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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Pinch is a veteran of the SAMs at the Pentagon discussions, so I don't really get too exercised about his 'tude. He has paid his dues on the subject in other threads.

In the OP's linked material there is also an assumption about the Phalanx system being installed there with no sourced corroberation of that either. One link indicated that this system was primarily to be found on naval ships.

Here is a question I posted to Wikipedias's weaponry project page:

link


Surface to Air batteries at the Pentagon?
I am involved in a forum discussion on the web concerning the 9/11 incident at the Pentagon. Some people contend that there are automated surface to air missile batteries at the Pentagon. I do not believe, from what I have been able to gather in regular news sources that there are SAMs at the Pentagon. Can anyone in this project provide an authoritative answer to the question of whether SAM batteries exist at the Pentagon, when/if they were installed, etc.? Thanks in advance. 99.232.67.58 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


No response either way so far. If anything comes in that is useful, I will post it.



[edit on 30-1-2009 by asala]




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
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.


Classic smack talk? LOL...that is indeed funny.

Up until Sept 12, 2001, the Pentagon never had any "surface to air" missiles on it, in it, near it, or anything-it. On Sept 12, mobile HUMVEE-mounted surface to air systems were deployed in the south and north parking lots.

Currently, I know of two locations where mobile surface to air missiles are stationed, one along the banks of the Anacostia and the other to the west of the Pentagon. I'm pretty sure there is probably one to the north just to round out the coverage.

The Pentagon has never ever had any "close in weapons system ("CIWS" or Phalanx), either.

The defenses for the building from any airborne attacks are in the location of the structure, not in any point-defense missile system.

If anyone wants to really hitch their wagon to April Gallop regarding these fantasies, go find her and demand she tell you *where* those SAM missiles were.

The only missiles that were ever set up in this area (DC) were the old Nike system from the 50's and 60's, and those missiles were in Maryland and other areas around northern Virginia - miles and miles away from the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
The Pentagon has never ever had any "close in weapons system ("CIWS" or Phalanx), either.


Ok, I'll be sure to drop the idea just because you say so, and disregard the author's brother.



The defenses for the building from any airborne attacks are in the location of the structure, not in any point-defense missile system.


Ok, so on 9/11 the Pentagon had no direct self defense against incoming enemy missiles of any kind? I suppose no enemy cruise missile or ballistic missile could hit the Pentagon, because hey, look where it is located! "We got your back," says all the defenses in the area.

So what happens in the event an enemy "suicide" ship manages to get close enough in the Atlantic somewhere to fire such a missile at the Pentagon? Or the White House, Navy Annex, or any number of other important buildings? You telling me they can't shoot it down? Or what if it came from an air-launched attack?

Because I will contend that wherever there is such a system in place covering P-56 to shoot down inbound missiles or planes, there would be no logical reason other than LIHOP or MIHOP that any missile or plane of any kind could actually get all the way to the Pentagon and hit it. Unless of course the quantity of those planes and missiles exceeded defense capability and a few got through.

But of course, that is not what happened on 911. We are talking about a single plane or missile or both that was allowed to reach all the way to the Pentagon while they tracked it on radar all the way in. Hardly enough to overcome considerable defenses, wherever the heck they are.

I'd really like to know for sure who it was on the receiving end of that stand down order, and what system that person was manning at the time. Has that ever been established? That person ever come forward? And why wouldn't the 911 commission ask about that after Minetta testified?
Because it really was the 911 Omission. That was no friggin investigation.



If anyone wants to really hitch their wagon to April Gallop regarding these fantasies, go find her and demand she tell you *where* those SAM missiles were.


She can't divulge that to anyone without a need to know and the proper security clearance. It clearly states that her defense tour was classified.


The only missiles that were ever set up in this area (DC) were the old Nike system from the 50's and 60's, and those missiles were in Maryland and other areas around northern Virginia - miles and miles away from the Pentagon.


I'm not really too concerned with SAM's. Not for the purpose of this discussion here. I am concerned with any CIWS that may have been in place to stop an enemy missile attack or even a plane, and could directly cover the Pentagon. Something that happens with very little time for humans to react, and something that clearly makes sense for it to be automated. Phalanx has that capability. No one seems to be contesting that.

But I am having a hard time believing that there was no final defense layer allowing a key military installation like the Pentagon to defend itself against incoming when all else fails. I just don't buy it. Surely there was, and is something in place somewhere.

And so they watched on radar as that plane or missile or both came right in on them, and just by God's will and luck happened to hit the one side of the building under reconstruction, and according to the author, killing nearly everyone in the Defense Intelligence office. No way Jose.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
There is a lot of conjecture here from people who have little to no background in military matters, that's irresponsible. And yes there is a monumental difference between "combat ready" and "scramble ready". On 9/11 the equipment and resources of NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) were extremely poor. It had just 4 scramble ready jets to protect the entire Eastern seaboard. This was all made abundantly clear in the 2006 Vanity Fair release of the NEADS tapes from that day. This was the command center most responsible over air assets in the Eastern United States that day, and to this day.


Radar is the neads controllers' most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, neads was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."
At this point in the morning, more than 3,000 jetliners are already in the air over the continental United States, and the Boston controller's direction—"35 miles north of Kennedy"—doesn't help the neads controllers at all.

Link




He tells the Battle Cab he wants Fox to launch two more fighters from Langley Air Force Base, in Virginia, to establish a greater presence over New York, but the request is refused. The order from the Battle Cab is to put the Langley jets on battle stations only—to be ready, but not to launch.

"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained.
Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced norad's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of norad's planes belong to neads and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.


This just wont die will it? You'd think if there were supper duper anti missile systems in Washington that day it would have come up in the discussion at NEADS.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This just wont die will it? You'd think if there were supper duper anti missile systems in Washington that day it would have come up in the discussion at NEADS.


Either you are avoiding my question, or you are not reading the thread, WP.


I am specifically trying to determine whether Phalanx was in place covering the Pentagon on 911. *Bangs . against wall again* The reason: author of article claims his brother, in the Navy, referred to there being such a system in place.

But the information may be classified. I can't even get an answer to the question of whether revealing that information in itself is classified.

Since you have such a background, maybe you could comment on that, without accusing us of being so ignorant. That would be nice.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Either you are avoiding my question, or you are not reading the thread, WP.


I read the thread and concluded it's nothing more than hearsay, or wishful thinking.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I am specifically trying to determine whether Phalanx was in place covering the Pentagon on 911.


You've heard the NEADS tapes, does anyone there mention Phalanx when they get word the Pentagon may be under threat? Also, I'm supposed to believe they placed a Phalanx system on top of the Pentagon and called it a day? A quick brief of the Phalanx will tell you why this is very very unlikely. And a history of US air defense will show that point SAM defenses for fixed installations began to go out of favor decades ago.


Originally posted by TrueAmericanSince you have such a background, maybe you could comment on that, without accusing us of being so ignorant.


I said irresponsible, didn't call anyone ignorant.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, I'm supposed to believe they placed a Phalanx system on top of the Pentagon and called it a day? A quick brief of the Phalanx will tell you why this is very very unlikely.


Who said it was on top of the building? I specifically commented that in all the pics I have seen of the Pentagon on 911, never once have I seen such a system. But that doesn't mean it wasn't hidden, or was somewhere else COVERING the Pentagon. That is really all that matters for the purposes of what I am specifically seeking. For the third time, I am not concerned about SAMs.

Now obviously from your tone, you are not sure either.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But that doesn't mean it wasn't hidden, or was somewhere else COVERING the Pentagon. That is really all that matters for the purposes of what I am specifically seeking.


It makes no sense to use the Phalanx, and it was never developed into a static ground system until rather recently. Not that it would have been impossible to do so, just that there is no evidence for it. The Phalanx is extremely short ranged, usually in automatic mode, developed for uncluttered open seas, requires direct line of sight and fires hundreds of rounds in a few busts. All these factors make it an extremely poor choice to use such a system in an urban area for airborne threats. And these factors essentially necessitate it would have to be in an elevated, close, and direct line of sight position to give maximum coverage for the radar and gun system. Unless they had multiple hidden systems all over the place. Still, no way would they use a Phalanx for that role, it's illogical beyond technical reasons.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Now obviously from your tone, you are not sure either.


I can't prove it, naturally, but it's so illogical to use a Phalanx I'm willing to dismiss it outright. I'm inclined to believe that if the stepbrother of the stepmother of the uncle who's cousin worked at the Pentagon was an Army man, he would have mentioned the Avenger. Being a Navy guy, he's more familiar with the Phalanx, and hence we get this illogical claim, IMO.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Being a Navy guy, he's more familiar with the Phalanx, and hence we get this illogical claim, IMO.


Well, he did say “just like the system protecting the Pentagon.”

So what are all the possible anti-airborne threat systems that could have been in place covering the Pentagon on 9/11, given your knowledge of weapons development time lines? We've discussed Phalanx, and you mentioned Avenger, so is there anything else that would qualify to you as "technologically logical"?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Now obviously from your tone, you are not sure either.


Don't want to steal WestPoint23's thunder, as it is quite obvious he can take care of himself, but I've been slow at addressing this issue.

How about I categorically state that I am *sure*, 100%, no if's, and's or but's about it, no maybe's, no perhap's, no "Its classified", no "If I told ya, I'd have to kill ya" about it - there has never been, never was, never ever a CIWS installed or mounted or planned for use at the Pentagon. Clear enough? I worked in the building (a lot longer and at a higher position than Ms Gallop), spent 3 years in a Navy Reserve missile-defense unit, have seen CIWS and self-defense missiles fired from carriers and cruisers and have towed targets that were shot at by CIWS mounts.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ok, I'll be sure to drop the idea just because you say so, and disregard the author's brother.


Whatever. You can believe me, you can believe the author's brother, you can believe the author's third cousin twice removed for all I care. God gave us all free will, so you can believe in the tooth fairy, if you like, but if the tooth fairy tells you there were surface-to-air missiles or a CWIS at the Pentagon on 9/11 that didn't fire, she's lying.

Again, so there is absolutely no misunderstanding or confusion or purpose of evasion about the question - there have never been any missiles at the Pentagon (other than the ones I spoke of after 9/11) nor has there *ever* been any terminal missile/air defense like a Phalanx/CWIS at/in/on/near the building.

Why? A whole bunch of practical reasons, but two of the biggest are below:

1) List the times, in the past 60 years, that any lack of missile defense or lack of any point air defense has cause any problem whatsoever at any (not just the Pentagon) but *any* US military or government installation in the US. It simply has never been needed. Is that worth the risk? Leadership and making decisions at this level is all about managing risk - is what you intend to do worth the associated risk? Is it worth putting a terminal-flight/point defense weapon system in place for a threat that is virtually non-existent?

2) This is a 20mm round, the type used by the M61 gun used by the CWIS:



This is a training round, but imagine 750 of these sized rounds, fired in a 10 second burst, sending armor-piercing tungsten rounds all over Crystal City or west to the Navy Annex area or north towards Rosslyn or east to the White House.

The way the CWIS works is its radar tracks both an incoming target and the outgoing rounds and matches up the two vectors. All an incoming cruise missile or aircraft needs is a single hit to disable it - so putting as much metal in the sky to merge the radar tracks as fast as possible is the goal.

The effective range of one of these rounds is several thousand yards - or a number of miles. Draw a 5 mile circle around the Pentagon and that is your effective target area - any building, any person, any thing within that area is at risk of getting a 20mm round through it.

As I have said before here and on multiple boards trying to kill this ugly baby, the defenses for the building from any airborne attacks are in the location of the structure, not in any point-defense missile system.


So what happens in the event an enemy "suicide" ship manages to get close enough in the Atlantic somewhere to fire such a missile at the Pentagon? Or the White House, Navy Annex, or any number of other important buildings?


What happens in the event an enemy "suicide" van manages to get close enough to a mall? or an elementary school? or a university campus? Are you going to build anti-vehicle barriers around every single freaking building that houses people in the US? Manage risk. If someone wants to go to the lengths you need to in order to fire a cruise missile at a building in the US, they'll find a way to do it.


You telling me they can't shoot it down? Or what if it came from an air-launched attack?


Yep! That's *exactly* what I am telling you!

Apply some critical thinking skills to this question. What's the threat? What's the likelihood of the threat materializing? What are alternative ways to mitigate the threat? What is cheapest? Which has the highest potential for success? Which one is more efficient? As far as defenses are concerned, what would happen in the event of an accidental firing? How many friendly targets (i.e. planes flying into/out of Reagan) are near? Have you thought about all these questions?


... there would be no logical reason other than LIHOP or MIHOP that any missile or plane of any kind could actually get all the way to the Pentagon and hit it.


There's that fantasy world again. There are at least a half-dozen violations of P-56 every month from aircraft flying out of or into Reagan National. You gonna risk shooting down a couple planes a week?

No CIWS, no SAMS.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So what are all the possible anti-airborne threat systems that could have been in place covering the Pentagon on 9/11, given your knowledge of weapons development time lines? We've discussed Phalanx, and you mentioned Avenger, so is there anything else that would qualify to you as "technologically logical"?


"Could have been"?

Navy Ticonderoga class cruiser equipped with the AEGIS battle management system stationed off shore

Patriot battery

Avenger battery

FIM-92 Stinger missiles (MAPADS - man-portable air defense system)

Norwegian SLAMRAAM truck-launched derivatives of the AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air Defense missile

I'm sure there are more, but (as was pointed out) being a Navy guy, I'm not 100% up on all the air-defense capabilities in 2001.

I'm sure that doesn't matter, though, since this is just some mental (and digital) gymnastics in what *would* have been available.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
How about I categorically state that I am *sure*, 100%, no if's, and's or but's about it, no maybe's, no perhap's, no "Its classified", no "If I told ya, I'd have to kill ya" about it - there has never been, never was, never ever a CIWS installed or mounted or planned for use at the Pentagon. Clear enough?


Oh, you made that quite clear, thank you. And so now I will ask you if you have, on a need to know basis, *classified* knowledge of the specific Pentagon defenses in place at the time to be able to really make that claim?

I find your reference "ugly baby" to be curious.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Oh, you made that quite clear, thank you. And so now I will ask you if you have, on a need to know basis, *classified* knowledge of the specific Pentagon defenses in place at the time to be able to really make that claim?
I find your reference "ugly baby" to be curious.


This whole "classified" deal really makes my day.

Why, pray tell, would an air-defense system at the Pentagon have to be "classified", when current DC air-defense systems are out in the open for everyone to see and take pictures of over at the Navy Yard? I park one deck down underneath the dang thing when I get to work late (anytime after 8am)



"Need to know basis" - you've been watching too many Jason Bourne movies.

"Specific Pentagon defenses in place at the time" included a bunch of Pentagon Police personnel, checkpoints for access into the building, restrictions on automobile access near the building (nothing like it was after 9/11, though), and that was about it.

You seemed to ignore my question to you of listing the times in the past 60 years when a lack of a air-defense system caused a problem at the Pentagon? It was never needed before, hence it was never installed.

You also seemed to ignore the operational/tactical problems with firing a CIWS or a SAM in such a densely populated area like Crystal City or the White House and downtown DC less than 2 miles away.

"Ugly baby" is merely a colorful anonym that illustrates what I think of this whole concept.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Answer my question, truthfully, please. Did you or did you not have classified information on the defense systems in place at the Pentagon on 911. That's the question. Very simple.

April herself said she got a classified tour of Pentagon defenses. If there was nothing classified about it, why would she make that statement? Are you calling her a liar, when she was clearly there and is filing a fricken law suit over the fact that she did not receive any evacuation order? And she clearly states that TO THIS DAY she cannot comprehend how those CLASSIFIED defenses could have possibly failed?

This is not that hard Pinch. Your input is surely appreciated, and I am reading every word. But I want to know from someone who maybe got the same CLASSIFIED tour she did. Maybe someone who knows exactly what was at the Pentagon on 911. You been through every nook and cranny in that building to say for sure? And even then that doesn't cover the surrounding area.

As to the CIWS use in populated area:

First of all, if what you say is actually true, and the Pentagon could not defend itself against an air attack, then we surely had idiots for military commanders. This is THE PENTAGON we are talking about here, not Granny's kitchen down the street. I just simply refuse to believe that, because IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, despite your attempts to belittle my sense of critical thinking skills.

Second of all, are you basically admitting then that CIWS can indeed fire at friendly targets? And you have still not responded to the issue of IFF on board missiles/planes and the ways that affects this problem. Are you saying there are none? Then if so, how does CIWS distinguish between friend/foe high level ordinance?

Third, you are trying to draw some parallel between violations of airspace in a general sense, vs a clear attack and threat, that was known, of a direct plane/missile inbound with bearings on the Pentagon. And by testimony, we know that Cheney issued a stand down order which in context can be safely interpreted to mean:

They knew the aircraft was inbound and were tracking it, because they said it was 50 miles out. An order had clearly been issued earlier for someone, somewhere to man some kind of weapon system that could have taken out the plane/missile. Otherwise, the stand down order would not have been issued, ESPECIALLY when it became clear that the plane/missile was .ed on bearing directly at the Pentagon. At what point do you claim they figured that out? After it hit? If you expect me to believe that, you are going to have a real tough time convincing me. So far, no go, although keep talking. Your points are interesting and I appreciate the input.


edit: sorry, I meant to add:

The use of a CIWS at the pentagon or white house or any other similar important building would be very understandable (to me) despite the risks to the public. They are fired in the air, not at buildings, although yeah, some of those will eventually land somewhere potentially dangerous to civilians. But as a last resort, understandable.

[edit on Sun Feb 1st 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by pinch
 


April herself said she got a classified tour of Pentagon defenses. If there was nothing classified about it, why would she make that statement? Are you calling her a liar, when she was clearly there and is filing a fricken law suit over the fact that she did not receive any evacuation order? And she clearly states that TO THIS DAY she cannot comprehend how those CLASSIFIED defenses could have possibly failed?




She is a liar. PERIOD

I do feel bad for her and her son who obtained serious injuries and were compensated for them.

What is interesting is her latest "fricken" lawsuit.

Please explaoin to me TrueAmerican why she received a settlement from American Airlines, AMR Corporation, and Argenbright Security(CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-01016-AKH) when she states in her most recent lawsuit that the plane did not even HIT the Pentagon?



I asked SPreston this too on another April Gallop thread and he abandoned it.


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.

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-10881-DC

Read the emphasized section then keep reading. She states that "in fact" the bombing was accomplished another way!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 





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?


No there was not a CIWS at the Pentagon on 9/11. The Pentagon lies in the approach/departure of Ronald Reagan National Airport and had there been a CIWS system...you would have been seeing aircraft being dropped out of the sky long before 9/11.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   


Second of all, are you basically admitting then that CIWS can indeed fire at friendly targets?


Yes they can.




First of all, if what you say is actually true, and the Pentagon could not defend itself against an air attack, then we surely had idiots for military commanders. This is THE PENTAGON we are talking about here, not Granny's kitchen down the street. I just simply refuse to believe that, because IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, despite your attempts to belittle my sense of critical thinking skills.


It does not matter if you think it doesnt make sense or not. Whether or not you will accept the truth that the Pentagon did not have aerial defenses or not is up to you.

Its not that we had commanders that were idiots. Its that an aerial attack was never seriously considered a realistic threat. And that comes down to funding. You cannot prepare against every conceivable threat that exists that would cost more money than anyone would be willing to spend. So you pick the most realistic threats and use your resources to plan against them. Hell forty years ago there used to be bus stops UNDER the Pentagon...till some a**holes set a bomb off there and then they decided maybe it was a bad idea to allow unsearched vehicles to be able to be under the building.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   


She can't divulge that to anyone without a need to know and the proper security clearance. It clearly states that her defense tour was classified.


And she has already violated security in talking about it to begin with. So, your argument holds no water. Thats the other telling thing about her story, if it were true...she would be in custody for violating security regs.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
She is a liar. PERIOD


Ok, so she did NOT receive a classified tour of Pentagon defenses, according to you. And according to Pinch, there were no classified defenses either. Ok, I guess I'll just have to accept it. April's a liar and a gold digger. Her settlements weren't enough and she just wants more.
(pssst. Hey Castro, Chavez, Putin and whatever the heck your name is in Iran...You guys hearing this? It's target practice America with the Pentagon! Free lunch!)


Please explaoin to me TrueAmerican why she received a settlement from American Airlines, AMR Corporation, and Argenbright Security(CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-01016-AKH) when she states in her most recent lawsuit that the plane did not even HIT the Pentagon?


And btw, from google:


Your search - 1:03-cv-01016-AKH - did not match any documents.


How bout a link please.


I asked SPreston this too on another April Gallop thread and he abandoned it.


Well given some of the ways I've seen you try to argue, he probably had good reason.



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.

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-10881-DC

Read the emphasized section then keep reading. She states that "in fact" the bombing was accomplished another way!


From google:


Your search - 1:08-cv-10881-DC - did not match any documents.


How bout a link please. Strike two.

If you had watched any of her videos, you would know that it's not money she is after. It's genuine justice. She knows something's wrong. And if you had gone to the link provided in OP, you would see that author finds all kinds of things wrong with her case. I stated the same thing I believe in Craig's thread about April Gallop months ago. The case is incomplete and sloppy, and flat out wrong in some parts. That's why I titled this thread the way I did. He's attempting to help her rewrite it. I feel her attorneys are basically clueless, and obviously so does the author.

And the issue of her receiving settlement is separate from what she is claiming. It's hard to claim anything when no one listens to you. Why you are trying to link the two is beyond me. Well really it isn't, I am just withholding what I really think you are. You got a good dose of that in Craig's thread recently. No need to belabor the point.

You and swampfox both saw this thread. You are both intent upon watching the 911 forum. That's pretty obvious. And you paid it no attention whatsoever until you saw a few flags and some responses. You both were not needed here. Westpoint and Pinch already got your backs on this one. Why did you feel the need to come in here?


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No there was not a CIWS at the Pentagon on 9/11. The Pentagon lies in the approach/departure of Ronald Reagan National Airport and had there been a CIWS system...you would have been seeing aircraft being dropped out of the sky long before 9/11.


Well then please tell me who the person was and what system he was manning in order for Cheney to issue the stand down order, since you are so sure about there being no CIWS. If you knew that, then you must also know the answer to this. Also please answer if you have or had clearance to know what those classified systems were. You too Cameron.

I am not necessarily arguing the case that there WAS a CIWS there. Hell, I don't know wtf was there at the time. But SOMETHING had to be in place for him to issue the stand down order. What, he issued it to the F16's that were trailing the plane?
You go right a. and bite on that one, hook line and sinker.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And she has already violated security in talking about it to begin with.


Oh, well I thought there were no classified defenses there to talk about, remember? April's a liar! Well how about that. Tripped up in your own words. You're right. There are and were classified defenses there.


So, your argument holds no water.


So my argument holds no water, but was apparently good enough to get you to concede that April violated security by talking about it already???
:shk: Sheesh.


Thats the other telling thing about her story, if it were true...she would be in custody for violating security regs.


For simply stating that she received a classified tour of Pentagon defenses? They put you in the brig for that? Wowza. Half the military would be in the brig then.

I see how this works, ya know. Every minute that you can tie up 911 truthers and try to cloud things up is one less minute they can spend thinking up arguments to beat you. Nice tactic.
Amusing.

[edit on Sun Feb 1st 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
For simply stating that she received a classified tour of Pentagon defenses? They put you in the brig for that?


It's called OPSEC (Operations Security), and no you do not need to necessarily divulge classified information to breach it. Anything which compromises the daily operations of whatever one is discussing by revealing sensitive information can breach OPSEC, and the military takes it very seriously.


Operations security (OPSEC) is a process that identifies critical information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary exploitation of friendly critical information.

Link


Clearly if there has been any secret SAM units in DC, and if she had gotten a classified brief, she would not be able to talk about said defenses (in the slightest manor), period. I believe what the other member was alluding to is that she has not been charged with such, which should tell you it's a figment of her imagination.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join