April Gallop and her son, Elisha, were injured in the Pentagon.
By Craig McKee
In an ideal world, April Gallop’s lawsuit would be the 9/11 breakthrough that the Truth movement has been waiting for. If real justice existed, this suit would break the story wide open.
I have to be realistic and see it as a long shot, but you never know…
Gallop is suing former vice-president Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers for damages in connection with injuries she and her newborn son suffered in the supposed terrorist attack at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
The suit comes before the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Connecticut) on April 5. On March 15, 2010, Judge Denny Chin dismissed the suit with prejudice in a lower court, contending that the complaint was based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.”
Let’s hope things go better this time. In particular, she and her lawyer William Veale hope that the case goes forward giving her the power to subpoena witnesses. If she and Veale succeed then things will really get interesting.
Gallop, a former U.S. Army executive administrative assistant (with top secret clearance), contends that the three defendants – along with an unknown number of others – engaged in a criminal conspiracy to perpetrate a mass fraud on the American public and the world either by orchestrating the attacks or by allowing them to happen. You can read the original complaint here: (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/text-of-the-april-gallop-lawsuit/)
Gallop and her two-month-old son were injured in the event when an explosion in her office brought the ceiling down on them. The Pentagon has refused to help her with surgeries she and her son have required because of the event, according to David Ray Griffin in his book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. They’ve even tried to stop other agencies, like the American Red Cross, from helping her, Griffin reports.
Gallop’s desk was in the Pentagon’s E Ring, the outermost of the building’s five rings. Her desk was reported to be just 40 feet from where Flight 77 is supposed to have hit the building shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11.
She was on her first day back at work after a two-month maternity leave. She says she was heading to the Pentagon day-care center with her son when she was told by her supervisor to take care of an urgent document-clearing job first.
So, she went to her desk, son in tow. When she pressed the ‘on’ button on her computer, a huge explosion literally brought the ceiling down. Debris fell from above and hit her and her baby.
Gallop reports that after regaining consciousness, she carried her child to safety through the hole in the building where the plane was supposed to have entered. She says saw no evidence of a plane having hit: no wreckage, no bodies, no jet fuel, nothing. She says she thought her computer had triggered the explosion, reporting that there were “flames coming out of the computers.” A woman in the D ring, Tracy Webb, reported the same thing, according to Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (p. 101).
Gallop’s suit points to the fact that no alarm was ever sounded at the Pentagon even though it appears that Cheney and others were tracking a plane’s progress towards the Pentagon. She has stated that there were frequent alarm drills in the Pentagon in the days leading up to 9/11 but none on that day.
The idea that Cheney knew a plane was heading for the Pentagon is supported by the 9/11 Commission hearing testimony of the then transportation secretary, Norman Mineta. Mineta reported to the Commission that Cheney was in the presidential bunker prior to the Pentagon “crash” and was tracking the plane as it approached the Pentagon but not taking action to intercept it.
The suit states that explosives were detonated inside the Pentagon to simulate an airliner hitting the building. I addressed the issue of explosions in the Pentagon in this post: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/evidence-points-to-bombs-detonated-inside-the-pentagon-on-911/
The original 2008 Gallop lawsuit contended that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and an unknown number of co-conspirators:
“…engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, or a set of related, ongoing conspiracies, in which the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done.
“The defendants’ purpose in aiding and facilitating the attack, and the overall object of the conspirac(ies), was to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public, and in Washington. This would generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional government in our country. Much of their intention was spelled out prior to their coming into office, in publications of the so-called Project for the New American Century, of which defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld were major sponsors. There they set forth specific objectives regarding the projection of U.S. military power abroad, particularly in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas. They observed, however, that the American people would not likely support the actions the sponsors believed were necessary, without being shocked into a new outlook by something cataclysmic: “a new Pearl Harbor”. By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military conquest, “full spectrum dominance” and “American primacy” around the world; as they have done.”
So the stakes couldn’t be higher. If this case goes forward then a great deal might come out. I just wish the possibility didn’t seem too good to be true.
The suit statesgoes on to state that explosives were detonated inside the Pentagon to simulate an airliner hitting the building. I addressed the issue of explosions in the Pentagon in this post: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/evidence-points-to-bombs-detonated-inside-the-pentagon-on-911/
Craig, I saw at least one of the early drafts of the affidavits that some of Bill Veale’s nutjob witnesses offered, and I was much impressed by his ability to edit them (or it) into a coherent form. He seems like a capable guy, so I was much surprised that he was pursuing this stuff. April Gallop could not expect to see plane wreckage immediately inside the first wall–obviously it carried much further inward.
We’ll see what happens.
Whether or not you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, wouldn’t you agree that she has a point when she says the alarm should have been sounded? They were well aware that the towers had been hit and that other hijacked planes were still in the air.
I would think any person looking for the truth about 9/11 would be happy at the prospect of a chance to learn new things, hear witnesses, etc.
On wreckage: You’re telling me that a plane could plow through an office building and we wouldn’t expect anything to be visible except farther in? What about the punch-out hole? I don’t believe that round hole was made by landing gear. And what killed people in the A ring?
Mr. McKee,
I see here you state “the towers had been hit” but in other posts you frequently refer to September Clues and the people who further theory that “No Planes” hit the towers at all. September Clues and these people state that the footage aired on national television of the towers being hit was “TV Fakery”.
Is this your position?
I don’t believe that hijacked airliners full of people hit the towers. I never said that nothing hit the towers, but there are many unanswered questions about the video evidence. And the smooth entry of the planes into the building, with no apparent deceleration, is puzzling (as is the apparently irreconcilable selection of trajectories of the second plane).
It is possible that something other than the airliners we’ve been told about hit those buildings and that the video we’ve seen is in some way deceptive. I realize that most people will find this far-fetched, but as I have also said in previous posts, 9/11 was meant to be an illusion. Just because something seems unlikely doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. This area should be examined more closely.
So, what’s your position? Have you ever seen September Clues? If so, what did you think of it?
That’s a very good question. My hunch is that we won’t see it on the evening news at all. It might get a couple of paragraphs in the New York Times, but it’ll be very far from page one. Of course, if the case actually proceeds then things will get interesting.
Craig, the history of 9/11 law has been very discouraging. The NYCCAN initiative was incompetently drafted and so it was illegal under NY state law. The Stanley Hilton and Phil Berg lawsuits were so incompetent that they really look like they were designed to fail. I hope that Mr. Veale’s case is different, but we’ll see. Conspiracy theories rarely do well in court–unless they’re asserted by the prosecution.
We don’t know if anybody died in A ring. Maybe bodies were moved there from C ring. Or maybe people injured in C ring were moved to A ring and died there.
I don’t know what happens when an airliner hits a bombproofed 2-foot-thick masonry wall at 450 mph, but I don’t expect to see wreckage just inside the wall. Also, I try to avoid spending a lot of time on uncorroborated testimony. As a journalist you should understand the need for confirmation.
I do indeed understand the need to confirm information. But I also don’t disregard something just because it has not been conclusively proven yet. Nothing in this case has really been proven, but we still continue looking for the truth. To say you won’t waste time on something uncorroborated doesn’t make much sense to me. At least we should be demanding an investigation that will put all the accounts to the test.
As for the bodies, I cite David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor Revisited on the subject. If the accounts he cites are true then we’re clearly not talking about bodies being moved, we’re talking about bodies in the moments after the incident. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/how-could-flight-77-have-caused-interior-pentagon-damage-on-911/
Craig, according to your own account, the witness to the A-ring bodies had to cross to “the other side of the Pentagon” before he saw the bodies. That’s hardly “moments after”.
Brian, you do nothing to advance your point of view when you simply discount anything anomalous that doesn’t fit with what you already think.
I will quote from my own post on the A ring (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/how-could-flight-77-have-caused-interior-pentagon-damage-on-911/):
“David Ray Griffin’s excellent book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited offers intriguing information on how far in the damage went. Robert Andrews, who was acting assistant secretary of defence for special operations and low intensity conflict, said in an interview with former Reagan administration figure Barbara Honnegger that he was in the counterterrorism center in the Pentagon when he felt a violent shock in the building. When he got to the other side of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld was, in the A Ring, he found himself “climbing over dead bodies.”
In light of the small C Ring hole, how could people have been killed two rings further into the building? The Washington Post reported on its web site on Sept. 11 that they’d been told by a Marine major who asked to remain anonymous that he and others rushed to the section of the Pentagon that appeared to be the most heavily damaged – the B Ring between the 4th and 5th corridors. The article was written by Barbara Vobejda and sported the headline: “Extensive casualties in wake of Pentagon attack.”
According to the Post, the major said he was part of a make-shift rescue crew that tried to pull out a civilian who was pinned by fallen pipes and other debris. As the hot, thick, black smoke built up, the men passed wet t-shirts to one another and removed debris piece by piece in assembly-line fashion, he said, adding that the B Ring was “decimated.”
Do you really think it took him a few hours to find Rumsfeld? If you are seriously looking for the truth about the Pentagon, why can’t you admit this question needs to be answered?
Our intrepid and honest 9/11 investigator notes: “Brian, you do nothing to advance your point of view when you simply discount anything anomalous that doesn’t fit with what you already think.”
Blocking anomalous comments from me which actually contain facts might advance your POV, Craig, but it does little for your credibility. Gallop really did sue American Airlines because of AA 77’s crash into her workplace, and they really did pay her for the injuries sustained by her and her son. The later lawsuit won’t blow anything wide open, and I beleve it was already tossed out with prejudice. Did you check on that before writing this article?
Mr. Albury,
You have been banned from this site, but I’m making an exception by allowing you this last comment. After this, you can send your comments to one of the forums that hasn’t banned you yet.
Your comment reveals the disingenuous nature of your assertions. You sarcastically suggest that I wasn’t aware when I wrote my article that Gallop’s case was thrown out of court last year. Did you read my piece?
You only had to read as far as the fourth paragraph to get this:
“The suit comes before the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Connecticut) on April 5. On March 15, 2010, Judge Denny Chin dismissed the suit with prejudice in a lower court, contending that the complaint was based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.
“Let’s hope things go better this time.”
So maybe you’re the one who isn’t bothering to check the facts.
You point out that Gallop received a settlement from American Airlines for what happened to her and her son. In her case against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, she claims – among other things – that the government should have sounded an alarm given that they appear to have been tracking the plane as it approached the Pentagon. I think she has a case regardless of any other settlements.
If the judge finds some legal contradiction, then I’m sure we’ll hear about that. My interest in this has little to do with April Gallop getting a settlement (although I think she is entitled to one), it has to do with holding government officials accountable for their involvement in this catastrophic event.
Your suggestions that I’m not honest in how I cover 9/11 and how I moderate outside contributions to the site are baseless. Why don’t you start your own blog so we can all have the unrestricted benefit of your wisdom.
You made an excellent call banning Mr. Smith. He really has no other place to go except youtube and his Shtick is laughed at even there. Well done sir.
And yet we have another 911 lie spreader amongst us. How easily those lies flow for you.
Karen Kwiatkowski didn’t buy the official fable either and she was on site in a couple of minutes. Knowing that hijack protocol was just changed on June 1st 2001 and Rumsfeld’s need to play baywatch babe on the lawn only puts the fable deeper in the utter bullshit category.
When you have supposed eyewitnesses that say “I saw the tail section melt into the buikding” and “I could see the horror on the passengers faces through the windows as the plane flew by” doesn’t make for a very legit testimony. There’s hardly any full names to accompany those witness statements.
Good luck when those 28 redacted pages get released. It’ll be epic. Jeb Bush is scared as hell as he should be.
Dear Mr. Albury,
Mr. McKee and I have repeatedly told you to create your own home court advantage by establishing a blog.
In addition, we’ve given you at least three contacts of others who have blogs with similar POVs.
The first is Mr. Rational. I’m sure that Mr. CuriousPlumber88 would be happy to get your contributions.
The second is A Limey’s Ramblins, whereby Mr. Limey was an earlier participant both on Mr. Rational and Mr. McKee’s blog.
The third is actually a reference that you brought up yourself: Professor Dutch. On the one hand, he might be glad to hear from you. On the other hand, he does post this rather draconian disclaimer:
If you can avoid the “grossly stupid comments”, you and Dr. Dutch might just get along fine.
Hi Craig,
saw this today http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/april-gallop-military-officer-pentagon-911-victim-sued-cheney-was-in-court-todaynews-blackout/
Oh my God. If this is true then it’s absolutely incredible. Thanks for passing that along.
It is a confirmed fact that Judge Walker is, in fact, Bush’s first cousin. He has been a senior judge since 2006 when he stepped down as Chief Justice. I’ve read a report, not confirmed, that Walker is part of a three-judge panel hearing the case. Gallop’s lawyer has apparently tried to get him disqualified without success. If all this is true, then it’s a staggering miscarriage of justice.
I’m not surprised at all that the big media aren’t covering it, but the fact that NO media are doing so is very telling. Another interesting tidbit is that the judge that threw the case out last year, calling it delusional, has been promoted to the very court that is now hearing this case. Obviously he won’t actually be hearing the case (even with 9/11 I’m sure you can’t rule on a case and then hear it again on appeal).
Days have past since 9/11, years have passed since 9/11, centuries will past since 9/11 and the criminals will not be brought to justice. The satanists have won the war and we have sold our souls to them.
I’m hopeful that the people who did this won’t get away with it this time. I agree that history is not on our side.
Speak for yourself, John.
I refer to Jim Douglass article related to the Martin Luther King conspiracy (Rat Haus website http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKconExp.html)
We need another William F Pepper though, as the main man is still busy (rightfully) fighting for Srihan Srihan’s parole.
That the MLK conspiracy was eventually exposed should be of some comfort that – even if justice doesn’t prevail right now – the truth regarding 9/11 should be revealed in 20 years time.
I wouldn’t really want to wait that long as by then (a) The World is under the control of the Grand Master and/or (b) Those scumbags who allowed the killing of innocent people are (lucky enough to be) six feet under
In MLK’s own words “I have a dream…”
It has already been 9 and a half years, but I really think this thing will break. It was too big a lie for it to stay hidden forever.
“She says she was heading to the Pentagon day-care center with her son when she was told by her supervisor to take care of an urgent document-clearing job first.
So, she went to her desk, son in tow. When she pressed the ‘on’ button on her computer, a huge explosion literally brought the ceiling down. Debris fell from above and hit her and her baby.”
Being a naturally suspicious analyst, this strikes me as…well, suspect.
There should be others who are aware that April Gallop already had some run-ins with the fascists in government on other issues. If I recall this involved the Iran Contra deal some years back.
It looks to me that April, and the accountants digging into the missing 3Trillion dollars were TARGETS of this hit–many birds–one stone.
Cowards…..the reason people like Albury and myself don’t start our own ‘blogs’ is we like to answer your lies and foolishness directly.
Blah, blah, blah.
Hahahaha. Cowards. Kettle pot. Seems to me you’re the ones that are so truly patriotic that your willing to toe the government fable where ever you go and continue to disrespect the victims and families.
MY POSITION ON SEPTEMBER CLUES
(Foreword: This is not intended or necessary for the following to be personal. I am only theorizing and making deductions. I only direct this at anyone who knowingly lies to mislead others from the truth. Granted some are innocent of this act. Some are not.)
September Clues is the desperate center piece of an awkward CoIntelPro disinfo campaign. The relevant evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job is many times over convincing to any open mind. This scares the hell out of the people who pulled it off. The movement is too large to go around and just kill its central members without raising a stink. I imagine that would’ve happened should they have known how successful it would eventually become. Anyway… back to September Clues. The very nature of the “documentary” and those who promote is counter productive. This is of course deliberate. Those who seek the truth are forced to set aside the most relevant and logical reasons for what amounts to nothing more than an absurd distraction.
Those who promote its ideas typically personify this fact. There is a wide range of approaches taken by the CoIntelPro squad assigned to discredit the movement.
-Some like Nico Haupt are outright offensive.
-Some parade as ex-high level officials turned truther (Morgan Reynolds).
-Some pose as scientists who advance nothing more than ideas of mini-nukes and space beams (Dr. Judy Wood).
-Some pose as exhaustive Google researchers with robust vocabularies like Steve Warran.
-Some do nothing more than troll message boards with dozens of fake names and carry on fake dialogue/disputes with sock puppets they create.
The fact is they all appear to contribute to the movement at first in order to gain credibility before deliberately misrepresenting the whole. They seek to cause division by childishly mocking the leaders of our movement. They seek to drive a steak of controversy and contempt between those with slight differences of opinion. Particularly those differences that occur between our legitimate researchers. They (Paid CoIntelPro) are granted time on Fox News and declare that 9/11 was no more than a road runner cartoon. They announce that there were no victims on 9/11. With the help of September Clues they imply that 9/11 truthers are morons who don’t believe planes hit the towers.
Luckily the essence of the inflammatory distraction is a wasted last ditch attempt. Sure some will be successfully distracted by the psych warfare operation but the fact is Building 7 fell. Pulling that building in broad daylight and leaking its planned “collapse” to the major networks in advance was too big a mistake for any informed person to mistake. No amount of framing our movement as frothing morons will change that fact. Zero.
So what do I think about September Clues? I think it’s one of the most vile and pathetic slimy concocted sacks of disinfo in the planet designed (but failing miserably) to offset the inevitable revolution already taking hold. I think those who knowingly participated in its creation and log into their computers at their compartmentalized CoIntelPro / Psych Warfare / Memory Hole etc. job and knowingly work to suppress the truth movement will burn in a fiery hell and for eternity know that they sold their soul for no good reason. I think that when they go to bed at night the weak excuses they tell themselves to rationalize what they do fail to make them feel any better about it. They probably go about their day more angry that their cause is corrupt and therefore do more evil versions of what is required and never feel internal peace. I’ve seen a documentary on CoIntelPro where a man who used to do it weeps for what he did. I think that those who engage in suppressing the truth are worse than dead inside.
I think CoIntelPro employees enjoy the taste of good food, the fake prestige of a T.S. clearance and stable employment, the excitement of being on the sexy side of evil, and the thrill of being in on a big secret. That said, no job perk can ever begin to fix the sheer magnitude of evil they willingly perpetuate. Joseph Goebbels may not have turned the nozzle releasing Zyklon B into the gas chambers but he was responsible for more deaths than any individual man who actually did. In the end he killed his 6 children before he and his wife killed themselves. Despite how vile deliberate propaganda against decency is I hope that those who engage in it change their hearts. I hope that men and women who fall to the seduction of the dark side repent and step out before it’s too late. I hope they walk knowingly away from their vile lies and redeem their souls. All sin is equal in the eyes of God and they can change if they want. Every second is a change to start over again but they don’t tick forever. Not all sin however is equal in the effect that it has on your heart and on the lives of other men.
Clearly it takes a cognitive mind to further a complex disinfo campaign. Lend that mind to a worthwhile cause and allow it to free it’s self by leaving the lie. Regain control of your humanity and soul by working for truth rather than the lie. Have the courage to live as a free man who serves the truth and can die without regret. That is living.
One night or even now you may ask God to help you by asking the following in your mind and heart:
Father God I have lied. I have forgotten your commandments and done horrible things. I know that living for me has left my life empty and hurt others. I ask that you place the mercy of your Son Jesus Christ over my soul and forgive me for my sins. Please save me from my ways and show me how to live. God I acknowledge that all things come from you. I ask that your perfect grace and loving forgiveness fill my life with a worthwhile purpose. Please show me how to live again so that I can be whole. Thank you God for giving me the mind, opportunity, and strength to pray this prayer.
Thank you God and I love you for hearing my prayer,
Amen.
That’s what I think about September Clues and those who deliberately further its lie.
I understand your explanation of how disinfo works, but I’m still not clear on how you’ve established beyond any doubt that September Clues fits into that category. I neither champion the film nor condemn it at this point; I’m still looking for answers. But the film makes some very persuasive points, and I would need a clear explanation of why I should disregard it.
Dear Mr. DoingMyHomework,
Whereas Mr. McKee doesn’t promote September Clues, I do. But even in my support of September Clues, I can certainly see your points and even find agreement in the general premise that the 9/11 Truth Movement is littered with CoIntelPro-style disinformation.
However, the emphasis in the above is on general premise, because you provided no specifics on where September Clues spreads disinformation. And until you do, your very posting itself can be viewed in the light of being CoIntelPro-style disinformation.
Let me briefly help you out. Some of the big things that stick out in my mind from September Clues are:
– The video evidence depicting pixels of commercial aircraft hitting the towers has glitches and inconsistencies as stand-alone depictions of reality as well as when combined with all the other videos, with (crash) physics, with aircraft flight ratings (ala Pilots for 9/11 Truth), etc.
– Control of the 9/11 message to bolster what the govt wanted the public to believe is evident in who was lined up and waiting in the studio wings to give their accounts & opinions and in how they steered the discussion.
– SimVictims is another area of research that needs to be vetted. But when one considers that this was part of Operation Northwoods from the JFK era, it isn’t so far fetched.
Rather than take your word or my word for what September Clues is or isn’t, I prefer to have intelligent people view it, be objective, and make up their own minds.
Here’s a paraphrased quote from me:
Among the people you list as part of the CoIntelPro squad assigned to discredit the movement is Dr. Judy Wood. You credit her with promoting mini-nukes and space beams.
To correct the record, she doesn’t overtly promote nukes, but I do. As for space beams, you really should objectively look at her work before discounting it. Whereas I doubt its applicability to the twin towers and WTC-7 due to milli-nukes addressing more of the evidence, the damage to WTC-6 (crater), WTC-5 (cylindral holes), and WTC-5 (main edifice leveled and cut at a neat line from its in tact north wing) could be candidates.
I highly recommend Dr. Wood’s new textbook and feel it should be part of everyone’s 9/11 library, if only for the 500 images of the destruction and correlating these images to map positions to give perspective of the scope of the destruction. I can vouch for the first half and that it also provides creative use of physics to discredit the official govt story from new directions. As for the second half, my reading was paused; I might find myself in complete disagreement. If it is proven as disinformation, we’ll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our kids and grandkids how our generation was played.
Mr. DoingMyHomework writes:
Specifics, Mr. DoingMyHomework. Specifics.
I disagree that September Clues is so vile. In fact, I think its unique take on six or seven elements of the 9/11 ruse hold up. It can’t be discarded so quickly and easily. Mine it for nuggets of truth. (And let me know where it is specifically disinfo.)
Were you to focus on just the glitches with the pixels of commercial planes, let me give you a preview of what you’d be up against. What follows is based on the premise that it was an inside job with deep pockets and conspirators at top-levels of certain govt agencies and military branches.
9/11 had many goals and motives, which accounts for its extent and thoroughness. Had foreign terrorists been the sole perpetrators or had galvenizing the public to support war been a sole goal, they would have succeeded with hijacked planes and crashing them. Crashing them into targets would have been a bonus. Getting those targets to self-implode, however, was far from given. In fact, the conspirators knew that the towers would withstand real aircraft impacts. The belief of an airplane impact was fundamental to the ploy, both as a “this could have been you” shock & awe message to the public and as a plausible initiation to the destruction they wanted.
Control of the media & message is a military strategic objective. Period.
September Clues proves this in the episodes where they show eye witnesses and govt spokespeople mouthing what became the unflinching official govt story.
Pasting pixels of commercial planes over smaller military planes or missiles is a bonus feature for having control of the media and mitigates the huge risk associated with real planes. Could four planes be hijacked? Could they be flown to the targets without interception? Could they hit the targets? Could they inflict sufficient damage to plausibly initiate total destruction, particularly when the design of the towers suggests the planes would have inflicted minimal damage and/or bounced off? Risk mitigation in such an operation would ask the question: real or fake.
Eye witnesses did see flying objects. Some were saying “smaller military plane” or “cruise missile with wings” until images of commercial planes were played and overplayed on the news on all channels and cognitive dissonance got even eye witnesses to change what they believed they saw. Aside from the inconsistencies in the depicted flight paths of the pixels in various footage, when the velocities of the pixel aircraft are calculated, they exceed the manufacturer’s rated maximum velocity of the named commercial aircraft at altitude; all pilots agree that flying such velocities at sea level in real planes would have made the aircraft very difficult to control and target, if the air resistance didn’t rip the plane apart. On top of this, the aircraft impacts lacked crash physics, like wings and tails breaking off, like deceleration and deformation of the plane’s body, etc. Instead what we get is a “Road-Runner” cartoon cut-out of the plane’s outline on the building face. Crash physics is very hard to model, and even worse when done in many different pieces of video on short notice and requiring agreement.
Why did they want complete destruction of the WTC? They robbed the gold from the vaults underneath. They wanted the SEC records destroyed that damned President Bush I (google: “Black Eagle Fund” and follow the money) and many elite who financially backed both Bushes and were under investigation. They wanted the insurance money. They wanted to build on the site again. They wanted the public to be “Pearl Harbor” fighting mad.
Why such thoroughness in the tower destruction? Why didn’t they let the top of WTC-2 topple over and cream neighboring buildings, which is what physics suggests should have happened when we observe it leaning?
The utter pulverization of the towers into fine dust starting in the earliest phases of their demolition was an anomalous feature that from that very day had me saying: “inside job and explosives.” Foreign terrorists would have little motive to be so thorough. Such thoroughness always points a finger at those with military expertise, but even they could fake it to look like something it wasn’t. So why the pulverization?
Dr. Wood gave me the reason why. The bathtub and subway. These had to be preserved. A number of intact floors or large pieces of building falling from great heights would have sufficient energy to wreck the bathtub. As much as a crack would have had the Hudson flooding into the basement, ruining the subway, and through the subway tunnels flooding other basements. Therefore, turn the towers to dust early and the damage down below would be minimal. Occam Razor. What is easier to wire and plant? Overkill amounts of conventional (or unconventional) explosives to achieve the observed and needed pulverization over a prolonged period of time under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs? Or 3-6 milli-nukes per tower? This isn’t to say nano-thermite wasn’t used at all, like in handling aspects of the mesh outer steel structure. But nukes would pulverize the floors.
Control of the media would have been instrumental with nukes. They absolutely needed the fires from “planes” to be very smokey, so that it would mask any mini-mushroom clouds. In the event the smoke didn’t mask the mushroom clouds well or should the expulsion of material be too great, media could manipulate the final images to cover this over. This is why September Clues has segments where it shows how media made “live versions” that slowed down smoke and seemingly duplicated smoke and introduced other anomalies in crafting a facsimile of “real time”. Whether or not such footage was actually needed, such footage was created and aired just in case.
In conclusion, Mr. DoingMyHomework, please do some more homework on September Clues and other supposed disinformation sources. Don’t throw little baby truths out with the bath water of disinformation. If you can’t or refuse, then amen and halleluja, we will know you, your agenda, and your game by your fruits.
Señor El Once,
Don’t say amen or halleluja yet. I have and will continue to shred September Clues disinfo and the operation behind it.
Today I’d like to focus on you blurring the lines of credibility and worthwhile information.
Your statement “Don’t throw little baby truths out with the bath water of disinformation” is a great place to start. When considering this statement one should ask: What is the purpose of disinformation?
The intent of disinformation is the opposite of a genuine flawed hypothesis. While both are wrong, a genuine flawed hypothesis is an honest mistake. Disinformation however is carefully built and spread with a single purpose: to prevent or distort true understanding.
When seeking the truth clearly we should avoid listening to someone whose sole goal is to distort or prevent our understanding. That’s exactly why there is no value in the failed September Clues ‘bathwater of disinfo’..
You however say the very opposite.
Saying that ‘data mining’ a conman’s lie for ‘nuggets of truth’ is a setup to be conned. Even wise children know not to watch or look where a magician directs your attention, at least not if they want to discover how he performs the trick. Next you reframe deliberate distortions and lies as “dubious dregs and wrongful conclusions.” Choosing these words is by definition deceptive. Conmen tell calculated lies are with the purpose of deception, they don’t feed you random “dubious dregs” or “wrongful conclusions”. No magician has ever accidentally tricked his audience with innocent “wrongful conclusions.” Loading the fallacy as the ‘duty of honest seekers of truth’ was simply overkill.
Next time I’ll be detail Judy Wood’s CoIntelPro connections and gutter ploys to discredit 9/11 truth. If I have time I’ll assess your ‘preview of what I’ll be up against.’
Fully appreciating the freedom of speech,
Gunslingersway
Mr. McKee and Senor El Once,
Understanding the nature of disinfo IS to understand the purpose of September Clues. It’s like looking at the infamous “Piss Christ” and insisting that you see nothing inflammatory about it. Arguing against September Clues is in my mind validating its absurd argument to a degree but perhaps not doing so would do so more. Particularly for those who read this and don’t know what it’s about.
Observations:
1. The notion that No Planes hit the twin towers is extreme and requires a near total disregard of what is literally the most recorded event in history. The jet slamming into the twin towers is flat out undeniable.
2. To even begin to advance this theory at a minimum the following must occur:
One must first accept:
A. That hundreds of videos were faked and leaked with top quality special effects.
B. That this was done on all kinds of video recorders and mediums.
C. That never once did another New Yorker record on video a tower simply exploding with nothing impacting it or even having something else take its place.
D. That the perpetrators of 9/11 methodically risked their entire operation for a far fetched technology that would likely fail under scrutiny. An operation where “holograms” or “tv fakery” are used to fake an impact into the twin towers while New Yorkers watch, record, and live through the event would be far more risky than actually just flying an airliner into the building via remote or otherwise. The potential for something technical to go wrong and expose the operation as highly technical would not be worth the risk. It would result in something like building 7 only worse and there is zero benefit for the guilty conspirators to involve such a ploy. Rather than a few individual frames of debate hundreds if not thousands of video cameras would have recorded anomalies in lighting, object solidity, timing, noise, and so on.
E. That hundreds of live feed videos were successfully created that agree with each other, ALSO happened to have been pre-manufactured somehow to also include the same details that happened in live time such as the same people jumping, the same cars driving around, the same smoke clouds billowing at the same time etc. as did the individual street and building level amateurs who recorded what happened.
F. That while 9/11 was clearly designed to terrify the public its masterminds would choose to use something far less than airliners for the terrorizing effect.
G. That the resources already in place by our government including but not limited to:
a. Rumsfeld and Cheney’s supplement for the shoot down authority,
b. Hijackers trained at US af bases,
c. Multiple drills the same day of the same thing going on,
d. Operation Northwoods blueprints,
were all in place for no reason.
H. That the act of simply flying an airliner into the twin towers enabled by extensive prepositioning by our military was discarded in favor of something far more risky, costly (in terms of time, people, money, and so on).
3. Arguing for the notion (and even against it) that September Clues is valid or logical ignores the massive bulk of credible and incontrovertible truth. In summary, one must suspend of basic logic repeatedly to validate September Clues.
4. There is no circumstance where September Clues notions should be advanced over other solid and non-theoretical evidence. The film on it’s face requires the suspension of logic which is NOT NECESSARY to prove 9/11 was an inside job.
5. No credible researcher or member of 9/11 truth has associated with September Clues. However, every single person of note who has within the movement has behaved in the same way as CoIntelPro. They seek to divide, harass, mock, and advance absurd notions that literally mirror logical fallacies.
6. We know that the federal government has the established infrastructure and even stated objectives of disrupting the 9/11 truth movement by infiltrating it and injecting ideas designed to break it down.
Obviously for the above reasons and many more September Clues and those who work to further it’s message earn my badge of Disinfo Agents be they deliberate or otherwise.
A healthy analogy emerges from the Bible that applies directly to this situation. 1st Corinthians chapter 8. A debate arises amongst the apostles concerning the legality of eating meat. The letter of the law was clarified proving beyond a doubt that eating meat is acceptable. After this clarification there is an important warning:
“Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.”… “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.”
In summary, the message of September Clues (even if it were somehow feasible) is clearly a stumbling block causing doubt and a lack of faith in the overall truth. Advancing it’s ideas rather than the directly applicable and indisputable facts is an act that only serves to injure the truth.
Respectfully,
gunslingersway
Mr. Gunslingersway,
I just want to acknowledge your comments and to say I will respond in detail very soon (I’m kind of on the run today). I may instead address the issue in a post. I will say this: you clearly state that the difficulties in pulling off any kind of video fakery, but you don’t address the things the film actually says. I don’t believe we can disregard any possibilities without looking at them closely. Very little has been written about the specifics of this film (I guess it’s not working as disinfo…). I just don’t think implausibility is enough of a counter-argument. But more on that later.
*Just a note: you address your comment to myself and Senor El Once, but you referred to him by a name not used on this blog. I felt that change was necessary for clarity and because everyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want.
Dear Mr. GunslingersWay,
I appreciate your efforts to convince me that September Clues might be wrong. I really do want my beliefs on this to change; I don’t like being the kook expressing outlandish views. But I came to my present beliefs based on evidence and logic, and so far haven’t encountered the equivalent that would swing me back the other direction.
At the onset, however, you paint with a mighty big brush.
Mr. GunslingersWay wrote:
First of all, it isn’t “No Planes hit the twin towers.” It is: “No Commercial Planes hit the twin towers.”
Secondly, commercial jets slamming into the towers is deniable. One of the major points made by September Clues.
Mr. GunslingersWay wrote:
The number isn’t hundreds. The number is on the order of 44 or so. And they weren’t top-quality special effects, otherwise September Clues would have no traction. They screwed up in many ways. Truly top-quality Hollywood special effects would have (a) modeled the crash physics appropriately rather than the lazy cartoon fake and (b) been consistent from video to video.
If it was footage of any value, it was given to the corporate media (gatekeeper) for publication to the airwaves. When studying the footage as September Clue does, one notes how much “sharing” of footage the networks did even on live shots, as well as the improbably pans-and-zooms at just the right moment to catch what became the repeated money shots.
I have know idea what you mean by C.
Neither I nor September Clues brings up or advocates “holograms”. And I, at least, say that real and actual flying objects (on the 2nd plane for sure) may have hit the towers, most likely a cruise missile with wings possibly painted to look like a commercial plane.
TV fakery? For sure, that’s what I’m talking about. Can’t very well have the telly depicting cruise missiles or military planes.
You want to talk risk? That’s the whole point of why TV fakery is important, because real planes presented even more risk. I already went through that in my last posting.
To call TV fakery “far fetched technology” is another example of you overstating your case, as is your statement “thousands of video cameras would have recorded anomalies.” With one or both of these, you must be referring to “holograms”.
Either it has been awhile since you last studied September Clues or you never studied September Clues. There weren’t “hundreds of live feed videos”, where you again overstate your case. With respect to the 2nd plane, there was only ONE semi-live feed, delayed by 17 seconds, which is a lot of time for computers doing cycles in nanoseconds.
Over the course of the day and week, other footage of the 2nd plane was released. Plenty of time for them to be doctored not-in-real-time. I don’t know the exact number, but it seems to be it is like 12 or 18 different shots caught the 2nd plane.
As with C., I have no idea what you are talking about here.
This is all secondary (or even irrelevant) to the issue of controlling the media, controlling the message, and using computer generated imagery (CGI) to paste pixels of a commercial plane over the flying object that really struct the towers.
As for (a), though, the supplement for the shoot down authority seems to have been required to delay the response. Same for (c). Couldn’t have the real interceptors discovering that no plane existed or weren’t of the right make-and-model. As for (b), the patsies had to have a legend built up.
This is just your opinion of what was riskier. I suggest you go through the scenario for real commercial planes and list all of the gotcha risk points that could foil their plans, including not getting hijacked, real military planes intercepting the known hijacked commercial planes, not reaching the target, not hitting the target squarely, etc. The biggest risk of all is the towers proving that they were designed to handle plane impacts, the real planes not inflicting sufficient damage, and even the real planes deforming and in part bouncing off.
Or is it you who are too closed-minded to study that “massive bulk of credible and incontrovertible truth” to see if it remains credible and incontrovertible in the light of other information and scenarios that haven’t been proven wrong.
Face it. What you call “credible and incontrovertible” is in reality what you saw on the telly, the boob-tube, the idiot-box, … The very same medium that brought us all sorts of wonders, like Superman flying in a very “credible and incontrovertible”, except that we knew that programming was fake.
Again you overstate your case. Your dogma is trying to pigeon-hole September Clues as being TV fakery on the aircraft alone. No. September Clues is a rabbit hole that goes much deeper, and includes planted witnesses and all sorts of message controlling. They were saying it was Osama bin Laden with certainty before the dust had even settled. And they were also saying that it wasn’t a controlled demolition.
Again, you haven’t mined September Clues for all of the nuggets of truth it might have to offer.
So what? They don’t have to get on the September Clues bandwagon, because the 100 feet of free-fall in WTC-7 is so damn obvious.
And those same supposed “credible researcher or member of 9/11 truth” also don’t support milli-nukes, because 9/11 gatekeepers have been duped into following the nano-thermite bandwagon.
Exactly. Hold that thought and then add “nano-thermite,” and you’ll get a better idea of how the movement was infiltrated. (Whereas nano-thermite does burn at very high temperatures, only unreasonable massive quantities of it could account for the duration [months] of the foundry-hot under-rubble fires. It also isn’t ideally suited for explosive pulverization. Maybe it was used, but it certainly wasn’t the chief mechanism.)
Likewise, those who provide movie reviews that over generalize, over state their case, misstate the facts, don’t go into specifics, and ignore whole chapters of research (e.g., controlling the message, simVictims) earn my badge of disinfo agents.
Mr. GunslingersWay wrote:
Or maybe the stumbling block is those who don’t have the fortitude to view in its entirety something that others have labeled “disinformation” in order to mine the nuggets of truth and preserve them.
When you consider 9/11 Truth messages resulting from black boxes (e.g., cockpit door never breached), from pilots (e.g., planes flew at sea level faster than their rated speed at altitude), from airports (e.g., who really got on planes? did planes even take off? did they fly a course?), from military exercises (e.g., insertion/deletion of radar blips), from cellphone calls (e.g., don’t work at altitude)… this tiny element of television fakery into the 2nd plane impact fits into the puzzle rather nicely.
Sorry, Mr. GunslingersWay. You haven’t convinced me that September Clues is 100% wrong (your disinfo goal, right?) In fact, your percentage is 0%. View the series again and let’s see if you can get that to something non-zero. I’ll be happy to be convinced otherwise on things and admit I’m wrong.
Señor El Once,
To pay a complement, I can say I appreciate your attention span and determination. I will respond in kind, I’ve got a VERY busy week but will give the issue the attention it deserves eventually. (Not to say I suspect I’ll convince you of anything but for anyone else reading it should be both informative and entertaining.)
Gunslingers Way
Dear Mr. Gunslingers Way,
Take your time. Slowing down the posting frequency with long(er) pauses to reflect is beneficial to all, but mostly to the readers who will enjoy the fruits of such deep contemplation in the well-written words and logical points made in the posting.
In a friendly manner, the one thing I caution you about is to not leave a void in our understanding. I mean, you may indeed vanquish point after point in some source, proving it beyond the shadow-of-a-doubt as being untrue and disinformation. Remember to acknowledge the truthful points. And in the end, fill the left-over void with the truth.
So if you happen to convince me that corporate media was not complicit in airing manipulated video and govt propagandists from some agency or group with a specific PSYOPS agenda to further global NWO ambitions — which is my understanding –, please remember to backfill this void that you created.
Example:
“The elite who own the govt & its agencies do no wrong. And certainly on 9/11, they and their owned-bitches in the govt, military, and media purposely did no wrong, although an unfortunate number of compounded rinky-dink coincidences did happen that, more by accident than design, made a reality out of the very things we dreamed about doing and put into our PNAC wishlist documents. Never mind the distasteful torture, prisons, DU, etc., because “manifest destiny”, “the ends justify the means” and “Onward Christian Soldiers.” God works in mysterious ways, and blesses singularly our nation for being able to turn the tables on this tragedy into a truly profitable venture… for corporate interests.”
Mr. Gunslingers Way wrote:
I don’t discount that somewhere or someplace in the ether of the internet you might have shredded September Clues, but it hasn’t been here in this forum. You seem to imply that I am associated with the “operation behind it.” Sorry to disappoint, but I’ve attended no seminars, no off-site training, no webinars, no nothing to become part of the “September Clues disinfo operation,” should such a thing exist. My participation is strictly on a “duped useful idiot” basis.
If you want to save me from this duped infliction, you’ll have to offer some substance to change my duping and enlighten me with true understanding. Amen!
Mr. Gunslingers Way wrote:
Yes, one of the purposes of disinformation may be as you state, but limiting all disinformation to such a single purpose is akin to what a conman or magician does to frame the situation. Missing from the frame are other goals and agendas that have significance is much larger context. Stated another way, “preventing or distorting understanding” is a means to an end but not the end itself.
Mr. Gunslingers Way wrote:
I disagree with both sentences. The first sentence can easily be shot down where it makes suppositions about a “sole goal”. For the sake of discussion, maybe you meant something more defensible, like “… someone who has one goal among many…”. The problem is that you haven’t proven that a goal of September Clues is to prevent understanding. I would say it is quite the opposite. Distortion might be easier for you to prove, but you haven’t done that either.
What rankles me the most about the first sentence is the phrase “we should avoid listening”, which becomes somewhat of a theme for all of your posts so far. You seem to be saying:
“No need to go there [September Clues], because I — of superior intellect and understanding — have already passed judgment on it for you, beloved sheople, and I have found it unworthy. And the bitter details that led me to my holy & infallible conclusions are so vile and reprehensible that I don’t want to repeat them, lest you be turned into a pillar of salt by looking at them with thine own naked eyes. Trust me, I’m doing you a favor by being vague, painting with a big paint brush, and condemning outright September Clues.”
Who are you to be doing our thinking for us?
If you’re going to be implying that “September Clues has no value, because it distorts and/or prevents understanding,” then you need to pony-up with examples of how it distorts and/or prevents understanding. This you have yet to do. And by golly, once you do, I might just get convinced and start singing another song.
I wrote:
Mr. Gunslingers Way wrote:
Written like a true magician’s conman trying to direct readers’ attention for where he doesn’t want them to look: such as into an objective analysis of September Clues performed on their own without the benefit of others telling them what they should think.
You calling me a “conman” and a “liar”? Let’s let the readers be the judge of that. Be careful, because “he who smelt it, dealt it” may have applicability beyond the who-done-it of farts.
Mr. Gunslingers Way wrote:
Very funny. You try too hard to spin words and split hairs. You went in an unconvincing circle.
Should you find, document, & prove the “deliberate distortions and lies” in September Clues (or Dr. Judy Wood, or any other supposed disinformation source), they won’t require any reframing by anyone to be perceived as “dubious dregs and wrongful conclusions.”
At issue are the little things that aren’t and can’t be proven “deliberate distortions and lies”, because they are themselves true. Are you going to ignore them or label them as “deliberate distortions and lies” just because of the company they keep? [Jesus hung out with sinners.] The validity of the 3+4=7 truth nugget does not change when the context changes.
And this is precisely why all honest seekers of truth should view with skepticism any conman attempts to milli-nuke shut any disinformation rabbit holes without first mining it for nuggets of truth.
Allow me to return to what you wrote at the beginning:
You say in the passed tense that “you have [shredded] September Clues disinfo.” I already pointed out that you haven’t done it here. You probably did it somewhere.
Spare me the suspense and spare readers the tedium of wading through your fresh posting on this accord as they dribble out one at a time. Give us the link to your blog, website, or previously inhabited forums. Let us see it all at once and discover in one fell swoop that your words are backed up, verified, and worthy.
I agree, Senor. I have yet to read any critique of September Clues that has led me to doubt the sincerity of its claims. And frankly, I find it odd that there has been so little effort to “debunk” it by the purveyors of the official story. It just seems to be dismissed as being ridiculous with no actual refutation of its claims. If its facts are as wrong as some would say, then why haven’t we been shown how they are wrong? All we hear is how unlikely it is that faking the TV coverage could be pulled off. I’d rather look at the evidence.
Dear Mr. McKee,
You wrote:
I have seen more than my share of attempts to debunk September Clues [SC]that fail individually or as a whole.
For example, many of the SC (or “no planes”) debunking videos are nothing more than re-postings of short segments from SC with viewer comments inserted. Too bad those comments are often sophomoric, insulting, ad hominem. They debunk themselves.
I’ve seen a few that inserted meaningful comments over a portion of a SC segment and might have some validity. But the problem is, trashing one or two portions of an SC segment does not debunk the entirety of the SC segment or “no planes” argument. Until each and every point in each and every segment on “no planes” is debunked, “no planes” remains alive. (Plus, one has to consider how “no planes” dovetails with Pilots for 9/11 Truth who say the stated aircraft can’t fly those speeds with that manueverability at those low altitudes.)
I recall a funny one done by a guy with a british accent. It was in two or three chunks of about 10 minutes each. But it wasn’t until the half-way mark of the last segment that the zinger is inserted: a UFO orb or advanced weapon orb did it! This one is worth pointing out, because it is classic disinformation. The point of the source SC segment was that three different versions of a helicopter shot of the 2nd strike exist: #1 shows nothing until the tower erupts in ball of flame, including no reaction from news reporter in chopper or pilot flinching. #2 shows some sort of orb flying at the tower. #3 masks out the ground and sky, and then inserts the pixels of an aircraft flying a completely different trajectory supposedly from a different perspective. Why 3 different versions? What makes the orb escalation so funny, is that it uses 3D computer models to determine its size and flight path, etc. My impression is that these were draft simulation tests by the video PYSOPS team that weren’t used, maybe because they couldn’t get the pixels of an aircraft to look right when pasted on top of their modeling orb. They ended up doing a brutal sky mask job to serve as simplified background for the pixel craft. But why have those draft efforts and 3D modeling exercises go to waste? They re-purposed them and re-packaged them in order to promote the UFO/advanced-weapon orb and distract us from considering that footage #1 showed nothing and 3 versions exist!
It should be noted how Mr. GunslingersWay hasn’t gone into specifics, tried to associated “holograms” with the SC, and tries to take SC off of the table without following the branches in the SC rabbit hole that go into either “controlling the message for the govt” or simVictims.
I have to admit that at times I’ve viewed the simVictims argument as the self-destruct mechanism for SC. Amazingly, the more I research it, the more I see how it carried water even though it is a bucket for Mr. GunslingersWay to shoot holes in. simVictims has a distinguished history for being called out in Operation Northwoods. What we saw on 9/11 was the modern equivalent that created victims with face morphing software and used social media to create and half-heartedly maintain a backstory.