It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 Truther Rewrites April Gallop's Pentagon Case

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
It is best to visit this link to read it, because a lot of reference links are included, and it is more easily read imo than the own author's blog:

It is a pretty good read packed with information, and questions the somewhat sloppy and incomplete complaint filed by April Gallop's attorneys in her Pentagon case.

But I did have a question or two.

He states:


The Pentagon not only has “five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries” (link #9), but also has a Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (link #12) installed to protect the Pentagon from this kind of aerial attack. My brother served in the Navy (ours is a Navy family) on the USS Iwo Jima Helicopter Carrier in the late 1970’s and he recalls the Phalanx System being installed in his ship that was “just like the system protecting the Pentagon.” This is where Cheney’s ‘stand down order’ comes into play, because these systems are ‘automatic’ and became ‘live’ when the transponder was supposedly turned off at 8:56 AM; after the local airports were closed.


And then if you go visit around to some of his links, another article points out that given the two kinds of radar, primary and secondary, that shutting off the transponders effectively blinded the civil authorities while the military never lost radar contact with any of the planes.

And so it poses the obvious question of "If shutting off the transponders tripped the defense systems automatically, then why wasn't the plane that hit the pentagon shot down way before it hit by these defense batteries? Maybe because it wasn't a plane that hit?


But even in the case of a missile, they still had the systems to shoot that down too! Was the operator on these systems the one told to stand down by Cheney as testified by Minetta?

Also, are these systems capable of shooting down a plane as well as incoming missiles?

Questions that point to inside job, guilty, MIHOP, and LIHOP.




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Thanks for drawing attention to the material in your post. As far as I know, the following assertion is still a disputed one. I haven't read all the linked material but I looked at the link referencing this fact and found the following assertion, which in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish a fact.


Next problem: There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.


www.cassiopaea.org...

Do you have any authoritative source that can confirm this?




[edit on 28-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No I don't, and that's exactly why I brought it here and asked the questions I asked, to get more opinions. In fact, with all the pictures I have seen of the Pentagon, I can't recall ever seeing defense batteries like that setup on top or even close to it. For all I know they could be hidden somewhere. If anyone has any pictures of that, it would be great to see.

And yeah that's a massive letter he wrote. I think people over at letsroll are still trying to digest it all, as not even one person has replied. It's a heck of a lot to think about and track down. Some of links were a bit questionable, but not as much as the official story. That much I do know.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No I don't, and that's exactly why I brought it here and asked the questions I asked, to get more opinions. In fact, with all the pictures I have seen of the Pentagon, I can't recall ever seeing defense batteries like that setup on top or even close to it. For all I know they could be hidden somewhere. If anyone has any pictures of that, it would be great to see.

And yeah that's a massive letter he wrote. I think people over at letsroll are still trying to digest it all, as not even one person has replied. It's a heck of a lot to think about and track down. Some of links were a bit questionable, but not as much as the official story. That much I do know.


Equally questionable is this statement: ""If shutting off the transponders tripped the defense systems automatically, then why wasn't the plane that hit the pentagon shot down way before it hit by these defense batteries? Maybe because it wasn't a plane that hit? "

Turning off a plane's transponder doesn't automatically trigger ground to air missile systems. Whoever wrote this is making a lot of un-supported assumptions.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The question of SAM's at the Pentagon has come up many times. The last time I tried to come to a conclusion about that here's what I came up with:

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=ipsedixit


Here's what was going on a year after the attack:

english.people.com.cn...


As part of a nation-wide effort to step up security before the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon on Tuesday deployed anti-aircraft missiles around Washington D.C..

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered the move after upgrading a four-day air defense exercise beginning Tuesday to an active "Noble Eagle" deployment to protect the capital against potential attack from the air.

Surface-to-air missile launchers were deployed around Washington on Monday as part of the exercise, in which officials said no functional missiles had been originally planned. A mobile missile launcher was parked several hundred meters from the Pentagon on Tuesday.


This makes me wonder if in fact they have even yet installed anti-aircraft batteries at the Pentagon.


In some other reading I had done it was mentioned that a decision had been made to go with jet interceptors as air defense rather than emplaced batteries for tactical reasons and undoubtedly other reasons.

It's hard to find info in the public domain on this stuff. For some weird reason the Pentagon does not lay out it's defensive capabilities for everyone to view in detail. Imagine that.



[edit on 28-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Turning off a plane's transponder doesn't automatically trigger ground to air missile systems. Whoever wrote this is making a lot of un-supported assumptions.


He didn't say it quite like that, and that's not the way I meant it. By trigger I mean alarm on, set, turn on, and start dedicated radar tracking of incoming object(s). And Phalanx CIWS is not a missile system either.

en.wikipedia.org...


The basis of the system is a 20 mm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun autocannon linked to a radar system for acquiring and tracking targets. The gun fires at rate of 3,000/4,500 rounds per minute depending on the Block, or version of the system. It is mounted in a self-contained turret along with an automated fire control system. The system automatically searches, detects, tracks, engages and confirms kills using its computer-controlled radar system. Because it is self-contained, Phalanx is ideal for support ships which lack integrated targeting systems and generally have limited sensors. The entire unit has a mass between 5,500 and 6,100 kg (12,400 to 13,500 lb).


With that in mind it still poses the questions I asked. I am still not clear whether that system is capable for sure of taking out an aircraft, but common sense would suggest it could if it had to. Missiles and other ordinance are way faster, so it would seem an aircraft would be a piece of cake once close enough. And even if it can't, there was most likely some kind of defense against aircraft there. It has been touted as one of the most heavily defended areas in the world.

What the author states by drawing from his links is that the once a transponder is shut off it keys certain air defense systems to track and lock on, just in case. And those are military systems not dependent on civil authorities or systems. Notice in the article above that Phalanx "automatically searches, detects, tracks, engages and confirms kills using its computer-controlled radar system."

So to settle this question first we need to find out what systems were in place on 911. And that is probably classified.

edit to add: and I also want to reiterate that this element of his long letter is but one of many many things to discuss. I just wanted to start with this for now.

Also, to be clearer here I am saying that if the author's brother was correct, and the Pentagon was indeed defended by Phalanx at the time (and not by SAMs), that's why I am wondering if Phalanx is usable against aircraft.

[edit on Wed Jan 28th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
As far as I know there are two leading contenders in CT circles for how the damage at the Pentagon was done.

1. Preplanted explosives. This is the stated view of Craig Ranke and CIT.

2. A missile strike, possibly launched from a ship in the Gulf of Mexico and guided by the so-called "doomsday" plane flying in the area at the time. This is the stated view of Donald Rumsfeld and myself.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No I don't, and that's exactly why I brought it here and asked the questions I asked, to get more opinions. In fact, with all the pictures I have seen of the Pentagon, I can't recall ever seeing defense batteries like that setup on top or even close to it. For all I know they could be hidden somewhere. If anyone has any pictures of that, it would be great to see.

And yeah that's a massive letter he wrote. I think people over at letsroll are still trying to digest it all, as not even one person has replied. It's a heck of a lot to think about and track down. Some of links were a bit questionable, but not as much as the official story. That much I do know.


I started to look around for a pic and ya nothing I can find either.

Reason I looked was because I thought I had seen a picture of a battery truck set up near the pentagon but I believe that was after the fact as a precaution. But interestingly enough I can't locate that picture anywhere either.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well check this out:


April Gallop, an enlisted member and survivor who worked at the Pentagon and brought her infant child to work that day, told me that when she was assigned there she got a classified tour of the building introducing her to its defenses, and she was told it was the best defended and safest building in the world. To this day she cannot comprehend why those defenses would have failed on 9/11.

And finally, the Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted air space section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defenses from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial air space, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defenses for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings. Having grown up and lived in the area for most of my life, I saw such defensive responses many times, guiding planes away from the restricted area. Commercial pilots have also long complained about the difficult curving maneuvers necessary to land or take off at Washington National Airport (now Reagan) to avoid entering P-56-B, the three-mile inner restricted zone above the White House, Capitol and Pentagon.

These multiple layers of defense also inexplicably failed on 9/11 in the midst of a national crisis. Flight 77 was picked up by Langley entering the ADIZ according to the testimony of Mr. Mineta to the 9/11 Commission concerning a plane that was "50 miles out". That could only have been Flight 77, no others got that close, and the timing at 9:24-9:26 AM that he gives for the comment is also consistent with the timing of the impact. Neither was FAA/NORAD out of radar contact with the flight for more than a few minutes, since it was picked up by Indianapolis long before being seen by FAA ATC controllers in the DC area.


www.ratical.org...

You know what the sad part is? There is someone in the military here probably right now reading this, and connecting the dots, and would love nothing more than to tell us about what was at the Pentagon in the way of defenses, but simply can't. Classified. That's why no one can come up with pictures of these defenses in place, at least that I have seen.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Also, if the military knew that plane was 50 miles out when Cheney issued the stand down order, it should be rather obvious that the military was tracking the plane, and never lost radar sight of it. Otherwise, how could they know the plane was 50 miles out? The shutting off of the transponders simply blinded many civil authorities to what was about to happen.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Andrews Air Force base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defenses for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings.


At the time of 9/11, Andrews AFB was "combat-ready", not "scramble-ready". I don't know if the same was true for Anacostia.

John Judge really needs to get his facts straight.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
At the time of 9/11, Andrews AFB was "combat-ready", not "scramble-ready". I don't know if the same was true for Anacostia.


Combat-ready, scramble-ready. Does it really matter relative to this part? If it is shown anywhere that there was indeed a Phalanx system installed covering the Pentagon at the time of the attacks, that is one damning piece of evidence. Because in the case of either a plane or a missile, that system should have worked. The author's links further argue that the only way a missile would have gotten through in that case is if it were a friendly missile, because they claim identifiers (IFF) are on board most missiles of that caliber. It allows the CIWS to drop them from targeting because in the event of a scenario with incoming and outgoing missiles, Phalanx has to be able to distinguish between the two for targeting. An outgoing missile flying anywhere near would be taken out by Phalanx if it couldn't distinguish between the two.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The question of SAM's at the Pentagon has come up many times. The last time I tried to come to a conclusion about that here's what I came up with:


I'll just sit back and enjoy the responses on this one. As someone who has worked in the Pentagon, still has business in the building (not only the 5-sided one, but the Navy Annex as well) periodically, had a M-61 gatling gun (the same weapon that is in a CIWS (close-in-weapons-system), or Phalanx) on the left side of his aircraft and watched CIWS weapon mounts track and shoot targets on multiple occasions on multiple ships and was read into programs that planned to use CIWS as counter-mortar battery capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, reading the speculation and hilarious to-do's on this thread ought to be good fun!

And just for discussion, how many violations of P-56 airspace, per month, do you think happen? And how many SAMs are fired, per month, to take out these "violations" of P-56?

Answer this evening when I get home.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
As someone who has worked in the Pentagon, still has business in the building (not only the 5-sided one, but the Navy Annex as well) periodically, had a M-61 gatling gun (the same weapon that is in a CIWS (close-in-weapons-system), or Phalanx) on the left side of his aircraft and watched CIWS weapon mounts track and shoot targets on multiple occasions on multiple ships and was read into programs that planned to use CIWS as counter-mortar battery capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, reading the speculation and hilarious to-do's on this thread ought to be good fun!


Well I'm glad you're having fun.


That leaves me with a whole lot of nothing, thank you very much.
All I want to know is:

Was there CIWS/Phalanx covering the Pentagon on 911, and if so, why didn't it engage protecting the building? Was it because of some kind of IFF that it did not engage or was it because of Cheney's stand down order?

This isn't that hard.
But I understand if it's classified. Can anyone at least tell me if it's classified? *beats head against wall*


Answer this evening when I get home.


Great. I'll be waiting.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No I don't, and that's exactly why I brought it here and asked the questions I asked, to get more opinions. In fact, with all the pictures I have seen of the Pentagon, I can't recall ever seeing defense batteries like that setup on top or even close to it. For all I know they could be hidden somewhere. If anyone has any pictures of that, it would be great to see.

And yeah that's a massive letter he wrote. I think people over at letsroll are still trying to digest it all, as not even one person has replied. It's a heck of a lot to think about and track down. Some of links were a bit questionable, but not as much as the official story. That much I do know.


Equally questionable is this statement: ""If shutting off the transponders tripped the defense systems automatically, then why wasn't the plane that hit the pentagon shot down way before it hit by these defense batteries? Maybe because it wasn't a plane that hit? "

Turning off a plane's transponder doesn't automatically trigger ground to air missile systems. Whoever wrote this is making a lot of un-supported assumptions.


Your correct in this statement Turning off a plane's transponder doesn't automatically trigger ground to air missile systems. However, any military system will have a commander in charge to give the final command...ie. pull the trigger if the systems are NOT activated for auto tracking and firing. Otherwise, they are considered as on stand down status.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Andrews Air Force base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defenses for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings.


At the time of 9/11, Andrews AFB was "combat-ready", not "scramble-ready". I don't know if the same was true for Anacostia.

John Judge really needs to get his facts straight.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


Isn't this the same air base that changed its mission statement shortly after the attacks.

That being said AZ how can you possibly try to assert that Combat ready and Scramble ready is anything different than two different ways to say the same thing, especially on 9/11 and especially when you are supposed to be protecting the DC area.

There was plenty of time to get up or redirect military jets in time to stop f77 and without question f93.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Also, if the military knew that plane was 50 miles out when Cheney issued the stand down order, it should be rather obvious that the military was tracking the plane, and never lost radar sight of it. Otherwise, how could they know the plane was 50 miles out? The shutting off of the transponders simply blinded many civil authorities to what was about to happen.


yes...my thought exactally!

keep digging.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I was thinking the same thing, Pinch wants to sit there and tell you how much he knows about this wonderful weapon and all the programs he is privy to but yet he can't answer the OP simple question "Did the Pentagon have the M61 on 9/11?" You always bless us with your presence but never answer any of the questions that only a guy like you could answer.

Anyways TA I'd have to say IMO from what I have gathered the Pentagon has never had the Phalanx(M61) neither on 9/11 or to date. As far as the supposed missile batteries I have seen nothing to support this either. I may be wrong but I believe the defense of the Pentagon was/is supposed to be afforded by the surrounding air bases, along with multiple surrounding (non air) bases. Maybe Pinch can indulge us without to much of his classic smack talk.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Also, if the military knew that plane was 50 miles out when Cheney issued the stand down order, it should be rather obvious that the military was tracking the plane, and never lost radar sight of it. Otherwise, how could they know the plane was 50 miles out? The shutting off of the transponders simply blinded many civil authorities to what was about to happen.


yes...my thought exactally!

keep digging.



Another thing this statement confirms without question is that they were tracking this plane from as far out as who knows.. maybe from the time f77 turned off its transponder.

It was already well known that multiple hijacks were in progress and that one of the hijackers said we have "some planes". Its already been said by Dick Cheney himself that there was a direct open line put in place between him(SS, Military) and the FAA from very early on in the attacks off the top of my head I can't remember if it was the second hijack or first.

Bottom line the military was well aware of what was going on from very early on.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Anyways TA I'd have to say IMO from what I have gathered the Pentagon has never had the Phalanx(M61) neither on 9/11 or to date.


Well yeah, that's been a lot of our experience so far, but again, it's the very reason I re raise the question because:

1) Author states his brother referring to the Phalanx at the Pentagon

2) April got a classified tour and you see what she said above.


As far as the supposed missile batteries I have seen nothing to support this either.


Well yeah, same here. But as you can see, that really is not my concern, because of the point it would make in itself if we could just verify Phalanx at the Pentagon. So let's assume, just for the sakes of argument, and I suppose to get Pinch a few more jollies, that it WAS there. That kinda leaves us with at least these possibilities:

Chaney issued stand down to the Phalanx operator not to fire on the plane (or missile). Now I would hypothesize in that case it could have been to keep cover up for the missile. And in this scenario, because of IFF, Phalanx did not engage either the plane or the missile. Cause both were friendly.

As to whether Phalanx can be manually overridden to fire upon friendlies, I suppose Pinch will have some more fun withholding that too. But I would conclude that you probably can, because otherwise why would Cheney need to issue the stand down order? They clearly had the option to blast both the plane or the missile, or whichever it was, or both. And they had that option all the way until the last last second- literally.

And under that scenario, it would be clear that Cheney & company watched that plane (or missile or both), on radar come right in on them. Now we know that if Phalanx was indeed there under this scenario, and Phalanx could fire, once close in, on either a plane or missile or both automatically, then at the very least they LIHOP. But more likely, they MIHOP.

So that's kinda where I am going with this. Although surely this has already been argued before.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join