Pentagon Survivor April Gallop: "It's obvious the official story was fabricated..."

reply to post by exponent


It was meant to show what was actually on the video, released by the FBI, was in fact a missile and not a 757.
I don't know why you are bringing in size/scaling/photoshop... what evs! Wasn't my point at all.

Just look with your own eyes, it's NOT a 757! Duh! It's a missile!

And please don't debate angle, speed, perspective with me. Put all of your energy into demanding the videos of the Pentagon from the government. Prove me wrong! Don't waste your time nitpicking and getting tired over it. It's not changing anyone's mind about anything.

WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS? If that is not raising red flags for you, then you are in deep sleep my friend. You are dreaming you are awake. Funny thing although it's not completely off topic... There were no cameras recording the tunnel at the time Princess Diana had the fatal car accident either... just sayin'

And here, just for you. You should take it up with these "Morons Who Slipped Up And Practically Admitted 9/11 Was An Inside Job." These are the peeps you look up to and gobble up their fantasy version of events.

Enjoy!
www.lookingglassnews.org...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Kailassa
The cement columns, blocking the entry hole you marked out are deformed?
Not half as deformed as they'd be if your putative airliner had passed through them.

They're not cement, they are wound steel. This alone proves you haven't read any report on The Pentagon. I also like that apparently you know how they should look, even if you don't know what they were made from.

Wound steel, ok . . . Do you have a source for this?

Do you admit these columns are directly in front of the hole indicated with a red arrow in the picture you showed?

By the way, why has the picture you keep referring us to, been photoshopped over with a blue blur?

Do you admit that when a fast moving solid object A encounters a stationary solid object B,
- A will stop, or
- A will break, or
- B will break, or
- both A and B will break?

Under no circumstances can a plane pass through a column of concrete or wound steel without the column breaking. These columns are not broken.

So what is it, did the plane not pass through these columns or are they made of miracle gel?

It's easy to tell when someone isn't going to listen to reason.

Would you like that for an epitaph? Heavily photoshoped with a blue blur to hide evidence of other photoshopping perhaps?

Originally posted by v3_exceed
So If I'm considered a "truther" does that make the proponents of the OS ..."falsers"? heh.

I don't often disagree with you, but, philosophically speaking, I'd have to say the opposite of a Truther is a Liar.

Historically, a single word for people who are telling the truth was never needed, as that was the norm. Not telling the truth was the exception, so a name was attached to those who didn't.

Then a deluge of people, whose aim was to not tell the truth, descended on all forms of the media, and people who were not actively obscuring the truth were so indoctrinated they no longer knew the truth to tell it.

Thus a word became needed for those who sought the truth and told it, because we had become the exception. Be proud to wear the name, Truther, in an evironment where truth-tellers are libeled and feared.

Everytime I see that picture of that hole in the pentagon it looks more like a missle impact then it does an airplane.April Gallop's lawsuit is interesting if her lawyers are able to get to the discovery phase it would present an opportunity to see what the government has classifed unless,of course they play the old "national security." card.

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Everytime I see that picture of that hole in the pentagon it looks more like a missle impact then it does an airplane.April Gallop's lawsuit is interesting if her lawyers are able to get to the discovery phase it would present an opportunity to see what the government has classifed unless,of course they play the old "national security." card.

You are a bit behind the times. April Gallop's last suit was thrown out in March. Judge Chin commenting that her allegations were frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion.

reply to post by Seti_Starr

oops

reply to post by Alfie1

Why should we believe her about anything ?

And why should we believe our GOVERNMENT about anything? What have they done in recent years with respect to ANYTHING, whether 9/11-related or not, that warrants the privilege of our trust? While I await your predictable lengthy list of imaginary events that have shown our government is upstanding and full of integrity, I am finding your inference about April Gallop to be rather strange.

In my opinion, the fact that she sued the airline doesn't necessarily put her credibility in question. Frankly, one could view it from the standpoint that she really does believe no plane hit the Pentagon, so, the likelihood that the airline was in on the conspiracy from the beginning would be plausible, would it not? I mean, after all, if this were the case, the airline certainly isn't going to come out publicly and proclaim, "We aren't responsible, our plane never hit the Pentagon, so we shouldn't have to pay damages!"

"So, Mr. Airline, where is Flight 77 and it's passengers, then?"

(**sound of crickets chirping**)

She probably looked at it not only from the standpoint laid out by the OP already, but maybe also from angle that the airline could damn well compensate her for her suffering if they, indeed, were involved in perpetuating this lie that has devastated so many Americans. Everyone knows that trying to fight the government when it comes to potential wrongdoing by them is an exercise in futility. For some, maybe there was no alternative. If it were you against these entities in a matter of this magnitude, and you truly believed Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, would you assume the Airline was completely unaware of a conspiracy? How could one conclude that? They should pay up if they were in on it, despite the method used by the victim, in my opinion. God knows it's probably the only kind of justice we're ever gonna see come out of this fiasco.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Why didn't April Gallop take a victims compensation payment ? She didn't have to sue anybody did she ?

Why did the latest judge consider her allegations frivolous and based on fanatasy and delusion ?

Why did she say in her OP interview, at 2.10, that she left the Pentagon at the " initial impact point " which was patently impossible ?

What evidence would she have had, or you come to that, that American Airlines was in on it ?

Don't you think this supposed ever expanding ring of conspirators looks sillier and sillier ?

Why, if you are truly seeking the truth, are you so keen to prop up this discredited woman ( who was within the Pentagon and not in a position to see much at all ) while ignoring an experienced pilot in the area who actually saw AA 77 and hasn't contradicted himself ?
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Seti_Starr


Okay, show us what missile in the US arsenal would fit he dimensions of the object in the video. Good luck finding one that big.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by exponent

 

It was meant to show what was actually on the video, released by the FBI, was in fact a missile and not a 757.
I don't know why you are bringing in size/scaling/photoshop... what evs! Wasn't my point at all.

Just look with your own eyes, it's NOT a 757! Duh! It's a missile!

How many missiles have large tails? How many match the size of a 757? How many leave wing outlines on a wall?

It was not a missile, it was a 757, hell I can quote a guy who had to dive out of the way as it came toward him, I can quote a guy who was working at the heliport right next to the impact site and saw it fly in. Is your only evidence that it was a missile that you think it looks like one even though you don't know how big a 757 should look on the video?

And please don't debate angle, speed, perspective with me. Put all of your energy into demanding the videos of the Pentagon from the government. Prove me wrong! Don't waste your time nitpicking and getting tired over it. It's not changing anyone's mind about anything.

I did prove you wrong.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Wound steel, ok . . . Do you have a source for this?

Try the Pentagon Building Performance Report, I'm astonished you haven't read it.

Do you admit these columns are directly in front of the hole indicated with a red arrow in the picture you showed?

Your link does not work, but the construction of the columns can easily be found, they were vertical rebar, set in concrete with wire wrapped around for further reinforcement. If they were simply cement, they would have been entirely destroyed.

By the way, why has the picture you keep referring us to, been photoshopped over with a blue blur?

Because it is a composite.

Do you admit that when a fast moving solid object A encounters a stationary solid object B,
- A will stop, or
- A will break, or
- B will break, or
- both A and B will break?

Under no circumstances can a plane pass through a column of concrete or wound steel without the column breaking. These columns are not broken.

The columns are in fact broken the closer toward the centre, they are not broken when the impact is from the smaller and lighter sections of the wing.

So what is it, did the plane not pass through these columns or are they made of miracle gel?

The plane did not pass through these columns, the columns were strong enough to destroy the wing as it impacted them, that is why they are bent backwards and stripped.

Would you like that for an epitaph? Heavily photoshoped with a blue blur to hide evidence of other photoshopping perhaps?

What beautiful logic, to hide photoshopping, make a picture obviously photoshopped. Not of course, that it is a composite, as I said in the first place, and the blue colour reflects the calibration of the camera that took that portion.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Okay, show us what missile in the US arsenal would fit he dimensions of the object in the video.

AND, while he/she is on about that, have them show just HOW such a "missile" went missing from inventory, yet NO ONE NOTICED!!!! Not one "whistleblower" yet.....know why?

BECAUSE: It was a BOEING 757, as everyone with half a brain already knows....AND, asanyone who actually KNEW someone onboard that flight knows!!! (Sorry, but this type of ignorance remains damaging to the reality of life, and is disgusting to allow to continue....)

reply to post by vipertech0596


You haven't proven me wrong.
That's the footage the FBI released. There is no 757.
And the government is hiding all the rest of the footage.

Shame you can't prove me wrong….

reply to post by exponent


SAME REPLY TO YOU:
You haven't proven me wrong.
That's the footage the FBI released. There is no 757.
And the government is hiding all the rest of the footage.

Shame you can't prove me wrong….

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Umm..first off, you would have to have the existance of said cameras in the halls...which, save the secure areas of the Pentagon (NMCC, JCS Briefing Area, etc) you do not have. Hate to break it to you, but there just isnt the camera coverage of the Pentagon that so many people seem to think there is. The primary security of the Pentagon, was ALWAYS the people at the doors and the security team. But to go with your supposition....do you think the inward crush of building materials just might obscure any view inside the building?

Ok so one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet has no cameras inside, and I have the absolute testimony of one guy on an internet forum to count on. Not like anyone would ever try and sell state secrets in that building... Do I even have to mention how inane the concept that the pentagon has no internal cameras sound? With respect to your second part, inward materials do not in all cases seek out the cameras first.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The "best" view of the Pentagon would have been from the gas station...and its cameras were focused on the building and the gas pumps...that video was released several years ago.

Of course they released "All" the video. It's the government. Gawd...

Originally posted by Alfie1
Can you please indicate to me the ones which were taken "from angles that remove context " and explain why ?

Even though I am aware that you are expecting ME to confirm your alleged evidence. I will play along for the moment.

Here are some excellent examples of junkyard debris that we can claim came from anywhere.





These images have no credit. I'm sure one will be attributed to them though.. Without reading the captions associated to these images one cannot identify anything except that they are perhaps metal bits.

Lastly, the fact that a few posters here are so adamant about falling behind the failed logic of the official story. They refuse to concede that the government has and will continue to lie to the people. This alone easily confirms that some are either paid posters or heavily medicated.

..Ex

reply to post by weedwhacker


And here's an answer to your stupid question:

-How do trillions of dollars go missing?
-How do suitcase bombs go missing?
-How do biological weapons go missing?

reply to post by Seti_Starr


Huh????

-How do trillions of dollars go missing?

The co-incidence of that announcement (I assume you're referring to Rumsfeld's press conference on 10 September, 2001?) is just...a CO-INCIDENCE!!! I mean, it is hysterical that "truth movement" people point to that, as a "smoking gun"!!! Then, turn around, and claim that "Rummy Knew!!!!"!!!

IF HE WAS "In on it", then WHY that press conference on the 10th??? Stupid, isn't it?

Things were, prior to the 11th, "business as usual", and all that speech was about was to convey, to sow doubt, into the PREVIOUS EIGHT YEARS of the administration....you know, the opposition??? CLINTON???

It was a (thinly) veiled attempt to impugn previous adminstrations' neglect, and poor accounting practices....it covered many DECADES of incompetence, and poor record-keeping though....so, had 9/11 NOT occurred, it might have become a political hot potato that would blow up in Bush's face...as it happens, however....the "truth movement" troop have latched onto it, and used it (incorrectly, as you just did), without thinking it through completly.

Now, the rest, are non-sequitors:

-How do suitcase bombs go missing?

Cite a source.

-How do biological weapons go missing?

Huh? Where? IRAQ??? Really? How does that relate?

Or, do you have ANOTHER instance?? Cite the source.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
SAME REPLY TO YOU:
You haven't proven me wrong.
That's the footage the FBI released. There is no 757.
And the government is hiding all the rest of the footage.

Shame you can't prove me wrong….

The only reason I won't be able to prove you wrong is that you won't accept any evidence.

According to you, there is no 757, but it's demonstrably true that there is an object the correct size for a 757 in that image. It's also true that witnesses reported seeing a 757 impact the building, that debris consistent with it was recovered, that there was a plane sized impact hole, that the FDR was recovered etc etc.

It's down to your own denial, not the facts available.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Which junkyards do you have in mind exactly that you think would have a mashed up Rolls Royce RB 211 engine in a heap of smaller debris and broken landing gear showing evidence of heat also surrounded by like debris ? And all compatible with a Boeing 757.

This is an analysis by Jeff Scott of aircraft parts at the Pentagon and includes the engine part I referred you to. He is an Aerospace Engineer but I don't anticipate that will make any difference as far as you are concerned.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

reply to post by Seti_Starr


Only because there is NO footage that would show it. No cameras were in position to capture it. Thats what people like you refuse to accept. All the whining and moaning you do will not change that fact.


Still waiting for you to show me what missile could have been used.