Saturday, July 01, 2006

April Gallop Speaks (On This Blog)

One of the negatives with Blogger comments as compared to Haloscan is that the former don't give you a real idea of when the comments were left--a time is given, but not a date. April Gallop apparently responded to a long ago post of mine here, and I am reproducing her comments here:

Why would you call my case strange. What is disappointing is that you would attempt to attack me. I can't control the media and what they finally decide to write. You should know that about mass media. I have watched my comments be totally distorted. I have requested for retractions and or corrections but it doesn't happen.
We are all aware at this point how an individual's story can be utilized for a writer's motive. that doesn't make my case strange. That just show how the media will miscontrue comments to suit their purpose, which is what caused me to go speak at the Journalism. I shared my story with the main purpose of inspiration. With the hope that noone will have our experience ever again.


This was the first comment she left, and I think she was responding to my title "The Strange Case of April Gallop". In all probability I should have titled it "The Strange Case of Jim Marrs". I certainly didn't want to imply that there was anything strange about April herself, or even her story--just the way it had been twisted by people with their own agenda (which certainly appears to be the case).

Here's her second comment:

I spoke out at the Dart Center of Journalism for many reasons. Once you survive a traumatic event you learn to live and cope. But what is further traumatizing is when people distort your words for their own motives. For example this website,"Screw Loose Change." You aren't any different. What you have done is further traumatizing because you didn't even do an interview with me, on top of that you took comments from the articles to cause negative questionable aspirations towards me.
When you read the articles, why didnt' you contact me to ask questions?? You didn't because you had a motive just like all the other writers. So you are no different then those you attack.
Now let me help piece together what you consider strange. I was on the inside of a building with my newborn, whom I didn't know was going to survive!! Can you relate to all the emotions I was feeling at one time?? I thought that was one of the most secure building in all of the United States. I wasn't on the outside when the building was hit. From the inside it sounded like a bomb. When we worked to escape and helps others as well..I don't recall any debris from a plane. That is what most reporters want to know from those on the inside..Did I see any plane debris?? NO I didn't. I was triaged.And by the time I made it to the hospital..with my child, yes I was very afraid beyond your understanding. In spite of my faith in GOD. I didn't know what happened. Representatives from each military service came to the local hospitals to find those in the military for accountability. I was informed by the representative from the Army (whose name i will leave out) that it was a plane that hit the building. When that seed was planted, that it was a plane that actually hit the buidling at a time I am in a hospital bed, it added to my fears, anxieties etc.. So yes, I became fearful of riding planes, jumpy when hearing them ....Jim Mars distorted that comment for his gain.
What you should examine, is how one of the most secure buildings get attacked and no security mechanisms work on that particular day. Not one alarm went off prior to the hit. Why don't you examine that instead of attacking people that you don't personally interview?? Writers, reports distort comments for various reasons. Some change their writings because their space was decreased in a newspaper or their Editor didn't like their write up...so many reasons. But it doesn't make it right.
Your blog space have alterior motives to discredit. Because you take articles that would appear to be direct quotes without doing actual interviews for your own motives. Again, instead of going after people go after real issues. As I stated the Pentagon deemed to be one of the most secure buildings was attacked and we saw on national TV recently how not one security mechanism worked. And I can verify, not one alarm went off. How is it on one particular day no mechanism worked??? Spend time analyzing real issues.
Further, I don't believe in the term illegal immigrant. The proper terminology is illegal alien. I do not support those who break the law to enter our country. And get access to benefits that citizens of our country can't utilize. For example, if a citizen relocates to another state and go to college...they will have to pay out of state fees for one year. Someone who is an illegal alien get a break on tuition. And they aren't citizens. They are lawbreakers. If Americans can't break their countries laws neither should illegals within the country. Screw Loose Change should examine why certain elected officials support illegals in our country and allow them to break our laws!


I think you can see that while April remains upset with us for the "strange case" bit, and while she has legitimate reasons to be angry with the government for not protecting her, she is not endorsing "Loose Change" or Jim Marrs, by any means. I absolutely meant no insult to April herself, who's been doubly victimized, by the terrorists and by the CTers. We did not "attack" her by any means.

But I do think I made a wrong assumption, that April was firmly in the "a plane hit the Pentagon" camp, based on the articles I read, and for that I certainly apologize.

BTW, Dylan responded to April on that thread:

mrs. gallop,
this is dylan avery, director of loose change, the movie this website is constantly attacking, and features your words as reported by mr. marrs.
i have had the pleasure of running into both mr. marrs, and a woman by the name of barbara honegger, who claims to be a close friend of yours.
regardless of what you saw or experienced, I would like to hear in your own words what you experienced on that morning.
please take note I have nothing but respect for you and your son, and what both of you had to endure,
my e-mail is xxxxxxxxx
sincerely,
-dylan


(email addy deleted).

Let me say here that if April would like to tell her own story in her own words, we would be thrilled to have her post here.

54 Comments:

At 01 July, 2006 08:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

What you should examine, is how one of the most secure buildings get attacked and no security mechanisms work on that particular day. Not one alarm went off prior to the hit. Why don't you examine that instead of attacking people that you don't personally interview??

This just debunked your whole blog and what I have been trying to tell you guys. Instead of attacking Loose Change, Dylan and the LC crew, why aren't you putting any effort into the above serious question?

Here's the same observation for someone else:

Former Reagan Cabinet Member and Colonel Says 9/11 "Dog That Doesn't Hunt"
Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn't protect Pentagon, astounded at "conspiracy theory" put out by government
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | July 1 2006
..

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:38, Blogger MarkyX said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

So the ONLY explaination to the attacks was a cover-up, as opposed to poor security policies that have been used since the Cold War?

You need to think outside the box. If people want a transparent government, they first stop by accusing them of a crime they didn't commit. I'm all for a more open government, but yelling that jews are running the world, all the world leaders worship satan, or saying Al-Qaeda is a fake only going to force the government into a defensive and pull shit like the Patriot Act.

If Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, or other CTs stance towards the government was along the lines of "Why aren't these questions answered? We, as the taxpayers, have the authority to ask questions and demand answers." instead of ranting about the New World Order or 'War for Oil', I would actually be SUPPORTING you guys.

That wasn't a typo.

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:52, Blogger shawn said...

I think it's funny that nesnyc keeps saying "this or that has been debunked" when it hasn't at all. No one has said poor security allowed 9/11 to take place.

Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn't protect Pentagon, astounded at "conspiracy theory" put out by government

Because most of that goes to defense on the outside.

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

poor security policies that have been used since the Cold War

What world do you live on? How many "wars" has the US been in since the "cold war?" You mean to tell me our defense systems have been stuck there? Does that even justify the money they spend on "defense?"

Try harder, that didn't even make a dent in the argument.

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

Because most of that goes to defense on the outside.

Plain and simply, BULLSHIT.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:04, Blogger MarkyX said...


How many "wars" has the US been in since the "cold war?


Idiot. That's the POINT!

You don't update policies or up the funds in defense during peacetime, therefore security was in a much weaker state. The military policy changes by Bill Clinton didn't help either.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:16, Blogger shawn said...

Plain and simply, BULLSHIT.

No, no it isn't. Can you go at least one post without making a mistake?

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

Idiot. That's the POINT!

Military and CIA interventions since World War II:

1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present

Any questions? You guys make it seem like the US is ALWAYS at peace when they are in a constant state of war!

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:25, Blogger nesNYC said...

No, no it isn't. Can you go at least one post without making a mistake?

You're the one making the mistakes and is why you can't comprehend the topic.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:26, Blogger James B. said...

Bulgaria? Where the hell do you come up with this crap?

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

Bulgaria? Where the hell do you come up with this crap?

I didn't your government did. Look it up champ.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:33, Blogger shawn said...

You're the one making the mistakes and is why you can't comprehend the topic.

Wow, good retort.

Your list was of zero wars. Hell, most of your stuff is wrong. You blame America for stuff it didn't commit (the debacle in Timor and such). I wonder how you became so insanely biased (I'm sure you copied and pasted that off some great website).

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:34, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, half your instances act as if America was the bad guy in childish sarcastic tones.

"It's bad to save Albanian Muslim from genocide!"

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

Your list was of zero wars.

50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier

52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust

Um... When a US military goes into a foreign land, what exactly is that called? Duh!

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

"It's bad to save Albanian Muslim from genocide!"

Military intervention anyone? Now honestly, if they are creating these wars, eh.. interventions, what the heck makes you think they are not going to beef up the defenses at home? You have to be really stupid, or ignorant, or both to come up with that conclusion.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:42, Blogger shawn said...

You have to be really stupid, or ignorant, or both to come up with that conclusion.

Well, first off America has technically only fought five wars in its history...

And no, it isn't "stupid or ignorant". You beef up security at home when you think your enemy will attack you at home. Let's see how many times a wartime enemy attacked the US - twice. Care to name the instances?

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:48, Blogger James B. said...

So how did the war in Bulgaria go? Did we win?

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

And no, it isn't "stupid or ignorant". You beef up security at home when you think your enemy will attack you at home. Let's see how many times a wartime enemy attacked the US - twice. Care to name the instances?

It's absolutely amazing what you guys will go through to justify your position. Here's a very easy example.

We all know the Stealth Bomber was first used in Gulf War I (there's post Cold War, War BTW). This technology wasn't developed over in the Middle East; it was developed and implemented HERE, FIRST! These weapons systems have to have their bases of operation in the US before they could ever by deployed externally. So what you guys are saying is made for overseas has to be deployed here FIRST. It's really quite simple.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:50, Blogger shawn said...

These weapons systems have to have their bases of operation in the US before they could ever by deployed externally. So what you guys are saying is made for overseas has to be deployed here FIRST. It's really quite simple.


Those are OFFENSIVE weapons.

You insult us for our justification and then make a point that buttresses our side.

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:55, Blogger nesNYC said...

Those are OFFENSIVE weapons.

So they only have ONE use? LMAO!

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

Hahaha... Why are "offensive" F-15's scrambled when a commercial airplane goes off course then?

 
At 01 July, 2006 10:03, Blogger shawn said...

Hahaha... Why are "offensive" F-15's scrambled when a commercial airplane goes off course then?

That's a stealth bomber now?

Funny, I thought that was the B-2 Spirit.

 
At 01 July, 2006 10:18, Blogger MarkyX said...

Nesync, those incidents were overseas. When the cold war was around, money was pumped into domestic defense. The wars you list AFTER the cold war show no need for domestic defense.

 
At 01 July, 2006 10:18, Blogger MarkyX said...

Hahaha... Why are "offensive" F-15's scrambled when a commercial airplane goes off course then?

Scrambling is surveying the situation, not taking aircraft down.

 
At 01 July, 2006 10:29, Blogger Richard said...

So what is this country suppost to be like?!?!?! Are we suppost to have ADA batteries (that's missiles to shoot down planes btw) all over the country or soldiers on regular patrols around the country? Does anyone find this ironic? The CT'ers expect us to have all of that but if we were to have all of that I'm 100% sure that they would be whining about a "police state" I served in the Armed Forces so I think that makes me a bit more qualified to talk about defense than say nesnyc. The entire way our defense system was and still is really today is set up to look outside the country. At any given time there is only a handful of forces responsible for security inside the US. Yeah it sucks but thats how it is. Nothing is 100% safe and it never will be but I don't think that its proof of a conspiracy.

Think about it, with the exception of Pearl Harbor how many times have the enemy forces of a country attacked the US on its own soil? Not a big number to count really. We should be better prepared for events like this but as they say hindsight is 20/20.

 
At 01 July, 2006 11:09, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Nes, please stop using past US military interventions as "proof" of the idiotic 9-11 conspiracy. For one thing, one reason we know of those interventions is because either the information was declassified, or the intervention was actually publicized(under some nonsensical claim like "defending democracy" etc.)

Once again CTs drag down real issues with their nonsense. Perhaps you would like to name one US intervention that began with the US government KILLING several thousand of its own citizens in a faked attack.

 
At 01 July, 2006 11:16, Blogger CHF said...

LOL!

Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust

Ah so that was the holocaust. Not 4-6 million Jews.

You're fucked up.

 
At 01 July, 2006 11:27, Blogger shawn said...

(under some nonsensical claim like "defending democracy" etc.)

Not unlike the Soviets pretending their graps for power were for the "proletariat".

 
At 01 July, 2006 11:38, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Right, US grab for power: Defending Democracy!

Soviet assistance of National Liberation groups and workers rebellions: Power grab!!

 
At 01 July, 2006 11:55, Blogger Alex said...

"The entire way our defense system was and still is really today is set up to look outside the country."

All of North America works that way. That's why NORAD funds have traditionaly gone into the development of northern radar systems - because the only real threat we've ever had was air-based attack by long-range bombers and ICBM's. We have the advantage of having only two nations on the entire continent, both of which maintain good relations with eachother. Such a setup has, up untill 9/11, made internal defence measures unneccesary. Any enemy attempting to attack us would have to do so by sea or air, and the US navy and airforce are second to none, and can intercept and stop enemy forces well outside of the border.

Can you imagine the public uproar pre 9/11 if NORAD had been caught wasting funds on missile systems meant to bring down commercial aircraft?

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:00, Blogger Alex said...

Right, US grab for power: Defending Democracy!

Soviet assistance of National Liberation groups and workers rebellions: Power grab!!


JP, communism in practice is the forced removal of personal property for the use of those in power. Every incarnation of it has resulted in millions of deaths, and an inefficient, tyrannical government. It's evil, plain and simple. Theerefore giving "assistance" to groups attempting to force a communist tyranny on their countrymen is evil also.

And no, don't use the "I lived in a communist country so I know what I'm talking about" line of argument. I was also born in a communist country, as were my parents. All of us see it for what it truly is. There's many good reasons why we moved to a democratic country, and they all have to do with the evils of communism.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:11, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Let me get this straight Alex, I can't use the "lived in a Communist country argument", but you can? Communism is the appropriation of the means of production for the working class, plain and simple. The plain facts and statistics, when taken in context to the situation today, as well as in pre-Communist times, prove the accomplishments of socialism.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of problems; but the concept is so important that it is crucial that people study those facts, in their objective nature, to pinpoint the exact causes of these problems.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:13, Blogger default.xbe said...

i think we need to distinguish communism from socialism here

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:18, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Simple. Socialism takes on many forms but is generally a system wherein the means of production are consolidated in the hands of the state, for public benefit.

Communism is a state that would theoretically evolve after socialist states have advanced to that point. This process was believed to be very long-term. Pol Pot tried to go directly into a Communist system with disasterous consequences.

One must remember that every socialist country began at a point FAR behind the western nations when they implemented socialism(compare interwar Germany with Imperial Russia for example). Given the basketcase existence of imperial Russia, socialism's accomplishments were astounding. That is the factor people often forget: consider the nation in question's prior existence before judging its post-socialism existence.

Of course this system was betrayed by insiders in a deliberate move to eliminate socialism- with disasterous consequences for their populations. Therein lies the riddle as to the problem with socialism- finding out the problems with the system's views that led to the rise of opportunists and sell-outs.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:22, Blogger default.xbe said...

Simple. Socialism takes on many forms but is generally a system wherein the means of production are consolidated in the hands of the state, for public benefit.

Communism is a state that would theoretically evolve after socialist states have advanced to that point. This process was believed to be very long-term. Pol Pot tried to go directly into a Communist system with disasterous consequences.


i can never find any two people who can agree which one is socialism and which one is communism

either way, if you believe communism is the classless, stateless system, then i think we can agree no communist nation has ever existed, and that the socialist systems that did exist pretty much sucked

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:23, Blogger apathoid said...

N'sync

How did you get so messed up dude??

Share you internet bookmarks, favorite books/ movies with us so we can be sure to stay away from them(We already know a few like Jewwatch.org)

You should probably be on medication. With enough Mellaril, the conspriracy theories will go away, nesnyc.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:25, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Well default, that is because there are different forms of socialism. That's why some get more specific by calling their ideology Marxist-Leninism. In other words, the socialist ideas of Marx-Lenin as opposed to socialism in general. In Marx's time there were many different forms of socialism, as he outlines in the Communist manifesto.

Let me just say this: If you think that life in Communist countries "sucked" you should see how they are now, or how they were before socialism.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:30, Blogger Alex said...

"Let me get this straight Alex, I can't use the "lived in a Communist country argument", but you can?"

No, no, no. You misunderstand. I'm just saying don't use that argument because you've done it before, and I could use the same line to support a completely different conclusion.

Communism is the appropriation of the means of production for the working class, plain and simple.

Except it's NEVER worked that way.


Maybe Communism in tha far distant future WOULD work. Maybe it wouldn't be evil. But that's the problem with all the pro-communism intelectuals - they've got their heads stuck in the clouds, postulating about what could be and may be. I tend to focus on what IS. Communism doesn't work. Every incarnation of it that we've seen HAS been evil, including the Soviet version. Even my cusin, who is pro-communism, has over time come to accept that humanity in it's present condition cannot maintain a functional communist society. Hell, even Marx understood that it would be a damn long time before Communism became workable, and that only global capitalism could produce the resources neccesary to make communism feasable. THAT is why winning the cold war was so important. If Communism is ever to become viable, it must be fought against for the conceivable future.

And yes, Default is right, we need to differentiate between socialism and communism. I'm not a huge fan of socialism either, but I wouldn't call it evil.

 
At 01 July, 2006 12:55, Blogger default.xbe said...

Let me just say this: If you think that life in Communist countries "sucked" you should see how they are now, or how they were before socialism.

all i can compare it to is the 3 trips i made to germany

in 1988 i was able to look at the east german border, but i couldnt approach it

in 1991 i was able to cross the old border, the places i saw were a dump, many areas had never been rebuilt after WWII, and i unknowingly spent several minutes wandering in an unmarked live minefield

in 2001 it was a completely different place, i saw things being rebuilt and it looked like civilization again



from what i undertsand east germany was supposed to be one of the better "soviet" nations, still didnt take them long to re-unify though

 
At 01 July, 2006 14:10, Blogger shawn said...

I think it's hilarious when the US ACTUALLY TURNS DICTATORSHIPS INTO DEMOCRATIC NATIONS it's a power grab, but it's "liberation" when the Soviets institute Communism which turns nations into dictatorial trashheaps.

In theory, communism is great, in practice it'll never work. Ever wonder why the workers beat up socialists? Notice that the rule (I know there are exceptions) is that they become autocratic regimes? Socialism causes stagnation, look at Europe right now. France is falling apart because of their socialist system.

 
At 01 July, 2006 14:35, Blogger MarkyX said...

Communism can only work when we don't have to.

 
At 01 July, 2006 19:47, Blogger undense said...

This just debunked your whole blog and what I have been trying to tell you guys. Instead of attacking Loose Change, Dylan and the LC crew, why aren't you putting any effort into the above serious question?

That's because, while the question is very likely seriously intended by Ms. Gallop, it's a misplaced question and a straw man.

Can you prove the Pentagon had an alarm protocol for notification of an airplane crashing into it? Was there an airplane detection mechanism, radar, and any other mechanism that would warm them someone was about to intentionally fly a commercial airplane into the Pentagon?

Of course there wasn't. There was no time for a warning to be issued let alone to set any alarms off.

Do you ever use your brain to actually think through anything with any sort of reasonable depth of intellect, nesnyc? I've yet to see any evidence of that.

 
At 01 July, 2006 21:26, Blogger nesNYC said...

Can you prove the Pentagon had an alarm protocol for notification of an airplane crashing into it?

Ah, yeah.

 
At 01 July, 2006 21:29, Blogger default.xbe said...

Ah, yeah.

conducting a drill is not the same as having a warning alarm in place

and IIRC MASCAL didnt have anythign to do with hijacked planes or terrorism, just a emergency drill dealing with a plane crash (they are a spit away from reagan natl airport)

 
At 01 July, 2006 21:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

Of course there wasn't. There was no time for a warning to be issued let alone to set any alarms off.

Bullshit. It was, I believe, more than an hour since the last tower got hit. Plenty of time to reinforce that [already] no-fly zone over DC.

 
At 01 July, 2006 21:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

conducting a drill is not the same as having a warning alarm in place

and IIRC MASCAL didnt have anythign to do with hijacked planes or terrorism, just a emergency drill dealing with a plane crash (they are a spit away from reagan natl airport)


Come on now. If they conceptualized a plane hitting, wouldn’t' they also prepare protocol to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Are you saying our military is incompetent?

 
At 01 July, 2006 22:34, Blogger apathoid said...

Come on now. If they conceptualized a plane hitting, wouldn’t' they also prepare protocol to prevent this sort of thing from happening?

Such as?? I want suggestions.

But, I want to hear how you'd defend this scenario. If I can think of it, I know a terrorist can think of it.

The proximity of the Pentagon from DCA, in particular the approaches to runways 18 and 15, make it near impossible to defend it from an aerial attack.
Lets say well trained/funded terrorists charter 2 business jets with the intent of the slamming them into the Pentagon.
They takeoff from remote airports with flight plans taking them into DCA at roughly the same time. They takeover the aircraft(no passengers, subdue pilots something like chloroform) while the aircraft is on its approach (5-10 minutes out). If the approach is to runway 18 then they would only have to make a minor heading correction, clean the plane(gear, flaps up) push the throttles to the wall, aim and hit it.

There would almost no warning, the pilots might or might not be able to warn ATC(I doubt they'd be able to squawk 7700 in time), but even if they did, that might wield 3-5 minutes of warning max.

So how do you implement a fail safe system that would work in this situation when fighters couldnt be scrambled in time.

To give you an idea of the proximity of the airport to the Pentagon, have a look at these pictures I took in 2002 on approach to runway 18.

 
At 01 July, 2006 22:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

Come on now. If they conceptualized a plane hitting, wouldn’t' they also prepare protocol to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Are you saying our military is incompetent?

they conceptualized an accident happening, if there was a way to prevent accidents from occuring there would be no need for the emergency drill in the first place

 
At 02 July, 2006 08:33, Blogger undense said...

Ah, yeah.
Nice red herring but you provided no proof of an alarm system whatsoever. The link shows that MASCAL was a contingency response to an attack.

"In the experiment, emergency personnel were required to hold radio and other communications devices to increase their operational readiness for quickly transporting massive casualties from the disaster area to medical centers. Toy trucks were used as miniature models to simulate emergency transport vehicles for victims."

It was a response to an attack, not a warning alarm. Do you even bother to read the things you provide links to?

Bullshit. It was, I believe, more than an hour since the last tower got hit. Plenty of time to reinforce that [already] no-fly zone over DC.

What you believe doesn't matter one whit. What matters is reality, and you claiming there should have been some kind of alarm without having any proof whatsoever there was such alarm protocol in existence is pure BS.

Besides that, how do you jump to the conclusion that a plane hitting a building in NYC implies another plane was headed for a target in DC? How does any sort of logic make one come to that conclusion? Once again you just spout crap without any sort of logic or critical thinking whatsoever involved.

 
At 14 July, 2006 15:26, Blogger damien said...

undense, you said:

"What matters is reality, and you claiming there should have been some kind of alarm without having any proof whatsoever there was such alarm protocol in existence is pure BS."

April Gallop said they had drills all the time. To do that you have to have alarm or fire signals of one kind or another. This is confirmed by the MASCAL drill.

For security reasons the Pentagon is not going to publicise its alarm or drill codes. But it is almost certain that there would be a variety of alarm signals for different circumstances.

You say:

Besides that, how do you jump to the conclusion that a plane hitting a building in NYC implies another plane was headed for a target in DC?

I live in Australia. After the first tower hit even our tv stations plugged in live. I watched the second tower hit at 9.03am and it was plain to me that this was a series of terrorist attacks. Blind Freddie could have seen it.

VP Cheney was hustled away to the PEOC at 9.00am by the Secret Service. They were also monitoring FAA radar in real time and they knew planes had been hijacked, and they had heard the phone call from Flight attendant Betty Ong on Flight 11. So these guys knew absolutely it was a terrorist attack using planes.

It had been known for years that the Pentagon was a landmark that terrorists might seek to target. Once the WTC attacks were known the Pentagon should have been on high alert immediately.

In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism." This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress.

The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."(link)

And, of course, you might like to explain why VP Cheney monitored the radar of Flight 77 and allowed it to approach the Pentagon UNOPPOSED.(link)

Finally, a witness to the Pentagon crash has come forward saying the attack plane used was a Global Hawk pilotless drone. (link)

Make no mistake about it. These guys stood around and DID NOTHING while a plane of some description crashed into the Pentagon.

 
At 27 August, 2006 02:23, Blogger Jerod C. Batte said...

Oy. Freaking. Vey.

How much hate mail do you poor guys get per day???

I state for the record: I am a die-hard conspiracy theorist. I don't think Oswald did it. I think the Federal Reserve is a criminal sham.

...And I think "Loose Change" is full of it. Sorry to disappoint my fellow CTS, but the guys at "Screw Loose Change" have the goods.

Not that I'm against Jim Marrs, Alex Jones or any of my other fellow CTS, but I don't support what "Loose Change" has done -- building a "crusade for Truth" upon a tower of lies. Come to think of it, wasn't that how the original "Crusades" were started?

 
At 16 March, 2007 16:44, Blogger carrie said...

And what "tower of lies" would you be talking about in Loose Change?
No really...I want to know.

See what I can't shake is...
Please,Please,Please...what part of IT'S ALL THE SAME PEOPLE is confusing to Americans? Could someone help me to understand?

Let's see here's the jist...

Vietnam: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr., Kissinger, Wolfowitz, amoung others...

Watergate: Kissinger, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush Sr.

Savings and Loan Scandal: Wolfowtiz, Cheney, Bush Sr., Kissinger, Howard Hunt

Iran-Contra: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr., Kissinger, current Secretary of Defense Brown also caught amnesia under oath...

Numerous South American coups: Bush Sr., Kissinger, Rummy, Negroponte, Howard Hunt

JFK: Bush Sr. FORGOT WHERE HE WAS THAT DAY and then went OFF at Ford's FUNERAL about CTs of the Warren Commission. HA HA Idiot. How inappropriate and suspicious.

I'm sure I'm forgetting extensive naughty behavior displayed by several of these folks. But hell...most Americans don't even know that Prescott BUSH had his assets frozen in the forties. Why?
CAUSE HE WAS LAUNDERING MONEY TO THE NAZIs.

Besides...Controlled Demolition is THE ONLY explanation of WTC collapse. What else PULVERIZES concrete? What else explains why that pulverized concrete flew UP before it came DOWN. It's quite basic science. You know...those silly little laws of GRAVITY and INERTIA...pesky science

So to recap...the Executive office of the USA is CORPORATE. Halliburton (who now is in Dubi so as to keep all their records sealed from Congress...gooOOOOO Corporate Corruption!)and KBR are in the Vice President's chair and Weapons Manufacturing (the Carlyle Group) and big oil is in the President's chair. Gosh...I'm pretty sure under different circumstances or in a normal business scenario this would be considered a wee bit of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Corporations run our government. Both Rep & Dems are working for Corporate Interest. And damn near every large scale terrible thing that happens can be traced to some corporate interest EVERY TIME...so what exactly are we supposed to think is going on?

If they had a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon they would have shown it by now.

NORAD...what?
FEMA bio-terrorism drill on 9/11...what? how convenient!
Cover-up? Oh yes Incompetence that MUST be it. Billionaires who have been running the government for 50years or so are just Incompetent. Yeah that makes perfect sense... yeah sure Incompetence is spreading like Herpes in college.

I'm not buying what ya'll are selling.

 
At 23 December, 2009 12:47, Blogger bathmate said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home