Support 911Blogger


Career Army Officer Sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, Saying No Evacuation Order Given On 9/11

Source: rawstory.com

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008

A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

According to a timeline of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks by not warning those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.

"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.

Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.

The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

"What they don't want is for this to go into discovery," said Gallop's attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. "If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we've got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We've got the law on our side."

The lawsuit's full text follows.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___

APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________

Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded

vs.

DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.

__________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case arises from the infamous Attack on America of Sept 11, 2001, and especially on the Pentagon; and is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. Government officials, beginning with and led from the top by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers, then acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plaintiffs allege that these and other government officials, whose identities will be ascertained from their proven or evident relevant roles and activities, and who are named herein as 'John Doe' defendants, together with other known and unknown operatives and functionaries, official and otherwise, 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.

2. 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.

3. In pursuit of the goals of the conspiracy, the named and unnamed defendants knowingly and by agreement committed a series of acts and omissions which were aimed at and did generally accomplish the following objectives:

+ To permit the men they later identified as the hijackers and any immediate accomplices to enter and remain in the country, and carry out the activities, movements and communications needed in their preparations for the hijacking, free from interference by police or counter-terrorist authorities; and then allow the groups of these men to book passage, all on the same day, and board the flights;

+ To cause normal operation of the regular off-course airline flight interception practice of the US Air Force, in cooperation with civil flight control authorities, to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove its protections, at least on that day, and thus permit three of the four apparently hijacked planes to reach their targets and crash into them (or appear to do so...);1

+ To cause the normal operation of ground and air defenses which guard the Pentagon from external attack to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove or negate the building's normal protections, and thus permit an airliner, believed to be hijacked by possible suicide bombers, and following a forbidden, descending flight path, to reach the Pentagon undeterred;

+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;

+ To arrange, thereafter, and fabricate, propound and defend, as part of the conspiracy, an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated cover-up, centering around the Report of the 9/11 Commission, and continuing to this day. To this end, defendants misappropriated the highest authority of government to block, misdirect and otherwise evade any fair, independent investigation of the evidence, and officially if implausibly explain away the evident wholesale failure of America's defenses with misinformation, omissions and distortions, withheld and destroyed evidence, and outright lies.

4. In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers that the official story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the plaintiff’s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been crashed into the building. This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile. This is supported by the lack of any photographic evidence of a wrecked airliner at the Pentagon, compounded by the record of reported refusal by the U.S. Department of Justice to release some 85 video tapes from surveillance cameras in locations at or near the Pentagon, which it has declared exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

5. Whatever way the bombing of the Pentagon was accomplished, however, and whatever else may or may not have been done by defendants to facilitate the hijackings that day, it is clear the defendant top commanders would have had and did have, at a profound minimum, enough foreknowledge, on that day and in the intelligence information they received beforehand, to have sounded a warning in time for plaintiff and others to evacuate the building, and thereby avoid much if not all the death and injury which occurred. In the end, more than half an hour passed after flight controllers first sounded the alert on Flight 77, while all concerned were fully aware of the suicide crashes in New York; plenty of time for the Pentagon to be evacuated. ‘Top gun’ jet fighter-interceptors under defendants’ command, available with time to spare, were not summoned; and the people in the building, including plaintiff and her infant, were not

warned. This was the result of unlawful conspiracy among these highest-level commanders, and others, who acted knowingly and intentionally to have the Pentagon attacked or to allow it to be attacked, without warning, with deliberate indifference to and in reckless and callous disregard for the fundamental constitutional and human rights of plaintiff and her child, and many other people, dead, injured and bereaved.

6. Plaintiff April Gallop brings this action for herself and as next friend of her son Elisha Gallop now aged 7, who was a two-month-old baby in her arms on that day, her first back from maternity leave. She was a career member of the US Army, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance, who had served six years, two-and-a-half of them in Germany, before being assigned to the Pentagon in 2000. Her desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall. As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.

7. Plaintiff and her baby both suffered substantial head and brain injuries, which seriously affect them still today. Plaintiff charges that, because of the conspiracy alleged herein, she and her child and others were injured by acts of terrorism participated in by defendants. Further, as more fully described within at Pars 57-59, she and her child were and subsequently have been denied fundamental rights — including by acts of retaliation against her for raising painful questions about what occurred — as the cover-up continues.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:

a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;

b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;

c. Under the Terrorism Acts, 18 U.S.Code 2333(a), for acts of terrorism brought about by actions wholly outside the scope of defendants’ duties, in perversion of their authority, and beyond the bounds or color of any law; and therefore not exempt or immune under the provisions of Sec. 2337, the application of which to exonerate these defendants would be unconstitutional.

9. Venue for the case is set by the special provisions of the Air Transportation Safety Act of September, 2001, 49 U.S.C. 40101, Subsection 408(b)(3), bringing all claims arising from events of 9/11 to this honorable Court .

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and related matters.

11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States; DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.; Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist) undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as co-defendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become known.

12. Existence of a Class. Plaintiff notes that a number of other persons suffered injury and loss in the Pentagon on September 11 as she did, and are similarly situated to her, plainly within the provisions of Rule 23, F.R.Civ P., so that she represents a Class, the members of which evidently are also entitled to recover judgment as sought herein. She does not now assert the Class interest; but, where it appears there could be action by the Court affecting this question, and a class could emerge, she wishes to and does hereby reserve the right, subject to the Court’s approval, to act as lead plaintiff.

13. Limitations. There is no time bar to the claims in this action. The Statute does not run against plaintiff’s child, as a minor, under Virginia law (Va. Code Ann., §8.01-229). As to the plaintiff herself, defendants and their cohorts and agents, by means of elaborate planned and other ad hoc cover stories, public lying, alteration of records, misappropriation of official authority and other nefarious activities, have concealed and continue to conceal, fraudulently, the truth about the attacks and the way they occurred — and their own participation and complicity in the range of acts and omissions needed, in furtherance of conspiracy, to bring them about. Likewise, the original conspiracy to act secretly in furtherance of terrorism, and lie and dissemble afterwards, in order to foment war and vengeance against the supposed perpetrators, has stayed alive and continued to harm the plaintiff, as she will show.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background: Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attack

14. As the world knows, four large commercial airliners filled with ordinary passengers were reported hijacked in the northeastern United States the morning of September 11, 2001. Two were evidently crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, which later collapsed; a third was said to have hit the Pentagon in Washington DC, and the fourth, supposedly aiming for the White House or the Capitol, was reported crashed in Pennsylvania by its passengers, fighting back against the hijackers.

15. The alleged hijackers were quickly identified by US authorities, supposedly from passenger lists, as 19 men of Middle Eastern descent, fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian and one Lebanese. Their pictures, apparent police mug shots, were shown on TV around the world soon after the attack. It emerged that some if not all of these men were already known to police and intelligence authorities in the US and elsewhere as terrorist suspects. They were said to be associated with Al-Qaeda, a network of radical 'Islamic' militants, led by the renegade Saudi aristocrat Osama bin Laden, and pledged to unremitting ‘holy war’ against the United States and its people. Al Qaeda was blamed for several previous terrorist attacks, including suicide attacks in which hundreds died, in the Middle East and Africa, and against a U.S. Navy warship in the Persian Gulf. An earlier, precursor group of ‘Islamist’ terrorists, based in Brooklyn and New Jersey, carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center, in 1993.

16. At the time the Clinton Administration was succeeded by that of George W. Bush and defendant Dick Cheney, in January, 2001, an extensive, complex U.S. counter-terrorism effort against Al Qaeda was in progress, involving personnel and resources from a number of government agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the U.S. Military, and others, requiring coordination between these agencies at the highest levels. The Chief of Counterterrorism under President Clinton, Richard Clarke, was retained by Bush, but later strongly criticized the Bush Administration for ignoring the Al Qaeda threat, allowing the effort begun under Clinton to lapse, to the point where he felt constrained to apologize to the families of those who died, for the failure he said led directly to the devastation of September 11th. At all events, it is clear from the accounts of Clarke and others that, once Mr. Bush and Defendant Cheney were in office, the effort to combat Al Qaeda was decisively blunted at the top, and at key points down the chain of command.

17. In particular, little or no attention was paid by defendants and others responsible to an increasingly explicit series of warnings, during 2001, that Al Qaeda was hoping and planning to strike inside the US; and that there were concrete plans — which cadres in U.S. agencies were aware of, and were in fact conducting exercises to prepare for, and defeat — which included attempting to crash planes into important buildings. U.S. investigators were well aware that the man they believed was the enemy network’s chief bomb-maker for the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, Ramzi Youssef, had hoped and attempted to bring a tower down in that attack; and that this remained a goal of the group.

18. Responsible intelligence officials were aware that Al Qaeda members were operating inside the U.S., and there were a number of critical investigative leads. Two of the hijackers-to-be lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. The CIA monitored a meeting in Malaysia in 1999, after which two of the participants came to the U.S., where authorities supposedly lost track of them. There were reports from FBI field offices in Arizona and elsewhere that figures on the suspect list were taking or seeking training as pilots — including one who reportedly said he only wanted to learn how to fly an airliner, not how to land or take off — but coordination and follow-up investigation on these and other leads was blocked by John Doe defendant CIA and FBI higher-ups and key players. Notwithstanding such malfeasance, the signs and portents of an imminent attack were very strong in the summer of 2001. As the then CIA chief George Tenet testified, “The system was blinking red.”

19. Despite the flow of ominous information to various sections of the US counterterrorism apparatus, however, and the danger to innocent people — and as a result of conspiracy among defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and other members of the Government in various positions — the many warnings of a coming attack by Al Qaeda forces (as many as forty messages in all, according to the Commission Report, from eleven different countries) were studiously ignored.

20. That is, defendants and others in the highest circles of the Government knew more than enough beforehand about the threat and gathering danger of an imminent possible attack by Al Qaeda in the U.S. to understand that they needed to take strong, thoroughgoing measures to increase the country's protections and alertness. Instead, led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and because defendants were callously indifferent to the rights and safety of innocents — including their own people in the Pentagon, plaintiff among them — the government did not respond. On information and belief, no special meetings of high officials and agency heads were called, to make sure protections systems were on high alert and functioning properly, and that all needed information was being shared. No special warnings were given to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Immigration Service, the Military and other affected agencies. No consultations were had about possible methods of attack, including specifics about possible hijackings, and the use of planes as missiles to hit buildings, despite operational planning and training which had already occurred at lower echelons. The FBI did not step up surveillance of suspected terrorist individuals or “cells”, or immigration checks, or let such people know they were being watched, in order to impede their activities; and it appears that no coordinated, high-level monitoring and analysis of the threats, and planning for counteraction, ever took place. Instead, the threat was dismissed, and ignored.

21. It should be noted that plaintiff cannot and does not know with certainty the outlines of the plot at its initiation. The attacks may have been conceived of as a false-flag operation from the beginning, with the defendants and their operatives as creators, planners, and executors, with the assistance of others as necessary. Or, defendants may have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or they may have used Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies. The roles of the supposed “nineteen” could have been to hijack the airliners, or simply, unwittingly, to be on the planes when they were crashed into buildings by remote control. It is also possible that the defendants learned of a plot originated by Muslim extremists, and co-opted or overrode it with their own plan. Whatever lay in the minds of the defendant conspirators at the outset, it is clear that the nineteen men so quickly identified as the hijackers, some if not all of them known terrorist suspects, traveling under their own names, simply walked onto the four planes that morning, with their “box cutters”, without hindrance or incident.

II. Failure of the Air Defense System.

22. Accounts from the FAA and the National Military Command Center vary widely, suffer from internal contradictions, and are in conflict with each other; but credible reports show that FAA flight controllers were aware of a problem with the first plane as early as 8:14 or 8:15 a.m. the morning of September 11th, and evidently called the military for emergency assistance, pursuant to routine, by 8:21 a.m. or thereabouts. They learned the second plane was off course and not responding a short time later. According to reports, United Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03. The Pentagon was hit at or about 9:32 a.m. — although the official version says 9:38 — and the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania shortly after 10:00 a.m. High performance jet fighter planes stationed at various bases around the northeastern U.S. — tasked to intercept and deal with unidentified or straying aircraft entering or flying in U.S. airspace under NORAD district command, or otherwise at NORAD’s disposal — were available at a moment's notice. None were notified, however, or sent to the right place, until it was too late; at least for the first three planes.

23. No interceptor planes came to stop the supposed hijackers — shoot them down if necessary — even though the Air Force has for many years maintained a practice of immediate response in which the fighters have readily been “scrambled” when aircraft are seen to go too far off course, or lose radio contact with flight controllers. The interceptor program has been an elite assignment in the Air Force, even after the Cold War ended, in which pilots fly regularly, and wait in ‘ready rooms’ near the hangars, and planes are kept in top condition, with engines warm and ready for takeoff. The best jets are used, which can reach speeds of 1600-1800 miles per hour, and the personnel are so well trained and practiced that pilots routinely go from hearing the scramble order to 29,000 feet in less than three minutes. The scramble orders are normally made by local NORAD commanders in cooperation with the FAA. Both the FAA and the affected NORAD North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) military command have radar tracking coverage of the entire airspace, and special telephone hotlines between them and with higher authority. Nor are these forays rare, reportedly occurring once or twice a week at various U.S. locales during the past several years. Published Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records showed that, between September 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001, interceptor jets took to the air 67 times to check on “in-flight emergencies” involving wayward planes.

24. No interceptors came to defend the Pentagon, in particular, and plaintiff and the other occupants, because of actions and failures to act by defendant Rumsfeld, Defendant General Myers and John Doe others in concert with them, even though more than an hour passed between the time the first warning went out to the Military, at or about 8:21a.m., and the attack on the Pentagon at 9:32; even though the first tower was hit in a suicide crash in New York at least 46 minutes before the Pentagon was hit; and even though ‘combat air patrol’ jets from any of several bases in the region could have reached the Pentagon — or the path of Flight 77 — in a fraction of that time.

25. Having pre-arranged a coordinated failure of the Pentagon defenses, and its warning system, the defendants hid and distracted themselves, and otherwise failed to act, just at the time they were needed to ensure defense of the building; and they have dissembled ever since, as part of the conspiracy, in representing where they were and what they did during that time. As with the planes that hit the towers in New York, the Military and the 9/11 Commission, while failing to cast blame, explained away the failure to launch fighter interceptors at the Pentagon as the result of a failure by flight controllers — which FAA personnel deny — to notify the Air Force of the flight emergencies in a timely way. This was cover-up, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

26. Likewise, by the acts of one or more defendants in furtherance of the conspiracy, no defenses at the Pentagon responded either, no missile or anti-aircraft batteries opening from the ground around the building, or the roof; no sharpshooters deployed with hand-held missiles at stations close by; nothing. And, shockingly, when the towers in New York had already been hit, and Flight 77 (or a substitute, see below) was out of radio contact and headed back towards the capital; and even when the plane approached, and then doubled back and headed toward the building in a long dive, no alarm was sounded.

27. It is evident, particularly with respect to the attack on the Pentagon in which the plaintiff and her baby were injured, that, if the building was hit by a plane that morning, or if, as appears more likely, a plane flew low over the building at the time the bomb(s) went off inside and/or the missile hit, to give the (false) impression of a crash, some form of order or restriction was in force which suspended normal operation of the building's defenses. In particular, it is indisputable that the expected response of the fighter-interceptors failed completely; and plaintiff avers this resulted from orders or authorization from within the defendant circle of Rumsfeld and Myers and their helpers, restraining normal operation of the protections system and armaments at the Pentagon — including but not limited to jets available at various bases near the capital.

28. Plaintiff alleges further that such “standdown” orders, in whatever manner or form they had been prepared or issued, were maintained and affirmed by defendants up to and through that morning, and that defendant Cheney in particular, operating in the underground command bunker (Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC) beneath the White House, personally affirmed such an order. His word kept the order in force during the period between 9:20 a.m., when he was observed in the Bunker and the moment the Pentagon was hit.

29. In this connection, plaintiff refers the Court to the testimony of then-U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that when he arrived at the White House, he was sent to the PEOC, and arrived at around 9:20 a.m., to find Cheney there, and in charge. He said he sat at a table with Cheney for the next period of time, during which a young man came in the room, three times, and informed the Vice President that an “unidentified plane” was approaching Washington, D.C., first at 50, then 30, and then 10 “miles out”; and that, when he reported the distance as 10 miles, the young man asked the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” Secretary Mineta testified that defendant Cheney responded sharply, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Whereupon the young man left the room; and a few minutes later, the hit on the Pentagon was announced. This testimony by the Secretary has never been contested, discredited or explained away by any U.S. official.

30. Plaintiff alleges that the “orders” were orders not to intercept or shoot down the approaching plane. If the orders had been to attack the approaching plane, it would have been shot down before it reached the Pentagon — or at least some attempt to stop it would have been made; and the world would know of it. Based on some two hundred years of American military history, the failure would have led to a Board of Inquiry or other public official investigation, to determine how and why the defense apparatus had failed. Individuals would have been called to account, and disciplinary procedures followed resulting in findings of responsibility and demotions or formal charges against those found to have failed the Country. All of these bureaucratic events would have become part of the official record, and known to the public; none of which has happened. There has been no publicly recorded disciplinary action against any military or civilian officer of the United States government as a result of the attacks of September 11th. Such proceedings would have created a great risk that the truth would be exposed.

31. The public record also shows that no meaningful follow-up questioning of Sec. Mineta occurred before the 9/11 Commission; that defendant Cheney has never testified under oath or been reasonably questioned about these events; and that he has given contradictory accounts, one of which---the account he gave to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11--- conflicts with The 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission Report adopts an unsworn statement by Cheney that he never reached the bunker until about 10:00 a.m.; and contains no reference to Mineta’s testimony, ignoring completely this contradiction between the two high government officials. The Commission also ignores the fact that Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” supports Mineta’s testimony and hence contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s account.

32. Plaintiff charges that, in point of fact, the “orders” referred to were orders not to shoot the plane down, but to let it proceed, and that such orders were given and/or approved by defendants Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, pursuant to the root conspiracy alleged herein, and transmitted down a chain of command. The normal expected operation of Pentagon defense that day was thus prevented, allowing the attack to succeed, or to “succeed” in creating a false and deceptive scenario of a plane crash.

III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

33. 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.

34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.

35. Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded. However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of well-established Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn’t she evacuated, with her baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren’t alarms going off, and all the people in the building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants’ actions and flagrant failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff and her child were seriously hurt.

36. Plaintiff alleges further that, pursuant to the conspiracy, the attack on the Pentagon was contrived to “succeed” in only a very limited way. Destruction, death and injuries, in comparison to what would have occurred if the building had been attacked straight on with a large plane, by enemies bent on causing the greatest possible devastation and loss of life, were kept to a minimum; and the conspirators themselves not put at risk. Certainly the official account of what occurred is full of gross anomalies,

which contradict the physical evidence, the scientific and aeronautical evidence, and the laws of physics and aerodynamics. The 9/11 Commission Report is exposed as an artifact of the conspiracy, aimed at covering up the fact that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon, and that it was bombed a different way.

37. The official account established in the 9/11 Commission hearings is that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 jetliner, took off from Dulles International Airport at or about 8:20 a.m., and apparently was hijacked at about 8:55 a.m. some two or three hundred miles west of Washington. Radio contact was lost and the plane’s “transponder” was turned off. At that point, Flight 77 was traversing an apparent radar “dead zone”, located over the southeast Ohio-West Virginia borderland, where another similar plane, fitted with radio control reception equipment, may have been substituted, so as to ensure that the precise maneuvers required by the conspirators’ plan could be carried out. Whichever plane it was soon established a flight path leading back towards Washington at high speed, on a downward trajectory, until it was close to the Pentagon. There it began a two-and-a-half-to-three-minute spiral dive, from an altitude of about 8000 feet and in a 330-degree loop, which supposedly carried it into the northwest wall of the building. Experts agree this dive was an aeronautically fantastic maneuver, nearly impossible for a plane of that size, which would require the most skillful and experienced pilot — or remote control.

38. The returning plane, according to the official version, struck the Pentagon just above ground level. There it disintegrated — even maybe vaporized, according to some accounts, at least in part — but, paradoxically, also plowed inside. Had it simply flown straight into the top of the building rather than making its improbable spiral dive, there would have been far greater damage and loss of life. Had it turned only 150-180 degrees, it could have smashed into the East side of the building, where the office of defendant Rumsfeld was publicly known to be located on the third floor, looking out at the river, with the Joint Chiefs and other high officials all nearby. In contrast, the ground floor area that was blown up held offices like the one plaintiff worked in, many of them empty for a remodeling project, which was said to have included reinforcement to protect against attack. Another part of the destroyed space held financial records.

39. Also in the official version, the nose of the plane supposedly penetrated the distance of the three outer “rings” of the building, leaving a large, nine- or ten-foot-high round hole — shown in official photographs, without any sign of a plane — in the inner wall of the third (“C”) ring. The hole was located some 300 feet from the alleged impact point, through a maze of structural pillars and interior walls. It was also said that the wings of the plane knocked over five lampposts along a nearby road, as it approached the building, which meant the wings were a maximum of 50 feet off the ground as the plane flew past, roughly 300-350 yards away from the near face of the building.

40. This account is at odds with known evidence, and raises substantial questions about the absence of evidence — and official withholding of evidence — including the following:

a. There are no photos of a wrecked airplane at the place where the building was hit and set on fire; or of airplane wreckage at the hole in the inner ring where the nose of the plane was originally said by Rumsfeld to have come to rest, or elsewhere inside the building. Moreover, the nose of such a plane contains radar equipment, and the outer shell is made of a porous, composite material that allows the radar to function. Therefore, the nose was not capable of surviving an impact with the outer wall without being crushed, let alone penetrating all the way inside to the C-Ring wall, 300 feet away.

Although this story was later dropped, defendant Rumsfeld has never been publicly questioned about his statement that this is what occurred.

b. As noted, there is no footage from numerous video surveillance cameras — reportedly 85 different tapes are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations where some or all of the plane and the crash could be expected to have been caught on tape.

c. The official account says the plane knocked over several lampposts with its wings — two on one side of a nearby road, three on the other — which meant the wings were less than fifty feet off the ground as the plane approached, over uneven terrain, and the undercarriage even closer. The earliest photographs, taken before the upper floors fell in, about 30 minutes after the explosion(s), show the front blown off an expanse of the ground floor, no marks on the lawn in front of the impact zone; and several large cable reels standing in front of the building, unscathed.

d. The “black box” flight data recorder identified by the Government as coming from Flight 77, and reportedly recovered from the wreckage at the scene, bears data, according to pilots who have examined printouts provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which contradict various aspects of the official account, — and indeed the very notion that a plane struck the Pentagon — in crucial ways, viz:

1. It is a fundamental premise of airliner manufacture and operation that the black box only stops recording data when a flight is terminated — by the pilot turning off the engines at the gate, or by a crash. According to the pilots who studied the printouts, however, the record showing the path of Flight 77, etched with codes which connect it to that plane that day, cuts off, unaccountably, some 4-500 yards short of the building — a point reached after the pitched, diving loop described above — at an altitude of 273 feet. The Pentagon is roughly 75 feet high. Just as they will confirm the improbability of that dive, expert pilots will attest that for a plane that size to descend from 273 feet, going approximately 500 miles an hour, and then level off inside of a quarter mile without hitting the ground — let alone get down to 50 feet in time to catch the lampposts, 300 yards closer — is an aerodynamic and gravitational impossibility.

2. The Safety Board has released a computer simulation of the flight path of Flight 77, allegedly based on the data from the flight recorder, which contradicts a simulation adopted by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission simulation shows the flight path of the official story, at an angle reflected by the damage inside the building, consistent with the downed light poles, and to the south of two nearby buildings housing the Navy Annex and a Citgo gas station. The NTSB simulation shows the plane headed towards the building on a path north of the two buildings and the line of lampposts.

3. Similarly, in the one fragment of a surveillance tape the Pentagon has released, two of the five frames disclosed appear to show an object, not recognizable as an airliner and apparently trailing a plume of white smoke, moving parallel to and just above the ground towards the Pentagon wall, followed by a bright explosion and a fireball mounting from the front of the building. The NTSB’s black box data shows Flight 77 was roughly 200 feet above the top of the Pentagon as it reached its last known position some 400 to 500 yards (2-3 seconds) away. Thus, it could not have hit the building except by diving into it, and so could not have flown parallel to the ground between there and the point of impact. So it appears that, contrary to the defendants’ false cover story of an airliner suicide crash, there was a different, additional, flying object, which hit the Pentagon, and was part of the terrorist bombing that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

e. Additionally, the FBI identified the hijacker pilot of Flight 77 as “Hani Hanjour”, supposedly a known terrorist suspect, who was reported to have received flight training in various places in the months before the attack. His flight instructors, however, reported that Hanjour was such a poor flight student that he was barely able to fly a small Cessna; and then he was so erratic that instructors refused to go up with him, and, just a few months before 9/11, recommended he be washed out and his license taken away. Thus it seems quite impossible that he could have flown the 757 really at all, let alone in its great uncanny dive. There have also been repeated reports since 9/11 that several of the other men named and pictured by the FBI as the hijackers were still alive after 9/11, and living in various locations in the world — including one, Waleed Al-Shehri, who was said to be a working pilot for Moroccan Air Lines, correctly shown in the FBI photo, whose identity and location have been verified by at least one major press outlet, the BBC. This information has not been pursued by U.S. investigators, or media.

f. Several trained and experienced military personnel at the scene noted the distinctive odor of cordite, a high explosive used in gunpowder, in the aftermath of the attack at the Pentagon. This suggests explosives as the cause for the destruction rather than the impact and fire resulting from burning jet fuel.

g. One investigator has documented the fact that numerous clocks in the damaged area of the building stopped at 9:32 a.m., as the plaintiff’s watch did also, supporting the idea that electrically timed or detonated explosives were used to bring about the intended damage to the building — and that the attack occurred at 9:32, not 9:38.

41. All the matters alleged in paragraph #40 are known and demonstrable, and most would have been immediately evident to the defendants at the time. As Secretary of Defense, defendant Rumsfeld in particular was in a unique position to determine the truth and fix responsibility. He did neither. That he did not is confirmation of his complicity in the attack--and his indifference to and callous disregard for the injuries and loss of rights suffered by plaintiff and others.

42. Further, it should be noted that on September 10, 2001, the day before the attack, Defendant Rumsfeld conducted a press conference at the Pentagon in which he publicly announced that auditors had determined that some 2.3 trillion dollars in Defense Department funds —$2.300,000,000,000 — could not be accounted for. To plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, part of the area of the ground floor of the Pentagon that was destroyed in the bombing is a location where records were kept that would be used to trace those funds, and where people worked who knew about them. On information and belief, there has been to this day no public report concerning the fate of those records, or that money.

43. In any event, the plainly visible pattern of damage on the outside and in other photographic views makes it clear the building was not hit by a plane. There may have been a missile strike, perhaps penetrating through to the back wall, which helped collapse the section that fell in, possibly augmented by explosives placed inside. Photos taken before the collapse suggest this, showing a single blown-out window section, above the ground floor; and witnesses have reported seeing a helicopter above the building, and disappearing behind it, followed by a big explosion and bright fireball. As noted, a large roundish hole was found in the C-ring wall, some 300 feet inside the building; and there were credible accounts, ignored in the Commission Report, of serious bomb damage in the B-ring, second from the center, and even some reports of dead bodies in the central A-ring, also ignored. As shown on CNN television, a large military aircraft, identified as an E-4B — the so-called “Doomsday Plane”, which carries the most complete and sophisticated military command and control apparatus — was circling above Washington at the time the Pentagon was hit. It was in perfect position to coordinate the detonation and/or missile shot with a fly-over; and guide the airliner in its dive by remote control. It was also in perfect position to spot the oncoming plane on its radar and sound an alarm. Significantly, the Department of Defense has denied any knowledge of this airplane flying in that area on that day.

44. Whatever the cause of the bombing, and the traumatic injuries to plaintiff and others which resulted, the Government, of which the two main defendants were and have been the highest, most powerful officers, pursuant to the conspiracy they led and still lead as alleged herein, has been altogether deceptive in investigating, reporting and explaining the attack and its cause; and defendants, rather than righteously investigate and determine the derelictions which occurred, have done nothing but lie and cover up.

45. Defendant Rumsfeld in particular has been deceptive from the start, as where, on September 13, he reported on Good Morning, America that the plane “...went in through three rings (of the Pentagon). I’m told the nose is — is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away”; a palpably false statement, contradicted by numerous witnesses, a total lack of photographic evidence, and evident impossibility. Rumsfeld has also contradicted himself several times in describing his whereabouts and movements during the first hour or more of the attack. He does not acknowledge his presence in a teleconference which Richard Clarke said he, Rumsfeld, and others were part of, beginning shortly after 9:00 a.m. — after the Flight 77 emergency was reported, at or about the time the second tower was hit in New York, and more than half an hour before the Pentagon was hit — and he contradicts himself about whether and when he went to the Executive Support Center and/or the National Military Command Center, both within the Pentagon, as events transpired that morning. General Myers also (falsely) denied he was at the Pentagon in the early stages of the teleconference, as reported by Clarke. Tellingly, the tape of the videoconference, which obviously would have been part of any good faith investigation, has been kept secret.

46. Defendant Rumsfeld also made a striking prediction of the attack, as if speaking compulsively about his secret knowledge, that very morning, and several days later, he publicly referred to the “missile” that hit the Pentagon. In testifying before the 9/11 Commission, the defendant stonewalled and double-talked egregiously, responding to direct questions (some of them personally submitted by plaintiff herself during a hearing open only to survivors), especially about the Air Force fighter-interceptors not showing up, with irrelevant and sometimes incomprehensible ramblings. Consistent with their part in the cover-up, Commissioners failed to question him closely or confront his non-responsiveness.

IV. The Other Planes.

47. In spite of what the record shows was a regular, timely alert and request to NEADS commanders by FAA flight controllers at Boston for in-flight emergency response regarding United Airlines Flights 11 and 175 out of Boston, as described above in Pars. 22-24, the jets were not scrambled, or properly “vectored”, in time to intercept the planes that hit the Towers in New York — even though there was plenty of time for the interception.

48. With respect to Flight 93, which was thought to be intended for an attack on the White House or the Capitol, but crashed in Pennsylvania, there remains a great deal of mystery. Much of what supposedly happened was a made-in-Hollywood saga, where the passengers, learning of the earlier suicide crashes, gathered themselves and counter-attacked the hijackers, succeeding in heroic, self-sacrificing measure by crashing the plane (or causing the hijacker pilot to crash it) in a remote field, before it could approach its target. This story was supposedly recounted to persons on the ground by passengers with cell phones; but the science is clear that, at least in 2001, cell phones couldn't operate at the high altitude where the struggle supposedly took place. Also, the FBI, in presenting evidence at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, denied that any of the high-altitude calls that had been reported actually took place. The only cell phone calls confirmed by the FBI were two that reportedly occurred when the plane had descended to 5,000 feet. Thus, the mythic account is suspicious, to say the least.

49. Moreover, it appears fairly well established that one or more fighters ultimately did go aloft, and reached Flight 93, although this was also comprehensively denied in the Commission Report. There is also good evidence that supposed presidential authority to “engage”, meaning shoot down the plane, was given by defendant Cheney at or about 9:50 a.m. that morning, wherewith Flight 93 was indeed shot down with an air-to-air missile from a U.S.A.F. fighter jet.

50. Finally, there are multiple reports that debris from the plane was found a mile or more from the crash site, an obvious impossibility if the plane simply fell or dove into the ground. Likewise, there is no debris visible in photographs of the crash site, despite a long photographic history of airliner crashes showing plane parts and debris spread around the point of impact. Instead there was a crater, and no sign of the plane. Implausibly, however, the official report said that a visa, in the name of the alleged hijacker identified as the pilot, was recovered near the crater, along with a red headband of the type the hijackers supposedly wore. Again, available evidence shows the official account promulgated under the defendants’ illicit influence is, and plaintiffs allege that it is, false and fraudulent, in furtherance of the conspirac(ies) alleged herein.

V. The Cover-up.

51. As with the other branches or phases of the conspiracy, wherein a number of John Doe defendants working on different aspects of the organized enablement of the hijacking led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld may not have been aware or fully aware of each other's involvement; so too with the cover-up, a complicated operation which those involved have maintained for these seven years, and must continue to see to, indefinitely, on any number of fronts. That is, the skein of misrepresentations, distortions, omissions, contradictions, withheld evidence and outright lies which comprise the fraudulent “official” version, must be and plaintiffs allege that it has been and is assiduously, and fraudulently, maintained by the original perpetrators and various cohorts, who have kept the original conspiracy alive to this day.

52. In particular, the cover-up — beyond the fact that the simulated plane crash at the Pentagon was itself a cover-up — has been concentrated around the purported investigation and analysis of the attack and its supposed background by the 9/11 Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, and the Report it issued in 2004. There, as extensively shown by a number of critics and commentators, this official organ put forth a supposedly comprehensive account of the attacks, the alleged attackers and their history, and various surrounding events and circumstances, in a version so full of omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods, as to clinch its purpose as a mainstay of the cover-up, in furtherance of the underlying conspiracy alleged herein, and its ongoing success.

53. Thus the Report gives a careful account and description of some of the many warnings the Government received during 2001 about Al Qaeda's intention to attack — in the United States, possibly with hijacked planes. The Report goes on to describe an interview with President Bush, which occurred only after intense negotiations in which the Commissioners acquiesced to White House conditions requiring that defendant Cheney be permitted to accompany the President, and that no record would be kept and no notes taken. There the President earnestly insisted to his Commission interlocutors that no warning of the attack had come. All contradictions were left unexplored, and ignored in the Report.

54. Similarly, defendant Rumsfeld — like the President himself, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defendant Gen. Richard Myers and others — testified and said in public, repeatedly, that no one in the Government security apparatus ever imagined terrorists suicidally crashing planes into buildings. This claim was also absolutely false. In point of fact, the CIA, the NSA, the FAA and NORAD had planned and trained for just such a possibility. Indeed, the record shows training exercises involving such a potential attack had in fact been carried on at the Pentagon in October, 2000 and May, 2001, and that NORAD had begun planning in July, 2001, for a training exercise in which the premise would be that a hijacked airliner was crashed into the World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission, however — with the same studied indifference it showed towards the Mineta testimony — failed even to mention these contradictions in its Report, let alone explain them away.

55. In any event, it is in the nature of the acts alleged that the participants would endeavor from the outset to keep their actions — and the meeting of the minds that unleashed them — the deepest and darkest of secrets, forever. Thus the cover-up, even as it continues today, and will be manifest in the litigation of this complaint, was inherently part of the original unlawful agreement, and thereby part of the cause of the injuries and deprivations plaintiffs suffered on 9/11, and continuing injury since that time.

56. As to the overall plot, with its roots in the command positions and unhinged political fantasies and intentions of the two main defendants, Cheney and Rumsfeld, plaintiff alleges that, necessarily, there were multiple meetings of the minds among the various necessary parties in various implicated locations, positions and phases of the action. Indeed, the narrative reflects an evident form of rolling conspiracy, or multiple successive, interlocking, sub-conspiracies, by which defendants and their cohorts maintain and have maintained the original agreement to cover up the original crime(s) of terrorism, and their part in it, to this day.

VII. Plaintiffs’ Injuries.

57. The injuries, loss and deprivation of rights suffered by Plaintiff April Gallop, her child and others in the bombing of the Pentagon, however it was accomplished, were the result of terrorism, and terrorist acts, and conspiracy to commit terrorism, and to violate constitutional rights, and they include serious head and brain injuries she and her child both sustained when the ceiling caved in on them, as well as the loss and deliberate denial of their rights involved in their being made innocent victims of the attack. Plaintiff’s son, Elisha, has had ongoing problems as he has grown older, associated with injury to his brain, and has required continuing medical care and other special help. Both mother and child have had continuing difficulty, pain and suffering as a result, and sustained need for medical care, and financial and other loss; and they evidently will continue to suffer and to need medical and other assistance for the future.

58. Further, clearly as a result of and in retaliation for her public statement that no airplane wreckage was present in the building after the explosion(s), and for raising other questions, John Doe Department of Defense (DOD) defendants, pursuant to the conspiracy, have wrongfully caused plaintiff to be denied medical care and other benefits she should have received since the attack, and have acted to discourage others from helping her, all to her consequent, actionable loss. Most recently, on being discharged from the Army earlier this year, plaintiff’s financial account was closed out with a zero balance. A short time later, however, she was refused service at the VA medical center, on grounds that she supposedly owed the Defense Department more than $14,000; for which no documentation has been provided.

59. The plaintiff and her child also will experience more general loss, pain and suffering, forever, from what was done to them by high officials of their own government, who, attacking the Country and the Constitution, were willing to see her killed, and did see many others, thousands, killed, simply to further crass political designs. They were and are themselves terrorists, in truth, without whose crucial complicity the Al Qaeda attacks would never have occurred.

PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION

One. Violation of Constitutional Rights – Bivens.

a. Conspiracy. The defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or series of interlocking conspiracies whereby they and various co-conspirators and others took various concrete steps, pursuant to a meeting of the minds around the objective of facilitating and enabling the terrorist attacks, specifically by de-activating and defaulting various normal defense systems and measures, as described and to be shown, so that the Al Qaeda hijackings and bombings of September 11 could succeed. They thereby helped cause the attacks and the resulting injuries to plaintiff, denial of her fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and death and injury loss to so many others; entitling plaintiff to judgment against the defendants under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

b. Deliberate Indifference. The concerted actions of defendants in their efforts to facilitate and enable the terrorist attacks of September 11 in various ways as described hereinabove and to be shown, and the defendants’ deliberate indifference to the likelihood of serious injury and deprivation of rights arising therefrom, resulted in plaintiff and her child being made unknowing, defenseless victims of the attack, and thereby seriously injured and denied fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, entitling her to judgment against the defendants, under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

c. Retaliation. The actions taken against plaintiff in retaliation for her speaking out with questions about the official explanations of what happened violated her rights under the First Amendment, entitling her to a further judgment against those responsible for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

Two. Common Law Conspiracy to Cause Death and Great Bodily Harm. The plaintiff is further entitled to judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the injuries she and her child received which were caused by the acts and omissions of defendants and others pursuant to the conspiracy(ies) alleged herein, and by breach of defendants’ duty of care towards the plaintiff, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may determine, and costs and attorneys fees.

Three. Acts of Terrorism Causing Injury – 18 U.S.Code 2333(a). The aforesaid acts and omissions of and by defendants were part and parcel of a terrorist attack on the United States, and the Pentagon in particular, resulting from a conspiracy or conspiracies to cause and help cause, facilitate and enable the hijacking and crashing of the planes and other elements of the attack; and these acts resulted in serious injuries to plaintiff and her child, entitling her to judgment against the defendants for compensatory damages as determined by the Jury, treble damages, and Attorneys Fees, under the Terrorism Acts — notwithstanding the provision of Sec.2337, purporting to exempt or immunize U.S. officers and employees acting “within… official capacity or under color of legal authority”; in that the agreements, acts and omissions alleged herein are outside and beyond the reach and compass of any conceivable official capacity or legal authority, actual or colorable, and therefore unconstitutional as applied in this case, as a deprivation of Due Process of Law, and of her right under the Seventh Amendment to have her claim tried by a Jury according to Law.

///

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands Trial By Jury, and Judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may see fit to award; treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), and costs of suit, expenses and attorneys fees...

Yours, etc.,

DATED: December 15, 2008.

Just because I posted it...

Doesn't mean I endorse everything in it. I've known of April for years. The few times that I've seen her speak, she did exceptionally well.

That's a picture of their endorsement of John Kerry. Lorie Van Auken, Monica Gabrielle, Patty Casazza, Kristen Breitweiser, April Gallop, and Mindy Kleinberg.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Please let this make it to court!!!

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Hear April's Story on Guns & Butter Radio

Hear April's Story on Guns & Butter Radio
It is worth the listen

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25953

Flight 77 dropped off radar at the Ohio-WV state line

So whatever hit the Pentagon, it was not Flight 77.

page 9 of the 9/11 Commision Report states that radar, voice and transponder contact with Flight 77 were lost at 8:56 am.

Dropping off radar can only mean that it either landed or crashed.

interesting

I read thru the whole lawsuit- mostly makes a really compelling case for criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, manslaughter- even treason and mass murder- except much of what it says about the Pentagon, i.e. missile, flyover has been explained and debunked. It does take care, in most places, to qualify that a plane MAY HAVE hit the Pentagon. If this goes to discovery phase, i will be as interested as everyone else to see what actually gets released- photos, video, documents, witness statements, etc.

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

http://www.frustratingfraud.blogspot.com

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

What is the Difference Between Arabesque and Popular Mechanics?

You need to go back and do more research on the Pentagon attack on 9/11! The Pentagon now admits that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station, meaning whatever flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station wasn't Flight 77. The airliner that flew north of the Citgo gas station, therefore, was not the aircraft that hit the Pentagon; it obviously flew over the Pentagon.

We now have Pentagon police (who were at the Citgo station when Flight 77 flew by) calling into question many of the so-called eyewitnesses who say they actually saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Only one problem with their testimony of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon according to the Pentagon police, however: The Pentagon police direct us to a line of trees blocking the eyewitnesses’ view of the impact area!

Also, an explosion inside the Pentagon took place at 09:32 as accounted by eyewitnesses. The official 9/11 account says that Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon at 09:37.

See Pilots for 9/11 Truth and The PentaCon websites for more information on Flight 77 and the Pentagon. Both research groups have independently affirmed each other’s research on Flight 77.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Could you...

... show me where the Pentagon now admits that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station.

Show "New Pentagon Take On Flight 77" by brian78046

No "New Pentagon Take On Flight 77"

You've written: "The Pentagon now admits that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station." But Sgt. Lagasse is not "the Pentagon," or am I mistaken? As far as I see it, it's not "the new Pentagon take on Flight 77" but Sgt. Lagasse's very own take. Why do you paint it as if it were the official version now, when clearly it isn't?

Does his statement match...

... the NTSB flight path data, or does it not?

It Matches

Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks say Flight 77 came in from the north of the Citgo gas station, which is what the NTSB says.

You can watch their interview at the following link:

http://www.thepentacon.com/

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Read Between The Lines

You must be kidding! You think Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Chadwick Brooks (who was also at the Citgo gas station when Flight 77 flew by to the north of the gas station) would be saying what they are saying about Flight 77 unless it was the Pentagon's new version? They would not be contradicting the Pentagon's official account of Flight 77, which means that the northern route of Flight 77 is the official Pentagon version.

The Pentagon has no choice but to quietly distance itself from the "Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station" narrative for one very good reason: the NTSB black box data shows that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station!

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Lagasse

And when Lagasse Swears under oath in court that he watched this passenger jet crash into the pentagon with his own eyes, how would this prove it didn't?

On 9/11 planes flew into Buildings.
If the truth movement can't even get that right it's doomed.

Is Sergeant Largasse From Krypton?

If Sergeant Largasse makes such an admission in a court (that he saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon), he would have to explain how he saw through the hill that blocked his line of vision of the Pentagon.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Not a good witness?

So you are saying that your star witness is not a very good or reliable witness?
No planers....how embarrasing

You Forgot.................

I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about because there was a hill in between Sergeant Lagasse and the Pentagon, so the only way he would make such a statement (that he saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon) is if he committed perjury.

You need to re-read your original comment to properly understand my response to you. I guess you forgot I was replying to an earlier comment made by you.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Who is confused here?

And I say you don't know what you're talking about, as no hill obstucted their view of the Pentagon. And as proof of that I direct you to your infamous "investigators" own video where at point 22:30 minutes in, and at point 37:00 minutes in and at point 50:30 minutes in prove the view of the pentagon was not obstucted by some hill.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426

No Planers....how embarrasing.

Who's Embarrassed Now?

Actually there was a mound in between the Citgo gas station and the Pentagon where Lagasse was standing on 9/11. The lower half of the Pentagon is obstructed from view.

Fast forward to 21:30 minutes in the video linked below:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=pentacon&emb=0&aq=f#

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington DC

Anyone can see the video

The video is there for anyone to see. I don't know who you think you're kidding. I pointed out the times on the video at the 22:30 mark
it is shown that the "mound" was NOT there on 9/11 and the other times on the video 37:00 and 50:30 show that even after the mound is there the pentagon is clearly visiable, from where the pentagon officers were standing.
What's wrong with you? Even at the mark you point out he is telling you the mound wasn't there on 9/11. Try to face reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426

No Planers/no brainers

The PentaCon Video Actually Shows The Mound Present On 9/11!

jimd3100, "What's wrong with you? Even at the mark you point out he is telling you the mound wasn't there on 9/11. Try to face reality."

At 21:00 minutes into the PentaCon video linked below it says the mound was not as large on 9/11. Then they show a picture of the mound on 9/11, which shows that the lower half of the Pentagon is obstructed. This is the area where Sergeant Lagasse was located (fast forward a couple of minutes for Lagasse's comments and where he was located).

Sergeant Brooks was standing elsewhere, and I made no comment about what Brooks said he saw, because your original comment to me was about Sergeant Lagasse seeing the aircraft crash into the Pentagon. Well Sergeant Lagasse couldn't have seen that because Flight 77 was several feet off the ground when it supposedly hit the Pentagon. The mound present on the morning of 9/11 clearly obstructs the lower half of the Pentagon where Flight 77 is said to have impacted.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=pentacon&emb=0&aq=f#

Transcript of selected dialogue from video at approximately 22:30 minutes showing mound was there on 9/11:

PentaCon: "You have some pictures of that [the mound on 9/11]"

Robert: "This is…ah…what it looked like then [Robert holds up the picture of the mound]. it was ah…a little shorter"

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Only fooling yourself

"The mound was A LOT smaller huh?" "you have some pictures of that" then he shows pictures and if you freeze the pic at the 22:42 mark the pentagon is clearly visiable.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426&hl=en

Typical no plane BS not being able to face reality.

I Said The Lower Half Of The Pentagon Was Not Visable

jimd3100 says. ""The mound was A LOT smaller huh?" "you have some pictures of that" then he shows pictures and if you freeze the pic at the 22:42 mark the pentagon is clearly visiable."

Hey, you said there was no mound, and I said the lower half of the Pentagon was not visible.

The top half of the Pentagon is visible, however remember, Flight 77 supposedly crashed into the lower two floors, so Lagasse would not have seen Flight 77 actually crash into the Pentagon. He would have lost sight of it when it sunk below the mound.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Are We Being Set Up?

jimd3100, I think I know where you're coming from. You are afraid that the NTSB black box data on Flight 77's northern path and Pentagon police Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks similar testimony of a northern flight path is a trap for the 9/11 Truth Movement to fall into. I thought about that. However, we also have civilian eyewitnesses who affirm Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks' accounts, and the Pentagon video/photos are conclusive that whatever that object caught flying towards the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station was, it was not a 757.

Now if the Pentagon suddenly comes out with new pictures/videos showing a 757 heading for the Pentagon, well we have them red handed! Why, because a long and pointy nosecone can't be turned into a short and stubby nosecone of a 757. Also, the object hidden behind the car ticket dispenser in the five Pentagon CCTV stills should be clearly seen protruding out from behind both sides of the ticket dispenser if it were a 757 (the geometric proportions of the object hiding behind the ticket dispenser is way off from the true size of a 757, and that is a physical fact, not a hypothesis!). People would note that the old CCTV stills of the suposed 757 (hiding behind the ticket dispenser) is so small compared to
the new pictures/video of a massive 757. The Pentagon wouldn't want disinterested persons (non-9/11 Truthers) noticing such obvious and embarrassing dissimilarities.

The Pentagon is stuck with the original video/photos of the object caught heading for the Pentagon. If they all of a sudden try to be cute and release a photo of a 757 heading for the Pentagon, well then they have not only shot themselves in the foot, they have shot themselves in the head. Game over...we've caught them in an unresolvable discrepancy...hence a lie.

In the link below, note the true dimensions of a 757 about to impact the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

The biggest fallacy with that argument...

... is that they don't NEED to "set a trap" for us.... they haven't had any problems keeping people from listening to us thus far, have they?

I'll Agree You Are Correct If...

jimd3100, looking at the horizontal stabilizer for the corrected size of the 757 in the link below, if that is the real size of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon, then I will agree with you that Sergeant Lagasse would have seen the horizontal stabilizer hit the Pentagon.

However, if the horizontal stabilizer is the size of the stabilizer propping up above the car ticket dispenser in frame #1 of the infamous five Pentagon CCTV stills (as seen in the link below), then Sergeant Lagasse would not have seen any part of Flight 77 impact the Pentagon.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Also, take another look at the trajectory of the object about to hit the Pentagon in the five Pentagon CCTV stills. Is the aircraft approaching the Pentagon at an angle (as the official narrative has it, coming from the south of the Citgo gas station), or is the aircraft heading for the Pentagon more or less straight on? The answer is pretty obvious to me.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Do you mean vertical stabilizer?...AAL doesn't paint airliners

When reviewing the link that you show, the PIC of the B757 shows the immensity of the vertical stabilizer and rudder on the aircraft. The horizantal stabilizer is like the smaller "wings" attached to the tail and are barely noticable in this PIC.

More importantly, one of the other photos on that page has always interested me...and perhaps some experts can help out.

Its my understanding that, other than the lettering and numbering, American Airlines does NOT paint the fuselages of its aircraft due to saving weight, and its desired silvery looks. However, if one looks at this piece of the AAL? B757? shown sitting on the lawn, it appears to me that it is painted some color close to silver...sort of a a pale blue-gray.

If this is true, then the part is from an aircraft made to LOOK like an AAL airliner.

There are other PICS and evaluations of this same fuselage part seen in other websites, and it has the same "painted look" about it.

Where the blue-ish paint is just outside the red-white numbering it should be shiny bare aluminum as is the case with all AAl aircraft...I believe?

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Error

Yes, I meant the vertical stabilizer.

More on Lagasse here- click

More on Lagasse here- click on the "Cached" link to highlight "Lagasse" in the articles, to simplify locating it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aarabesque911.blogspot.com+la...

No credible evidence or witness have ever surfaced to indicate that anything than a 757 hit the Pentagon, though lots of people have been attempting to make the case that something did. Despite the major publicity campaign being run for the "757 didn't hit the Pentagon" theories, in 2006 only 6% of Americans thought it "very likely", and 6% thought it "somewhat likely" that the Pentagon "was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military"
http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=717

However, also in 2006, 81% of Americans said they believe the Bush Administration is "hiding something" or "mostly lying" about what they knew about possible terrorist attacks prior to 9/11
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

In Sep 2007 51% thought the Executive's conduct before, during and after 9/11 should be investigated.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070906103632686

As of Nov 2007, 62% thought it "very" or "somewhat" likely that "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings"
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28534

Plenty of solid facts and statements of "persons of interest" in and connected to the Bush Administration that scream for investigation- names connected to names, dates, events and places:

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

This complaint seems like a good start for a new investigation:
http://justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

CSI: Miami Would Have Solved The Pentagon Attack On 9/12/01

loose nuke says, "Despite the major publicity campaign being run for the "757 didn't hit the Pentagon" theories, in 2006 only 6% of Americans thought it "very likely", and 6% thought it "somewhat likely" that the Pentagon "was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military"'

I wonder what percentage of Americans have compared the nosecone of the object heading towards the Pentagon with a picture of a 757 nosecone?

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

The problems I have...

With assuming that something other than 77 hit the Pentagon is...

1) It would be easier to use the real plane rather than a "decoy." If they used a "decoy," then they would have to murder in cold blood the people that were on the planes, and that is just too messy.

2) There IS plane debris at the Pentagon with American Airlines logos on them, as well as landing gear, a rotor, etc... if people want to say it's "fake" or "planted," that's fine, but people have to prove that that is the case. Just because people THINK it's "fake" or "planted," doesn't mean that it is a fact.

3) There are dozens of eye witness accounts corroborating the official line. If people want to say they are actors for the military, that's fine, but they have to prove that that is the case. Just because people THINK they may be actors, doesn't mean that it is a fact.

4) It is incredibly easy to make us look like fools by simply asking "what happened to the passengers?" which we have seen countless times on the MSM.

5) It is not as good an argument as asking about how the most defended airspace in the world was left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when everyone in the world knew America was "under attack."

6) The "debate" has caused splits within the movement, and taken up hours upon hours of people's valuable time.

I'm sure I have more problems with that "version" of the account, but that's the basic gist of it. No, I'm not looking to get into a debate about what hit the Pentagon, so please don't try to get me into one. Thanks.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Agree and disagree

I emphatically agree with point 5) - however, I don't think cold-bloodedly murdering the passengers would have been beoynd them or "just too messy" for them. We cannot know that.

Not debating. :)


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Me neither :)

Just stated what I think.

people have to prove ...?

"People have to prove .... ?

"People" can't "prove" anything contoversial between opposing points of view, if one party controls (locks up) evidence.

There is NO burden on "people" to identify the murder weapon that caused death and destruction at the Pentagon on 9/11, 2001.

If one party has evidence of the murder weapon (airplane parts WITH SERIAL NUMBERS) -
then the burden is on that party to produce the evidence that what they claim is the murder weapon, IS the murder weapon.

It is incorrect to shift the burden of proof to "the people" who are locked out of the room containing the evidence.

This PSYOPS is being defeated all around the world - in every country. It just takes more time than any of us like.

"The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine."
(forgot who said it - it get's misattributed - Google it )

The one ....

... rotor is way to small for a jet turbine engine 10' tall.

... do you think Rumsfeld would just sit there waiting for the 757 to hit the building, knowing some idiot who couldn't fly a Cesna was at the helm? Even if it was flown by remote control? The building is only 5 stories tall.

... I saw pictures of one or two pieces of debris that still looked like small parts of the body of a plane. they weren't burned or seared, they were clean and small enough to move by hand.

... no tail section, no wing sections, no large engine parts, only about 4 seats and those were disclosed during the "trial" of the 20th hijacker and supplied by the FBI.

... several eyewitnesses changed their stories. One said he hadn't seen much debris, then later he said he saw the wings 'fold back into the body of the plane".

..."it's easy to make us look like fools"? is that what determines whether or not you investigate legitimate concerns? You might look foolish? What happened to the passengers in your version? They killed them. What happened to the passengers in the missile hit the pentagon version? The killed them. WTF is the difference?

...Well, Jon, if a missile hit the Pentagon, and the guy kept saying it was on it's way "Do the orders still stand?" then they DID leave the airspace undefended, didn't they. Again, what is the difference?

In the end, Jon Gold, what we are talking about here is not your ego, so don't worry, i am not trying to grace myself with a debate with you; what I am talking about is showing support for this 'eye witness" who not only saw some flash go by and assumed it was something later, SHE WAS IN THE BUILDING AND WALKED THROUGH THE HOLE IN THE WALL.

If she says she doesn't think it was a plane, I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Now, you can either support this effort of hers... or find some reason to shoot holes in it, like you and arabesque have been doing for a year or so.

You ever wonder about the fact that so much of arabesque's evidence comes from the FBI presentation during the 20th hijacker trial? That ever make you wonder about the guy?

On 9/11 Planes flew into Buildings

Witnesses at the WTC who were nearly killed claim to have heard explosions.

Witnesses at the pentagon who were nearly killed claim to see a passenger plane.

The ones at the WTC should be supported, while the ones at the pentagon should be accused of "being in on it".

Pentagon no planers......how embarrasing.

She walked through the wreckage....

.... and she is reporting what she saw. is she a liar?

The link you posted under these comments, is to a woman who says she saw no markings and the trees got in the way. Do you have a link to another?

The best way to control the opposition is to lead the opposition

"You ever wonder about the fact that so much of arabesque's evidence comes from the FBI presentation during the 20th hijacker trial? That ever make you wonder about the guy?"

I wonder about several people on this site. We must realize that it is inevitable that the 911 truth movement will be infiltrated, probably already has been. We must be on the lookout for signs that certain posters here have an agenda other than the truth. Or they may be tasked with only allowing a certain portion of the truth to come out -- not the full story.

Nothing against them personally, it may be that their families are being threatened and they feel they have no choice. But let's all be on the lookout for signs that the movement is being led in an unproductive direction. Sad but true, in a war of this nature, you can trust no one.

The Evidence Says................

The Pentagon strike was to destroy the Office of the Accountants, who were looking for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld told Congress on September 10, 2001 was missing. The only way to ensure the accountants office was destroyed was to use a precision weapon: Cruise missile. A 757 is not a precision weapon.

Since Flight 77 flew from the north of the Citgo gas station, and the Pentagon videos show a pointy-nosed object (not the nosecone for a Boeing 757) heading for the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station, what does that tell us about what flew into the Pentagon and what didn't? 9/11 Truth is about the EVIDENVE. Well, the evidence is clear here: decoy on one side of the Citgo gas station, while a small, pointy-nosed object flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station......

Fast forward to 25 seconds in the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related

Notice the shape of the nosecone of the object about to enter the Pentagon?

Now take a look at the nosecone of a Boeing 757 in the link below and compare it to the object in the YouTube video:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/boeing757.jpg

They are grossly dissimilar, or in other words, they are not the same objects!

Now the specific type of Cruise missile (AGM-86) in the link below is the spiting image of the object seen in the YouTube video:

http://exodus2006.com/missile2.htm

If a real 757 had flown into the Pentagon from the south, it would be massive in size in the first Pentagon videos released. Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser.

People who ask "what happened to the passengers" are the ones who should be seen as the fools. They can't come up with some easy answers, especially now that we know that Ted Olson lied about talking twice to his wife Barbara?

When you look at the damage done to the steel buildings by Flights 11 and 175, then you look at the initial damage done to a concrete building by Flight 77, that is all one needs to know that a 757 did not impact the Pentagon.

The Pentagon police officers (Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks) who affirm that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station have called some of those 'eyewitnesses' liars who claim to have seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

The white vertical stablizer is HUGE + should have been noticed

Regarding the FAB FIVE FRAMES...

Earlier, someone posted a full side PIC of the actual B757 that was flying as AA77 on 9/11. Perhaps that was an earlier picture or something, but there is something MISSING in the FAB FIVE FRAMES if the vertical stablizer was indeed white as seen in this broadside PIC.

On a sideways PIC, the vertical stablizer presents itself as perhaps the "largest visible object" presuming a quick glimpse of the aircraft....[quick to say the least!]

Additionally, when one thinks of the low flying object scooting across the lawn and "sees" the WHITE EXHAUST [which is NEVER associated with modern jet engine exhaust], one HAS to look towards the tail of that object scooting across the lawn to see the exhaust...and

It seems to me that the most apparent "observation" that would be picked up by a camera [or eyewitnesses] would be that HUGE WHITE VERTICAL STABLIZER which is the TALLEST part of the airframe of a B757.

How could a camera NOT get a visual or IMAGE of the WHITE vertical stablizer?

We see the white "smoke?"...and that would be at the LOWEST point in the airvehicle?...

Infact, the white exhaust woud be seen just below and only slightly ahead of the the HUGE WHITE vertical stablizer...

The airvehicle 50-30-10 miles out???

The questions about:

...exactly what airvehicle was being reported at 50-30-10 miles out...
...which radar facility was being used to update Cheney [the SS??-the FAA was updating Minetta]...
...and how long and how many miles had that secret radar facility been "watching" that airvehicle...
...and which combination of radar facilities were "seeing" this airvehicle on their radars...
...NORAD?...Potomac Approach?...DCA Tower radar?...ADW radar?...ZDC-ZID long range radars?...

...are also some very valid questions indeed...

Some researchers are digging into this "FOIA-ed" radar data and trying to make some sense of it all...perhaps they will.

Mark Gaffney's book: "The 9/11 Mystery Plane" is a good first step into this realm of what the radar saw and what it didn't...

NOW...the 09:32 first explosion time...YIKES!!!

There are "mechanical witnesses" about the explosions at the Pentagon at 09:32-ish.

...Gallop's watch was stopped at 09:32...
...there is a stopped wall clock that shows the same time...
...there are several other "types" of witnesses and evidence that support a 09:32-ish first explosion time...
...all of which have been clearly chronicled by Barbara Honegger's well documented research...

SOOO...if the 09:32 explosion time is true, then this early explosion time MUST make one rethink about almost everything regarding what did or did not strike the Pentagon, or fly over it, and what did, did not, and could have happened.

The 09:32 explosion time is a real "game changer"...and I just see too many people stuck in first thought "mind-sets" laid out by the HI PERP's psy-ops within hours of the attacks on 9/11.

There is a growing amount of data coming out of the fantastic research into the events surrounding The Pentagon...and we are not finished.

I believe that the AA77-Pentagon saga is the set of events and cover-ups that will bring down the HI PERPS who pulled off what I now call: "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario"...

...which would be a separate War Game element discreetely and secretly compartmentalized or disguised inside some other "unsuspecting" larger War Game action on 9/11...and which would only need to be fully known by at least "ONE" HI PERP to actuate throughout the day...

Finally, as an example of the "stuck" mindsets, I again look at the FAB FIVE FRAMES differently than do most who are "stuck" with something needing to be airbourne...when some of the evidence shows that it may have been groundborne...

...most pilots agree that an airvehicle simply could not fly within one or two feet of the ground while flying at at those high speeds...could it be a wheeled sled accelerated across the lawn?...

...pilotsfor911truth has done some excellent math and noted that for a B757 to get to that point over the lawn at that height above the ground so shortly after being at the light pole height just a few hundred feet earlier, it would have to have a rate of descent that was astronomical...and further...that to stop that rate of desent would make the airframe completely fail...the aircraft would break apart...PERIOD!...

...everybody KNOWS that hi bypass jet engines NEVER spew a white exhaust...but rocket exhaust DOES...could it be a rocket powered wheeled sled accelerated across the lawn?

...pictures from above the Pentagon lawn show a browned or burned" patch of the grasses that seem to be the same approach path from the where the light poles were damaged...could the grass damge be from the rocket exhaust from a wheeled sled accelerating across the lawn?...

...could such a groundbased vehicle contain some of the evidence that was collected inside and outside the Pentagon?...just thinkg outside the box here...

The light poles...

...it just seems to me that the light poles should have been sheared off quckly and cleanly...

...like a blade of grass cut by a weedwhacker or lawnmower...same basic impact speeds...

....there should have been NO bending of any of the poles at all [some PICS show this]...just thin aluminum tubes sheared off cleanly below their original tops...

...and the remaining poles below the shear point should have remained upright and on their cement foundations. They should not have been pulled off of the bases due to the instantaneous "shearing" that the leading edges of the wings would accomplish going at such high speeds...

The overall point here is that there seems to be too much "thought block" going on when dealing with new information thats emerging all the time...

NOBODY KNOWS...what the actual scenario[s] are-were on 9/11, so we should not do the work the HI PERPS want us to do...we need to remain much more open minded...as am I...

09:32 is NOT 09:38...and that should REALLY rattle some thinking here...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

09:37 or 09:32?

Robin Hordon says, "There are "mechanical witnesses" about the explosions at the Pentagon at 09:32-ish.

...Gallop's watch was stopped at 09:32...
...there is a stopped wall clock that shows the same time...
...there are several other "types" of witnesses and evidence that support a 09:32-ish first explosion time...
...all of which have been clearly chronicled by Barbara Honegger's well documented research... "

I actually wrote an article at www.DNotice.org on Flight 77 (It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s Not Flight 77!). One of the witnesses who affirms a 09:32 explosion at the Pentagon was soon-to-be Danish foreign minister, Per Stig Moller. Here's an excerpt from my article:

"An eyewitness who contradicts the official 9/11 narrative concerning the time of the Pentagon attack was the soon-to-be Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Moller. Moller, who just happened to be in Washington, DC on 9/11, heard a loud noise outside his hotel. Looking out the window, which provided a view of the Pentagon, Moller noticed fire and smoke rising from the office building. He immediately checked his watch and noted the time: 09:32. He then informed several colleagues near him that he believed a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon.

Interestingly enough corroboration of a 09:32 attack on the Pentagon, and not 09:37 as the official narrative has it, came from an unlikely source…future United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave an address at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California on August 22, 2002 where he stated, "the Pentagon was attacked at 9:32."'

Also Mark H. Gaffney writes (http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm) the following on the stopped Pentagon clocks:

"Compelling physical evidence also supports what I am proposing. Among the oddities from 9/11 are two curious photographs of Pentagon clocks that stopped working at the time of the attack. One of these clocks was in the heliport office.[57] The other was inside the west wing.[58] It appears that the powerful shock wave that occurred at the moment of impact knocked the clocks off the wall, causing them to break. Notice the shattered glass in the following photo. One of the clocks stopped at 9:31:40 AM, the other at 9:32:30 AM. For the purposes of this discussion, I will round them off to 9:32 AM."

Here is a picture of the Pentagon heliport stopped clock:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19

Here is a picture of the second Pentagon stopped clock:

http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

"Canonizing" our speculations

Robin, you went a little overboard, but your points are well taken. And you did a really good job distinguishing between reasonable, "outside-of-the-box" speculation and what are the facts we need to stay focused on. Thank you.

"NOBODY KNOWS...what the actual scenario[s] are-were on 9/11, so we should not do the work the HI PERPS want us to do(RH)"

I'm amazed at how when in comes to the WTC towers, we avoid and protect ourselves from rabid speculation and remain faithful to the facts that either defy physics or blatantly contradict the official narrative. But when it comes to the Pentagon, we throw that discipline out the window. Buildings can't fall at freefall speed without something removing the inherent resistance, which is predictable using basic laws of physics. Likewise, commercial jetliners can't fly at their maximum speed only a few yards above the ground without falling apart, or cutting a huge swath below them, or both, and that, too, is predictable using the laws of physics and aerodynamics that allows aircraft to fly. A 70-second discrepancy in the predictable vs. actual fall times of the towers is huge to us, but a demonstrable 6-minute discrepancy of the reported explosions at the Pentagon barely gets a nod, except maybe from DRG who gave it a noteworthy acknowledgment as an appendix in one of his books, and of course by April Gallup. And the airspace around the Pentagon and DC, especially when the country is under attack, is impenetrable -- period. My point, and I think Robin's point is that we shouldn't go into never-never land, "canonizing" our speculations, but rather, we should push hard only on the few basic facts that more than adequately prove our point of foul play, and remain open to ALL possible explanations, until such time when the untenable theories naturally fall away. If that's what you mean, Robin, I'm with you 100 percent.

Could you point to the proof of this?

"commercial jetliners can't fly at their maximum speed only a few yards above the ground without falling apart, or cutting a huge swath below them, or both, and that, too, is predictable using the laws of physics"

If the speed of the jetliner is known, it should be possible to say that this is either possible or not.

Passenger planes can't fly low?

"commercial jetliners can't fly at their maximum speed only a few yards above the ground without falling apart, or cutting a huge swath below them, or both, and that, too, is predictable using the laws of physics"

Large Jetliners flying at high speeds a few feet above the ground will break up? Someone should have told that to this pilot before he did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk

You did get my point here...

We constantly need to remind and discipline ourselves in ways that, as new information becomes available, we must both, asses this information's veracity, and then see if it changes some earlier conclusions or hypothesis.

The "overboard" example with the jet powered sled going across the lawn was presented because if we didn't have previous information about an airbourne whatever, and asked some objective and unkowing person what they thought of those FAB FIVE FRAMES, what I conclude is not all that unreasonable. BUT...I'm not pitching this angle...YET, I would not be surprised by ANYTHING that these killers would think to do.

One of the words in the phrase War Games is the word GAME. These militaristic nutcases look at ALL of this as games. So, you can imagine some of our "computer game creator geeks" all dressed up in chamoflage when they go to work, give them things that really blow up, and then their imaginations can be seen to run wild.

We can't run wild, but we need to appreciate the crazy imaginations and decisions that have been concocted before in this country's history.

For me, I suspect that the AA77-Pentagon saga could be a modern day Operation Northwoods...but not done over water...done in the middle of a far more complex airspace and inhabitied area. I feel that AA77, with Burlingame as Captian, is "the false-flag-flight" on 9/11 because the other three airliners may NOT have had success at hitting the targets that they were intended to hit...as we know one didn't.

So, maybe the HI PERPS needed a positive and controllable flight to provide proof positive that the country was under attack...they needed solid photo ops...and a burning Pentagon would provide this.

I have felt this possibility from the outset years ago, but the advent of evidence of an 09:32 first explosion time precisely where the Navy Ops and financial information was housed has just added way too much new information for me NOT to run with this possibility.

Say anything that you want about all of this...but 09:32 is NOT 09:38...and this is HUGE information that I feel is rather instructive about ALL the considerations on the table.

With 3/4s of a TRILLION dollars in a militarizing "slush fund" given the Pentagon every year, and with the Pentagon controlling 95% of ALL Intel funding, its easy to accept that they have a sophisticated "psy-ops" department too.

And psy-ops, planted evidence and managed news releases are very cleverly and very carefully designed to shift people's 'interpretations" of events and the like...and they are masters at this.

So, we have made tremendous progress by steadily considering more and more facts, collecting more and more evidence, and this has helped reorganize, redefine and re-expose the WTC collapses. Many minds have been changed and original points either refined or left behind.

We need to do the same with the AA77-Pentagon scenario.

From my view, we have about only 1-5% of the information surrounding the events with AA77 and the Pentagon:
...the primary target that is the ALLEGED AA77?...
...a plethora of unread and aparently contradictory radar data...
...incomplete communications records between FAA and NORAD facilities...
...the entire understanding of NORAD air defense responsibilities and protocols...
...the role of the Secret Service radar facility re: informing Cheney about the approach of a target...
...the paucity of video evidence available...
...the game changing 09:32 first explosion time...and I think that I can go on and on here.

Consequently, how can we be so positive about so much stuff that seem so completely contradictory?

The HI PERPS are lying and covering their tails...THAT we do agree upon.

So, we are just scratching the AA77-Pentgon surface...lets cool the jets and keep collecting and analyzing data and information...

NOBODY yet knows what really happened...but we are getting closer and closer all the time...and in the end, the AA77-Pentagon saga will be a very, very complex element of the 9/11 attacks...

...and there will be parts of ALL the information from ALL points of view that will come into play here...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Not A Boeing 757

The white exhaust trail is also consistent with the launching of a Cruise missile. Commercial airliners do not leave white exhaust trails at ground level on a warm, sunny day.

Also the initial colors of the Pentagon explosion, as seen in the five Pentagon CCTV photographs, is white then turns orange. Sorry, but aviation jet fuel explodes yellow only (as seen the WTC impacts),

The initial white flash is proof of a solid based explosive, not a hydrocarbon.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Pathway Used By Construction Workers?

Robin says, "...pictures from above the Pentagon lawn show a browned or burned" patch of the grasses that seem to be the same approach path from the where the light poles were damaged...could the grass damge be from the rocket exhaust from a wheeled sled accelerating across the lawn?..."

I remember seeing those pictures some years ago. However pictures were also included that showed the same trail in the days before 9/11. Looks like the trail was a pathway used by the construction crews.

In the following link note the true dimensions of a 757 approaching the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I don't feel like a fool

...when someone asks "what happened to the passengers?"

How the hell am I supposed to know?

But based on info in Dave McGowan's book "Programmed to Kill," I'd guess they were used in mind control trainings as murder victims or sex slaves. No reason to just knock them off without first getting some use out of them.

I hate to break it to you, but...

you should feel like a fool to suggest that the passengers are now serving as sex slaves somewhere. Sorry.

Operative word "were"

read more carefully John Schroder.

This is a good example of someone not interested in truth -- those who intentionally misunderstand the statements of others. I wrote only 2 sentences yet Schroder could not understand them?

What's your point?

Aren't you suggesting that they might have been used as sex slaves? Or is this just a misunderstanding on my side?

Why this confrontation?

Sheila may or may not be right. She didn't say she'd be arguing this to people, did she?

I don't want a confrontation,

I just want to point out that something like "They may have used the passengers as sex slaves" would probably turn some people away from us (my guess would be: 9 out of 10). Based on the same book that brought her to this amazing assumption, Sheila is already openly arguing that the world is ruled by Satanic "Illuminati" who regularly sacrifice children. And she has recently suggested to all of us not to "cowardly" just ask questions, but to boldly present theories. In this light, it is legitimate to suspect that she's going to tell the whole world about her passenger theories and I would, for the sake of the movement, strongly urge her not to.

Well that's funny

... because that is all you have been doing on this thread so far.

It's amazing to me too witness Truthers over here doing their level best to undermine the credibility of this woman's case, long before the MSM get their chance to do so.

I don't find it funny. It's sad.

The sad thing is that her lawyer has undermined her case already. If you really care about April Gallop, you should be railing against William Veale right now, and not against me. A lawsuit that is so full of wild speculation can never succeed in court. It's not going to produce anything but disappointment for her and embarrassment for us.

One comment in the complaint...

... makes the whole thing "wild speculation"? Wild Speculation?

This case is "wild speculation"? I guess you think that is easier, huh? When I put it down and dirty, when I say you guys are the ONLY ones right now undermining the credibility of this case, ANYWHERE, you decide you think it will be easier to pretend you are going after the "lawyers' and not the case? That' BS...

... you are. once again, doing what you can to undermine a valid effort. Sad

Wild speculation indeed.

1) I've already written somewhere else on this thread that I mean no disrespect for April Gallop at all.

2) I've already written somewhere else on this thread that I respected William Veale before this. So I'm not blindly bashing someone just for the sake of it.

3) I am "going after the case." April Gallop has legitimate reasons to sue, but Veale has ruined it for her already. The lawsuit could be dynamite if it would concentrate on the strong, provable points like "no evacuation" or "no intercepts" -

But to allege that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers ordered "high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building"... Do you think something like this (and there are many similar points in the text) is gonna make her win the case? Well, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

Who are you...

... to decide what is relevant or not? Who are you to decide what is "the best evidence" and what isn't? In case you have a very short memory, some of those "best evidence only" people, used to tell us to avoid Building 7 as well, remember? They said "it's a trap" and thought that when the Building 7 report was going to come out, we would all look "foolish'. Many of them thought, Building 7 "was a trap" for the 9/11 truthers...

...remember all that? I damn sure do.

...the ONLY reason you are "going after Veale" is because in these forums, it's easier than picking on a victim of 9/11 who carried her infant through the wreckage. so you can still attack the validity of the case, with out looking like you are picking on a 9/11 victim.

You know that "Doomsday Plane".... one thing they can do with them is remote pilot unmanned drones... planes... and .... cruise missiles. Given the evidence at the scene, given the nature of what they wanted taken out... no, I doubt they handed the stick over to Hanji Hanjuour and HOPED he hit the right spot on the Pentagon. And if you think Rumsfeld, one of the guys who planned this from the beginning, was just going to sit there and wait and see if Hanjour hit the right spot, I got a bridge to sell you.

No thanks, I don't want your bridge.

1) It's not about what's "relevant." Saying that Cheney ordered explosives to be planted in the Pentagon that were then set off when the missile hit the building in order to fake a plane crash - that's not relevant or irrelevant, it's speculation. Why is this speculative scenario in the complaint?! And sadly it's not the only point like that in there.

2) I am not Mike Ruppert. I am not Jeff Wells either. And I'm certainly not Mark Robinowitz. I have never argued against "physical evidence" per se. To me, there's only one question: Is it strong or is it weak evidence? There's strong testimonial evidence and there's weak testimonial evidence; there is strong physical evidence and there's weak physical evidence. And that's exactly the difference between Building 7 and the Pentagon: The evidence for controlled demolition is very strong, while the evidence for "no plane at the Pentagon" is tremendously weak. You can "debunk" the Pentagon witnesses as long and often as you want, the simple truth remains that a) no witness has reported a missile and b) no witness has reported a fly-over. Were hundreds of people temporarily blind or did the government kill them all afterwards? That's a question you have to answer.

3) You're insinuating that I'm dishonest about my intentions here. I can get overheated as well from time to time, so I am not taking your ad hominem attack to heart. And I don't need to take it to heart, because I know what my intentions are.

4) Your points about Hani Hanjour and Rumsfeld are absolutely correct. But as you say it yourself: You can remote-control planes from this "Doomsday Plane." There's no need for a missile. And think about it: Using a missile would have endangered everything for them. If only one person had recorded the missile hitting the Pentagon and put it up on the internet the same day, Cheney and Rumsfeld would now be sitting in prison, awaiting their trials. Because there is no way they could have plausibly explained that missile. The official version would have collapsed faster than Building 7 did. So why would they have used a missile instead of a plane, if they had nothing to gain with it, but everything to lose? There was simply no need for it. If they really used a missile (or staged an extraordinary fly-over maneuver), these would have been the dumbest conspirators in world history. And Dick Cheney is anything but dumb.

I will tell you this, and that's all I can say about it...

That plane is massive. When you look at the pics, there is nothing left outside the building. So, the plane debris had to end up INSIDE the building. Well, I have seen those few FBI photos from the 20th hijacker trial, and I am telling you, a few pieces scattered here and there, doesn't a massive 757-200 make.

Now, along comes a witness, who says she walked right thru that area, that room, and guess what? She says the exact same thing.

Now, you say I am speculating... fine. But the LACK of material is evidence itself.

Aren't you speculating on the "dumb Cheney" thing? By the way, how did they "plausibly" explain Building 7's collapse? First time in history, no plane hit it? How did they explain that one away? And why were they so quick to snatch up every single video from the area? How did they know where they were in the first place?

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/flight-77-from-pilots-for-911...

The above link is to something I put up today.

Of course I am speculating.

But a lawyer shouldn't speculate in such an important case, that's the difference.

I was expecting you'd bring up Building 7 to rebut my point that they wouldn't have been so stupid. Of course it was dumb to demolish the building in front of the whole world. But there might have been a reason (the SEC files for instance) that they had to bring it down. My speculation: They probably wanted to destroy Building 7 shortly after the collapse of WTC 1 and blame it on heavy damage, but something went wrong and they had to keep it standing longer and blame it on fire. With the collapse in the immediate aftermath of the North Tower collapse, fewer people would have questioned it. The demolition of World Trade Center 7 was a risk for them, but they took it anyway because they thought they would gain from it greatly.

The way I see it, there was no such reason for using a missile or staging a complicated fly-over maneuver. And taking a high risk from which you have virtually nothing to gain would indeed be unbelievably stupid. Catherine Austin Fitts says, "those who win in a rigged game get stupid." - Yes, stupid enough to demolish Building 7, but not THAT stupid. You only take high risks if they promise high gains.

Because of that and the eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence, I believe that it was a plane. I'm not saying it definitely was Flight 77, but clearly a large plane. I don't mean to be disrespectful against people who disagree with that, it's just my firm opinion that they are wrong. Let's agree to disagree and not get entrenched in a war over it. But please think at least for a moment about my basic point: the lawsuit is much weaker than it could and should be. April Gallop deserves better.

I think he means the NTSB

Let's not get into yet ANOTHER pointless flame war over the Pentagon, ok?

Until we have more concrete evidence we will just have to accept that we don't know what happened there (only what should NOT have happened there) and move forward on more productive matters.

I think that Rep. will agree with me on this, as well as many others.

The truth shall set us free, sometimes patience and tolerance is required though.

Love is the only way forward.

Yes. You makea good point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

links

EDIT- some crashes leave surprisingly little wreckage; there may have been nothing much to see where April Gallop walked

Is the 9/11 ‘Pentagon Hole’ a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions? (see this article i wrote for hyperlinks to photos at 911Research.wtc7.net; this is the 5th paragraph down)
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/is-the-911-“pentagon-hole”-a-psyop-to-distract-from-real-questions/

"Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris. Jets are large, but they are mostly aluminum, and hollow. A Phantom F-4 was test-crashed into a wall; it was smashed to bits. A 747 crashed and burned, completely destroying the fuselage. A DC-8, a plane similar in size to a 757, crashed in a parking lot and was obliterated. A C-130 crashed into a 10-story apartment building in Azari, Iran and left little debris visible in photos."

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

The Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-flight-path-map-perfec...

Frustrating Fraud on Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search?q=pilots+for+9%2F11+truth

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

I want you to pay very close attention...

... to this simple fact:

She was there, she walked her CHILD THROUGH the wreckage and the hole in the building, and arabesque wasn't.

She's not simply regurgitating something that she read or heard (IE. what you call "debunked"), and she is not trying to "stick to the best evidence"....

... she is giving 1st hand testimony of what she experienced, that day, that moment. She AND HER CHILD were in that building and exited through that hole. Now you are fully capable of understanding that, aren't you?

Or is also part of the "disinformation" team?

Read the full story . . .

>>She was there, she walked her CHILD THROUGH the wreckage and the hole in the building, and arabesque wasn't.

But the dozens and dozens and dozens of other people who walked through the wreckage and did see real plane parts or saw the plane hit, "don't count"?

Yet this one person "does count." That's why the no plane claims of the Pentagon are unscientific -- cherry-picking of witness statements and claims to support a belief and ignoring of the evidence to the contrary.

People at the scene and the evidence itself contradicts what she says but that doesn't make her a liar -- she may be mistaken or misinterpreted what she saw, etc. This has nothing to do with intentionality on her part.

If she were the only person at the scene, we'd have to really consider this seriously. Fortunately, she is not.

I recommend people read the full eye witness testimonies --

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

What Did They Really See?

What did those other people really see? Since we now know that Flight 77 came from the north of the Citgo gas station, it couldn't have barreled through the Pentagon in the direction the official account said it did and damage the inside of the Pentagon as it did. Only an object flying south of the Citgo gas station could leave such a debris track inside the Pentagon.

In the following link note the true dimensions of a 757 approaching the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I just read thru all of that link...

.. and I would like you to do the same. How many of your "dozens and dozens" of eye-witnesses you claim that saw the plane hit the building, actually say that on that site?

Do you have any idea? any?

How many claim to have seen an American Airlines, 757 hit the side of the wall at the Pentagon?

Not "dozens and dozens" I will tell you that much. In fact, not many at all. Most say they either saw a "large plane" pass overhead, or that they "saw the tail-section go into the wall"... or some other such thing.

Most have only a piece of the information, and just like you do here posting this link as proof to your claim, people fill in the blanks with what they THINK they know. But IN FACT this link of yours is NOT to "dozens and dozens" of people who claim to have seen a AA 757 hit the Pentagon.

You should think about that.

One can't help but notice

the parallels between April's story about how she was directed with her infant son to her Pentagon office, and the announcer who directed people to go back to their offices in WTC2 after the first plane hit WTC1. She said that usually she would have dropped her son off at the nursery, but this time, they just let her and her son through.

I'm certain the gov will try

I'm certain the gov will try to settle this out of court and out of the public eye but I really do hope they fight the urge to settle and force this into court and for the world to see. this is a major move for 9/11 truth and justice.

MISLED.

"Flyover" hoax, a "missile" and no plane theory -- this is going to be tossed out of court immediately. Special thanks to that psyop known as CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth (lies).

It's a kitchen sink list of conspiracy theories, rather than relying on the hard facts. This is just bad lawyering. Bad.

Also, "the orders" are mistakenly assumed to be a proactive "stand down." Not necessary. These are most likely "the orders:"

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

The orders stressed "approval" from the Secretary of Defense in order to authorize interceptors. There was no approval from Rumsfeld on record that day.

Facts, not theories:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are...

I feel for Ms. Gallop, but she has been misled, and this will discredit her completely. It's a shame, a damned shame.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

and so...

... when this witness who was in the building, and who walked through the areas that was hit, when she claims she saw no chairs, no bodies, no plane wreckage, and no fire from the jet fuel...

... she has been "misled"?

Maybe, just maybe, she isn't the one who has been "misled"?

You explain to me how her first hand eye witness testimony is to be "discredited". it seems to me, that you are already "discrediting" her on the basis of what people say who weren't there. And in so doing, you are in fact discrediting the process for them.

Me, I tend to think that Rumsfeld wouldn't sit in a chair hoping that someone like Hanjour, who couldn't fly a Cesna, would hit the exact point on that building and not skip off the top and ram his plane into Rumsfeld's office on the other side. But that's just me.

"Me, I tend to think that

Rumsfeld wouldn't sit in a chair hoping that someone like Hanjour, who couldn't fly a Cesna, would hit the exact point on that building and not skip off the top and ram his plane into Rumsfeld's office on the other side. But that's just me."

Me, I tend to think that planes can be precisely remote-controlled and that this is the reason why Rumsfeld wasn't afraid. But that's just me.

Well, ok. I can see the argument there...

But remember that the two planes that hit the towers hit at different angles and different levels. The North tower strike seems to have been about where they must have wanted it. Straight on in the center of the upper levels.

The South tower was much lower and off to one side, pretty close to missing in fact.

Now, it's possible that Rumy would sit there for that, but I have to take everything else into consideration at the same time. Now engines, no parts with numbers on them, the black box just appears, and this witness who walked through the wreckage and said, even back then, that it didn't look like a commercial plane crash.

I put those things together, and I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. And I think we all should. Especially now. We shouldn't let ANYONE (I'm not talking about you) try to drive a wedge between us all right now.

i don't know what happened. But I will tell you this much; that woman knows more than I do, than arabeque does, and more than even Steven Jones does about what hit that building.

Plus, i don't want to belabor a point, but I tend to think they would also want to do as little damage as possible, don't you? They wanted to take out the investigating office that was looking into the missing money, and not much else.

Two things

1) Do you know that this section had just been steel-reinforced? That could explain the seemingly smaller damage than one would expect. And planes CAN be shredded into small pieces:

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

2) I'm not saying ANYTHING against April Gallop. I don't think at all that she's dishonest or so. In my opinion, she's just mistaken - which is quite understandable given the extreme circumstances on that day. The person whose intentions I'm questioning right now is William Veale, not April Gallop.

>>The person whose

>>The person whose intentions I'm questioning right now is William Veale, not April Gallop.

Thanks, I agree. He has been shown the arguments for how speculative the no plane case is and has rejected them. That's a huge gamble for an attorney to take.

The Sandia F-4 crash test...a B757...and the Pentagon...

If one looks closely at Sandia's close-up video of the F-4 crash test against a 10-12 foot cement barricade, it appears that the wing actually does some significant slicing and dicing into the 10-12 foot cement block and does not disintegrate immediately. This makes lotsa sense to me because wings are actually pretty damn strong and their knife-like shape is designed to slice through the air, yet remain very, very strong. So, using Morgan Reynold's "butter" analogy for good purpose, wings do not hit the air [or buildings] with their flat sides...they use their leading edges which creates HUGE mechanical advantages for "slicing and dicing". You can do the flat side versus cutting edge butter knife test at home next time you have some toast.

Although this F-4 footage, and some still shots, has been shown by truthers to make one point about aircraft crashes, perhaps it makes another...the opposite.

IE: What damage a knife-like aircraft wing can do to large cement walls, columns, facades or the aluminum-steel column sides of buildings. And in the Sandia test, I believe that the 10-12 foot cement wall is of FAR greater in thickness and mass than the Pentagon facades and columns. Somebody will do the math I'm sure. Anyway...

I believe that the wing fold back theory is not viable because at the very moment that the wings would have begun to "fold back", they would have broken the vast majority of ALL connectveness to the massive framework where the fuselage, the wings and the main landing gear all do their immense work at keeping the aircraft together...both in flight and during hard landings.

Also, the outside columns would have acted as brakes to this inward motion required by the wings IF they indeed had folded back and started to be dragged into this hole...the damaged wings woud have had to SERIOUSLY scrape the columns just to get past them.

And finally, someone made the point that with the engines and all, the wings would want to keep on truckin straight ahead REGARDLESS of what the fuselage might be trying to convince them to do...IE: to fold in neatly?

BTW...the section of the airframe where fuselage and wings merge is a BIG hunk-o-metal with large parts all strongly attached together so as to carry loads up to about FIVE G-Loads..aka...five times the total weight of the fully loaded aircraft. People overlook this amazing and HUGE part of the aircraft...and their masses and momentums...

So, B757 wings are not designed with a pivot point in them as are a bird's shoulders, nor like the FB111 "swing-wing" fighter-bomber had utilized many years ago.

Repeating a bit, if the wings broke loose enough to compress inside the fuselage as some folks postulate, there would be NO CONNECTIONS LEFT to the fuselage to 'pull" the wings inside PRECISELY BECAUSE they have broken loose from the fuselage due to the folding action itself.

In other words, what exactly would be doing the "pulling"?

This is why the outline of the two B767s on the WTCs are so predictable, and frankly unstoppable [Shanksville too...]. The wings and the vertical stabilizer have their own MASS that is hurtling straght ahead at 500MPH. So, these parts are going to do some of their own damage...and its gonna look like wings and a tail. They did their own things that were NOT directed by the fuselage.

Since there was no reason, [or any attachments left], for the fuselage to "drag" the wings into the Pentagon through the smallish hole, the wings would have remained outside the building and would have used their "straight ahead" kinetic energy against the facade and the cement columns during deceleration.

In other words, the wings would have stopped there up against the unsevered cement columns and up against the unpenetrated facades [especially the facades].

The way I see it, the wings only had three options...

...stop AT the facade and up against the columns...
...cut through the facade and the columns [perhaps as seen in the Sandia E-4 footage]...
...or some combination of each of the above...

Now, the wings DID NOT cut the columns or penetrate the facade. Had they done so, then we would see this specific damage and the wings would have travelled inside the Pentagon. In other words, there would be entrance holes and an aircraft outline sorta like what the WTCs showed...but there were none.

So, they must have behaved in one or the other two ways..

...stop completely outside the facade and columns, thus remaining visible for at least a short amount of time before burning? ...or...

...perform somewhere in between the two by partially damaging the facade and columns...[which IS visible]...and partially remaining outside up against the facade and columns...before burning?...[which is NOT visible...]

[in this option, some parts of the wings would have made it inside the Pentagon somehow...IE: entering in between the columns etc.]

So, from my view, although radically crumpled, damaged and distorted, the metals making up the wings would, for the most part, have remained outside the Pentagon squashed up against the facades and columns...awaiting to be burned or to disintegrate.

The problem is, what fuel sources would be available to "burn" the outer portions of the wings in which there was no fuel left to burn? HMMM...

Some rough givens here ...

AA77?...would have burned off about a quarter of its fuel supply and usually, the outboard fuel tanks are drained first...[but I may be wrong on this and perhaps an "in type" pilot can corrcet me if need be...]

If true, then there would be little fuel...small quickly burned fires...no FULL disintegration...and SOME "wing metal" remaining outside the building...especially farther out near the wing tips.

Again, I'm open to almost any thing at the Pentagon..."in-over-around-drone-B737-B757-missile"...

But if its a BIG airplane, there needs to be more BIG wing parts outside the Pentagon because its very unlikely that the fuselage "pulled" the wings inside like a coopertave pair of bird's wings.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Lots of witnesses

... "when this witness who was in the building, and who walked through the areas that was hit, when she claims she saw no chairs, no bodies, no plane wreckage, and no fire from the jet fuel..."

There were lots of witnesses, it happened in broad daylight in front of lots of people. Including those OUTSIDE the building who WATCHED it happen. Like this person....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

And a bunch of others have the exact same story as her.

The ones outside would see what hit, not the ones inside who are dazed and looking for their child, instead of evidence of what hit.

But rescue workers like Sgt Williams would be looking inside for people and evidence....

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

There are other pentagon survivors including this one who nearly died from the jet fuel......

"For those that may not recognize the name, Brian is a Pentagon 9/11survivor."....."The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."
http://www.aogusma.org/Class/1961/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

Pentagon no planers...what an embarrasment.

embarrasment?

Your quote, your words, your link:

"Like this person....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james..."

What she said was, she saw it pass over head, she saw no markings because ' it went over head, and the speed and of course,,.... the trees..."

Your quote and your link and your evidence. A person who saw no markings and only in a flash because it sped over and then they couldn't see it for the trees.

And that proves your point that the person who walked through the debris and the hole in the wall was wrong?

how about the guy who swears now that the wings "folded back into the body of the plane"? you want a link to that credible source? please.

and here is another

and here is another witness

"McWethy recalls: “I got in very close, got a look early on at the bad stuff. I could not, however, see any plane wreckage—it was well inside and had been, basically, vaporized.”

my quote is from a reporter, yours is from a Defense Department employee....

your quote is from a reporter

reporter who claims the plane wreckage is inside where he isn't. Notice he said plane wreckage, not missile wreckage...and since you put so much stock in reporters here, is one where you should edit his remarks so it sounds like he's describing a cruise missile, and then when it's exposed that it's an edit call him a lier...it's all been done before in the name of "No Plane" garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A

another witness to a large passenger jet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?um=&oe=UTF-8&v=sXq6H2kCtEU&q=pentagon+witne...

How do you know she is a defense dept employee, and explain to me(admit)that you claim she's "in on it", and despite what you say anyone can see it for themself, it's a large passenger plane she is describing and saw it go into the building.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

Now tell us they are all confused and really saw a missile, and see if anyone believes you can mistake this for a missile...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4674872066307102008&hl=en

Now show me the witnesses who saw a plane fly over the building or a missile.

Pentagon no planers how embarrasing

Your first ref is to Mike Walters

he said later, and I quote...

"What I saw was the plane going in, and the wings folding back like this (shows with hands). You see, when the plane hit, the wings weren't strong enough, and the wings folded back into the plane..."

On a plane, the thrust of the plane comes from the engines. The mass of those 12 tonne engines driving at full throttle were the source of the momentum of the plane. If anything were to "break off" it would have been the body of the jet, and not the engines (wings), they wouldn't have "folded back" couldn't have folded back....

.... he is lying. NOW, if he lies about that, what else would he lie about?

what "she" are you talking about? Isabel James? I didn't say she is "in on it" did I? I said in the interview you link to, she says she didn't see any markings on the plane and that it went by too fast and the trees got in the way.

What part of that don't you understand or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said?

if anyone wants to verify what I just said about his other "witness' there, Mike Walters, please be my guest and read this. There are two videos at the end. the first one, made by his own network to rehabilitate his image, is the one with the quote that I used.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/meet-mike-walter-watch-him-li...

Oh, and by the way. You want a witness would said she saw something other than plane wreckage?

How about the woman this is all about? The one bringing the lawsuit. You haven't answered my question; is she lying?

Liars

The only person I see claiming a witness is a lier is you. In one post you act like a reporter describing aircraft wreckage is a good witness, In another you claim a reporter is lieing because you don't like his decription. In fact only you are claiming witnesses are liers, not me.

And walter described an airliner hitting the building live on TV minutes after it happened and you claim he changed his story. No..just pentagon no planers changed his story, and I'm still waiting for your answer for witnesses who saw what happened, claiming it was a flyover or a missile.

Pentagon no planers....how embarrasing

Do you believe the 10 tonne engines....

... running at full thrust, folded back into the plane on impact, like Mike Walters said? Do you think that is physically possible? If you think that is possible, fine. I don't?

Also, the video on the site I linked to in the previous comment, shows the two Penatagon cops stating that the witnesses (like Walters) on that road, wouldn't have been able to see much, because of the trees getting in the way from where they were.

I didn't say it was a flyover... did I?

All I said, was the evidence doesn't add up to a 757-200 wreckage, and the plaintiff in this case tends to agree.

And once again, I want people to be very clear; in the link he has put up twice to Isabel James, she doesn't say she saw a commercial jet-liner hit the Pentagon. She says it flew overhead while they were in the car,

"We didn't see any markings cus we just saw the underneath portion of it. and it was going full speed so we didn't have time to see anything. and with the trees... maybe if I could have looked at it longer, I would have seen something...and with the trees there, the tree line, we didn't see any type of marking. but it was a big plane..."

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james...

Now that is confirmation of what the cop said. That the tree-line would get in the way. So, did she see it hit? Does she think she saw it hit? Certainly a far cry from proof positive, ain't it?

How about some common sense

You left this quote out..."So you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?" "yes I did"
These people see a large passenger type plane that some describe as an AA Jetliner.
None of these witnesses saw a missile or flyover..gee...this is a tough one isn't it. I wonder where that low flying big passenger plane went to that she said she saw fly into the pentagon go?

on 9/11 Planes flew into buildings
Pentagon no planers how embarrasing

ok how bout this guy...

"thinking about the fortress the Pentagon, pried open by the missile.. ah... airplane..." 9/11 Commissioner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA&feature=related

(oh, yeah. At first Isabel said that she and her husband were talking about the plane that passed overhead, then the crash, and they saw the large cloud of smoke. And so the interviewer clarifies "But did you see the plane strike the Pentagon? and she says, oh yeah. yes. But later she admits her view of the plane was obstructed by the "line of trees"... talk about no common sense.)

I hadn't thought about that

The wings with the heavy engines attached to them couldn't have "folded back", could they?

You know what is funny?

If what hit the Pentagon was a winged guided missile, yes they would have, because the turbine is on the body of the missile, not the light-weight wings.

But on a 757-200? nah. Each one of the engines weighed between 9-11 tonnes, and they were, from all reports, running full throttle. Those wings couldn't have "folded back into the body of the plane"...

... plus, those wings carried the majority of the fuel, so they had a great deal of mass themselves.

When Mike Walters said he saw the wings fold back, I knew something was terribly wrong with his story.

Then those two Pentagon cops pointed out the tree-line in the way of where Walters said he was. I don't think he saw it hit. I think he assumed it hit, and doesn't think saying what he is saying could do any harm. In his mind, what else could have "hit" the pentagon other than what passed over his car.

But I know this, those wings didn't "fold back", and that makes his testimony very suspect from the start.

What About the WTC Wing Imprints?

The wings didn't fold backwards in the WTC impacts. We have nice cookie cut out imprints of the wings in the towers (including the engines), but nothing resembling that in the Pentagon wall.

Dean Jackson/webmaster/DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I just looked at your other link, and He doesn't say he saw..

... it hit the Pentagon either.

"I was on the Pike where the shelter is, and all of a sudden we, you could hear it first and the building shook, and I looked out the windows and I saw the tail end go. It was... for me... it looked like a big size plane like a passenger plane, and evrything shook and then all of a sudden you just heard this big explosion, and somebody said "My god they hit the Pentagon they hit the Pentagon"

So he didn't say he saw markings nor did he say he saw it hit the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?um=&oe=UTF-8&v=sXq6H2kCtEU&q=pentagon+witne...

These are your "hundreds of eyewitnesses"?

Thanks, but I will stick with the woman who walked through the wreckage.

That last link is good...

it shows a plane landing. An AA plane like flight 77. The problem is, at that speed, you can barely make out the airline and type of plane, so you damn sure can't see people's faces in the windows like some of the "witnesses" who swear it was a commercial jet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4674872066307102008&hl=en

(landing filmed normal speed then film sped up to simulate 400mph. It would have been going faster than this)

Good lawyering Bad Lawyering Justice

"Justice" does not depend on "lawyering" -- good or bad. "Justice" is not something that courts dispense. "Justice" is either something that the Universe Itself "dispenses," or it doesn't exist at all.

If 999 vedicts are correct, and 1 is wrong - then there is no true "justice." "Justice" cannot leave anyone out and be "Justice."

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked. As a man (person) soweth, so also shall he (she) reap." Some guy named Paul - (I think)

Anyway --- bravo for this lady for having the chutzpah to do what she can. WE see her courage. No lawyer, good or bad ---- no judge ---good or bad --- can take her courage or her strength of character from her. That is her victory.

And no judge or court can bestow courage, or character or peace on those who perpertrated - covered up - continue to cover up - the horrible crime of 9/11.

Yes - I know the above is preachy. So what? I can't wait around for man's justice. I haven't got the patience or the alloted life span.

ZM

Don't Forget The Following Anomalies....

The aircraft that flew towards the Pentagon flew north of the Citgo gas station according to Pentagon police who were at the Citgo gas station. This confirms NTSB flight path data that also shows Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon from the north.

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

The Evidence Will Set You Free

The Pentagon strike was to destroy the Office of the Accountants who were looking for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld told Congress on September 10, 2001 was missing. The only way to ensure the accountants office was destroyed was to use a precision weapon: Cruise missile. A 757 is not a precision weapon.

Since Flight 77 flew from the north of the Citgo gas station, and the Pentagon videos show a pointy-nosed object (not the nosecone for a Boeing 757) heading for the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station, what does that tell us about what flew into the Pentagon and what didn't? 9/11 Truth is about the EVIDENVE. Well, the evidence is clear here: decoy on one side of the Citgo gas station, while a small, pointy-nosed object flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station.

Fast forward to 25 seconds in the following YouTube video for the object heading for the Pentagon. Note the shape of the nosecone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related

Now note the shape of the nosecone of a Boeing 757 in the following link:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/boeing757.jpg

See the difference?

Now take a look at the following link and see what the object in the YouTube video perfectly matches?

http://exodus2006.com/missile2.htm

If a real 757 had flown into the Pentagon from the south, it would be massive in size in the first Pentagon videos released. Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser.

When you look at the damage done to the steel buildings by Flights 11 and 175, then you look at the initial damage done to a concrete building by Flight 77, that is all one needs to know that a 757 did not impact the Pentagon.

The Pentagon police officers (Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks) who affirm that Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo gas station have called some of those 'eyewitnesses' liars who claim to have seen Flight 77 impact the Pentagon.

In the following link note the true dimensions of a 757 approaching the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

John Doraemi, Were you banned from truthaction...

... for repeatedly calling the Pilots for 9/11 truth "liars"? Did you imply they "faked" their data?

"(he was banned from truthaction for his tirades regarding "faked" NTSB data)."

Mistake

Great courage, April. The VA made a huge mistake denying medical benefits and financial support. Let's hop this gets an airing in court.

I just would...

..........would like to know. What plane was 50 -30- 10 miles out ?

This reads like high school creative writing

Below you will find what I think is the most problematic paragraph in the complaint. But maybe not for the reason you would assume.

Whether or not it's based on sound evidence, parts of the complaint appear to have been written by someone without a great deal of education or writing experience. I look at the paragraph below and I see a amateur rush job and not the very careful wording one would expect in a serious legal document.

I'm actually quite certain that some of those here supporting the flyover theory might very well be able to do a better job than what we see below. In other words, just for the moment, I'm not complaining about the content, I'm complaining that it does not appear professional enough to be taken seriously.

III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

33. 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.

I liked William Veale's speech

in "Improbable Collapse" a lot. And now he's pulling a Stanley Hilton. Sad.

Credibility

What if April Gallop just wants to get paid. Not very nice thing to say is it? What if she sued Saudi Arabia for supporting evil muslim terrorists that attacked us on 9/11(not to mention they have lots of money)and when that doesn't work, turns around and sues the U.S. Government.?

Well, that's what happened.
August 15 2002

"APRIL GALLOP, INJURED IN PENTAGON ATTACK: As proud as I was to receive the purple heart, I will be even prouder when we bankrupt the sponsors of terrorism and bring them to justice."

"DODDS FRANK: Ron Motley, a plaintiff's lawyer who has made billions of dollars suing the tobacco and asbestos industries, is leading the case."

"His main target: the wealthy elite of Saudi Arabia, birthplace of 15 of the 19 hijackers and, the lawsuit charges, the main source of funds for Osama bin Laden."

"Among the nearly 100 defendants, three Saudi princes, including the current defense minister. The Saudi bin Laden Group, eight Islamic banks and nine Islamic charities."

"RON MOTLEY, PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: We fully expect the Saudi nationals and the Gulf state banks to fight. But if they fight, they must fight here."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/15/mlld.00.html

So, did she think Saudi Arabia planted bombs in the Pentagon, or shot a missile? I doubt it. Would probably be willing to settle though, for a price.

This is about money. Not the truth.

Woooooooooah...

Wait a minute now... take note of the date on that transcript. It aired on August 15, 2002 - 18:00 ET. At that time, a lot of lawsuits were taking place against the Saudis. The families that rejected the "9/11 bribe," started lawsuits. From what I remember, they didn't do it for the money. They did it to "bankrupt terrorism." They REALLY wanted to "bankrupt terrorism." Back then, if someone knew that Saudi Arabia was alleged to be involved, it would have been a miracle. I think all that was "revealed" at that point as far as the mainstream media was concerned was Bush and Cheney asking Daschle not to investigate the attacks. The August 6th, PDB. The Put Options. Saudi Arabia's possible involvement. Maybe a few other things. Back when I acknowledged the terms LIHOP and MIHOP, I used to say that at first, I was LIHOP. Then I became MIHOP. This is a process for everyone. I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Especially since she was very active in speaking out.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I'm glad you made that observation Jon...

... this woman deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt here. Now that this guy has made the claim that this is "about money, not the truth" I have a much clearer impression of what he is doing here.

Point taken Jon

My response was a knee jerk reaction to one lawsuit against Saudis with deep pockets and another later seemingly against the opposite side.

Frankly I don't care for any of these lawyers.
But point taken.

I don't like the...

"9/11 Lawyers" either. Stanley Hilton, Phil Berg, etc... Stanley Hilton at one time said that he had "documentation" that showed Bush signed off on 9/11. Still haven't seen that. Both Ellen Mariani, and Willie Rodriguez will tell you the quality of work Phil Berg did.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

misinformation

Someone said:

"Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser."

Just like pieces of 767s were sticking out of the hole in the World Trade Center? This is nonsense.

"When you look at the damage done to the steel buildings by Flights 11 and 175, then you look at the initial damage done to a concrete building by Flight 77, that is all one needs to know that a 757 did not impact the Pentagon."

The Pentagon was "hardened" to be "blast resistant" on that side. Kevlar and reinforced steel and concrete were added to the exterior walls.

We do not know what a commercial airliner ramming through that would look like.

We do know that aluminum is easily shredded and pulverized in high velocity crashes.

The fact is that the lawsuit should have stuck to the facts and not gone off on flights of fancy. That is the surest way to get tossed out of court as "frivolous."

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. That's the way it is.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I'm Exasperated With Some Of The Replies To My Comments!

I said, "If a real 757 had flown into the Pentagon from the south, it would be massive in size in the first Pentagon videos released. Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser."

In the Pentagon CCTV pictures alluded to, the object heading towards the Pentagon is, of course, still in the air when it is obstructed from view behind the car ticket dispenser! It hasn't crashed into the Pentagon yet!

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

so far, no actual evidence of "no 757" at the Pentagon

see below for links debunking the claims by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. It's true there's videos, photos, witnesses and documents being sat on- but why? It could be just to fuel speculation about something that's a non-issue. No actual evidence that it was 77 has been produced either, but tampering with or planting black boxes could be from a desire to conceal something else about the operation- not necessarily that 77 or a 757 didn't hit.

So much other evidence of responsibility, criminal negligence, obstruction, treason, willful inaction despite advisors and agency heads urging action, etc.
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

a number of commenters here have made good points some of the language and context things are presented. Why not present a more solid case for discovery investigation? April Gallop has the right to have her day in court, but her personal witness to an apparent absence of evidence of a 757 crash is not proof a jury's gonna convict on- especially not with all the evidence that one did.

Justice for 9/11
http://justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php

More helpful links:

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

Frustrating Fraud on Pilots for 9/11 Truth

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search?q=pilots+for+9%2F11+truth

Frustrating Fraud on Citizen Investigation Team
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search?q=citizen+investigation+team

Is the 9/11 ‘Pentagon Hole’ a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/is-the-911-“pentagon-hole”-a-psyop-to-distract-from-real-questions/

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

The Evidence Is Conclusive!

loose nuke says, "so far, no actual evidence of "no 757" at the Pentagon".

Who said "no 757" at the Pentagon?

The NTSB animation of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon from the north of the Citgo gas station comes from the NTSB, not Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

The Pentagon police officers (Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks) both affirm and both draw the northern flight path of Flight 77 heading towards the Pentagon. The PentaCon's CIT team simply record what the Pentagon police officers say and draw. The CIT team aren't reporting hear say testimony from Lagasse and Brooks.

The Pentagon's video of the object heading towards the Pentagon is clearly not a 757, and matches perfectly the nosecone of an AGM-68 Cruise missile.

The evidence (photographic, eyewitnesses, downed light poles) all affirm that two airborne objects approached the Pentagon; the decoy from the north side of the Citgo gas station, and another object from the south side of the Citgo gas station that did crash into the Pentagon.

In the link below, note the true dimensions of a 757 about to impact the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

That conviction was of a "terrorist"...

... specifically the "20th hijacker"...

now I know that you and arabesque just love to use the FBI's "evidence" for some reason; me, I don't really trust those guys too much.

So I went to one of the other links you proudly put up... the "frustrating fraud" one... and I started reading...

this is the first line of one of your links...

"For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid,..."

"based on math and stupid..." Wow... that is the guy you are offering up here as supporting documentation? You got the FBI on one hand, and this guy?

Who Is Providing Misinformation? The One Who Misinterprets Me?

johndoraemi says, ""The Pentagon was "hardened" to be "blast resistant" on that side. Kevlar and reinforced steel and concrete were added to the exterior walls.

We do not know what a commercial airliner ramming through that would look like.”

Blast resistant is not the same as impact resistant by a 757! The Pentagon’s walls were designed to withstand bomb blasts that took place outside the Pentagon (like that of the Murrah Building blast in Oklahoma City in 1995), not withstand the impact of a 757 traveling at 530 mph!

johndoraemi says, “We do know that aluminum is easily shredded and pulverized in high velocity crashes."

Flights 11 and 175 left nice cookie cut-out imprints on the towers, no such imprints in the Pentagon’s wall.

The Pentagon was hit by an AGM-68 Cruise missile as clearly seen in the following YouTube Video of the Pentagon video. Fast forward to 25 seconds for the thin and narrow nosecone heading for the Pentagon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related

Now compare that nosecone with the nosecone of a 757 in the following link:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/boeing757.jpg

Now take a look at what an AGM-68 Cruise missile looks like in the following link:

http://exodus2006.com/missile2.htm

I rest my case.

In the following link note the true dimensions of a 757 approaching the Pentagon:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

What hapened at the Pentagon?

Has anyone seen anything on light pole A/C wing impact damage assessment possibilities? A forensic examination of the poles would show material from the wing, or not. Explosions? Where are the light poles hidden away? Another lie to be exposed?

Pentagon could be a 'poison pill''

BLOGicOn 9/11 I think events were suppposed to take place at only two locations- New York and The Pentagon. In effect those two events turned into four events. I believe that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7 to complete the 'shock-and-awe' effect that was choreographed on television for the American and World peoples... As it happened flight 93 was unexpectedly held up on the runway for an hour making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. So they had to (supposedly) crash in in Pennsylvania. Then they had to cobble togther a plan to demolish WTC7 and to make it look like a natural collapse. So the two event locations turned into four event locations- the Twin Towers as one, WTC7 as two, the Pentagon as three and last but not least Pennsylvania was the fourth.

So two of these vents were connected forced errors- WTC7 and Pennsylvania.

But the Pentagon was not a forced error. It had been planned down to the last detail. It was INTENDED that it should look suspicious to get some conspiracy theories going. Even now the Pentagon could be a 'poison pill' because anything that comes out of there may have been planned in advance.

raw update

RawStory talks to 2 attoryneys (victim's rights and copyright) about the merits and potential of this case

Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, Cheney
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_minds_respond_to_landmark_911_1218.html

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Marcus might be right

that the judge will apply a high standard of proof to a motion to dismiss, but the standard is supposed to be low. This order denying a motion to dismiss a Bivens action sets out the standard:

"In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court 'must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'"

http://www.denverthree.org/pdf/qualified_immunity_denial.pdf

The order also defines a Bivens action and discusses qualified immunity, the usual defense which will likely be asserted in this case. Notice that the order limits the plaintiffs to discovery on the question of whether qualified immunity should apply.

Here is the order granting Libby's motion to dismiss Plame's Bivens action, which on page 9 talks more about the standard for motions to dismiss:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

The question might be whether the judge is willing to accept that the facts in the complaint, taken as true, support the inference drawn by the plaintiff: that the defendants conspired to facilitate and enable the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Unfortunately, there are many legal doctrines that would allow a judge to dismiss this case without addressing the merits. I'm not trying to be negative or discouraging, and I don't know much about suing federal officials (except that it is hard). Regardless, it's a good fight, even if they don't win in the end.

Recommended reading: Legal

Recommended reading:

Legal Subterfuge

If websites can be created to sabotage 9/11 truth exposure by inserting discrediting memes, couldn't a similar tactic be used in litigation? There have been accusations that lawsuits on behalf of 9/11 victims are designed to obstruct rather than elicit justice. One can imagine that a lawsuit could be designed to fail, and thereby discourage and foreclose subsequent legal action on behalf of the victims. However, it could be difficult to distinguish between intentional sabotage and mere incompetence in an unsuccessful lawsuit.

Here we examine three lawsuits filed behalf of victims which have serious flaws -- flaws that could do more to damage the cause of 9/11 Truth exposure than help it.
http://911review.com/disinfo/lawsuits.html

The passage of time precludes any lawsuit.

My personal opinion is that all the lawsuits, the one you cite and this latest one, presume as true many parts of a completely unproven official narrative. But this lawsuit seems better done than prior lawsuits, and points out serious contradictions in the official narrative. In any case, Victims won't be allowed to sue much longer, if it is not already too late.

I just saw her video interview, and listened to her...

... radio interview.

Some people here may not like certain things she says, but guys, she has been saying them from the start. I just watched her video interview and listened to a radio one, and I will tell you this; she believes what she is saying.

If all of that plane was stuffed into that building, on those two floors, she would have to have climbed through it and over it to get out of that hole it punched in the side of the Pentagon.

It's just a simple matter of mass, people. That material for that massive plane had to go somewhere if it wasn't on the lawn of the Pentagon. It had to go somewhere.

I watched the video of her talking about what happened. I watched her eyes, her body language, and I think she believes what she is saying. So I believe her. Aside from the physics, and the missing videos, and the Pilots and everything else, aside from all that, I believe her.

watch the video, judge for yourself. http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/april-gallop-in-her-own-words/

Pentagon Photographic/Video Evidence Is Conclusive

We do have hard evidence that whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon was not a 757 thanks to the Pentagon photographic evidence released thus far; the evidence says that an aircraft DID hit the Pentagon, just not a 757. The "no plane hit the Pentagon" mantra is a distraction. Of course an aircraft hit the Pentagon, though not a 757.

Now the Pentagon strike was to destroy the Office of the Accountants, who were looking for the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld told Congress on September 10, 2001 was missing. The only way to ensure the accountants office was destroyed was to use a precision weapon: Cruise missile. A 757 is not a precision weapon.

Since Flight 77 flew from the north of the Citgo gas station, and the Pentagon videos show a pointy-nosed object (not the nosecone for a Boeing 757) heading for the Pentagon supposedly south of the Citgo gas station, what does that tell us about what flew into the Pentagon and what didn't? 9/11 Truth is about the EVIDENVE. Well, the evidence is clear here: decoy on one side of the Citgo gas station, while a small, pointy-nosed object flew into the Pentagon south of the Citgo gas station......

Fast forward to 25 seconds in the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related

Notice the shape of the nosecone of the object about to enter the Pentagon?

Now take a look at the nosecone of a Boeing 757 in the link below and compare it to the object in the YouTube video:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/boeing757.jpg

They are grossly dissimilar, or in other words, they are not the same objects!

Now the specific type of Cruise missile (AGM-86) in the link below is the spiting image of the object seen in the YouTube video:

http://exodus2006.com/missile2.htm

If a real 757 had flown into the Pentagon from the south, it would be massive in size in the first Pentagon photo stills released. Recognizable portions of a 757 would have been seen protruding from behind the Pentagon car ticket dispenser. Note the corrected proportions of a 757 in the link below:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Also, does the aircraft in the five Pentagon CCTV stills in the link above look as though it's flying into the Pentagon at an angle, or does the aircraft look more like it's heading for the Pentagon more or less straight on?

The question I have is why do certain entities such as Arabesque refuse to let the evidence inform us what didn't hit the Pentagon?

Dean Jackson/webmaster DNotice.org
Washington, DC

April Gallop

BLOGic

I wnt to believe April Gallop just as we all do but consider this. She said she went out through the entry hole. The best information indicates that that hole was ten feet off the ground. Pretty high up unless you have people waiting on the other side to help you and your baby out. Also the whole facede collapsed inside 40 minutes of the initial event so she had to go through the hole inside that time. We all saw the fire outside. Was that fire really all gone inside the 40 minutes ? She said in both the interviews I have seen and heard that she 'saw' no jet fuel. She said in neither interview'lecture that she had not 'smelt' jet fuel. Yet I have hear that she has said that 'every time she passes an airport the smell of jet fuel gives her flashbacks. I just can't help feeling that omething doe not add up.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/p3426#lastPost 9/11 Forum
.

What is the Difference Between Arabesque and Popular Mechanics?

"What is the Difference Between Arabesque and Popular Mechanics?"

A better question is why garbage slander like this allowed on 911blogger?
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog