Support 911Blogger


Can we help April Gallop?

      I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com )  Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.

She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?

An article explaining the situation, and the reasons before the court requesting dismissal of the case without further hearing, is given here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24475 . Excerpts from this insightful article follow:

[quote] You will need to act fast, because the case has already been in the Circuit Court, in Connecticut, for three weeks today, and a ruling can come down soon. If you value your life, you will try to stop that ruling from being an affirmation of the dismissal. Once the dismissal happens, Gallop’s case, with its amazing insights into 9/11, will be legally barred from being adjudicated. It will be like Jim Garrison’s JFK case. “So near and yet so far.…”

The following is an outline of the legal basis on which the defendants (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and ten John Doe’s) asked for a dismissal. These six ‘reasons to dismiss,’ conjured up by the US Attorneys, are the ones that the judge accepted, that is, Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York. Note: the capital letters below do not indicate shouting – cases are always written this way.

If anything, the defendants must be hoping their ‘reasons’ will stay hush-hush. Please don’t let that happen! It is truly up to you now. Why waste time marching in 9/11 protests? Better to shout, shout, and shout about this case. If you let the Constitution slip away, do you think you will ever be able to get it back? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Reasons for Dismissal of Gallop v Cheney: I. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT CURE THEIR DEFICIENT COMPLAINT WITH AFFIDAVITS [Note: plaintiffs had recently tendered sworn statements – i.e., affidavits, from two men who have published a lot of evidence about the fakery of 9/11, namely theologian Ray Griffin and physics professor Steven Jones.] II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM III. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSPIRACY CLAIM IS INSUFFICIENT. IV. APRIL GALLOP’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AND BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF INTRAMILITARY IMMUNITY V. ALL OF APRIL GALLOP’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL VI. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS AND MAY BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON ALONE.

[Note: the two plaintiffs are April Gallop and her son Elisha. He was a baby, visiting the Pentagon, on 9/11]. Now for the defendant’s explanations as to why each of the above six reasons should legally hold. Judge Chin agreed with all of these. The original text is being paraphrased, except where quote marks are shown. The “Comments” are mine (MM): I. These affidavits only contain “conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support.” Comment: It is true, per common law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an affidavit should state facts not opinions. But both men, Griffin and Jones, reference their well-known books that contain much evidence. Expert opinion is, of course, an admissible form of evidence at trial.[/quote]

To state that Professor Griffin and I offer only "conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support" is incorrect and misleading, to say the least.  We provide ample evidentiary support in published papers including papers in established, peer-reviewed journals such as The Environmentalist.

______
After submitting the above blog, I received a relevant email from attorney William Veale. I would like to quote from it, as it provides insights and an important update:
"
The 2nd Circuit, including, in this instance, Bush 43’s first cousin once removed, John M. Walker, yesterday issued its ruling affirming Denny Chin’s Decision dismissing our case as implausible, frivolous, and the product of cynical delusion and fantasy. The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards, and on its own motion, issues an OSC for SANCTIONS in the amount of $15,000, for wasting everyone's time. Couldn't have been that much time since apparently no one read any of the documents we submitted.
And, of course, nanothermite in the rubble of Ground Zero and the precipitous evaporation of Building 7 at 5:20 that afternoon escape the Court’s attention as well."

I understand that Bill and colleagues have submitted an appeal of the fine and the decision issued by Judge Walker. I fully support this effort by Bill Veale and April Gallop.

I would urge them to adhere to those points which are fully supported by the evidence and peer-reviewed publications, including the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 and the discovery of unignited thermitic material in the WTC dust. In particular, I would urge them to avoid those areas for which hard evidence is NOT solid, such as the notion that a missile hit the Pentagon. Weak arguments can only hurt their case.

Rady Ananda adds a significant comment on April's case

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/bush-court-dismisses-911-suit-agai...

By Rady Ananda

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a military officer’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards.”

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The lawsuit, prepared by the Center for 9/11 Justice, accuses the defendants of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and which has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero. The plaintiff and her son were both injured in the attack on the Pentagon, multiple videos of which the government has refused to release to the public.

Ignoring crucial evidence like the total collapse of WTC7 though not hit by a plane on September 11, the whereabouts of and statements made by the Defendants on 9/11, and the presence of thermitic material in the rubble of the Twin Towers, the court ludicrously affirmed the lower court’s finding that the case was “not plausible” and “the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Additionally, the court filed an Order to Show Cause for Sanctions amounting to $15,000 for filing a “frivolous” suit, which the Center for 9/11 Justice plans to appeal.

Meanwhile, nearly 1,500 professional architects, engineers and scientists continue to assert the physical impossibility of all three World Trade Center buildings collapsing in near free fall as a result of burning jet fuel. Indeed, it is the government’s conspiracy version which is implausible, “fanciful, fantastic and delusional.”

The bravery of April Gallop in her attempt to expose the truth is as laudable as the obvious official corruption is contemptible. An unbiased judicial review of the events surrounding 9/11 will not be found in the United States. But refusal to do so only heightens global suspicion. The conspiracy and cover-up was so poorly executed that the vast majority of the planet’s population doubts the official version of events.

Background info on April Gallop’s case can be found here. Related documents are here. Also see this Alex Jones interview of April Gallop in 2008: Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

no we can't help April

no we can't help April Gallop. She claims that no plane hit the pentagon, and that means that her "lawsuit" is a publicity stunt. In my judgment you, Professor Jones, are uncritical and irresponsible with respect to 911 truth advocacy. You should stick to thermite research, and stop venturing out in support of "electric pulse" research, and advocacy of no plane advocates who advance untenable positions. If you don't adhere to evidence then it is clear that you are being irresponsible with this advocacy, and you are encouraging less engaged parties to listen to fringe positions as if they are just as credible as solid research. I can't believe some of the statements you have made when you venture away from your scientific research. You are effectively discrediting yourself and it's weird. I know you are smart enough to separate the chaff from the wheat.

Response by Dr. Jones

I stated clearly in my blog, and re-emphasize now:

"I would urge them [Bill Veale and April Gallop] to adhere to those points which are fully supported by the evidence and peer-reviewed publications, including the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 and the discovery of unignited thermitic material in the WTC dust. In particular, I would urge them to avoid those areas for which hard evidence is NOT solid, such as the notion that a missile hit the Pentagon. Weak arguments can only hurt their case."

Why did you not mention this in your derogatory response, Vulich, whoever you are?

PS -- I will continue to pursue alternative energy research, because it offers hope -- as I stated in a blog last year:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-09/byu-and-prof-steven-jones-revisite...

"With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is an area where I continue to have support. For example, see:http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 . ...
American dependence on foreign oil is causing great problems. "

The above link is with the American Physical Society, a well-known professional organization, and publishing there certainly does not diminish my credibility.

Where have you published, Vulich?

Yep, in regard to April

This is a huge problem. Reminds me of Phil Berg's case (pre-birther) when he mixed in a lot of conspiracy theory into a 9/11 suit that went no where. It's bad publicity for the truth getting out. It discredits us in legal forums, an area that is CRITICAL to getting justice. The fact that this call for action is coming from global research also make me feel sketchy. That sight continues to put up Jim Fetzer and Tarpley articles and materials.

As an example of some of the

As an example of some of the bizarre statements you have made Professor Jones I provide a section from a blog you wrote in 2007. This to me is conclusive evidence that you are not a rational evaluator of evidence, and this is so unfortunate since you appear to be the person whose credibility matters for the issue of the red/gray chips. The quote is below:

The "big crunch" is happening -- and it will surely get worse before too long. (I also warned about a probable pandemic and quarantine in that post). That is why I again urge you to prepare -- knowing what YOU know, I'm confident you will wish to take steps to prepare for what lies ahead. Here's what you can do right away (will you?) -- quoting from that blog from last year:

Quote/ You’re motivated, right? So here’s the short list. When you check these off, you might want to go to preparedness sites for more suggestions (see point 10).

1. Water, at LEAST 30 gallons per person in your home. Consider using plastic bottles commonly used for juices and soda, or 50-gallon containers. Baby-wipes for cleaning yourself off if showers are limited.

2. 3-month rotating food supply based on your normal, daily diet. One way to do this is to purchase a few extra items each week and gradually increase your supply until it is sufficient for three months. I’m seeking for “voluntary simplicity,” before it becomes involuntary…

3. Years’ supply of food: “For longer-term needs, and where permitted, build a supply of food that will last a long time and that you can use to stay alive, such as wheat, white rice, and beans. These items can last 30 years or more when properly packaged and stored in a cool, dry place.” http://www.providentliving.org/fhs/pdf/WE_FamilyResourcesGuide_Internati... I have sprouting seeds (lentils, alfalfa, etc.) that I will use to get FRESH veggies, even in winter. A rifle for hunting and fishing gear would be wise.

4. Warm clothing, including hats for all. And consider a wood-burning or kerosene stove. If the electricity goes out, your gas furnace won’t work either – the thermostat and fan use electricity. Large roll of plastic sheeting (at least 4 mil) and duct tape, rope.

5. A little money: greenbacks or silver. (I prefer silver rounds from a coin store. Which do you think will hold its value better over the long haul? Federal reserve notes/IOU’s or silver, gold?) Banks may close for awhile. Trading for what you need? Your neighbor has some antibiotic stored up (for some reason), and you have rope or silver coins to trade...

6. Get out of debt, especially credit-card debt if you possibly can. Interest rates are going up as the housing market and US dollar head down…

7. Needed medicines; talk to your doctor. Consider herbs and essential oils if that is your approach.

8. Books, tapes, things you enjoy. Have some humor around to brighten the day.

9. Solar lamps. I have a bunch of the ones you put out during the day, bring in at night. Flashlights and batteries. Candles and matches. . And a solar cooker for heating and cooking food and pasteurizing water. It can even be used as a “refrigerator” at night (see ProfJones.com).

10. There’s lots more we can do – see this list (with recommendations and links to help): http://www.joelskousen.com/Secure/recommended.html

No, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I’ll breathe easier when you all are prepared, soon. Clearly, 9/11 changed everything. And many of us think that 9/11 truth will change it again – eventually for the better! Another Renaissance. And not with just a few surviving wealthy ones either, after the clean-up.

Get prepared – you don’t want to miss out on where we can go, together. /End quote from my Aug 2007 blog

Best wishes,
Steven E. Jones

I stand by my statements made in 2007 regarding preparing...

and would point out that matters have become much worse since then, rather as predicted.

Speaking to all, as one who cares about people and recognizing the ongoing demolition of the economy -- to get your food and other storage, as I outlined in my 2007 blog and in several talks. Please, do it now, for your own sake and the sake of your family. I am pleased to hear of the MANY thousands evidently who are so preparing.

Show "Anybody who is preparing for" by Vulich

Good Advise

I remember you giving the same advise during the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference and I have echoed this warning with friends, family and co-workers ever since. " Be sure to have enough food and water to last for months" In my home town thousands have rallied for food and water to care and protect our citizens against future disasters that could cause shortages- I produced this YouTube report of one of many examples of citizens taking action and being prepared and responsible for futures calamities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqW2XqLa-I

I hope your encouraged by this video - Keep up the good work! and Thank you ProfJones

I enjoyed your video, Archie's Creek.

And so glad to hear of your successful efforts: "I remember you giving the same advise during the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference and I have echoed this warning with friends, family and co-workers ever since. " Be sure to have enough food and water to last for months" In my home town thousands have rallied for food and water to care and protect our citizens against future disasters that could cause shortages-"

Keep up the good work!
--Steven

PS -- some respond to the fact that buying food storage is a great investment at this time-- as food prices are going up, up, up...
But most save food and grow gardens for better reasons -- concerned for their families.

Working with evidence

I have been working away on the evidence regarding the Pentagon attack and have barely looked up to see what other people were doing with it.

I learn today for the first time that David Ray Griffin's work was included in April's case. I would say that doing so was a gigantic miss-step. From that moment the case was doomed.

It is astonishing the lawyer Veale was so careless in his research that he did not discover that any reference to the Pentagon not being hit by a plane was providing an open door for the defence. The finding of "frivolous" derives directly from it.

DRG is not a scientist and should not be called upon to evaluate scientific arguments. His expertise is with documentary evidence, and there he was deceived by the artful work of artful dodgers. The best way to view his work in the Pentagon case is as devil's advocate. He provides the arguments which the scientists must deal with.

I strongly agree that something must be done to help April, but I cannot think what it might be. I know little about the law. I do not know whether a lost case can be re-presented with frivolous material removed. If anything can be done it might be a good plan to find another lawyer who would be not be so prone to sweep up everything, good and bad, into the case.

Perhaps the paper being prepared by David Chandler and myself, refuting the work of CIT, might be useful. Perhaps its peer review should be expedited.

"I strongly agree that

"I strongly agree that something must be done to help April" @Frank: Why? I disagree with the notion that we 'ought' to help April Gallop. Quite the contrary, we ought to distance ourselves from her frivolous lawsuit and tell anybody who will listen that she is engaging in a publicity stunt that undermines the cause of getting truth and justice for the attacks of 911. Anybody who was there at the pentagon that day either knows that a plane hit the building or is being intellectually dishonest. So no, we definitely should not support this bogus lawsuit, and focus instead on making the best case using real quality evidence that a new investigation into the CRIMES of 911 is needed. We don't need to go around 'proving' that 911 has 'plane fakery written all over it'.

How Enbarrassing

Vulich said..."I disagree with the notion that we 'ought' to help April Gallop. Quite the contrary, we ought to distance ourselves from her frivolous lawsuit and tell anybody who will listen that she is engaging in a publicity stunt that undermines the cause of getting truth and justice for the attacks of 911."

Not only do I agree, but this seems obvious to me. As far as "helping" that looks like a job for super hero crime fighters "Pilots for no Plane at the pentagon" and "Circus In Town" aka CIT. This is based on the recent ruling which states.....

"After a de novo review, we have no hesitation in concluding that the District Court correctly determined that the few conceivably “well-pleaded” facts in Gallop’s complaint are frivolous. While, as a general matter, Gallop or any other plaintiff certainly may allege that the most senior members of the United States government conspired to commit acts of terrorism against the Untied States, the courts have no obligation to entertain pure speculation and conjecture. Indeed, in attempting to marshal a series of unsubstantiated and inconsistent allegations in order to explain why American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, the complaint utterly fails to set forth a consistent, much less plausible, theory for what actually happened that morning in Arlington, Virginia. See, e.g., Complaint & 3 (alleging that defendants may have caused “high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon”); & 21 (alleging that defendants “may have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or . . . may have used Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies”); id. (alleging that “four planes” were in fact hijacked on the morning of September 11); & 33 (alleging that “ if Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the [Pentagon], to create the
false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed somewhere else”); & 40(d)(3) (alleging that apart from Flight 77 “a different, additional, flying object . . . hit the Pentagon”); & 43 (alleging that 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”).

"Furthermore and notwithstanding the unsupported assumptions regarding the fate of American Airlines Flight 77, the complaint also fails to plausibly allege the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants. For example, Gallop offers not a single fact to corroborate her allegation of a “meeting of the minds” among the conspirators. Complaint & 55. It is well settled that claims of conspiracy “containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand motion to dismiss.”
We therefore agree with the District Court that Gallop’s allegations of conspiracy are baseless and spun entirely of “cynical delusion and fantasy.” The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice."

"Although, like the District Court, we do not reach the question of whether judicial estoppel bars Gallop’s complaint, we note that the complaint is facially irreconcilable with factual allegations made by Gallop in other actions. See Gallop v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 1016, Order of Final Judgment at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2007) (dismissing with prejudice Gallop’s complaint against various defendants alleging that American Airlines Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001);"
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fba96003-e46d-46f1-9cf3-...

Let "Pilots for no plane at the pentagon" And CIT help. They're the ones selling DVDs promoting this garbage with April's help.

"As in United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1982), this appeal was an unnecessary imposition “on the government which is forced to defend against the appeal and on the taxpayers who must pay for that defense.” Id. at 382. Accordingly, Gallop and her counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from the date of entry of this order why they should not pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they would be jointly and severally liable, under Rule 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court."
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fba96003-e46d-46f1-9cf3-...

what is frivolous about a lawsuit exposing false flag and cover-

It is hard for me to make sense of the negativity to trash someone fighting for justice, who is exposing a cover-up, standing up to the power system that wants everyone to fall in line with the official version.. because a total belief that you know what hit the Pentagon although no photos of the strike has been released, but confiscated, and one who has been harmed and with a false flag operation killing co-workers, jeopardizing one's family.. The arrogance to put down this heroine at this site is quite bizarre, and shows the split of the 9/11 truth movement by those who stand arrogantly ignorant and obsessive with a theory when nothing really has been proven yet regarding the Pentagon, except for all the evidence showing fraud, treason, and a cover-up.. Who side are you one? Thank you Professor Jones for your research and compassion to want to support April Gallup. I guess some here are pleased that Bush's cousin will rule on her case and likely throw it out of court.

Facts and theories

jonathan mark said.... "The arrogance to put down this heroine at this site is quite bizarre, and shows the split of the 9/11 truth movement by those who stand arrogantly ignorant and obsessive with a theory when nothing really has been proven yet regarding the Pentagon"

It's not my "theory" that a plane hit the pentagon. It's what every person who saw what hit said. This is a fact. These are facts- lots of people saw what hit the pentagon-that is a fact-no one who witnessed what hit the pentagon said anything hit the pentagon except for a plane-this is a fact-planes flew into the WTC-this is a fact-none of this is -"my theory"-this is a fact-plane parts were recovered at the scene-this is a fact-Dylan Avery, Russell Pickering and a couple of loons went to Arlington to talk with people who were there and saw what happened-that is a fact--every person they talked to who saw what happened said a plane hit the pentagon-this is a fact-it's a fact that every person they talked to said it was a passenger jet-this is not "my theory" it is a fact. It is a fact that clean up crews went in and cleaned up the mess inside and reported on what they saw. The physical evidence confirms the witness reports-these are facts. Yes, it's a proven fact that planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and the fact that some conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that fact and then claim I promote my "ignorant and obsessive theory" shows how out of touch with reality you are, and destroys credibility for a so called "9-11 truth movement" it's been a decade now and to refuse to accept these facts is embarrassing. On 9-11 planes flew into buildings.

No photos?

You must be joking. I have truly had it with you people. How dare you.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-16/david-chandler-talks-about-his-new...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-16/david-chandler-talks-about-his-new...

... And this is only a fraction of what's out there. Have a stroll through my photobucket account:

http://s941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/snow__crash/

I have hundreds if not thousands of Pentagon attack photographs. You will see plenty of them this year, I promise you.

New Theory!

What jonathan mark said was ...."no photos of the strike has been released, but confiscated"

So his response would most likely be "those are not photos of the strike but the after effects".

This would be a photo just before the strike, perhaps this is evidence that 9-11 happened on 9-12 and a missile hit the pentagon......

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentagon_still...

A missile striking the pentagon on 9-12 is certainly fatal to the official story so why not support this theory?

The reason I don't support it is because I consider it to be batsh*t crazy, but perhaps I am simply caught up in my "arrogant and ignorant plane strike theory" or maybe I'm an undercover secret agent,. the possibilities are endless. This would be a good time to say what we need is a new investigation to find out what really hit the pentagon on 9-11....or was it 9-12? Perhaps we need a new investigation to find out if 9-11 happened on 9-11 or 9-12?

I guess

all of this would be much easier and we would have 'unity' if we said no plane hit the Pentagon. It would be a lie, but we would be embraced and 'accepted' by reams of people who know absolutely nothing about the Pentagon attack.

After all, 9/11 is so unexciting with a plane crashing into the Pentagon and people having actual phone conversations instead of computerized simulations of their dead relatives. (So, where's that forensic audio analysis of Betty Ong and CeeCee Lyles? Surely voice morphing leaves recognizable traces in the audio, why has nobody conducted this analysis?)

I really, really, really apologize for not LYING about the Pentagon. In fact, I'm going to have to apologize a lot more this year. So I'd like to really, really apologize in anticipation of not LYING about the Pentagon in 2011, too. And after.

In the mean time, here's my latest Pentagon pic:

pentagon,9/11

Somebody explain to me in great detail how the hell this angled tail section imprint was 'faked'. It crushed a blast proof window. After you've explained how the matching diagonally upwards tracing left wing imprint was 'faked' as well. Notice how 'clean' the lawn is, BTW? Everything those Pentagon documentaries told you is true.

Publicity stunt?

Vulich, I would be interested in you backing up your accusation with some facts. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that Gallop is not sincere and this is just a publicity stunt? Or did you just make that up?

I came to that conclusion

I came to that conclusion using the following reasoning: If a person is making a good faith effort to advance a lawsuit then one will make sure that the claims made by the claimant are solid and likely to win a hearing before a judge. April Gallop knows that her case will be thrown out in virtue of it's inclusion of factually unsupportable claims. Therefore April advances the lawsuit with the knowledge that it can't ever actually be heard before a judge in a court of law. So she doesn't actually intent for the case to win, she only seeks to gain attention. If the case was not a publicity stunt then it wouldn't be a trojan horse for no plane at the pentagon. The fact that those claims are made in the lawsuit implies that the suit is not credible, it is a publicity stunt and Steven Jones is playing the part of Don King.

Hmmm

These accusations are over the top.

It's not an accusation, it's

It's not an accusation, it's the product of reasoning using evidence. An accusation is not the same thing as a conclusion. How else do you explain a person's commitment to the no plane theory, especially someone who was there at the event and has the greatest possible motivation to learn the truth. If she was not willfully ignorant at a minimum then she wouldn't be exercised by the "no plane" claims associated with the attack that nearly took her life. I refuse to be cowed into submission by somebodie's personal experience, the sensitivity you call for is like a shield against legitimate criticism.

Oh really?

Haven't you noticed Don King's hair? What you did was an insult to Steven Jones' barber. I resent that.

Anyways:
Have you read this paper? Or this paper? Who is the journal in which these papers were published (facetiously) named after? Who are the editors-in-chief?

Steven Jones, Richard Gage and April Gallop, have earned our tact when criticized. I'm not going to just go nuts on any of these men/woman just because I may have some legitimate criticisms.

We can help April by advising her to refocus her efforts on why the Pentagon was hit and why it wasn't evacuated, while many people knew from 9:03 on that the Pentagon would be a possible target and in danger (Several people have attested to that). I find the excuses for those two issues to be severely lacking.

ETA:

To avoid confusion: I readily admit April's court case has done harm to this cause. But if you want to assign true blame, blame CIT.

I think her lawyer...

... in particular should have known better than to unhesitatingly include all these claims in the lawsuit. And yes, this has been pointed out to him.

Why? you ask.

Simply because the case gives publicity and an opportunity to repeat our truths, that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. I have no idea how to help, but you, someone who seems to know about the law, might be able to find a way to do something useful without supporting the stupid no plane theory. If you kept up to date with who is doing what you will find that neither I nor Prof Jones has ever supported in any way the notion that there was no plane at the Pentagon, nor will we ever do so. Attacking fellow workers is counter productive. Find something better to do.

You don't take seriously the

You don't take seriously the matter of discrediting associations apparently, but I do. You shouldn't tell me to make better use of my time, because in my opinion you are being weak in the face of an obvious threat to the credibility of our movement, and my time is well spent. Should I adopt your position, the position that criticism of Steven Jones is counterproductive by definition? No. On the contrary it is these leading figures who most need to be held accountable to public standards of evidence and strategy. If nobody pushes back on this issue that is tacit endorsement of the lawsuit and the claims contained therein. You should speak for yourself by the way. While it appears that you are not on record helping to advance the goals of the no plane movement, I'm not sure you can say the same of Steven Jones in light of his advocacy for April Gallop. Does April Gallop's identity somehow shield her from criticism? Snowcrash, I seem to remember you being dismissive of sympathetic statements that were made about Ted Olson. The principle seems to be that your 911 victim status makes you an automatic friend to the truth movement once you open your mouth with anything that can be contrived as a 911 truth position. Sorry folks but I'm right on this issue, and in the fullness of time I will be proven to be on the right side of history. I'm standing up for truth and accountability, not hero worship.

You are making this to personal Vulich

April Gallop is including bad information in her suit. The best way to help her is to get the good information and research to her. I agree with many and you Vulich that this is a set back which is bad for the truth. Just keep in mind though that, turning legitimate criticisms of info into accusations of dis-info and ill intent end up discrediting the legitimate criticisms. We must be respectful to all here. It makes our points stronger and keeps the discussion down to earth. It's ok to be critical of Professor Jones, but to accuse him of ill intentions without basis is wrong. There is certainly substance in the points you are raising, but you start to lose me when you get into saying things like "Sorry folks but I'm right on this issue, and in the fullness of time I will be proven to be on the right side of history." You have to back up your statements, especially some very accusatory ones you put up here.

Lest I be misunderstood

I hasten to add that DRG has done a tremendous amount of good work for 9/11 Truth. HIs book on WTC7 is excellent. It is just his support for no plane at the Pentagon that causes a problem. I don't blame him for the views he holds on the Pentagon - a lot of intelligent people have been deceived by CIT. The CIT website and videos are persuasive, but present a false theory.

I stated clearly in my blog, and re-emphasize now:

I stated clearly in my blog, and re-emphasize now:

"I would urge them [Bill Veale and April Gallop] to adhere to those points which are fully supported by the evidence and peer-reviewed publications, including the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 and the discovery of unignited thermitic material in the WTC dust. In particular, I would urge them to avoid those areas for which hard evidence is NOT solid, such as the notion that a missile hit the Pentagon. Weak arguments can only hurt their case."

Why did you not mention this in your derogatory response, Vulich, whoever you are?

I didn't mention that because

I didn't mention that because it would be like saying "I strongly disagree with major elements of Paul Ryan's budget but I encourage it's passage because I agree that we have to address the debt". Just because I want people to succeed in getting truth and justice for 911 does not mean that I want to get there by any means possible, including offering support to people who are cashing in on a misguided conspiracy theory about the pentagon. It is not as if there are no other ways to get to our goal, so I don't see how it is constructive to rally support for a misguided lawsuit while paying lip service only to the necessity to stay close to provable facts. Isn't it obvious that if you were serious about avoiding weak arguments you would avoid the case altogether, as it explicitly makes use of what are "weak arguments" even according to your standard. You are in the position of saying support person X, and avoid speculative points, but you know that person X is a proponent of those speculative points and claims. If you would prevail on April to change the basis of her lawsuit that would be one thing, but you shouldn't offer public support until and unless that is done. With a wide world of credible research and legitimate inquiry it is telling that you focus on such a bizarre and factually baseless lawsuit. It's as if you don't care about credibility. But that's ok, because we don't need your findings anyway, we just need basic principles of physics and common sense, Your dust thing might end up being a distraction the way you have presented yourself and your personal views in public.

Imagination required

Vulich and jimd, you are both intelligent people. How about applying your imagination to the search for a way to help April's case in such a way that we clearly are not supporting her absurd no plane theory. That would seem much more productive than attacking Prof Jones.

Just think about the situation a bit. She was subjected to a frightening attack, her baby was injured, she had to find her way out of the Pentagon in the dark through smoke. She didn't happen to see anything that made it clear to her that a plane had hit the Pentagon. Her lawyer is impressed by the work of CIT and thinks it will be clever to make a case for her which includes no plane. This does not seem to be April's fault.

Have you no sympathy for her as a victim, not only of an attack but also a confusing situation created by a lawyer who is either too stupid for the task or working for the perpetrators.

Let us try to find a way to work together on this and put the continuing bickering about the Pentagon behind us.

It would be interesting to know who voted the valuable work of SnowCrash down. Would anyone like to own up?

I wish to underline Frank's point about April

being "subjected to a frightening attack, her baby was injured, she had to find her way out of the Pentagon in the dark through smoke. She didn't happen to see anything that made it clear to her that a plane had hit the Pentagon. " April mentioned those points when I heard her speak in Irvine.

I also agree with Dr. Legge's earlier post, "If you kept up to date with who is doing what you will find that neither I nor Prof Jones has ever supported in any way the notion that there was no plane at the Pentagon, nor will we ever do so. Attacking fellow workers is counter productive. Find something better to do. "

I ask you, Mr. Richard Vulich,

why you say this:

"You should stick to thermite research, and stop venturing out in support of "electric pulse" research"

I have empirical evidence using state of the art equipment that there is something of interest in this electrical-power research -- so just why should I "stop venturing out in support of "electric pulse" research"'? I await your answer.

Ok, perhaps that was a bit

Ok, perhaps that was a bit overstated. I of course support research into alternative sources of energy, but not because I believe that a secret society is running planet earth and hellbent on it's destruction, but for the simple reason that we need clean energy solutions to confront the challenges of the 21st century. In that case our disagreement is about style rather than substance. I recall, however, that you said something about the dangers posed by an "electrical pulse" that can take out electronic communications capacities. The implication contained in that comment was that some government agency would deploy technology like this against its own citizens to advance the interests of global elites. I think this kind of statement is counterproductive. Not everybody agrees that the crimes of 911 are traceable to the actions of global elites, an alternative and more reserved approach is that we don't know all of the facts about the perpetrators or their motives For my money I think the problem has to do specifically with members of the Bush administration and their enablers. but that group is not identifiable with the US government for all time. In any case, yes I support this kind of research, but you need to stop taking for granted that everybody who hears you drop a reference to the NWO etc is happy to hear those words come out of your mouth. You are counted on to be objective, leave the speculation to others, because leaders should not put their thumb on the scale in the way you have. I have honest disagreements with you about your choice of advocacy in the case of April Gallop and my message is a reaction to what I see as degrading standards of activism in the movement I value.

First, let's distinguish between "electric pulse" energy researc

First, let's distinguish between "electric pulse" energy research, which is an alternative energy approach, and EMP warfare -- which is intended to destroy a society by knocking out its electronics and causing subsequent deaths largely by starvation -- of perhaps half the population.

EMP bombs exist in various hands and their use seems extremely likely to me as a scientist with an interest in history.

You wrote:
"
I recall, however, that you said something about the dangers posed by an "electrical pulse" that can take out electronic communications capacities. The implication contained in that comment was that some government agency would deploy technology like this against its own citizens to advance the interests of global elites. I think this kind of statement is counterproductive. "

No -- a nuclear bomb detonated 300 miles above the earth would do MUCH more than just " take out electronic communications capacities. " An EMP-bomb would destroy/stop all above-ground computers, meaning, all cars, trucks, banks, etc. No food coming into the cities -- that is the major consequence. Read about EMP warfare and you will see why I have urged people to get food storage and a refuge point out of major cities...

And I never said, "some government agency would deploy technology like this against its own citizens" -- more likely, EMP will be from a foreign source (IMO)... but the effects will be the same -- sending us back to 1850 unprepared, for the most part. Power grid destroyed; trucks not bringing food into the cities; water pumps dead -- so no piped-in water. What do you think will happen?

To suggest that EMP would merely "" take out electronic communications capacities. " as you did is to show that you have a little homework to do. When you do it, Richard, you may see WHY my suggestion to get food storage is not so nutty after all...

Suggested starting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
"According to an internet primer published by the Federation of American Scientists[30]

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth's magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. "

"In written testimony delivered to the United States Senate in 2005, an EMP Commission staff member reported:

The EMP Commission sponsored a worldwide survey of foreign scientific and military literature to evaluate the knowledge, and possibly the intentions, of foreign states with respect to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. The survey found that the physics of EMP phenomenon and the military potential of EMP attack are widely understood in the international community, as reflected in official and unofficial writings and statements. The survey of open sources over the past decade finds that knowledge about EMP and EMP attack is evidenced in at least Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, Sweden, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.
. . .
Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term "Super-EMP" weapons. "Super-EMP" weapons, according to these foreign open source writings, can destroy even the best protected U.S. military and civilian electronic systems.[19] "

This is true

and more likely than a conventional nuclear attack. I also invite you to see the positive sides of EMP (portable, hand-held, by private citizens) as a defensive technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_%28human%29

Tip: you can build one using the capacitor of the flash of a throwaway camera. However, inverse square law limits the range and effectiveness of such devices.

Yes,I am familiar with Joule Thief circuits, SnowCrash -- thanks

JT circuits are used in thowaway cameras, and I have studied these using my oscilloscope in my home lab (DSO with math function so I can look at power waveforms.)

1 -- are you acquainted with JT circuits and do you have access to a digital oscilloscope?
2 -- How do you make a defensive EMP device using such a circuit? sounds interesting...

Yes

I have blueprints. But they're stored locally. I will see if this project's still online somewhere and get back to you.

Many of the links are now dead

Here's a description:

http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/r/f/i/RFID-Zapper%28EN%29_77f3...

Found this video:

More later. If I can't find those blueprints I'll mail them to you.

Thanks, SnowCrash -- I watched

the video and found it fascinating. Yes, it should work. About 3 months ago, I got into the innards of a few disposable cameras, which have a blocking oscillator circuit. Very interesting study, and an application I have not thought of before.

The point of the video that some might miss is clear to me -- one can "fry" RFID chips very easily with such a homemade "EMP" device... good to know...

I confess, Frank,

I sometimes vote snow crash and jimd down when the tone of their comments is more like a food fight than legit criticism. Yours also. 911 Truth for Peace and Justice. Jon

OK foxii, but just take a little time

to work out who started the food fight. If Prof Jones had simply been criticised for supporting April and sound reasons given, there would have been no problem and logical discussion would have followed. Instead we found insults and abuse. I believe the level of abuse sufficient to have vulich banned. I don't recommend he be banned, however, as I know he is on the right side of the fight. I do recommend that he stop to consider how best to have a civil discussion.

I do not apologize. In this

I do not apologize. In this community civility is returned with ridicule so I guess it's time to fight fire with fire. Now that Bin Laden is dead our credibility gap with the general public is the biggest issue we face. Don't worry you'll thank me later. But till then YOU"RE WELCOME :)

By the way what you are

By the way what you are saying is false. My comments do not warrant being banned, I have not insulted anyone nor have I abused anyone. Please quote me if you are going to make an unfounded accusation. I just looked over what I wrote and it's really good, and though stern I never insulted anybody. I guess what passes for civility is just looking the other way. That's not my style and I'm really proud of that.

insulting?

I find the word lunatic insulting. I think you would too.

I find it strange that you are so aggressive in this discussion considering we are almost fully in agreement. We both assert that a plane hit the Pentagon. We both insist that mentioning the no plane theory would be devastating to April's case. We only differ in what to do next.

You seem to think turning your back is the best thing to do. I suggest persuading April that a plane did hit the Pentagon would be more appropriate. She is now well known and if she were to change her opinion it would be news. Good publicity.

How about a calm discussion of the merits of these two courses of action.

Voting down good comments cause you don't like the tone?

If a comment legitimate criticism, better to comment on the tone that upsets you in a response than just voting down. Frank, Snowcrash and Jim make some of the best points on this site!

Right.

A food fight.

Here, take some broccoli to the face. And thanks for the vote of confidence.

U got pentaconned-is not our fault

foxii said.."I sometimes vote snow crash and jimd down when the tone of their comments is more like a food fight than legit criticism."

LOL! Oh come on let's be honest. You got pentaconned by a couple of loons, and when people point that out you don't get mad at the people who conned you into believing preposterous BS you get mad at the people exposing the con, it's nothing new, it's typical and I couldn't care less.....

You took the time to be a registered member of CIT's loon forum and made this post.....

"Thanks for the great work. I used to fly interceptors, so I knew NORAD/NEAD was lying about intercepts, but thought the best smoking gun was the WTC demolition. Now with your work and the Pilots backing up with the impossible G loads of the "official" story flight, we have the second irrefutable false flag location established. There is no statute of limitations on Treason and Murder."
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=104

"pilots for no plane at the pentagon" and CIT have both been exposed as the frauds that they are, and evidently you don't like that--food fight huh? LOL!