911 Survivor Won't Back Down

Originally posted by impressme

Lots of words, nothing or real substanance......

Have you tried filing a FOIA request with the FBI for the records of the different plane parts found at the different sites?

reply to post by FDNY343

Lots of words, nothing or real substanance......

One can say the same about your posts, how does that work for you?

Have you tried filing a FOIA request with the FBI for the records of the different plane parts found at the different sites?

I don’t have too, a few pilots for Pilots For 911 Truth have, and you know this, so why did you ask me a ridiculous question?

The FBI refuses to answer most FOIA regarding the alleged planes.

reply to post by impressme


The planes were all decommissioned.

Here are the FAA records for each plane also...

registry.faa.gov...

registry.faa.gov...



registry.faa.gov...

Two registry were cancelled (owned by the same company) and the other 2 were listed as destroyed.

This is the one that the OP states did not exist...

registry.faa.gov...

it is listed as destroyed.

Also, there are still criminal and civil investigations stemming from 9/11 so alot of information was and has not been released by the FBI. One big one is KSM...

reply to post by esdad71

This is the one that the OP states did not exist...

By OP are you referring to my understanding that there have been no plane parts that have been forensically matched to any of these aircraft? Or by OP are you referring to Ms. Gallop who denied seeing aircraft parts?

If you're referring to me, is that what I said; that they "did not exist"?

reply to post by esdad71

Also, there are still criminal and civil investigations stemming from 9/11 so alot of information was and has not been released by the FBI. One big one is KSM...

edit on 11-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

Is that all you got?

esdad71, I already said the same statements about the FBI not releasing any information under the FOIA due to on going investigation perhaps you overlook it.

Your source tells me absolutely nothing. Can you prove that information was not made up?
Where are all the maintenance records to these four planes? There are none?

reply to post by impressme


Why do you want maintenance records? What would that prove? So, I guess you are stating that the FAA is also "in on it", right?


Also, I meant Mrs Gallops statement.

reply to post by esdad71

So, I guess you are stating that the FAA is also "in on it", right?

Yes I am, perhaps that explains why the FAA destroyed all their tapes on that morning, don’t you think?

You know my Aunt from my dad's side of the family. Her bosses conference room was in the area where the plane hit in the pentagon. She was at the time working officially as Deputy for Armament, Vehicle and Soldier Technologies. Unofficially with DARPA TTO at the pentagon . On morning of 9/11 She was lucky enough to have felt sick/off kilter that morning and had called in. She had really talked a lot about how weird it was that day with my dad and how close a call it had been since she would have had a meeting there that morning if she had chose to go in. She has since moved to a position as deputy assistant secretary for r&t for the army at NSRDEC or Natick. she works there as a director for scientist that do the future soldier R&d info in the link at the bottom. I remember talking to her couple family gatherings ago about how when the army first inserted troops in Iraq they sent them in with woodland camo instead of desert. amusing conversation. I've read alot about the twins towers and i belive the questions asked are valid. I was reading this post and just thought i've never really asked her anything about what happened over at the pentagon. I've lightly talked about it with my dad and he said i doubt she would tell you much. im sure she knew some of the people that died there that day or at least of them. Anyway last family gathering she asked me to come see her this summer at the base. i guess i will try and talk to her there. i don't feel comfortable calling her since in a discussion with my dad he believes due to her security clearance (note as a civilian) that she is monitered. I guess thats a no brainer seeing where she had worked. . I'm not going to go jesse ventura on her or conspiracy theorist like. Staying way clear of that, just general questions since i never really sat down and had a one on one with her about that day. I will post my finding and maybe do an interview and anything interesting in a post here after i see her. She has an exciting job methinks she recently had a meeting in front of congress about her R&D budget which is about 2 billion lol.
Some info about NSRDEC

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by impressme


Did they really destroy ALL of the tapes? Do you have any proof other that what you read?

The tape you are referring to is an interview tape that was never turned in, not the official transcripts from the flight. Why don't you try to be a little more honest and forthcoming with the information you post. If you only post part of a story you can sensationalize it but when you read into it the truth comes out.


Can you tell me who he interviewed?
Can you tell me who released the report that stated they were destroyed?
Did you know that they transcribed the tapes to paper and they were submitted?

Here, I will help you...

This is the original article where this came forward. It was found because of the 9/11 commission investigation.

www.washingtonpost.com...

and here is a follow up that explains it a little better

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by impressme
One can say the same about your posts, how does that work for you?

It doesn't. See my post on the last page. Lots of links and quotes showing no COI according to US law.

Maybe you missed that post?

Originally posted by impressme

I don’t have too, a few pilots for Pilots For 911 Truth have, and you know this, so why did you ask me a ridiculous question?

The FBI refuses to answer most FOIA regarding the alleged planes.

No, P4T to my knowledge have done nothing of the sort. Can you reference it?

If they have, and it was denied, have they filed an appeal asking for judicial review?

Originally posted by THEDUDE86

Originally posted by THEDUDE86
What about the people who called 911 for seeing a low flying plane

What about the people who called 911 for seeing a low flying plane

Seriously, why did that information go out the door....There were about 30 witnesses who watched the plane from the highway run right into the building, what about those people, were they all making it up


It would be a great story if they faked it, but simply said all the evidence I have ever seen has not completed any theory...

The worst part of it all is how you guys become experts on structures during fire. I spent 5 years of my life gaining a fire engineering degree (not fire protection degree), I have spent years understanding the thermodynamics of fire and its effect on structures....there is no doubt in my mind that fire could easily take out the building if the fire protection systems in place that protects the steel failed...

Also, a fire burning in building 7 for long enough could also take the building out almost perfectly like a demolition crew.....

Conduction through steel structures is very easily able to spread the heat in ways that many of you can not understand.....Take this from an expert (court obtained) that a fire could easily take down those buildings.

edit on 6-4-2011 by THEDUDE86 because: (no reason given)

Not a chance! No need to elaborate but who cares if you claim to be an expert in "fire engineering" if you make such outrageous claims.
I watched the mgm burn in vegas.
I watched many, many implosions.
I have seen burned out structures.
I say without any doubts whatsover, you are dreaming to think your claims can be accepted simply because you are a self proclaimed expert.
I am a builder and I have spent my career correcting and fixing expert engineers designs.
So since you obviously know nothing about structural engineering and the box type structural frame that was used in 1 and 2 you will never ever ever be able to explain the pancaking of the structure below THE FIRES and why there was never a weak spot in either tower that allowed it to tip to the path of least resistance and leave part of the structural beams standing and intact or pushed blocks and blocks away as it leaned and fell opposite the way it would HAVE fall naturally if it was not imploded.

I am tellin you dude that everything I have done in building in a boom city I am simply amazed at implosions. Nothing in engineering fields as cool and set as a perfect science as what is needed to create and time the vacuum needed to get a strucure to fall into it's own footprint.

reply to post by esdad71

Why don't you try to be a little more honest and forthcoming with the information you post.

You are the one with that history, thank you.

F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements

www.nytimes.com...

No there nothing to hide everyone is being completely open and honest.

reply to post by impressme


You did not answer any of my questions? Please, provide us with some answers. Per usual, in these threads, information is given to you as well as questions asked but no answers. There is no history there except for me giving you a question you cannot answer.

One of the reasons the FAA would not want the tapes released is that there latency in determining what the issue was leading the contact of NORAD and to the scrambling of aircraft vital minutes later than they should have. This is covering your ass and not a conspiracy. They wanted to save their jobs because they fked up that morning.

At 8:14 Flight 11 lost contact....NORAD was not contacted until 8:40...it struck the WTC at 8:46...

It also turns out that the judge is a cousin to George H.W. Bush, which is the OLDER president Bush, and not the one who was in office on 9/11!!

It's official, Truthers loose.

Aipril Fools


I like this part;

As in United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1982), this appeal was an unnecessary imposition “on the government which is forced to defend against the appeal and on the taxpayers who must pay for that defense.” Id. at 382. Accordingly, Gallop and her counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from the date of entry of this order why they should not pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they would be jointly and severally liable, under Rule 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court. See, e.g., Knipe v. Skinner, 999 F.2d 708, 711 (2d Cir. 1993) (ordering nostra sponte that counsel show cause why he should not pay doublecostsandfeesunderRule38).3 Thegovernmentshallfilealetter-briefwithinthree days of Gallop=s counsel=s submission stating its views, if any, on the question of sanctions