911 Survivor Won't Back Down

Just a question , may be obvious to others, but why did there never seem to be a mention of passenger(victims) on flight 77 of the Pentagon, or families of those victims being interviewed? ( Maybe I just missed it) It was like they were faceless victims, not like the victims of the planes in the Towers where faces and personal stories were tied to the names of those lost on those planes, even plenty of airtime for their families...almost like AA77 had fictional victims...

Just a question , may be obvious to others, but why did there never seem to be a mention of passenger(victims) on flight 77 of the Pentagon

Because there was no Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Only only a delusional individual with no powers of observation would look at the Pentagon's damage and conclude that a large commercial airliner impacted there.

I do hope that Justice prevails here if not then the peoples law carries no power.

Anybody remember that little Cessna that was flown into an IRS building? That little Cessna caused as widespread damage as the supposed airliner hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't add up to me.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Just another eye witness who reported explosives at the Pentagon.

So, did she lie in 2003 when she sued American Airlines for her trauma and injuries, or is she lying now?

Either way, she's a liar.

It turns out the judge hearing the case is George Bush's cousin;

en.wikipedia.org...



The Truthers are going to go crazy.

This is going to be good.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Just a question , may be obvious to others, but why did there never seem to be a mention of passenger(victims) on flight 77 of the Pentagon

Because there was no Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Only only a delusional individual with no powers of observation would look at the Pentagon's damage and conclude that a large commercial airliner impacted there.

Lets see. A flimsy aluminum airframe versus a hardened concrete wall with blast-resistant windows. Plane loses. Nothing delusional about that.

Originally posted by freedom12
So what happened in court today?

From what I understand, the court upheld the lower courts ruling that the lawsuit was dismissed With Prejudice.

noliesradio.org...

Here is an interview today with her lawyer William Beale. From the sounds of it, it didn't go well.

In fact, William Beale embarrasses himself by motioning to have one of the judges to be removed. The reason:

(you'll like this)

He looks like a Bush.

Yepo! You heard it right! Because he looks like a Bush!!

LOL!

Start at about 23 minutes in.


If the attorney was worth a damn, he could have Googled the judge's name, and found out he was a cousin to the former President Bush.

I highly doubt that this will go anywhere there. Her claims were described as "the product of cynical delusion and fantasy".

Yeah, she ain't got much going for her at this time.

I wonder, will she give the money that she got from American Airlines in 2003 back? Since she sucessfully sued them, will she be admitting error?

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Just a question , may be obvious to others, but why did there never seem to be a mention of passenger(victims) on flight 77 of the Pentagon, or families of those victims being interviewed? ( Maybe I just missed it) It was like they were faceless victims, not like the victims of the planes in the Towers where faces and personal stories were tied to the names of those lost on those planes, even plenty of airtime for their families...almost like AA77 had fictional victims...

www.usatoday.com...

10 seconds on Google.

Originally posted by warbird03
Anybody remember that little Cessna that was flown into an IRS building? That little Cessna caused as widespread damage as the supposed airliner hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't add up to me.

And what kind of building was the IRS office?

Oh, right, not limestone reinforced concrete.

Yes!! As I was reading this, I thought this story sounded all too familiar, and remembered I saw her on Jesse Ventura: Conspiracy Theory on TruTV a while back... Heres the full video, shes mentioned throughout the show, I dont remember when she is fully interviewed, but its in that show...



S+F for bringing this to light

I'd first like to mention that I don't buy the official conspiracy theory and although I'm absolutely convinced that there is much more to the story than what we are being lead to believe through the OS, I'm certainly not convinced that a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon.

In fact, I believe there is a very logical explanation for the evidence -or lack thereof- in regards to the Pentagon damage, debris field and secrecy surrounding the incident in question. This explanation is based on the very foundation that many truthers put forward as to why the Pentagon shouldn't have been hit and that is because it is alleged to be one of the most secure buildings in the western world, if not the whole world.

Please reference one of my very first threads on ATS, titled "Simple explanation for suppression of Pentagon impact footage".

Because the Pentagon was one of the most secure buildings on the planet and certainly because the side of the building that was hit was newly reinforced, it is more than safe to suggest that some kind of reactive armor technology was employed on that brand new wing. Reactive armor is very effective thus it is only logical that the Pentagon would be reinforced with such technology.

This would explain why the damage appears to be caused by explosives, as opposed to an aircraft. It also explains eye-witness testimony, lack of aircraft debris and secrecy on behalf of the government (after all, such technology would be highly classified for national security reasons).

Please refer to the referenced thread for a better, more detailed explanation.


--airspoon

reply to post by FDNY343

Thanks FDNY!

reply to post by airspoon
Link is dead!

Hmm...A couple of novice pilots steered this plane at such a low altitude over the Pentagon lawn that the aerodynamic ground effect would have been near impossible to overcome (even for a seasoned pilot), and there was no sign that a plane had crashed there. No wings, no engines, no fuselage at all. We won't even discuss the fact that the Pentagon lawn was unblemished. Those aircraft must be so easy to handle that I should go and apply to be a pilot right now! I mean, if the plane can be piloted so easily that you can allegedly knock light standards on the highway over with the wings and then take 'er in for a surgical strike right at the base of a wall, then it must be easy as pie to fly one in a regular fashion.
Oh yeah, I believe the official story.


Oh yes, and with all the surveillance cameras around in society these days (especially around a building such as the Pentagon) there's mysteriously no footage showing a plane flying into the building. All we get is a blurry frame of a fuzzy object and then an explosion.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Just a question , may be obvious to others, but why did there never seem to be a mention of passenger(victims) on flight 77 of the Pentagon, or families of those victims being interviewed? ( Maybe I just missed it) It was like they were faceless victims, not like the victims of the planes in the Towers where faces and personal stories were tied to the names of those lost on those planes, even plenty of airtime for their families...almost like AA77 had fictional victims...

www.usatoday.com...

10 seconds on Google.

Yeah about 10 seconds of mention on Google is about all they seemed to get....I just remember watching everything unfold, and wondering why the victims of AA77 didn't seem to get rated airtime like the passengers of the other three airplanes...some reporter at one point said they couldn't get the info released because it happened at the Pentagon...these were American citizens that supposedly died the same way..what's so top secret about that???
(and if FDNY343 sarcastically meant it took 10 seconds to Google, that's not what I meant. These victims deserved as much recognition of airtime on MSM as all the other victims, and they weren't getting it. It just seemed so wrong at the time.)

Originally posted by waypastvne
It turns out the judge hearing the case is George Bush's cousin;

en.wikipedia.org...

The Truthers are going to go crazy.

This is going to be good.

edit on 5-4-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Seriously?

HAHAHA, man that's so weird I believe it. If that isn't an indication that this whole thing is a set up nothing is...

John Mercer Walker, Jr. (born December 26, 1940) is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a cousin of U.S. Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. He was chief judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2000, until October 1, 2006, when he assumed senior status.
He was a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before being elevated to the Second Circuit in 1989.

en.wikipedia.org...

If this Judge is related to the Bush family then I believe this gives April and her lawyers grounds to appeal this case to a higher court. *It is a conflict of interest at best.* This alone reeks of a cover up to stop the truth from being exposed. As for those of you debunkers who enjoy insulting and talking down to everyone who does not believe in the delusional OS fairytales that the government told the truth that flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon yet didn’t break a single window at the impact hole. I just have to tell some of you, go sell that OS nonsense to the MSN crowd, you know, the none thinking crowd the very people who’s only interest is what Brittney Spears is wearing today and American Idol.

Just because some of you believe the government does not lie don’t expect the rest of us critical thinkers to believe in your opinions and beliefs, especially since none of you have a leg to stand on for critical, tangible, evidence like the airplanes time change out parts that have serials numbers and maintenance record that would prove that these planes were the real planes that were used in the terrorist attacks. All you have is the word of Government officials and no evidence.

Sorry, the government word is meaningless today, they have demonstrated what excellent story tellers they can be, or are some of you OS defenders going to deny this fact to?

Originally posted by impressme
As for those of you debunkers who enjoy insulting and talking down to everyone who does not believe in the delusional OS fairytales bla bla bla ...

I definitely fit in that category. You guys are hilarious. I come here every day and laugh at you. You ask me to look at your evidence, and I do. I look at your Truther facts and your Truther physics and I come away laughing.

So far all you have got is;

Larry Silverstein did in fact say.... Pull It

and WTC7 did in fact fall at near free fall acceleration for 2.24 sec 6 sec into the collapse.

You Have Nothing Else .

especially since none of you have a leg to stand on for critical, tangible, evidence like the airplanes time change out parts that have serials numbers and maintenance record that would prove that these planes were the real planes that were used in the terrorist attacks. All you have is the word of Government officials and no evidence.

N612UA also known as UA 175



Debris found on top of WTC5

















Is that number good enough for you?

I didn't think so.