 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek NI
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 196
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: April Gallop and the Strange Case of Orthodoxy |
 |
|
This must be about the only 911 site not discussing the recently filed Gallop case.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html
One of the things working against her is that she supports the CIT case that what we have been led to believe about the Pentagon strike is not true and furthermore, discussion of which is verboten in some quarters.
One of the overwhelming factors for those concerned about "disinfo" is the citing of witnesses who claim to have seen the strike happen. Indeed on 911 Blogger, this is exactly the case and has resulted in some voting down of those who are prepared to see beyond the implications of the infamous "honeypot" warning, as I believe Jim Hoffman christened it.
I examined a cited witness claim in detail to see what gives, and this is what I found. But I couldn't see a way to post it at Blogger so here it is here.
Transcript of the video statement of Pentagon strike witness Isabel James:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news
Reporter: 'You say that you saw a plane actually strike the side of the Pentagon. Tell me exactly what you saw'.
Isabel James: "I saw a plane going down - big plane, commercial liner type, going down, full speed and just ... inside ... the side of the Pentagon.
Uh, obviously it was going in the Pentagon purposely, and we were driving down Columbia Pike, and it just flew right over us. As I said full speed and I told my husband 'it's going in the Pentagon! It's going in the Pentagon!' and then we heard ... the ..er ...huge crash, saw this fireball .... and flame ... and smoke ... and....".
Reporter: 'So you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building'?
Isabel James: "Yes I did".
And that satisfyingly definite edit point is where most "truthers" stop listening. Case closed.
But wait - there's more:
Reporter: 'Just one plane'?
Isabel James: "Just one plane".
Reporter: 'Tell me a little bit about the size of the plane. Did you see any commercial markings ... any markings at all on the plane'?
Isabel James: "I didn't see any marking because it was...um... we just saw the underneath portion of it, ... so and it.. it just...as I said was going full speed so we... we didn't have time really to see anything, plus with the trees ... you know maybe if I could have looked at it longer maybe I would have seen something but with the trees there.. the treeline we didn't see any type of marking ... but it was a big plane maybe 737 my husband said 747 but I ... I'm not positive I don't know for sure ... but it was big uh definitely the kind of plane you you you get on when you want to fly to LA or wherever".
Now here's the thing.
If Isabel James view was obscured by trees then she was anything up to half a mile away or more, as the only trees on Columbia Pike that could have blocked her view are those in front of the Navy Annexe. The yellow line of sight on the map below indicates where Columbia Pike seperates into Oakland, and the red outlined area isolates the trees that block the view to the impact point. If indeed the aircraft passed over the heads of Mr. & Mrs James then both the OCT and the (disputed) NTSB data could place them a further half to quarter mile back from that closest point.
With the topography of the area she could not have seen the Pentagon itself, so what she actually saw was a low flying aircraft followed by "we heard ... the ... er ...huge crash, saw this fireball .... and flame ... and smoke ... and...."
CIT have applied similar scrutiny to the oft-quoted "witnesses", but again of course, most of us are too lazy to double check, and accept words such as those of Ms. James at face value. God help us.
In other words, just like a member of a magician's audience, and as painstakingly explained previously by CIT, she fell for the military deception exactly as planned.
As do some, yea, even unto this day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This must be about the only 911 site not discussing the recently filed Gallop case. |
It was nice while it lasted.
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, it's very unfortunate. There is much that is strong about the Pentagon case and the focus on "no plane" will tank it and draw everyone else down with it. Had this been written up without "no plane" this would be something worth supporting -- naturally, it will never arrive that way, without "no plane" because then it would be a real case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. |
What a total mess! To keep this in line with the forum guidelines I'd like to point out that whether or not we are interested in such speculation, that the statement above lends nothing to the strength of this complaint and is also what I'd call 'popular logic', or not what you'd expect from a decent lawyer writing a document of such potential significance.
I'd like to take a big step all the way around any suggestion that they just did the best they could. It appears very clear that a decision was made to include alternate fates for Flight 77 in a document made no stronger by their inclusion.
Once again, regardless of whether or not we support such speculation, it's inclusion in this complaint will likely prevent many from taking it seriously, tying the strong case for foreknowledge to the less strong  case for Flight 77 fakery, providing an easy out to those who would want to criticize the effort and drawing attention away from it's central premise.
Why does this so much remind me of the NYC ballot initiative?
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waitew
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 32
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually,I like this.She says she actually saw a plane strike the Pentagon,but adds that her view was blocked by trees & therefore she couldn't see any marking (plus speed).We know what highway she was on & we know where the trees are/were (trees take years to grow) & therefore we can prove exactly where or where not she might have EXACTLY been when she saw the plane & if she could or could not have seen it impact the Pentagon!It appears as if she could not have both had her view blocked by trees & seen a plane hit the Pentagon!Either way we have her pegged as a liar.This is exactly the sort of detailed analysis we need.Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek NI
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 196
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| waitew wrote: | | It appears as if she could not have both had her view blocked by trees & seen a plane hit the Pentagon!Either way we have her pegged as a liar.This is exactly the sort of detailed analysis we need.Thank you. |
Thanks W, that was exactly the kind of rational response I was hoping for.
Except perhaps for the liar part; with language, meaning intent and the all too natural urge to deduce isn't so black and white. Did what she said happen actually happen? According to her own words, she doesn't know because she didn't see the impact. But she fully believes what she says. Technically it's a lie, but calling her a liar creates a certain umbrage just because she personally has strung a series of event experiences together in a way that makes sense to her. Trickery is based on exploiting that reflex in people.
Another poster on this thread posted a link on another site's thread that is chock-full of flummery similar to Isabel James' story.
I only hope she takes a similar view and begins to forensically re-examine in equal or greater detail what she so flippantly quotes as gospel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Recommended reading:
Legal Subterfuge
If websites can be created to sabotage 9/11 truth exposure by inserting discrediting memes, couldn't a similar tactic be used in litigation? There have been accusations that lawsuits on behalf of 9/11 victims are designed to obstruct rather than elicit justice. One can imagine that a lawsuit could be designed to fail, and thereby discourage and foreclose subsequent legal action on behalf of the victims. However, it could be difficult to distinguish between intentional sabotage and mere incompetence in an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Here we examine three lawsuits filed behalf of victims which have serious flaws -- flaws that could do more to damage the cause of 9/11 Truth exposure than help it.
http://911review.com/disinfo/lawsuits.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rancho Truth
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 331
Location: Washington, DC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't found CIT's claims to be debunked at all, by FF or Arabesque (who after all, just repeats FF's arguments).
Last time CIT was bought up I asked for anyone willing to actually debunk it for me to PM me (Cosmos doesn't like CIT discussions here) - no takers so far.
The reason I ask is because it seems we have a grand case of the emporers new clothes here. Everyone going along with everyone else in agreeing it has been debunked but no one really seems to know how.
The usual remedy to this problem is to lock or delete the thread here, which is kind of an intenet version of shutting your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and saying "Lalalalalala I can't hear you".
I'm being told to disregard CIT's evidence on faith.
I'd rather leave faith for the priests and the rabbis...
So please, if anyone has a remotely feasable reason as to why I should reject this research, please do PM me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek NI
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 196
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rancho Truth wrote: | | the "evidence" that a 757 did not crash at the Pentagon isn't really evidence at all. CIT and Pilot's arguments have been debunked by Arabesque and Frustrating Fraud, there are over 100 eyewitnesses to the Pentagon being hit by a jumbo jet, photos and eyewitnesses to wreckage |
Rebutted to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine or apparently April Gallop's. And most definitely not "debunked". Repeating US Govt. "evidence" does not equate to being on 'solid ground'.
Have you even begun critically examining those alleged "100+" witness statements or do you just take it as read that someone else has?
| Rancho Truth wrote: | | Extremely disappointing the missile/flyover "theories" are included in Veale's case, much better evidence for full disclosure/discovery/investigation of neglect, obstruction, treason, complicity, etc. |
Yes, it must be very inconvenient to some - but only some - "best case" proponents that April G. didn't have to walk through burning wreckage to emerge on the Pentagon lawn.
That doesn't gel with our myth of what happened at all. After all - we all saw those five frames that show some unidentified lawn skimming object cause that 150ft high orange conflagration didn't we?
How dare she contradict "solid evidence" by walking through it unharmed!
| Rancho Truth wrote: | | it seems very similar to other disruptive/discord-causing efforts undertaken by others. |
This has become quite the meme, but for the wrong reasons.
In my experience, and throughout history challenging the orthodoxy in any field always causes earthquakes.
But so what? It depends how unwisely and heavily invested you were in your pre-earthquake view of the world and to what degree that renders your ability to adapt. It's darwinian, but then again, what isn't?
Am I the only one a little uneasy that the search for the truth has morphed into something else that has to be approved by the equally uninformed but self appointed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel
Joined: 22 Dec 2008
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek NI wrote: |
Am I the only one a little uneasy that the search for the truth has morphed into something else that has to be approved by the equally uninformed but self appointed? |
No, you are definately *NOT* the only one. And recent polls indicate that as of 2006 at least 12% of Americans - 36 million - and a majority of 9/11 skeptics including leading researchers such as David Ray Griffen, do NOT accept the government's version that a Boeing 757 smacked into the Pentagon. However, it doesn't appear that this view is welcome here on this forum, so I'm afraid to say any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
siddhartha
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 413
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A question for the devout Pentagon no planers:
Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories? To me the inclusion seems rather random and a distraction from the main (and very strong) points of the lawsuit. Also, in some places it seems to be extremely poorly written. Why is this? And why do people seem to care less about the quality of the lawsuit than about pushing their own theories? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
siddhartha
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 413
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way, just to be clear, I don't adhere to any particular theory regarding what did or did not hit the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| siddhartha wrote: | A question for the devout Pentagon no planers:
Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories? To me the inclusion seems rather random and a distraction from the main (and very strong) points of the lawsuit. Also, in some places it seems to be extremely poorly written. Why is this? And why do people seem to care less about the quality of the lawsuit than about pushing their own theories? |
I haven't looked into the law suit in great enough detail to comment. Will try and find the time to do so soon... although I would ask whether anyone on this thread has actually demonstrated themselves to be a "devout Pentagon no planer"?
I don't see anyone "cheering" Gallop either - just a bit of frustration that what seems to be pretty relevant information should be ignored.
My objection is about information and evidence. CIT's research has brought up some testimoney, a large body of it which indepentnly corroborates itself - I'm told to ignore this because "it's been debunked" despite the fact that it patently hasn't. I've even been called all kinds of "disinfo" genre put-downs for simply asking why is it I should reject this evidence.
It's frustrating to say the least.
Regarding whether or not any "case" is helped: There is a difference between campaigning and research.
When I go out on the streets I stick to base line 100% provable and verefied facts, no speculation. That doesn't include the Pentagon, it doesn't even go very far into controlled demolition, and I find that perfectly effective for getting people interested enough to take a DVD and flyer, and let Richard Gage take over when it comes to the details.
But that does not mean I don't support continuing research on the areas which are currently not clear enough to camapign on, because through this research our case may become stronger. It doesn't mean this info shouldn't be flagged up for the interest of others within the global community. I think it should.
I just don't see the logical leap from "I'm not going to use this info in my campaigning, and I don't think others should either" straight to "anyone who brings up, references or researches this area is a danger and needs to be closed down, censored and accused of being a disinfo shill at every passing oportunity".
What's with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek NI
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 196
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| siddhartha wrote: | A question for the devout Pentagon no planers:
Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories? To me the inclusion seems rather random and a distraction from the main (and very strong) points of the lawsuit. Also, in some places it seems to be extremely poorly written. Why is this? And why do people seem to care less about the quality of the lawsuit than about pushing their own theories? |
An answer to those of the AA77 struck the Pentagon faith.
Do you accept that April Gallop walked barefoot and unharmed out of the hole and onto the lawn at the Pentagon without seeing any aircraft wreckage or smelling or being drenched in unignited fuel?
If so, how does it work that the object captured by the gatehouse camera which allegedly penetrated the wall and caused a massive fuel-rich explosion that somehow just ... petered out, leaving her and her surroundings unburned while she and her son made their escape.
Why do some people strenuously defend a US Govt. devised theory that ignores this simple first-person statemented evidence in favour of what - at least in their own minds - is termed "best evidence"? Maybe, just maybe it's time to re-examine what's going on here with certain widely accepted "facts".
I don't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon, and I'm pretty damn sure you don't either. The difference is I don't get on a high horse about it and speciously attempt to claim some supposedly non-devisive moral high ground.
Btw I'm using the term 'you' in the plural sense, not directed at you personally Sid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
