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?

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 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

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

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

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 -





-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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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%...

Dear BlueSky.

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

Robert

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.cf...2941&page=2

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?

What do wealthy people covet the most?

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

I see certain people 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!!

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?

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

http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/apr...ynews-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..



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???

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

Hell ya I'm cynical.

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.

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]

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/

« 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.

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

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) :









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/Go...-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.






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/



-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?







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



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfwsjF8X5U...ailpage#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/armymagaz...nition_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



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).

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.

This would mean April and Elisha as stated he was the ONLY child that survived.




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.

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:




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.

Great posts P.

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

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp306/2...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?

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



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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'll second that!

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/de...d%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.

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.

Seems like a pretty vague decision to me.

Obwon

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?...937lackofdebris

« 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?...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?...38bombsexploded

« 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?...8combatofficers

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?...b#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