couldnt find an exact date/time for when this pic (below) became public,
but its from a collection of 9/11 pics by sgt. carmen burgess, and it shows
the same guy from the natgeo video and a baby that matches gallop's son's
appearance. note again the assertion that the child was okay:


Department of Defense worker carries infant to safety following the terrorist attack on
the Pentagon Tuesday morning. The child did not require immediate medical attention.


source:
http://www.army.mil/features/attack/007.jpg
http://www.army.mil/features/attack/attack4.htm



that same pic of a baby being carried can be found here along with a version of
events that although not written by gallop, paint a story of the injustice done to her:
http://www.headinjury.com/911ezpeace.htm

QUOTE


Elisha Zion Gallop is the only child to survive the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon. Eight children died in that attack, but somehow, Elisha, the miracle baby survived. Elisha's was just 2 months old on September 11, 2001 when tons of concrete, office furnishings and debris fell on him during the attack on the Pentagon.

His injuries included hearing loss and developmental delays due to a head injury. Although Elisha's injuries will likely interfere with his ability to take his rightful place in society the 9/11 Compensation Fund does not consider him to be a "real victim." Consequently, they do not not believe that he deserves compensation. Such compensation would allow him to have the benefit of "Early Intervention" and other such remedial services to help him catch up with and keep up with his peers.

September 11, 2001 was April Gallop's first day back at work from maternity leave. Elisha was sitting in his stroller at his mother's desk when the airplane slammed into the Pentagon. On that fateful day April had been ordered to get a document from her computer for her commanding officer before taking Elisha to the Pentagon Child Care Center.

April had just turned on her computer when the plane hit. She was accustomed to unannounced security drills, but this was different; very different. The noise was like nothing she'd ever heard. It was deafening; it was so loud that it stopped her in her tracks. Then, in the next moment she found herself and Elisha being blown across the room by the concussive force of the explosion.

As she flew through the air she caught a glimpse of the horrendous fire ball that consumed unlucky co-workers. Then the lights went out and April loss consciousness. Sometime later she woke up to the sound of Elisha's cries. In spite of the darkness, smoke and the mounds of burning debris she was able to locate Elisha. Drawing on super human strength borne of such crises petite April pulled Elisha out of the rubble and carried him to safety.

Ignoring her own injuries she helped other wounded to safety for which she has been duly nominated for a soldier's medal. Once she reached safety she fainted and Elisha tumbled into the arms of a bystander, a stranger, who commandeered a passing vehicle and escorted them to George Washington Medical Center.

In the chaos and confusion of the days following 9/11 she was mistakenly reported dead on arrival (DOA), and Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL). While the record identifying her as DOA has been corrected, the record that lists her as AWOL has yet to be corrected in the 3 years since 9/11.

That erroneous record continues to interfered with her ability to receive the Soldier's Medal for which she has been duly nominated for heroism in the face of extreme danger. While others were running away to save themselves, she took time to pull others from the rubble.

It seems that the medal is hung up in some bureaucratic snafu. This snafu has also interfered with her ability to receive relief funds from the military and private charities. It seems clear that this situation is a microcosm of the larger problem that created the conditions that allowed the terrorists to succeed in the 911 attack.

That is, somebody in the chain of command makes a mistake and fails to correct the record, and people up the line fail to check out the facts and they close ranks around the mistake. From that point the initial mistake takes on a life of its own and leads to continually unfolding series of tragedies.

This young single mom lives from eviction notice to eviction notice. Her child was deemed to be in need of early intervention, but 3 years later this innocent child has not received the care that he needs and deserves. Cannon Fodder - They sacrifice, and we turn a blind eye. I hope it hasn't come to that. Her experience as a 9/11 Pentagon survivor is chilling, and as a survey published in the 9/7/04 NY Times shows, is by no means an isolated case.

Despite her considerable difficulties April continues to reach out to others the Elisha Zion Peace Foundation promotes the needs of those who have fallen through the gaps in the safety net of the 9/11 relief agencies. 9-11 EZP Foundation has taken a proactive, leadership role before congress, institutions and policy makers regarding disaster preparedness and disaster relief. 9-11 EZP Foundation has spent hundreds of hours working on behalf of survivors and families. Through our programs, the EZ Peace Foundation ensures that those who have suffered disabling injuries due to the 9/11 attacks will not be left behind.

A medical board found April Gallop unfit to return to her duties as a soldier. Consequently she was forced to give up her career and her dream of attending officer's training school. Her partial disability rating has resulted in a drastic reduction in her income. Her military pay was her family's main source of income. She was the breadwinner. When this single mother survived the horrors of the attack on the Pentagon, she had no idea that she would spend the ensuing years fighting for her life in a bureaucratic morass.


so who to believe? the military and their repeated attempts to assert that the kid was not injured? isnt strange that they would have even mentioned how okay the baby was in those 2 official sources (army/army reserve)? normally they always push the victim angle and would love for a kid to be hurt so they can trigger emotional backlash and blind hatred at "the enemy", so why in these two cases did they go out of their way to assert elisha's uninjuredness?

at her worst, gallop is lying about her or her baby having been hurt and she is being opportunistic in seeking some financial gain. i dont believe that to be the case but even if it was/is, to this day she has never shilled on behalf of the official story. she has never recanted her claim that she did NOT see any plane parts and she has held steadfast to the claim that she believed bombs went off in there (inside the pentagon).

Posted by: amazed! Apr 19 2011, 09:12 AM

Yeah, the military is full of it.

It claimed that the Tuskegee experiments did no harm.

April is Persona Non Grata with them because she's not going along with the Official Lie.

Posted by: Ricochet Apr 19 2011, 06:44 PM

QUOTE
SSgt. Braman is a cook in the Secretary of
the Army’s executive dining facility. On the morning of the
attack, his wife phoned him about the World Trade Center
attacks, and he had just hung up from the conversation
and entered the hallway “when we took the initial shake
and smoke started coming through the hallway.”

As he ran toward the source, the first victim he encountered
was a lady staggering away with a
baby in her arms. “I grabbed the baby and realized
the back of the baby’s head was charred, so I
ran to look for medical help,” he recalled. He
handed off the child to someone outside and returned to
the burning area with Lt. Col. Paul Anderson, who SSgt.
Braman said uttered a prayer before the two entered. “He
said ‘Dear Lord, give me the strength,’ and we went in.”


This would mean April and Elisha as stated he was the ONLY child that survived.
QUOTE
Elisha Zion Gallop is the only child to survive the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon.


QUOTE
There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn.

QUOTE
Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards,

Did she crawl through the hole or get rescued in the hallway?



In the video she has on a summer dress. Hell of a way for Carrer Army Officer (scratch that wrong Spec.) to go back to work at the military command center. No uniform, oh well today's army, casual Tuesday's.

Posted by: paranoia Apr 20 2011, 12:37 AM

QUOTE
SSgt. Braman is a cook in the Secretary of
the Army’s executive dining facility. On the morning of the
attack, his wife phoned him about the World Trade Center
attacks, and he had just hung up from the conversation
and entered the hallway “when we took the initial shake
and smoke started coming through the hallway.”

As he ran toward the source, the first victim he encountered
was a lady staggering away with a
baby in her arms. “I grabbed the baby and realized
the back of the baby’s head was charred, so I
ran to look for medical help,” he recalled. He
handed off the child to someone outside and returned to
the burning area with Lt. Col. Paul Anderson, who SSgt.
Braman said uttered a prayer before the two entered. “He
said ‘Dear Lord, give me the strength,’ and we went in.”


QUOTE (ricochet)
Did she crawl through the hole or get rescued in the hallway?


great question, especially considering that the braman quote comes from that same army reserve (dec2001) publication that claimed gallop's son was unhurt! if indeed braman rescued elisha, then wouldNt it make sense to tell their stories together? the events and thus the stories are fully intertwined, so how come they placed braman's account in there without giving equal space to gallop's? makes you wonder if they even bothered to speak to gallop... plus both parties were present at this tribute and you'd think gallop would want to thank braman in-person - so as a reporter present at the occasion it would (or should) not be hard to get the facts straight. so i find it odd that the reporter was there and apparently spoke to braman and at least saw (and photographed) gallop, but never bothered to fact-check or cross-check between the 2 parties to get a good understanding of events, cuz they (the writer) then went on to directly contradict themselves in that very short article (or they let their editor or whoever wrote the caption to gallop's photo contradict themselves).

since the publication contradicts itself outright with its opposing claims about the child's well-being im inclined to not trust them at all regardless of what they (the us army reserve writers or editors) have to say. so i did some digging to find another version of braman's account, and found that in the majority of online/published articles that relay braman's account, only a few mention the baby, most of them instead focus on braman having helped sheila moody. but i did find the following, told directly in the first-person by him instead of being written by some army writer:

QUOTE
http://911digitalarchive.org/smithsonian/details/5251s
Contributed by: Christopher Braman
Contributor's location on 9/11: alexandria
Contributed on: 21 October 2002

How did you witness history on September 11th?

SSG Christopher D. Braman September 11, 2001 Rescue On September 11, 2001, I (SSG Christopher Braman) was on the phone with my wife who had called to tell me that two planes had just crashed through the Twin Towers in New York. I told her not to worry and that I was fine. I said I love you and I hung up the phone. At that moment, the building shook and smoke filled the hallways with panicking people. I immediately went across to the other office and yelled for everyone to get out. I went into the kitchen area and turned off the stoves. The doors were then secured and locked. I came out the emergency exit on the side of the impact. At that moment, a DPS guard came stumbling up with a woman and a baby. I grabbed the baby from her and we walked about fifty more feet where I laid down the woman and the baby. I noticed that the back of the baby's hair was shortened and singed. The baby and the woman were covered in ash and appeared to be in shock. The woman did not speak and the baby was playful, but silent. At that time, the guard yelled to me to get the EMS. I ran towards the point of impact, where I noticed an ambulance pulling up. I yelled to them "I need to get an EMS and that there was a woman and a baby that needed help".



and have a listen to gallop herself (for about 1 minute) starting at 15:10 with the words
"so we get out on the lawn", and see that april's version matches braman's:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3965407869390415574#

-so braman encountered gallop AFTER she had made her way out of the hole. i cant say why, but it appears that the army writer or editor who wrote or okayed that other version (the version that completely contradicts itself about the baby's condition) didnt bother to, or went out of their way not to, get the story straight. but their shoddy reporting does not equal gallop being a liar.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 20 2011, 02:45 PM

Great posts P.

I keep losing my cool and start ranting when I discuss this subject.

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp306/22205_911/gallopON911.jpg

Unbelievably, I just saw that video in full today and was wondering if that was April Gallop.


@Ricochet

What exactly was your point about the "summer dress"??
I can understand your disbelief at Ms Gallop walking through the "impact hole" but that was a very weak answer to a well thought out reply.

Posted by: Ricochet Apr 20 2011, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 20 2011, 10:45 AM) *
Great posts P.

I keep losing my cool and start ranting when I discuss this subject.

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp306/22205_911/gallopON911.jpg

Unbelievably, I just saw that video in full today and was wondering if that was April Gallop.


@Ricochet

What exactly was your point about the "summer dress"??
I can understand your disbelief at Ms Gallop walking through the "impact hole" but that was a very weak answer to a well thought out reply.

My point was she was supposed to be at work with the US Army. No uniform?

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 20 2011, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet)
My point was she was supposed to be at work with the US Army. No uniform?


Well, I noticed two things that may explain this in Paranoia's post.

QUOTE
September 11, 2001 was April Gallop's first day back at work from maternity leave. Elisha was sitting in his stroller at his mother's desk when the airplane slammed into the Pentagon. On that fateful day April had been ordered to get a document from her computer for her commanding officer before taking Elisha to the Pentagon Child Care Center.


There may be a loosening of rules as regards uniform and female military after just giving birth (2 months)?
That's a wild guess, but she was ordered to go directly to her office before dropping the child off at the CCC too.

She may not have had time to change into her uniform?

Whatever the reason, do you actually think she'd go along with or be part of the official lie or part of some alleged long running disinfo campaign to throw a spanner in the works of any future legal challenge against the perps after having her 2 month old son suffer brain damage??

Makes no sense whatsoever mate.

Posted by: amazed! Apr 21 2011, 10:15 PM

That she was wearing civilian clothes could easily be an artifact of the propaganda machine.

If she was a soldier, and on duty in the Pentagon, she would have been in uniform, is my guess.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 22 2011, 10:28 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 22 2011, 03:15 AM) *
That she was wearing civilian clothes could easily be an artifact of the propaganda machine.


And her 2 month old son was the cherry on top...

Posted by: Ricochet Apr 22 2011, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 22 2011, 06:28 AM) *
And her 2 month old son was the cherry on top...

My point being there is inconsisticies, after Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman I am at a point of questioning everything that is related to the Pentagon.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 22 2011, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Apr 22 2011, 05:35 PM) *
My point being there is inconsisticies, after Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman I am at a point of questioning everything that is related to the Pentagon.


Ric, those were propaganda puppets. April Gallop's case is totally different.
I'm no different to you in questioning every single thing as regards the Pentagon but it makes no logical sense what's being insinuated about her.

The "truth will find you out". That's the way I look at it.
The case she has brought against these people covers everything from "prior knowledge" to the ops themselves.

Her case can't affect future cases (if one is ever filed) so what is the problem?

Posted by: amazed! Apr 23 2011, 11:08 AM

I learned in 1970 that the US Army exaggerates, prevaricates, and protects its own.

It seems to me that Gallop is not being protected in any way. My take is that she is telling the truth.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 23 2011, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 21 2011, 02:08 PM) *
It seems to me that Gallop is not being protected in any way. My take is that she is telling the truth.



I'll second that!

Posted by: tit2 Apr 30 2011, 03:17 AM

http://www.centerfor911justice.org/

"On April 27, 2011, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. Its decision can be found under SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION below

http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/decision%202nd%20circuit.pdf

As those who have followed the case will be aware, this decision was no surprise in its outcome, but the Court on its own motion and without the participation of the United States Attorney issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why SANCTIONS in the amount of $15,000 should not be imposed as a result of our having filed what the Court considers a frivolous lawsuit, the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.

We are ordered to file a response to the OSC in thirty days. The most important aspect of the decision is its failure to allude to, much less address, any of the many pages of factual allegations contained in the Complaint or in the Appendices attached to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Just as District Court Judge Denny Chin did in rendering his decision, Judge Cabranes fails to mention the three defendants at all, makes no reference to their conduct throughout the course of the crime, or their statements concerning that conduct afterward. Of course, there is, similarly, no mention of nanothermite having been found in the dust and debris at Ground Zero, in four separate, independently collected samples, and also escaping the Court's attention is the precipitous evaporation of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM that day, a textbook example of controlled demolition.

In the next week or so, we will file a Petition for Rehearing and En Banc Review before all of the judges of the 2nd Circuit. This will be an opportunity for the other judges on the bench to at least correct the appearance of Conflict of Interest that clothes the decision just made due to the presence on the panel of John M. Walker, first cousin of former President George H. W. Bush, and first cousin once removed of Former President George W. Bush, "the responsible officer of government" on 9/11, as President John F. Kennedy referred to himself after the Bay of Pigs disaster, and the man who put each of the three defendants in the position to commit mass murder and treason as, through our lawsuit, we are prepared to prove, should we ever be given the opportunity."

I was sure of this judges' decision after reading this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42469680

« Veale, amidst frequent interruptions from the three judges, managed to point out Cheney's direct involvement in tracking and dealing with the airplane that was heading for the Pentagon, as reported to the 9/11 Commission by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. »

The decision of the judges had to have as objective to forbid any investigation on this subject as on others. Norman Mineta's testimony is not mentioned in their decision.

Posted by: amazed! Apr 30 2011, 10:29 AM

Madison's principle and hope that the judiciary would be the last bulwark against tyranny have been dashed too many times.

With the judiciary leading the way, it is demonstrated almost daily that the entire federal government is utterly corrupt.

Posted by: Obwon Apr 30 2011, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (tit2 @ Apr 30 2011, 02:17 AM) *
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/

"On April 27, 2011, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. Its decision can be found under SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION below
<snips>


Seems like a pretty vague decision to me.

Obwon

Posted by: tit2 Jun 26 2011, 05:11 PM

Even if April Gallop's complaint was dismissed, this does not mean that she was wrong. Below are indicated a number of testimonies that confirm the assertions of April Gallop about the lack of aircraft debris and the use of explosives, as part of the Pentagon attack.

Quote of the complaint of April Gallop :

« At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in.  Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through.  If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else.  At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel.  The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane.  A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports. »

1) The lack of major plane debris at the Flight 77 crash site at the Pentagon:

See : Context of 'After 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Some Witnesses Surprised by Lack of Plane Debris at the Pentagon'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a937lackofdebris#a937lackofdebris

« Some emergency responders and other witnesses are surprised at the lack of major plane debris at the Flight 77 crash site at the Pentagon.

Brian Ladd of the Fort Myer Fire Department arrives at the scene a few minutes after the attack. Yet, “Expecting to see pieces of the wings or fuselage,” he instead sees “millions of tiny pieces” of debris spread “everywhere.

Captain John Durrer of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Fire Department also arrives within minutes of the crash. He later recalls thinking: “Well where’s the airplane, you know, where’s the parts to it? You would think there’d be something.” Reportedly, “The near total disintegration of the plane had left only a multitude of bits scattered outside the building.

Steve DeChiaro, the president of a New Jersey technology firm, had just arrived at the Pentagon when it was hit and ran toward the crash site. He later recalls: “But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.

Early in the afternoon, CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports: “[T]he only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.”

Sheryl Alleger, a Navy officer at the Pentagon, goes past the crash site in an ambulance in the afternoon. She will recall: “[Y]ou couldn’t see any bits of the airplane, that was the thing that got me.… I expected to see the tail sticking out.… But—nothing. It was like the building swallowed the plane.

Eileen Murphy, a nurse at the Pentagon’s DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, will later recall: “I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, ‘Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?’ I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there.

Sgt. Reginald Powell will say: “I was truly impressed with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building.

Captain Dennis Gilroy, acting commander of the Fort Myer fire department, “wondered why he saw no aircraft parts” when he arrives at the scene.

Other witnesses say they come across some pieces of plane debris:

Rich Fitzharris, an electrical engineer working at the Pentagon, later remembers seeing “small pieces of debris, the largest of which might have been part of an engine shroud

Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who arrives at the Pentagon at about 5:00 p.m., later recalls: “I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane.

Later on during the day, the FBI arranges a search of the lawn in front of the crash site. According to the Defense Department’s book about the Pentagon attack: “Although much of the plane disintegrated within the Pentagon, the searchers found many scraps and a few personal items widely scattered on the grass and heliport. Plane remnants varied from half-dollar size to a few feet long

Also, one photo shows what appears to be plane debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, with the red, white, and blue stripes of American Airlines. »

Here an analysis of plane debris at the Pentagon.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/debris.html

It is interesting to note there are witness statements similar for the crash of Flight 93. This means that for two crashes of Boeing 757, on 11 September 2001, one in Shanksville, the other at the Pentagon, in both cases, many witnesses were surprised by the lack of aircraft debris at the scene of their crash. See: Witnesses Report Lack of Plane Wreckage at Flight 93 Crash Scene :

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1006nowreckage#a1006nowreckage

2) The use of explosives in connection with the attack on the Pentagon:

Witness statements very interesting were reported by the website "historycommons.org" :

Context of '(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some Officers in Area Where Pentagon Is Hit Think Bombs Have Exploded'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938bombsexploded

« At least three Pentagon employees in the area of the building that is hit, and who narrowly survive the attack, initially believe that what they have experienced is a bomb, or bombs, going off:

John Thurman, an Army lieutenant colonel, is in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon is hit. He later describes the moment of impact: “To me it didn’t seem like a plane.… [T]o me it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me.… [I]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” He will add: “I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives.”

Lt. Nancy McKeown is on the first floor of the Pentagon’s D Ring in the Navy Command Center, which is mostly destroyed when the building is hit. She will recall: “[I]t initially felt like an earthquake.… It sounded like a series of explosions going off.… It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off.” She yells out to her colleagues, “Bomb!”

Army Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell is returning to his second floor office, and is just yards from where the building is impacted. “Bomb! I thought,” he recalls of the moment the building is hit.

Context of '(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: ‘Experienced Combat Arms Officers’ at Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938combatofficers#a938combatofficers

A group of Army officers at the Pentagon initially thinks that a bomb has gone off in their building when it is attacked. Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues are in their office on the second floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, about 200 feet from where the building is hit. Collier will later recall: “[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble.… All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb.” Numerous other Pentagon employees also initially think a bomb has gone off, and apparently only a few guess a plane has hit the place.

Context of '(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some inside Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938thinkbomb#a938thinkbomb

Even though two planes have already crashed in New York, some people in the Pentagon initially think a bomb has gone off when their building is hit:

Steve Carter, who is in the Building Operations Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon, hears a “big boom,” and tells his assistant, “I think we just got hit by a bomb.

John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, is in his office near the main entrance to the Pentagon’s south parking lot at the time of the attack. He later describes, “Most people knew it was a bomb.

Army Colonel Jonathan Fruendt is in his second floor office in the Pentagon’s inner A Ring, when he feels and hears “a very sharp jolt and the sound of an explosion.” He later recalls, “I thought it was a bomb that had gone off.

Apparently only a few people in the Pentagon initially guess a plane has hit the place. According to the Defense Department’s book about the Pentagon attack, among the few exceptions are Peter Murphy and his companions in the Marine Corps Office of the General Counsel, located on the fourth floor just above where the building is hit: “Unlike most other survivors, Murphy and his companions ‘were pretty certain it was a plane and it was a terrorist,’ even though they had not seen the plane coming in. They had been watching the attack on the Twin Towers and had speculated about such an attack on the Pentagon. »

Even if these witnesses did not see the plane approaching the Pentagon, it is surprising that a few seconds before the impact of the Boeing 757 on the pentagon, these witnesses did not hear the noise of the engines of this aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bFh2NeD32Y



Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 26 2011, 07:02 PM

Here are a couple more tit2


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

QUOTE
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner....I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.



Bob Pugh – Pentagon eyewitness. Freelance video and still photographer

QUOTE
Im looking for wreckage and I don't see anything discernable. I can't find a piece of anything I recognize. I can't see the tail. I can't see the wheels. I can't see the engines. There's no chairs. There's no luggage. There's no logo. I mean, for Air Florida, when we shot that, you could see the logo of the Air Florida plane. There was identifiable structures that you could see with that kind of an impact and that aircraft. ...









Posted by: amazed! Jul 4 2011, 03:53 PM

Well done tit2! salute.gif

And OSS

But I would submit that if there actually WERE a Boeing approaching the building you were in, you would not hear the engines until about the same time as the actual impact, assuming the mythical bird were doing 300 knots or so.

Posted by: tit2 Jul 4 2011, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 2 2011, 06:53 PM) *
Well done tit2! salute.gif

And OSS

But I would submit that if there actually WERE a Boeing approaching the building you were in, you would not hear the engines until about the same time as the actual impact, assuming the mythical bird were doing 300 knots or so.



Are you sure ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 4 2011, 04:59 PM

Don't want to confuse the issue even more (nor taking sides), but at least one of the NOC witnesses claimed that the aircraft made no noise as it went over the Navy Annex. Then again, Alan Wallace who was at the heliport area claimed that it was "screaming".

Fact of the matter is, the descriptions vary both inside and outside:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t808.htm

The renovated section of the Pentagon was allegedly soundproofed and the hollow between the Annex and the Pentagon may have played havoc with the acoustics. dunno.gif

Posted by: paranoia Jul 4 2011, 10:59 PM

northward momentum was taking the decoy jet too far north, enough to almost miss its approach to the west facade of the building (and subsequent flyover), so as the plane crossed over the pike and above the annex buildings, it slowed down - letting off the throttle (quiet). once lined up with its mark, it then pointed the nose down, went full throttle (screaming) as it dove toward the west wall of the pentagon.

anc worker and decoy jet witness donald carter is a good witness to the throttle down, and then up. i believe that dialogue is somewhere in the nsa presentation (i will try and dig it up).

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 5 2011, 08:36 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 5 2011, 03:59 AM) *
northward momentum was taking the decoy jet too far north, enough to almost miss its approach to the west facade of the building (and subsequent flyover), so as the plane crossed over the pike and above the annex buildings, it slowed down - letting off the throttle (quiet). once lined up with its mark, it then pointed the nose down, went full throttle (screaming) as it dove toward the west wall of the pentagon.

anc worker and decoy jet witness donald carter is a good witness to the throttle down, and then up. i believe that dialogue is somewhere in the nsa presentation (i will try and dig it up).


William Middleton described a "kick" and a "whistle" as it went past him too. Darius Prather, same sort of description. Then we had Turcios describing the "lift" on Route 27.

That's exactly how I see what happened P. thumbsup.gif

Edit: This video shows a "quiet approach" and something similar to what I believe the witnesses were describing (audio wise).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYZOByowrlU

Posted by: amazed! Jul 5 2011, 04:44 PM

Well, we're here to talk about it, ain't we gents? cheers.gif Even though it is a bit of "trivial pursuit", it can be fun.

My point was that as one standing on the ground, or especially inside a building, is approached by an aircraft doing 300 knots or so (which is about half the speed of sound at sea level), depending on the direction and strength of any wind blowing, the sound wave will arrive at pretty close to the same time as the aircraft.

If the aircraft were going with the wind towards the point, and especially if the wind were strong, THEN the noise might lead the aircraft to some degree.

This can be illustrated by standing next to railroad tracks and observing approaching and departing trains, and considering the ambient wind conditions. Any moving object will show the same results more or less, and it is related to the Doppler Effect. I used to observe it as a kid because we lived near the tracks. I've seen it demonstrated by airplanes and helicopters, both while on the ground and from the cockpit. If one is trying to "sneak up" on somebody on the ground, all in jest with safety considerations in place, of course, and it's a windy day, it almost always works to come from downwind. Most of the time they never hear you until you're right on top.

The faster the airplane, the more pronounced the effect.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 5 2011, 09:33 PM

Some quick searches i did...

An aircraft which is motionless and the sound waves produced...



Here is an illustration of an aircraft in motion below the speed of sound, and the sound waves which can be heard in front of and behind the aircraft....



Now an aircraft which is approaching the speed of sound and the sound waves produced.



Clearly those in front of the above aircraft will not hear it coming.

Now an illustration of an aircraft which has exceeded the speed of sound.



What does this mean? The faster an aircraft travels through air has a direct relationship to the distance a forward listener is able to hear and detect an approaching aircraft.

Those familiar with Doppler Effect will be able to understand the above a bit easier. But by no means is the above difficult to understand for any layman willing to learn.

Posted by: tit2 Jul 6 2011, 05:24 AM

Quote of rob balsamo :

“Here is an illustration of an aircraft in motion below the speed of sound, and the sound waves which can be heard in front of and behind the aircraft....”

Flight 77 is supposed to have hit the Pentagon at a speed of 781 feet per second, ie 238 meters per second. At this speed, at sea level, the engines of the Boeing 757 are used to their maximum capacity and I suppose that he results from it a very intense noise.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

The speed of sound is 343.2 meters per second (1,126 ft/s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

I read here that the speed of sound at sea level would be 340.29 meters per second.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=speed+of+sound&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_frFR347FR347&ie=UTF-8

The question I asked was aimed at understanding why April Gallop and the other witnesses listed in the “The use of explosives in connection with the attack on the Pentagon” had not heard the noise of approach of the Boeing 757. Normally these witnesses could hear the noise of the Boeing 757 approaching the pentagon, but the explanations given by "onesliceshort" and "amazed" allows perhaps to understand why they did not hear this noise.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 6 2011, 09:16 AM

Thanks Rob, for those helpful diagrams.

tit2

Of course in the first place, nobody in the Pentagon heard the approaching airplane for the simple fact that there was no approaching airplane. Ours here is simply an academic exercise about a hypothetical situation.

This subject is very relevant, however, to the testimony presented by some fellow who was supposedly stuck in traffic near the Pentagon and heard (along with some woman in the car adjacent to his) the approaching airplane from behind. I say that is manufactured testimony all the way.

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 6 2011, 09:18 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2011, 08:32 AM) *
Here are a couple more tit2


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/




Bob Pugh – Pentagon eyewitness. Freelance video and still photographer




<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/93rTlfo8dZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K9kOWBw1e4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Dear onesliceshort

Thankyou for the two videos you have provided.

The second of which I must bring to your attention.

It contains much clearer and more substantive information of what was raised in the 23investigator video placed on Youtube which demonstrated the consideration of a 'jet engine' having impacted the back of the fire truck by the heliport building.
At 4.31 --4.36 in the video you have provided it is very clear that an object is being dragged away from the proximity of the firetruck towards the Pentagon building.
Another large component is static in front of the object being dragged away.

At 2.14 --2.35 it can be seen that there are some objects -seriously on fire-- to the immediate right side of the firetruck at the rear, where damage to the firetruck was subsequently revealed in other photographs.

The amount of debris in this area, some of it quite large in size, is quite apparent.

There is no doubt from the 'frantic' actions of those removing the objects (jet engine), and quite likely parts of 'airframe', was because the people doing it, did not want the evidence to be able to be considered.
Much more priority given to this than rescuing people!!!!

With respect, it is this aircraft people should be giving consideration too, it fits so many of the other conditions, could easily have slipped under every bodies guard, especially people focusing on a Boeing 757 who no doubt heard and saw that aircraft .

People on this forum have suggested that what debris was present was 'planted', or caused to be, by exploding some device at the building to spread it around.
If so --which cannot be accepted--.
Why then expend such energies and urgency to remove it from the scene???

Which then raises the most 'criminal intent'.
If the aircraft --Boeing 757-- flew over the top of the building, and an aircraft splattered all over the place to the north of the apparent impact point.
What the people in the building heard, was either a land launched, --or as it seems the more the likely--, an 'air launched' explosive projectile or projectiles.

Arguing whether an aircraft, that is considered it seems by a lot of people on this forum, flew over the building, could be heard or not, seems somewhat academic, to the reality, that something most definitely exploded inside the building.
The flight path of the aircraft that it is considered flew over the building does not support the possibility of it having launched projectiles into the building, --at least not in a direct straight path-- .

So what did???

With respect, this is the question that every body should be concentrating upon.

Robert

Posted by: amazed! Jul 6 2011, 03:29 PM

Robert

I'm not quite sure of the specifics of your question, "what did?" What did the flyby if there was one, or what struck the building, if it was struck? My bet is that the bulk of the damage done there was by planted HE.

But I look at the events of the day from the perspective of if I personally were planning the events, what would be the best way to carry them out, all things considered.

For the Pentagon, my hunch is that some sort of flying object hit there, but I don't know what. That is heresy in some circles, but it's just my hunch. Only because of the debris inside--some landing gear components and some engine components. If they were real and not planted, then it's likely that some aircraft did strike, but not a 757.

When I first started visiting Pilots4Truth, some were speculating that perhaps an old Douglas A3 might have been used. I think perhaps an ALCM or even SLCM might have been used, but neither of them have landing gear. From a planning perspective, it seems fairly easy to get some kind of drone type aircraft to hit the electronic bullseye that might have been on the wall of the Pentagon.

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 8 2011, 04:18 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 7 2011, 04:59 AM) *
Robert

I'm not quite sure of the specifics of your question, "what did?" What did the flyby if there was one, or what struck the building, if it was struck? My bet is that the bulk of the damage done there was by planted HE.

But I look at the events of the day from the perspective of if I personally were planning the events, what would be the best way to carry them out, all things considered.

For the Pentagon, my hunch is that some sort of flying object hit there, but I don't know what. That is heresy in some circles, but it's just my hunch. Only because of the debris inside--some landing gear components and some engine components. If they were real and not planted, then it's likely that some aircraft did strike, but not a 757.

When I first started visiting Pilots4Truth, some were speculating that perhaps an old Douglas A3 might have been used. I think perhaps an ALCM or even SLCM might have been used, but neither of them have landing gear. From a planning perspective, it seems fairly easy to get some kind of drone type aircraft to hit the electronic bullseye that might have been on the wall of the Pentagon.


Dear amazed.

The "what did" relates to what caused the explosion /s inside the Pentagon building.

As aircraft were the 'theme of the day", the natural inclination seems to be that the explosion and damage inside the building was caused by an aircraft.
Especially so in the 'general mind' considering the emphasis given that two separate aircraft caused the explosions and damage in the two WTC towers.

Even there, if carefully considered, there appear to be two distinctly different types of explosion involved in each of the towers.

There certainly appears to be two separtate type of explosion in the case of the Pentagon building too.

The distinct possibility is that the first explosion evident in all instance --Towers and Pentagon building-- was as result of some sort of explosive device associated with the aircraft involved, most likely projected from it, which is well within the capabilities of technology of our time, whether -man triggered-- or some form of proximity triggering device.

Not to say that there could not have been other planted explosives waiting to join into the 'act'.

What is considered in respect to the Pentagon situation is that the said Boeing 757, did not have a direct involvement in the explosion situation, that is 'physically involved', but it would have had some involvement, or otherwise it would not have been there at such a coincident time.

Considering the activity in 'intense decontamination' that took place after the explosions, that in itself should raise suspicion, even to those who may want to consider that the Boeing 757 did impact the building.

For such concern, it would have required the 'hijackers' to have taken some pretty nasty stuff aboard the aircraft, 'explosive stuff', or for the aircraft to have been preconditioned with such explosive material.

The evidence is strongly against the immediate above circumstance.

So what carried, and projected explosive material into the Pentagon building.

That is the question.

Robert



Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 8 2011, 10:11 AM

Just to approach this from a different angle guys..

1. is this the same "flying object" that the witnesses (NOC) described?

2. if it is, how did they manage to ensure the complete "penetration" of the facade?

3. how did they manage to dissolve (literally) an entire aircraft within 40-60ft of said "penetration" (I mean, totally unscathed columns)?

4. how did they manage to "penetrate" the first floor in a low level trajectory given the http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles that immediately preceded the facade right up to @400ft from the facade which would have required an immediate descent and pull-up within a fraction of a second? How did they avoid leaving debris on the lawn on a downward trajectory?

5. how could they launch anything from the aircraft on the witnessed trajectory and cause the damage in the opposite direction?

6. if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up?

7. if the claim is that explosives were used to help with the "desintegration", why are there no craters of any kind? how did people in the immediate vicinity survive unscathed? how would any penetration have been successful?

8. how did they control a "missile" launched from outside the building to stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed when it inevitably "emerged"?

I have links and images to ack the above up if you want.

Those are just some of the questions I've asked myself when looking at the possibilities (and I have honestly looked into them all with the information we have - I used to believe in the "missile theory). I have my own theories as to how they carved out the damage but that's all they are at the minute. Theories.

I know for a fact that they knew the weaknesses and strengths of the newly renovated section.
I know for a fact that they even knew what effects blasts of different kinds would have on the building.
I know for a fact that the same guy who helped with the military "advice" on securing the Renovation Project also had access to a program that was designed to show the effects of blast damage on the building.
I know for a fact that it wasn't Hani Hanjur.
I know for a fact that it wasn't Flight 77.
I know for a fact that nobody described the OCT path nor manouevre.
I know for a fact that the aircraft exceeded its VMO.
I know for a fact that the ASCE Report falls on its ass (much more than NIST) and admits that it can't explain what happened to the extremities of the alleged aircraft (and repeatedly contradicts itself)
I know for a fact that no parts have ever been identified.
I know for a fact that they let the Pentagon burn.
I know for a fact that the aircraft flew NOC.

The question you have to ask yourself is why there was no concentrated effort to attack the "missile" theories up until the NOC testimony was stumbled upon. Why would certain so-called "leaders" of "9/11 Truth" openly expose themselves as liars and frauds? Openly fraternize and work with their alleged "enemy" duhbunker friends? Send never ending drones pretending to be "truthers" to be continually exposed? Trip over themselves in the rush in 2006 (when the missile theory was at its peak), to try and cover their tracks when the NOC witnesses were coming to light? A right wing, psyop run "Judicial Watch" on the Alex Jones Show, no less, spearheading the "Pentagon is a Honeytrap" campaign with the alleged FOIA Citgo footage under their arm? Openly http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t14873.html the Citgo footage itself (which was released within weeks of the discovery of Robert Turcios). The emergence of disinfo bloggers "Arabesque", "Adam Larson, John Farmer (for Christ's sake lol) among many others.

Hope you read this far Amazed, I know you love long posts lol.

Peace

OSS

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jul 8 2011, 01:03 PM

Well I read it all slice. Great post!

I'm not going to bother with the missile/drone huggers. The fantasy has a stranglehold on them. I can only surmise that they don't want to let go or admit they were wrong because they went around telling everyone they know what happened at the pentagon. Now its a matter of not being able to admit they were wrong.

The sad part is all of your excellent questions won't even jump start their critical thinking skills.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 8 2011, 02:26 PM

Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.

And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.

And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.

In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.

2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.
3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.
4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.
5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.
6. Ditto #4
7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.
8. No opinion.


Robert

Humans, explosive experts with military experience, I suspect, carried and placed the explosives into the building. It is an artform, you know, to work with explosives over many years experience.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 8 2011, 05:47 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 8 2011, 07:26 PM) *
Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.


We could go round in circles with this one, but simply put, the trajectory witnessed makes "impact" by any flying object impossible.

QUOTE
And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.


I never even insinuated that!

QUOTE
And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.


Agreed. Though I'm totally open the the very real possibility that it was a "souped up" or modified aircraft disguised as a "Boeing".

QUOTE (Amazed!)
In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
1. is this the same "flying object" that the witnesses (NOC) described?


1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.


These witnesses?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1334&view=findpost&p=2414255

You don't think that the fact that people from much further away who claimed to see a "commuter plane/small plane" don't corraborate with witnesses who saw it right over their heads or coming towards them might lead to only one conclusion?

One of them, Steve Patterson, (who can't be found) made 3 totally contradictory claims. That the aircraft flew over Arlington Cemetery, yet flew 150ft from his apartment in Crystal City and that he saw the fireball rise "from the back of the building"!

The "whoosh" A?

QUOTE (Amazed)
When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.


First I've heard of it to be honest, but it sounds planted. If 9/11 was indeed a military op there's no way they'd leave a loose end like that IMHO.

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
2. if it is, how did they manage to ensure the complete "penetration" of the facade?


2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.


Agreed about the charges planted inside, but it doesn't answer the question. If there was a shape charge designed to allow entry, you don't see the dangers to the op? The precision timing needed?
Why complicate the op so much? A large aircraft flying NOC, a smaller plane flying SOC (backed by dubious testimony from miles away), shaped charges to allow entry for the smaller plane and a flyover?


QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
3. how did they manage to dissolve (literally) an entire aircraft within 40-60ft of said "penetration" (I mean, totally unscathed columns)?


3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.


I'm talking about an alleged "NOC impact" scenario. The aircraft would have had to have "dissolved" within 40-60ft.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/amadan2/columns/pentfacadeexcavated10daysmarked.jpg

Nobody saw any flying object of any description flying the necessary OCT SOC path. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704


The unidentified parts? Didn't you just tell Robert that one of the craft mentioned didn't have a landing gear?

QUOTE
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
4. how did they manage to "penetrate" the first floor in a low level trajectory given the obstacles that immediately preceded the facade right up to @400ft from the facade which would have required an immediate descent and pull-up within a fraction of a second? How did they avoid leaving debris on the lawn on a downward trajectory?


4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.


But one that can navigate steep inclines? Pull up?

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
5. how could they launch anything from the aircraft on the witnessed trajectory and cause the damage in the opposite direction?


5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.


That wasn't primarily directed at you. I was just trying to cover all of the theories floating about.
"even if it existed"? What, the aircraft seen by the witnesses? Are we talking holograms now?

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
6. if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up?


6. Ditto #4


Ditto the answer to 4

QUOTE
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
7. if the claim is that explosives were used to help with the "desintegration", why are there no craters of any kind? how did people in the immediate vicinity survive unscathed? how would any penetration have been successful?


7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.


There were no craters.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/amadan2/columns/pentfacadelookingout.jpg

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
8. how did they control a "missile" launched from outside the building to stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed when it inevitably "emerged"?


8. No opinion.


No answer more like?

All I've learned from the exchange is that you believe an A3/Douglas modified aircraft with tracking capabilities that can pull up at the exact moment was launched from ? , and that it was timed to coincide with the (possible hologram?) NOC multiple witnessed aircraft (as opposed to the "commuter jet" allegedly witnessed up to 1, 2 or 3 miles away but witnessed by nobody in the immediate area), the NOC plane flew over, while the "commuter jet cum smart missile" pulled up, entering the building thanks to perfectly timed, perfectly placed shape charges that allowed full "penetration"?

The parts that were allegedly found were allegedly Boeing pieces (or at least from a larger aircraft). Were these pieces actually part of this smaller plane? Or were they planted on the smaller plane??

I'm lost man. Sorry if the post became a bit sarcy but I'm even more confused.

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 8 2011, 09:50 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 9 2011, 07:17 AM) *
We could go round in circles with this one, but simply put, the trajectory witnessed makes "impact" by any flying object impossible.



I never even insinuated that!



Agreed. Though I'm totally open the the very real possibility that it was a "souped up" or modified aircraft disguised as a "Boeing".



1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

These witnesses?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1334&view=findpost&p=2414255

You don't think that the fact that people from much further away who claimed to see a "commuter plane/small plane" don't corraborate with witnesses who saw it right over their heads or coming towards them might lead to only one conclusion?

One of them, Steve Patterson, (who can't be found) made 3 totally contradictory claims. That the aircraft flew over Arlington Cemetery, yet flew 150ft from his apartment in Crystal City and that he saw the fireball rise "from the back of the building"!

The "whoosh" A?



First I've heard of it to be honest, but it sounds planted. If 9/11 was indeed a military op there's no way they'd leave a loose end like that IMHO.



2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.

Agreed about the charges planted inside, but it doesn't answer the question. If there was a shape charge designed to allow entry, you don't see the dangers to the op? The precision timing needed?
Why complicate the op so much? A large aircraft flying NOC, a smaller plane flying SOC (backed by dubious testimony from miles away), shaped charges to allow entry for the smaller plane and a flyover?




3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.

I'm talking about an alleged "NOC impact" scenario. The aircraft would have had to have "dissolved" within 40-60ft.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/amadan2/columns/pentfacadeexcavated10daysmarked.jpg

Nobody saw any flying object of any description flying the necessary OCT SOC path. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704


The unidentified parts? Didn't you just tell Robert that one of the craft mentioned didn't have a landing gear?



4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.

But one that can navigate steep inclines? Pull up?



5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.

That wasn't primarily directed at you. I was just trying to cover all of the theories floating about.
"even if it existed"? What, the aircraft seen by the witnesses? Are we talking holograms now?



6. Ditto #4

Ditto the answer to 4



7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.

There were no craters.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/amadan2/columns/pentfacadelookingout.jpg



8. No opinion.

No answer more like?

All I've learned from the exchange is that you believe an A3/Douglas modified aircraft with tracking capabilities that can pull up at the exact moment was launched from ? , and that it was timed to coincide with the (possible hologram?) NOC multiple witnessed aircraft (as opposed to the "commuter jet" allegedly witnessed up to 1, 2 or 3 miles away but witnessed by nobody in the immediate area), the NOC plane flew over, while the "commuter jet cum smart missile" pulled up, entering the building thanks to perfectly timed, perfectly placed shape charges that allowed full "penetration"?

The parts that were allegedly found were allegedly Boeing pieces (or at least from a larger aircraft). Were these pieces actually part of this smaller plane? Or were they planted on the smaller plane??

I'm lost man. Sorry if the post became a bit sarcy but I'm even more confused.


Dear Onesliceshort

Have you had the opportunity yet to consider the --dragging event-- at the 4.31 --4.36 time slot given in the previous post to you.
The video is the second of those you included in your post of June 27 -2011, 08.32am.
It is being a bit slow to open up here this morning-- but that could be because it is Saturday morning, but if the Youtube button is clicked it will open up very quickly on Youtube as 9/11 Pentagon victim eye witness accounts.

There can be no doubt that something sizeable is being dragged away towards the Pentagon building.
It is immediately after the fire at the back of the --firetruck-- was extinguished.
It seems to be heading in the direction, where in another photograph, an object is apparent that looks remarkably like a jet engine.
This is a long way from being inside of the Pentagon building.
There is obviously a lot of other debris in this area, at the time of the video, which does not show up in later photographs, nor the object that looks like the jet engine.

As expressed in the previous post to you, a lot of priority and energy was being expended in moving the debris, amply demonstrated in the video.

Even if the object being draggged was not a jet engine --which it certainly has every appearance of-- what was it then, and what was all the other debris from??

Nothing has been said "officially" about this --debris-- material, the only person who made some belated reference, then retracted, goodness knows under what pressure to him, or his family, it appears.

If some sensible, better still, qualifiable explanation can be given for the --debris-- referred too, and why it was so rapidly removed and not been openly made known of, until then it should be considered a very significant matter.

This may fall on some deaf ears, and closed eyes, I certainly hope your's are not amongst them.

With respect to you.

Robert

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 8 2011, 10:38 PM

Is this what they were trailing?

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03896.JPEG

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9315/gurneymarked.png

I honestly couldn't make out anything Robert.

This piece isn't the engine piece that you're claiming is it?

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8615/66643001.jpg

Here are a few more images from different angles, precollapse, post collapse and the next day:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03894.JPEG

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9743/pentcars1.jpg

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/133_283.jpg

http://www.twf.org/Gallery/911f/Pentagon911/images/c6-Impact%20Zone.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03905.JPEG

http://i.imgur.com/oI1Ji.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1374/forklift2.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2159/forklift3w.png

The firetruck damage:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03912.JPEG

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

Look at the damage done to the engine cover. It's bent out the way. And look at the engine itself. No way an engine of any type struck this vehicle.

I personally believe that the dmage done to the facade and possibly through the building originated from the generator. But that's just my 2 cents.

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 8 2011, 11:50 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 9 2011, 03:56 AM) *
Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.

And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.

And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.

In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.

2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.
3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.
4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.
5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.
6. Ditto #4
7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.
8. No opinion.


Robert

Humans, explosive experts with military experience, I suspect, carried and placed the explosives into the building. It is an artform, you know, to work with explosives over many years experience.


Dear amazed

Yes, and it appears there was no shortage of them around the place that day, outside and very likely inside the building at the 'explosion' location.
From the evidence of the fortunate people who survived the event, it does not sound as though their colleagues were injured and killed by direct effect of any aircraft, but from what they have said, the massive affect of explosion.

On the outside of the building in the frames of video that have been provided taken at the gatehouse, it is evident that in the immediate period before the object 'aircraft' appeared from the west (ie) the right side of the image, objects --it appearing like three of them-- can be seen travelling away from the building towards the fence area on the west side of the grassed area, at a very fast rate.
It is immediately after this the object 'aircraft' appears from the west, with every appearance of being very close to the ground.

Who were these people??
What were they upto??

Were they just fleeing for their safety?
Which then suggests some pre knowledge that something was about to happen.

Were they involved in presetting explosives?

Were they involved in some way in a final --guidance-- system for an 'aicraft' - programmed to reach the pentagon precinct?

Were they an abort team-- that were aware a mission was in its final actions and were not therefore required to take any actions.

The policeman that arrived through the security gate and then stationed himself over by the western fence of the grassed area, should be asked if he saw these people.
And while he was driving into the area that the explosion occurred did he observe an aircraft heading low towards the building across the grass area.
Also did he see or hear a large aircraft fly virtually over the top of him

Of course again it is highly coincident that he arrived at the time he did, was that his normal circuit time, for that matter was that his normal circuit?
He did not do much when he first was aware of the explosion, except drive over to the western fence at a very fast rate. --evident in the video--.

Surely his automatic duty, if not moral human response, should have been to go to the site of the explosion immediately to give any aid he could.

No he did not do that!!

But he can be seen wandering around the place when all the other 'busy beavers' got there, surely that is more the time he should have been performing --cordon-- duties!!

Who was the guy standing by the western fence, almost from the onset of any video or photographs??
He also eventually found his way in to wander around.
Why wasn't he told to "piss off", by our first policeman, he was big enough to have convinced me to do so.

Who was the guy controlling all the 'busy beavers'?

Who were the 'busy beavers'?

Come on guys, open your eyes.
You are pissing around the edges.
These are the people you should be going after.

If they refuse to speak to you, get some subpoenas, for what ever reason, 'agitate the bastards', bring them out into the open, for criticism, if it is warranted.

My last comment on the subject, unless I come across something substantive.

But let me tell you.
If I was closer, I would not be sitting on my "butt", no matter what the consequences.
And there are a lot more people evident in the video and photographs I would be going after.

Robert






Posted by: 23investigator Jul 9 2011, 04:28 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 9 2011, 12:08 PM) *
Is this what they were trailing?

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03896.JPEG

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9315/gurneymarked.png

I honestly couldn't make out anything Robert.

This piece isn't the engine piece that you're claiming is it?

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8615/66643001.jpg

Here are a few more images from different angles, precollapse, post collapse and the next day:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03894.JPEG

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9743/pentcars1.jpg

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/133_283.jpg

http://www.twf.org/Gallery/911f/Pentagon911/images/c6-Impact%20Zone.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03905.JPEG

http://i.imgur.com/oI1Ji.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1374/forklift2.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2159/forklift3w.png

The firetruck damage:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2002/Marines/DM-SD-02-03912.JPEG

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

Look at the damage done to the engine cover. It's bent out the way. And look at the engine itself. No way an engine of any type struck this vehicle.

I personally believe that the dmage done to the facade and possibly through the building originated from the generator. But that's just my 2 cents.


Dear Onesliceshort.

No, none of the images you have provided show the object that was being dragged away.
In the near future a video demonstrating the situation will be put on Youtube under 23investigator.

Thankyou for putting up the high resolution image files.

When this was being discussed before I think it was you who provided spec details of the 'firetruck'.
The rear cover you refer to as being bent out of the way, is high tensile aluminium of some considerable thickness.
It looks more like a hole was punched in it.
Fragments of it can be seen laying on the ground.

It depends what velocity was left with the object when it hit the firetruck, it may well have been nearing the end of its travel, but to knock a hole of the size in the cover would have taken some considerable force.
The object itself could have collapsed on its self too, which would have absorbed further energy.
All that said the rear tire did not 'fare' to well, with perhaps the wheel hub damaged also.
All these things would have dissipated the kinetic energy available, in a manner I dont believe you or I could simply determine.

Perhaps when the video points out to you where to consider looking for the object being dragged away we can discuss this further.

At this time you have your belief, which is fine, it is up to me to clearly demonstrate what I am considering.

Robert

Posted by: tit2 Jul 9 2011, 06:58 AM

Quote of onesliceshort : « if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up? »

If I understand what you say (I'm French), I'm not absolutely certain that “ the steep incline that precedes the lawn” eliminates the possibility of a missile strike “ from anywhere other than the aircraft”. Watch this video: (The missile takes altitude, then returns to the ground to hit the target) :

http://www.koreus.com/video/anti-tank-missile.html

I signal below the opinion of an explosives expert and a video about « the  Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery » :

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7364619849681669102

I know that for the attack of the pentagon, no witnesses reported seeing a missile, but some witnesses reported hearing the sound of a missile. I do not know if the items available for analysis allow to have a certainty on this issue.

Quote of amazed!

« Of course in the first place, nobody in the Pentagon heard the approaching airplane for the simple fact that there was no approaching airplane. Ours here is simply an academic exercise about a hypothetical situation. »

Recall of one of the stories that I signalled : : « Army Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell is returning to his second floor office, and is just yards from where the building is impacted. “Bomb! I thought,” he recalls of the moment the building is hit. »

At “just yards from where the building is impacted” by a Boeing 757 at a speed of 781 feet per second with 36,200 lb. of fuel remaining upon impact with the Pentagon (see below), what is the probability to be always alive?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31594959/9-11-NTSB-Autopilot-Study-Flight-AA77-UA93






Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 9 2011, 11:16 AM

Run it by me Robert. What struck the fire engine? What actually "struck" the Pentagon? I swear, if I hear another "whoosh" story my head's gonna explode!

Explain the physics of a heavy object striking strengthened aluminium sheeting and bending the edges outwards. I'm not "referring" to it being bent out the way. It is bent out the way.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

It was at "the end of its travel"? The aluminium sheet cover for the engine is tensile, very strong, but it's also very thin.

Explain the physics of how it shattered this sheet and left the inner tubing untouched and the "caps" in tact shown in the image above.

Explain to me how you know for a fact that a piece of masonry from the facade/blast didn't strike it.

I'll wait to see your video before making any comments on what was dragged away mate.

@tit2

The problem is not whether a mssile could strike the Pentagon, but that there are many ambiguous claims that inevitably tag along with it.

That the "missile" was disguised as an aircraft.
That the "missile" disguised as an aircraft caused the cartoon-plane cut-out damage on the facade.
That the "missile" cum aircraft made the C Ring exit hole but suddenly stopped.
Etc, etc.

That's why all of the questions I http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21208&view=findpost&p=10799802 should be answered in conjunction with the single one you picked as honestly as possible to actually pinpoint exactly what the claim is!

Bottom line. The official story is that a Boeing 757 followed the specific directional damage path which is narrowed to within feet and inches. They are tied to this story. There is no wriggle room.
The NOC testimony (and P4T's annihilation of the FDR data's veracity) is the only real evidence we as truthseekers have regarding the Pentagon.

Aerodynamics and physics are on our side too. The alleged "Flight 77" on the witnessed NOC path cannot in any way, any how cause the physical damage (from lightpole 1 right through to C Ring) strike the Pentagon, fully penetrate and cause the internal damage.

I've been searching and poking through the damage for years. No way.

People can make up their own minds and are entitled to their own opinions as to what actually caused the damage (I have my own), but if it's going to take away from the NOC evidence and is based on convoluted theories that can't be backed up by evidence other than images that can be translated into anything we want to see, hmms and haas, "whooshes" and alleged witnesses with a minimal view from windows miles away, half of whom work for the DOJ and MSM, one is fictional as far as I'm concerned and another is a falsely interpretted Spanish guy's testimony, I don't want to know.


Posted by: amazed! Jul 9 2011, 02:07 PM

tit2

Yes, I remember reading the statements of several personnel inside the Pentagon reference "sound of a bomb", and thanks, I had not heard those statements before.

Be careful in claiming specific numbers for fuel onboard any given aircraft in these discussions--nobody can know specific numbers for fuel onboard.

And I must amend my previous statement regarding what MIGHT have been heard by persons inside the building. Considering the flyby made by some airliner type, somebody inside MIGHT have heard that event, especially after the aircraft passed and the listener was then BEHIND the jet exhaust.

Robert

We must keep in mind that there were NUMEROUS training exercises being conducted that day, by both civilian and military commands, including FEMA. The training exercises allowed the rank and file personnel to believe that they were participating in some sort of emergency training, and that means they were not particularly observant, and attributed most of what they saw and heard to the training scenario. If you have ever participated in a Field Training Exercise, you know what I mean.

Thus, it is likely that many people knew SOMETHING was going to happen concerning some exercise, but they just did not know what precisely.

Just as people knew enough about the day to buy stock options in advance, others knew enough to expect SOMETHING to happen, however lacking in details they might have been.

We know that 1 civilian helicopter pilot, news ship as I recall, offered his assistance to the locals if they needed help at the Pentagon. Not only "no", but "hell no" he was told, and don't get near here.

We know that the Pentagon has provided something like 5 frames from a parking lot video for public consumption. All the other video cameras on the property, which must amount to dozens of cameras, and including the camera video from the nearby hotel, have NOT been made public. Yes, it's very safe to say that SOMETHING was happening there that day that was the giveaway to exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

OSS

I do not remember having read Craig's comments about witnesses that you linked to there, but the gist of what he said there is exactly what I thought he would have said. That there were other witnesses in other parts of the greater DC area (not just about the Citgo area) is only logical, and rather my point.

I have always respected and admired the work Craig and CIT have done there--they provided a great service to those of us seeking what bit of truth we might find amongst the smoke & mirrors erected by the government.

My only beef with CIT was a particular conclusion they drew, just 1 out of the several. I do not think the conclusion can be drawn that there were POSITIVELY no other aircraft involved. Maybe there were no other aircraft involved, and then maybe there were. It's rather like the old conundrum--if a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody there to hear it, did it really make a sound?

It is entirely possible that while all the witnesses near the Citgo were fixating on a low flying Boeing (or whatever it was), a smaller and faster aircraft went by out of their field of vision. I have no proof that DID happen, I'm just saying it's possible.

As for Steve Gerard, if he worked for the US Justice Department, that makes it a better than 50-50 chance he is making stuff up. Sad to say.

As for the A-3 story, loose ends like that have been known to happen. As an aside, I'm curious if you served in the US military? Point is that I am personally aware of another similar 'loose end' that was observed, completely by accident, by a friend of mine with a career in the USAF. I digress.

Cruise missles have no landing gear, is what I said previously. Thus, assuming that the pictures we saw of landing gear and engine parts inside the Pentagon were genuine, those parts could not have come from a cruise missle. But that does not necessarily mean that a cruise missle was not involved. Weren't there 2 explosions reported there?

As for terrain following flight, clearly the aircraft must have the ability to pitch up and pitch down, for that is what terrain does.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 9 2011, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (Amazed!)
My only beef with CIT was a particular conclusion they drew, just 1 out of the several.


Realistically, isn't the conclusion that not only CIT drew but any reasonable, unbiased person would reach, is that the aircraft (a Boeing 757/"Flight 77" specifically) couldn't cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory? That it is the only one we can prove? Actual evidence handed to us on a plate?

Anything less like vague and explicable, duhbunker friendly, possibly planted witness testimony (as in the case of the MSM scripted description) and somebody hearing a "whoosh" (incidentally, this witness claimed to see the explosion in his rear view mirror - he was actually closer to NOC on Route 27 - allegedly) or the "possibility" that witnesses on Route 27 may have "missed" the "missile/whatever" travel the OCT path are a distraction.

I think the problem is that people are stuck in a groove in that something must have struck when in reality a controlled, grounded event would have been more risk free and a 99% guaranteed successful effect on both witnesses and rescue workers/firefighters/Pentagon occupants.

QUOTE
A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon's surrounding network of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building's five concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well. According to Evey, "The Renovation Office recognized this shortcoming and was determined to address it effectively by incorporating improved personnel safety features into the overall renovation program." The blast protection task was included in the new design work for the first of the Pentagon's five "wedges" and is now a "template" for the follow-on renovation of the other sections.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Protective Design Center evaluated possible threats to determine a "most likely" bomb blast scenario, calculating dynamic, time-varying forces for various blast sizes and locations on the building's perimeter. From this analysis, the Renovation Office established blast resistance structural design criteria for the project. The next step in the process was to develop the design, incorporating the established criteria.


http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pentagon-retrofit.htm


QUOTE
The analyses assume that the Pentagon frame is sufficient to resist the loads transferred to it from the exterior walls. Evaluations of the original and retrofitted Pentagon structures were performed using the Antiterrorist (AT) Planner
software [1]. AT Planner is a PC-based computer code that assists installation-level personnel in analyzing the vulnerability of buildings and their occupants to the effects of terrorist vehicle bombs. The program also contains information to aid in developing protective measures.

AT Planner is being developed to present concepts and procedures for protecting deploying forces from terrorist/saboteur attack using expedient methods that require a minimum of engineer resources. Recent experience has shown that the demand for military engineering in support of antiterrorism has risen dramatically as the Army is drawn into a succession of operations other than war. In these situations, U.S. troops may be subject to attack by unfriendly civilian or paramilitary groups. AT Planner is a Windows 95-based application suitable for operation on a notebook computer by combat engineer officers, and draws on completed and ongoing research related to the protection of fixed facilities from terrorist attack as well as work on field fortifications. AT Planner is based on references 2-7. AT Planner provides standoff distance evaluations, structural damage and window hazard calculations, protective measures checklist for terrorist threats, and vehicle velocity calculations and barrier recommendations. When a vulnerability analysis from a terrorist bomb is calculated in AT Planner, blast pressure is calculated at the center of each structural bay on a structure.
Angle of incidence is considered in calculating airblast levels on structures, but clearing effects and shielding effects are not. AT Planner uses PI (Pressure Impulse) diagrams to allow a user to quickly estimate building damage from a vehicle bomb attack.


....

The PI curves presented above are used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and small truck bomb threats as shown in Figure 8 (the windows control these stand-offs).

To analyze the existing retrofits response to blast load, SDOF models of the wall and window systems were developed. The wall model did not consider the effects of window failure. The resistance of the wall included the strength of the façade, the masonry wall, and the tubular framing system (dominant contribution). The wall system model was used in WAC to generate RTE and PI curves and these curves were validated with FE analyses. The high level PI curves were used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and the small truck bomb threats. The custom PI diagrams for the window and wall retrofits of the exterior wall of the E-Ring were used for all walls. Damage plot in figure 9 are intended to illustrate damage to the outside of the E-Ring only.


http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/34/paper/63hall.pdf


QUOTE
Lt. Gen. Bob Flowers commands the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps helped design the Pentagon's new protection. The engineers studied past attacks, including the 1983 marine bombing in Lebanon, Oklahoma City in 1995, the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia and the US emassies in East Africa.

"at Khobar Towers, for example, most of the damage and casualties were caused by flying debris from the structure and the glass, et cetera," says Flowers. "and so based on that, we worked, designed, things to prevent flying debris and flying glass.

At Oklahoma City, the bulk of the casualties were caused by the collapsing structure. So one of the things we studied was how to put redundant capability in a structure to prevent it from collapsing if it was attacked. So by applying the lessons that you learn from doing those studies, you can better protect structures in the future."

It was a tough way to learn a lesson. But there is an easier way. The Corps is making a study of safer buildings by setting off its own bombs at a research center in Mississippi.

Reed Mosher is the technical director for survivability. They have developed a team of specialists that goes to these terrorist strikes as soon as they happen.

The buildings tell the team a great deal. "we want to find what performed well, what didn't perform well, try to characterize the size of the bomb, the blast," says Mosher.

Mosher also designs his own terrorist bombings in miniature with exacting scale models of reinforced concrete buildings.

Recently, Mosher's team tested a common interior wall, particle board, steel wall studs and sheetrock. The wall is set in a steel frame with instruments inside.

Then they set off a bomb. Mosher has done hundreds of these, in an effort to create new building materials. The corps of engineers runs these experiments through its super computer center, which is one of the most powerful in the nation. The computer can test various kinds of bombs against different buildings without breaking any glass.

In a special 3-d imaging room mosher showed how the super computers recreates the blast wave that hit khobar towers. It predicts the path of every shard of glass from a single breaking window.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/60II/main319383.shtml


There it is in black and white. They knew how the structure would react to various sized blasts from different angles.

Why use a terrain hugging "missile" in a multi-obstacled, topographical nightmare?

Just as with the towers the aircraft were more for effect and make the public believe whatever shit was spoonfed to them. The collapses had to be internally controlled. Guaranteed. Let the media do the rest. Just as in the Pentagon.

Maybe the truth as to how they fabricated the damage is far simpler than we believe or even more bizarre but I'm leaning towards a much simpler, contained, surefire operation.

Why not let the government explain how the damage was caused given the evidence?

GroundPounder linked to an article the other day and the message that stood out for me was the author's despair at how overcomplicated the message is for "9/11 truth". All I'm saying is keep it simple.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 10 2011, 11:05 AM

Thanks for a most reasonable and civil post, OSS. I absolutely agree that we should keep it simple.

I have no strong feelings or ideas that a missle or drone was used at the Pentagon. I'm just trying to rationalize in my own mind the debris shown inside, the engine sections and landing gear pieces.

I understand full well that the pictures themselves could have been utterly faked, and I understand that the debris may have been planted there.

For the sake of discussion, if one assumes that the pictures are genuine, then I conclude that the debris was not planted, ONLY because it looks as though those pieces had indeed been in a recent collision at high speed. Yes, it's entirely possible that they planted debris from a previous high speed collision. Really all we can do is speculate because so much is rigged in this case.

And I absolutely agree with your first paragraph above. After seeing CIT's work, I reached the very same conclusion.

I simply disagree that one can prove without a doubt that no drone type aircraft flew into the Pentagon that day, and that ONLY because of the presence of said debris. If it could be demonstrated that the debris was planted, then it would be certain that there was no flying object that struck.

The other thing that makes me wonder about it is the few frames eventually released from the parking lot camera. Yes, I know it could be manipulated. There is a certain probability that it was manipulated, but I don't know if that goes over 50-50. Those few frames do seem to show something flying in, but it's poor quality.

I absolutely agree with your point that they knew how the building would react to various explosive charges. I spent enough time in the US Army to understand military planning and execution.

No, I cannot offer any specific advantages to using a drone aircraft in addition to the HE planted meticulously. At least nothing compelling. Being that it was a large scale military training exercise, I can see how they might have wanted to incorporate some ALCM or SLCM into that exercise, but the landing gear and compressor sections throw that off.

The point is that criminal minds work in bizarre ways, and clearly it was criminal minds who planned and executed the events of the day.

Posted by: Ricochet Jul 10 2011, 02:29 PM

NORAD tapes tracked a "Special 17", hit the Pentagon, a "quick". look it up.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 10 2011, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jul 10 2011, 07:29 PM) *
NORAD tapes tracked a "Special 17", hit the Pentagon, a "quick". look it up.


Okay, officially released data from people possibly up to their eyeballs in the op, the success of which could not have occurred without concession/active participation at the highest level, consistently caught lying through their teeth

= *thumbs up*

Witnesses within the Pentagon basin from all conceivable angles

= *poopoo*

You can ignore these people Ric. This independently collected, unfiltered, uncensored, MSM free, unrubberstamped by military squareheads, unbleached, non contradictory evidence.

I can't.

If your argument is that the aircraft "impacted", no matter from what angle, or how much the aerodynamics and physics of both the manouevre and physical damage necessary would have to stretch to Star Trek proportions, enlighten me.

If your argument is that the aircraft flew as per the alleged radar/directional damage path, name me one witness to this.

Here, just in case you haven't seen it:


Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 10 2011, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (Amazed!)
The point is that criminal minds work in bizarre ways, and clearly it was criminal minds who planned and executed the events of the day.


Couldn't agree more.

On the manipulation of visible "debris" on the lawn, I searched through all available images (AFAIK) of the lawn and came across some irregularities to the south of the lawn:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795793

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795859

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795876

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10795908

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21156&view=findpost&p=10796019

I know it's pointless trying to convince anybody that their own gut instinct is wrong unless they come to their own conclusions but even though there's no definitive proof and it's based on my own personal speculation, these images always stood out to me as a very realistic and possible controlled method of covering a lot of bases from damaging the facade to spraying "debris" :

http://imageshack.us/f/842/genhires.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/f/850/generatorfacadehires.jpg/

I can't see how any "flying craft" or "missile" could physically plough through this obstacle (the former), or how a "missile" would not detonate prematurely on striking it.

The NOC aircraft couldn't physically cause it. A smaller modified craft's engine raises just as many problems. I was never in the military (I just noticed the question) but was raised in a military state (N. Ireland) but I've seen the damage caused by improvised mortars primarily used against fortified bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster

If those people could do it, imagine it from a military perspective. A recoilless mortar mounted in the generator trailer with the calculated amount of HE?

The facade was allegedly a mesh of tubing bolting the floors together. The larger bolts were found on the first floor of the renovated section.

QUOTE
Another HSMM design consideration was the projectile potential of the brick infill walls in the event of a terrorist bomb. The solution incorporated a system developed by Protective Design Center to mitigate this concern. The Protective Design Center system employs an extremely tough mesh geotextile material, normally used to stabilize highway embankments, to arrest wall debris loosed by a blast. For the proposed solution, the fabric ends are wrapped around steel plates, which are then bolted to the sill tube and to the support plate at the floor slab below the window. The fabric is also installed between the vertical tubes and the existing concrete columns with the wrapped plates bolted to the support plates at the ceiling and the floor. Masonry Arts, Inc., was the contractor for this portion of the work, and likewise offered a number of practical solutions when circumstances varied from the design. These renderings show the fabric as loosely woven to allow the viewer to see the wall beyond. In reality, however, the material is woven much more tightly. This taut screen deflects to absorb missile energy if brick wall masonry is loosed in a blast, allowing the masonry material to fall harmlessly to the building floor.

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.jpg


This "safety feature" ran through the facade:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7546/pentinteriorwindows.png

You can see how it actually worked:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5187/pentmesh.png

Now I know it's way over my head, but I can see how they could have ripped the (desired) hole in the facade with a well calculated, controlled blast. The retaining wall at Column 11 may have been precut to aid collapse. I believe that it was meant to collapse immediately and they f*ed it up.

2cents

Posted by: amazed! Jul 11 2011, 09:19 AM

I've gotta go right now OSS, but your mention of an old Vietnam era jeep-mounted recoilless rifle is something I had not thought about, but might be a good solution to the problem you've raised.


Posted by: tit2 Aug 21 2011, 06:49 AM

Looking at this video "9 / 11 Pentagon Attack: Another Closer Look" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K89coc88Hrs

I noticed that the author shows several debris that are supposedly those of Flight 77. An image of this aircraft can be seen here :

http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/0982095/L/

I placed four of this debris, close to the plane, in a single picture :

http://i.imgur.com/xPMVQ.jpg

This four debris appears to show fractions of acronym " American” in red colour. But the background color around the AA logo does not seem identical to that the plane which is assumed have hit the pentagon. I guess all this debris have already been analyzed by "pilotsfor911truth.org." For this one:

http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/pentagon/debris/debrisHR.jpg

I found several studies :

1) Freedom Files Website Pentagon Crash?

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Quote :

« The color seems to be a lighter blue than that used by American Airlines. However the piece is also too small to correspond with the lettering on the 757 paint job according to other analysis work done on this web page. Just scroll down a ways to see it.

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon_debris_logo.jpg

Clearly the blue part of the color is wrong and it supports the theory that something made to look like an American Airlines 757 is what actually hit the Pentagon. Also the granularity of the paint is different the AA 757 has a more metallic look to it. »

2) The AA 757-200 Pentagon Wreckage Photo Is Authentic

http://www.rense.com/general31/CONFIRM.htm

Quotes :

« This piece of debris also looks materially flimsy - If I flew on a commercial passenger jet I'd hope it was made of sturdier stuff! This could have been a piece of a small drone craft that was used in the attack, but it is unlikely that this came from the AA Boeing jet. »

« I don't believe it came off a AA 757. American Airlines is the only US carrier to NOT paint its aircraft, preferring to save the considerable weight of paint by keeping its aircraft's aluminum skins polished. This piece of wreckage clearly appears to be painted a light, powder blue. I have looked at current American 757s and cannot find anywhere on the aircraft where this particular piece of metal might have come off. »

3) 9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE The Pentagon

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Quote :

« The purported Pentagon security camera video images clearly show a blast occurring in front of the wall – that would require a sophisticated “proximity fuse;” if the blast was factual.  That blast imagery sets the stage for another conclusion.  If that had been a B-757, the “pristine skin,” photographed on the Pentagon lawn would have been destroyed, as it supposedly comes from the front end of a 757.  Yet that “pristine skin” shows a shearing force in its damage, not compression or burn damage – of any type.  Then, there's the business of the blue-gray paint, versus the 'normal' shined and polished natural aluminum skin.  For those not informed, aircraft N644AA had polished aluminum, not the blue-gray background paint.  Did this piece even come from a 757?  If so, the skin to the right of the lettering on the material suggests that it came from the right side of the aircraft; thus, the skin is on the wrong side of the lawn. In any case - IMPOSSIBLE! »

4) Pentagon Attack - No Boeing 757?

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Pentagon.htm

Another topic :Doubletree Video - New 9/11 Pentagon video released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNfkej6YyeY

This video shows explosion at the pentagon but any aircraft before explosion. I do not know if it is possible to compare the characteristics of explosion seen in this video with those of both videos released in May 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8




Posted by: onesliceshort Aug 21 2011, 08:52 AM

Hi tit2, thanks for the links!

Another physical debunk of this alleged debris, namely the "N" and "C" pieces would have had to have been expulsed, whether by the blast or the heat just as the explosion went off in any "impact" scenario. Why? Look where the "C" and "N" are situated on the left hand side of the aircraft:



The ASCE Report claims that the fuel "rebounded" before "igniting". rolleyes.gif

Physics and logic would have any explosion occurring by "impact" when the central and wing fuel tanks make contact with the facade. So how could those two pieces have been blown out and away from the facade before the explosion occurred?

They couldn't physically have been "peeled off" on "entry" as there wouldn't be any lettering visible as the outer skin of the aircraft is only milimetres thick and would have been crushed beyond recognition. Blackened at least.

Lastly, look at the lettering on the vertical stabilizer compared to the letters that were allegedly found!

Posted by: tit2 Sep 2 2011, 08:19 AM

Apparently there is also a debris of the letter "A" of the AA Logo. I saw it in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

Image :

http://i.imgur.com/zHLf3.jpgg

It is lucky for the official version of the attack of the pentagon that all these debris of the American Airlines Logo are visible at the pentagon crash site. But is it really luck?

http://i.imgur.com/aCYO7.jpg


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)