Showing posts with label April Gallop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label April Gallop. Show all posts

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Jerry Mazza: Obama Bin Lyin'

Muslims for 9/11 Truth

The US authorities claim they shot an unarmed, defenseless Osama Bin Laden in what can only be described as an act of cold-blooded murder -- then threw his body in the ocean. This story is not only an insult to Muslim sensibilities, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who hears it.

Why wouldn't they make every effort to take Bin Laden alive in order to glean potentially crucial information, then put him on trial? And if they had screwed up and killed him, why wouldn't they keep his body around long enough to satisfy a skeptical world -- and then have it buried according to Muslim custom, in order to avoid reprisals by millions of angry Muslims?

Muslims for 9/11 Truth board member Enver Masud predicted, almost exactly one year ago, that US authorities were preparing to stage "Bin Laden's death." Looks like Enver nailed that one!

Meanwhile, noted poet and journalist Jerry Mazza teases apart the many inconsistencies in the official account of OBL's alleged murder in a brand-new update published here first (11 a.m. Wed. 4/4/11). Listen to my conversation with Jerry Mazza today on Truth Jihad Radio, 1-2 pm Central, http://www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com

-KB

More lies my president told me?
By Jerry Mazza
Updated 5/4/2011

As the President’s ratings were sinking, his approval for four wars diminishing, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner continued to push for a rise in the 14 billion plus national debt ceiling, Wall Street speculation was still driving up gas and food prices. What better time for Barack Obama to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden by a team of Navy Seals. It’s a home-made bomb of good news to wipe away all the bad. In fact, as of May 4, 2011 the New York Times writes For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid. “Among Independents it rose 11 points from last month, to 52 percent, while among Republicans it rose 15 points, to 24 percent.” For people of conscience it hit the bottom of the barrel.

But fibbing paid off as the President referred to bin Laden as the murderer of millions of Muslims, though bin Laden was originally recruited to fight with the Mujahadeen in a Jihad against the Russians who had attacked Afghanistan to keep a government they favored in power. This Mujahadeen was the brainchild of Zbigniew Brzezinsky, then NSA adviser to Jimmy Carter. The Mujahadeen itself was armed, trained, and paid for by the CIA. Al Qaeda was a file name in bin Laden’s laptop, meaning “the base,” a list of the best men Osama fought with in Russia. Al Qaeda was branded in 2001 by the CIA as the world’s most dangerous terror group, even though the Agency had bought and paid for its creation and maintenance.

Obama also called Osama the World’s Most Wanted Terrorist, but he neglected to mention not for the crime of 9/11. There was not enough evidence according to the FBI to keep him the number one terrorist on the 9/11 list. As to the mostly Saudi “purported terrorists,” whose pictures were hastily pulled out of an FBI file, FBI chief Robert Mueller said shortly after that we couldn’t be certain they were the perps. Actually, seven or eight of them had been living in Mid-Eastern countries at the time, and were victims obviously of identity theft. Also, why show any faces without complete certainty about who they are?

As to the airliners they purportedly hijacked, there are many who do not believe the impact and/or fires of the airliners brought down the World Trade Towers. 1492 hundred engineers and architects believe the Towers were brought down by internal demolition, as was Tower 7, never hit by an airliner, but “pulled” by internal demolition at the request of its owner, Larry Silverstein, because “there had been so much pain and suffering…” His announcement was made at 3 PM on 9/11 on national TV. Sure enough at 5:20 PM, down came Tower 7 in 6.5 seconds into its footprint, which is considered the model for Towers 1 and 2, leaving the desolation of Ground Zero. Trouble is it takes months not hours to rig an internal demo for a 47-story, steel framed building, so it had to be set already.

As to the Pentagon, it turned out there was only an eighteen foot wide entry hole and an even smaller exit hole. As you may know, military officer April Gallop, who had a top Pentagon security clearance, and who was back after a two-month maternity leave, her son Elisha in his basket beside her, experienced an internal explosion when she turned on her computer. It stopped the Pentagon clocks 7 minutes before Flight 77 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 9:38 AM, leaving no engines, no scuff marks, no luggage, no bodies, nothing but questions.

As to Shanksville, none other than former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently blurted out words to the effect that the Muslim terrorists were the people who blew Flight 93 out of the air. No, Don, that was probably us, too. None of this was mentioned in the President’s speech, lies simply of omission. There are more.

As to bin Laden, he entered the American Hospital in Dubai in July of 2001 for kidney dialysis, and also met there with the Mid-East US station chief, noted by Robert Baer in his book, Sleeping with the Devil - How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. How could a man as ill as bin Laden have survived the balance of a decade with a serious illness, escaping from Tora Bora later in 2001, as US troops unsuccessfully tracked him? It would have been miraculous if not hard to believe.

The dean of American scholars on the subject of 9/11, David Ray Griffin, mentions in one of his 9/11 books, Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive- that Bin Laden passed in Pakistan, in late December, 2001. There are death notices from Pakistan newspapers reproduced in the book, announcing that Bin Laden was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Pakistan as keeping with the traditions of Islam. This fact was mentioned in the NYT, Huffington Post, and Yahoo News, but in slightly different contexts.

For instance, the body of bin Laden, according to Huffington Post, was “dropped in the sea in order to leave no definitive location for his final resting place” and done so only hours later. It was CNN that originally reported “the drop” hours later. And so, are we to take it as an article of faith that there was a body, or at least pictures somewhere of the deceased, bullet-riddled Osama bin Laden. The religious issue aside, without a body we really have no case. And invoking Muslim tradition becomes a thin argument.

In Griffin’s book, published in 2009 by Olive Branch Press, the burial was noted (on page 2) from The Observer of Pakistan and the cause of death was given as “serious complications of the lungs.” Bin Laden is described as having “a natural and quiet death.” The Observer of the Pakistan newspaper “wrote he himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and the saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days [earlier].” The actual day the report was published was on December 25, 2001. The Observer also mentioned that “20 to 30 of al-Qada fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taliban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave…

P.S. The report was publicized, published and elaborated upon by Fox News in the United States. Griffin’s 98-page book is well worth reading in its entirety for the treasure of information it contains, including “causes of death; two fake bin Laden videos in 2001; purported bin Laden messages after 2001; who might have been motivated to fabricate messages; and the convenient timing of many of the messages.” I doubt if anyone in the Obama White House read this book.

Again, according to Huffington Post, “The fight lasted 40 minutes…a surgical raid” conducted by a Navy Seals unit. Bin Laden’s adult son was killed, as were two of his couriers and a woman being used as a human shield [though one paper said it was bin Laden who had done that]. Also, his wife was said to have been killed. And Bin Laden himself ‘did resist the assault force’ a senior administration official said. How did he resist? Reports on Sunday night said the terrorist leader was ultimately shot in the head.” But how did he resist? No answers yet.

In fact, in May 4, 2011’s New York Times, New US Account Says Bin Laden was Unarmed During Raid. Now we are told, “Members of a Navy Seals team burst in on Bin Laden in the compound where he was hiding and shot him in a room on an upper floor, after a fierce gun battle with other operatives of Al Qaeda on the first floor.” Huh.

“Bin Laden’s wife, who was with him in the room, ‘rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,’ said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, reading from the brief account, which was provided by the Defense Department. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.” Sounds like an execution to me though it that ugly phrase is fudged…

“Mr. Carney said that Bin Laden’s lack of a weapon did not mean he was ready to surrender, and he and other officials reiterated that this was a violent scene, that there was heavy fire from others in the house, and that the commandos did not know whether the occupants were wearing suicide belts or other explosives.” Uh huh, uh huh.

But as you know by now, Osama wasn’t living in the caves of the Afghan/Pakistan border when this happened. He was secured in a “massive compound about an hour’s drive north from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. He was hiding in the medium-sized city of Abbottabad, home to a large Pakistani military base and a military academy of the Pakistani Army, as described by The New York Times. So it would be a rather “safe” environment for him.

Huffington Post added that, “The house at the end of a narrow dirt road,” “was roughly eight times larger than other homes in the area, but had no telephone or Internet connections…” But the Times continues, “When American operatives converged on the house on Sunday, bin Laden ‘resisted the assault force’ and was killed [shot in the head] in the middle of an intense gun battle, a senior administration official said, but details [and everything else] were still sketchy. Obviously, the story was still being worked on. I predict it will continue to change ad infinitum.

Huffington added details that the neighborhood in Abbottabad was “insulated from urban areas or places susceptible to natural disaster and terrorist attacks. The home was ‘roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area,’ and it was also surrounded by 12-to-18-foot-high walls, topped with barbed wire. It had two security gates and a value of roughly $1 million…

“An even more telling clue for intelligence operatives: The occupants of the house were burning their trash rather than putting it out for collection.” But “One senior administration official suggested bin Laden had been staying at the compound for at least six months without moving. Bin Laden was known to have regularly shifted locations to evade capture, so it’s unusual that he chose to stay in one spot for such an extended period.”

Perhaps it was also that, as Huffington Post adds, “More recently, the Obama administration had reduced the number of drone strikes in the area -- while ramping up surveillance -- in an effort to give the al Qaeda leader a heightened sense of safety in his home.” I’m sure the real estate agent pointed that out to Mr. bin Laden.

Nevertheless, in a Yahoo/AP article it was said, Bin Laden’s neighbors noticed unusual things. There were 23 children at the compound and unclear, even in a large house, how that many people could live there. Various names were given, various languages were spoken, a group of expensive SUV’s surrounded the house, and things seemed out of kilt.

But knowledge of the resident, i.e. the presence of a “high value target,” i.e. bin Laden, came through “a courier who had a very close relationship with Osama.” Osama’s locale was also mentioned by the ever-confessing, ever-waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, supposed mastermind of 9/11. And so Santa’s helpers “…began working on a plan to get him.” And on that evidence they prepared to attack a massive compound. Or course, the deft attack team managed to have one of its helicopters crash nearby due to mechanical failure. One of three men killed in the gun battle was said to be bin Laden’s son (reminiscent of Kaddafi) and the other two his couriers. What, no carrier pigeons?

Of course, the announcement received the full drama of Obama’s rhetoric Sunday night, coming directly from the White House. America’s thumbs, regardless of the anomalies, were thrust up in victory gestures hither and yon. And Obama dutifully warned us that this victory must not signal an end to our vigilance against terrorists and those who would seek to harm us. What he didn’t mention was that since our original mission to attack Afghanistan was to get Osama, now that that was done, we could be pulling our troops out of A-land, and Pakistan (with whom we did not consult on this mission), and Iraq, still smoldering in the ruins of our shock and awe, and out of Libya, convulsing under NATO air strikes, and save billions.

Nevertheless, back here in New York City, security is being beefed up, paranoia ramped, and warnings made of possible reprisals from allies of the slain Osama.

But you have to stop and think for a minute, who are the real terrorists here? I know Obama said, “We didn’t ask for this fight. It was brought to us…” It could as well have been brought to us by George Bush and Company as an inciting incident to their hegemonic march for oil in the Caspian Sea Region and Iraq, which march has not diminished but expanded beyond Pakistan into Africa now, and is still bankrupting us, morally and financially, and killing many in its wake.

In fact, there was no mention of withdrawal from anywhere. So it’s Homeland Security and business as usual if not more. Yet, many people are waving flags down at the still uncompleted World Trade Center and gathering to celebrate “the victory.” My question to them is, how has the world changed for you? Are the troops coming come? Is the price of gas and food going down? How does one more fallen, albeit high level, enemy signal a massive victory?

The real celebration should come when every single American soldier has come home, when jobs have begun to be created in the hundreds of thousands, and when the economy is pulled back from the brink of catastrophe, and when we all see substantial proof that the “taking out” of Osama took place, i.e. photos of the corpse, a death certificate, etcetera. I’ll save my celebration for that day and let this clever intelligence move pass. Call me cynical if you wish, but Libya was supposed to be a “limited mission,” as was Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Meanwhile they are still all ongoing.

That’s why I have real difficulty swallowing this Pyrrhic victory and its rigged tale, including bin Laden’s military nickname of “Geronimo EKIA.” Isn’t that just a touch racist, characterizing one slain “Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886,” with a purported Mid-East leader defending his people against the U.S.? That represents a certain “skin-deep” thinking, another unusual lie from the dusky-skinned Obama.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. He has written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of theintrepidreport.com(formerly Online Journal). Reach him at gvmaz(at)verizon(dot)net.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

April Gallop’s Attorney – Charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Meyers For 9/11 War Crimes

Welcome the Light

Beth did an interview with Bill Veale last week and we are bringing it forward to you today.

Bill is the attorney for April Gallop who is suing Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Meyers for war crimes in regards to 9/11.  If you are not familiar with this case, please click HERE and HERE.
The case file can be found HERE.







TRANSCRIPT
Beth Trutwin: Hi everybody. I want to welcome you. I am interviewing this morning, the attorney for April Gallop. And this is Bill Veale. And he is going to help answer some questions we have about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Beth Trutwin: Good morning Bill, how are you?

Bill Veale: I’m fine, thank you very much.

Beth Trutwin: Good. I wanted to ask you, I thought I heard April say that her boss called her into work early and told her it was okay to bring your baby, because she was returning from maternity leave and I think what I heard was she was sitting about 40 feet from the hole that penetrated the wall. And I wonder if… she should have been killed in this accident so I was wondering why did they call her in early to work that day.

Bill Veale: Well, this is one of the thousand questions that we have [for the] people who are running the Pentagon. It wasn’t so much that she was called in early. She was told to go there first before she dropped the kid off to daycare because there was something that needed to be taken care of before she did anything else. So it’s all a mess of questions. There’s just no guessing about what happened and the only way that we’re ever going to get to the bottom of this is we have subpoena power and we get to ask her next supervisor and then that person’s supervisor and it’s like that. And we’ll always learn the answers to those questions I’m sure.

Beth Trutwin: Right I understand. Well we all know that on September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld went on the CBS nightly news to say that that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon and they couldn’t account for the loss. I was wondering do you have any information… did April’s work have anything to do with the resource services there? The bookkeepers, accountants, and budget analysts?

Bill Veale: Um, I can’t answer that question.

Beth Trutwin: Ok, that’s cool. I appreciate that. The next question I have is the 9/11 commission council Janice Kephart revealed in her interview with her interview with Jesse Ventura in December of 2010, that the protection of the institution is more important than learning the truth. Based on your experience with judge Chin and judge Walker, can you comment on that?

Bill Veale: Yeah, I’m afraid I’m one of those people in the world who takes it that there’s nothing more important than the truth. And so I think the base, the bottom, the support of democracy is people to be honest with each other and understanding what really goes on and so we’re not ever going to have a real democracy in this country where people can make intelligent decisions about their lives until we know what the consents are, what the structure is that they’re offering us. So I just completely reject the notion that [unclear] but that’s a fact.

Beth Trutwin: Exactly. I agree with that. So next I was wondering, we assume Dick Cheney was in the underground bunker at the white house around 9:40. There’s differing reports. He said as much in his interview with Tim Russert on the 16th of September. Do we know where Rumsfeld and Meyers were and why is that important to April’s case.

Bill Veale: First of all, with regards to Cheney, I think he was probably in the bunker a lot sooner than 9:40. In one of the most amazing pieces of journalism in this country is the understanding of the first minutes after the second tower was hit. The book that I like to refer to in this instance is Barton Gellman’s book “Angler” that talks about the Cheney vice presidency. The interesting thing there is that everybody who has written about these people in these times in this administration goes to 9/11 first because it was such a defining moment. And so Gellman has a number of pages about where Cheney was and what he was doing and things like that supposedly taken from records that were made at the time and people that he interviewed, I assume, at the time. And so, if you don’t mind me going on about this, about Cheney before we get to Rumsfeld and Meyers…

Beth Trutwin: Absolutely. I’ve heard of other people that were there that hasn’t been brought out.

Bill Veale: Yeah. Well. At any rate, Gellman tells the story that says that Cheney was sitting in his office looking at the television and saying muttering to himself, or the people around, this is after the first plane hit, “gee whiz… how could somebody fly into the world trade center? Into a great big building like that? How could that happen?” then at 9:03, the south tower was hit and Gellman then describes the secret service reaction. And [he] talks about then later on the secret service learns that there’s a plane heading towards the white house. And then he names the secret service agent, I can’t remember what his name is off the top of my head, but then he describes the secret service agent bringing his hand down on the desk loudly and says “NOW, Mr. Vice President” or whatever and basically then some other things. He doesn’t describe it this way particularly but he kinda grabs Cheney by the back of the belt they’re up and out of the room. Now he says that was 9:33 in the morning. Now I’m a [unclear] of west wing and I think there’s a lot of [unclear] in that but the idea that this secret service agent who knows, as everyone else did, that at 9:03 the country was under a terrorist attack, and waste thirty minutes to get the vice president out of the room that guy would be fired in a heartbeat and that whole agency would be set up in flames.

Beth Trutwin: It’s not a very believable story, is it?

Bill Veale: Well, it’s simply unbelievable. And the fact is Norman Mineta said that he got down to the bunker about 915/920 and Cheney was already there. So… and Cheney has said on other occasions that “we got down there shortly thereafter”. And he said at one point or another in an interview, and I think it was, maybe it was with Russert I can’t remember, where he said “you really don’t ask questions, you really don’t say anything to anybody, in moments like that, you just do what you’re told”. And he said “we were up and outta there”. So I believe he was in the bunker probably within five or ten minutes because the point of the matter is, when there is a terrorist attack on the country, unless they actually do know what the state of the attack is, they don’t know what the shape of the attack is, in other words there may be planes flying here but there may be someone with an RPG in Lafayette Park, and there may be somebody with a truck bomb, there might be some small airplane that’s going to crash into the white house as it happened back during the [unclear] times. The secret service simply doesn’t know how this is going to happen so they have to protect for every possible eventuality and so the first thing you have to do when you don’t know what’s going to happen is to protect the guy in whatever way that you can. You don’t wait 30 minutes to get him out of the room. So that seems to me… and it was one of the great [unclear] I remember reading the book and calling up Bart Gellman and said, “excuse me did you interview Norman Mineta ? And he said “I didn’t get to it”. And my attempts to contact Barton Gellman throughout afterwards have been completely a failure. He simply won’t talk to me. So there are lots of problems to try and get to the heart of this thing but be careful that we certainly know which questions to ask. With regards to Rumsfeld and Meyers, we have the testimony of the book – actually it was “Against All Enemies” written by Richard Clark who’s the chief of counter terrorism for Clinton and for bush at that time and he describes how he was conducting a video talk conference between the White House and the Defense Department and the National Military Command Center and describes how he was sitting there looking at Meyers and Rumsfeld as the smoke comes into the room from the attack on the Pentagon. And he… you know… he confirmed that… I can’t remember the actual words in the book but anyway, Beth, the point is Rumsfeld said that he was in his office until 10 o’clock and didn’t know what was going on and then went down… and apparently did go down to help people out, for what reason I can’t imagine, but anyway at some point or another he was down there. But before that he was in the National Military Command Center because Richard Clark said he was. And I can’t think of a reason why Richard Clark would put in there that he wasn’t because I assume there’s a tape of that. I mean, all these things are recorded, so if someone could tell us or show to us that we’re completely out of line here, that we’re making allegations which are unfounded, then they could produce a video tape that would show that Meyers and Rumsfeld were not there but I’m pretty sure they were because Richard Clark said they were. So what their story is about [unclear] is a matter of lies which is very important and he didn’t think it’s very important when he was writing his decision about our case.

Beth Trutwin: Right. Well just a quick question, is the National Military Command Center located in the Pentagon?

Bill Veale: Yes.

Beth Trutwin: That’s something I think people wouldn’t realize, and then I’m wondering who else was in on that video conference besides Richard Clark, Meyers, and Rumsfeld. Was the Vice President on that conference? Was the President? Was anyone else there?

Bill Veale: The answer to those questions, it’s a very important question; I have no idea what the answers to those questions are. My sense, and it’s really nothing more than a sense, is the picture of Cheney in the bunker with Condoleezza Rice and Addington and I can’t remember who the other people were but… and it doesn’t look like the kind of place, of course the cameraman David Bohrer could have been between himself and the screen… between the screen and the Vice President, excuse me… but it didn’t look like the kind of high tech kind of place that you would have thought. But… that’s just one picture that I don’t really know the answer to the question. I’m just guessing.

Beth Trutwin: Right. I just wanted a Mineta video and he said on the YouTube that Mrs. Cheney was in the PIA with Mr. Cheney.

Bill Veale: Yes. That’s what I understand.

Beth Trutwin: I’ve had three NSA agents tell me they were there too.

Bill Veale: Uh-huh.

Beth Trutwin: And… um… I don’t even know their names. They just gave me a code name. And I’m wondering who else was there and why were they there?

Bill Veale: I guess David…. I was told that David Bohrer was there who was the White House photographer and Condoleezza Rice I believe was there and I think it was Addington and then who knows how many other people and who’s the young man that comes into the room looking occasionally to brief Mineta, uh to brief Cheney that Mineta hears, so I simply don’t know the answers to the questions. Those are very important questions that I don’t know the answers to.

Beth Trutwin: I see. The next question I had was Norman Mineta testified on tape for the 9/11 commission and his testimony and tape had a gag order slapped on it and it was wiped from the record. And he said Vice President Cheney refused… this is just speculation in the way that it’s being put out there… that he refused to fire on maybe a cruise missile that was heading for the Pentagon. Did April’s complaint touch on this part of it?

Bill Veale: Well… our complaint says, is that, this is a conspiracy that involves Cheney and Rumsfeld and Meyers and we deposit that flight 77 or maybe even a substitute plane flew over the Pentagon at the same time that maybe a missile or another bomb or whatever went off inside and then we cited evidence for that in the discrepancies between the various computer simulations of the flight of flight 77 and the one going north of the navy annex [unclear] and how that doesn’t make any sense, so and then there’s the altitude of the plane when the black box, the flight data recorder information, seemed to end which would have been 273 feet which is much too high to get down to the point where it’s flying parallel to the ground where it goes into the building as the video tape seems to suggest that [unclear] the Pentagon. So a plane couldn’t do that sort of maneuver. It would break up. The wings would fall off it if it moved that quickly in that space of time and it simply wouldn’t be able to perform that sort of maneuver so those are the things that we rely on to come to the conclusion that that airplane probably flew over the Pentagon. Was it a missile? Was there… I mean it looks certainly like [unclear]… that video tape that was released by the Pentagon was real. They’re capable of making anything up but I’m assuming that that’s real and that looks like some kind of a plane, missile, or whatever flying into the building parallel to the ground right at the ground, that’s what it looks like. So I’m assuming that that’s what happened. That there was some sort of flying object that went into the building at the time that the other plane is flying over. And that’s just for a guess. But I don’t know. There are all kinds of questions that need to be answered and we’re doing our best to get to the bottom of it. But we’re not being helped by the court at this moment.

Beth Trutwin: Right. Right. That’s an understatement. Alright, so I’m trying to see the picture of when April was there in the Pentagon that morning. So what I can see because I watched it on TV, I watched it from the first reporting. So at 8:20 on 9/11, we had the largest attack ever on American soil. And we all know that over the white house and over the Pentagon are no fly zones, they’ve been forever. So what was the protocol back then if there were any planes in those no fly zones. And if this was a cruise missile or even an airplane, what would they have done to stop…. What protocol would have been initiated? And if it wasn’t initiated, was it not so that they could hide the truth?

Bill Veale: Alright, so… you mean with protocol… are you wondering about what kind of defenses existed and what sort of actions should have been initiated as a result of this threat? Is that what you’re talking about?

Beth Trutwin: Right. Well we assume the story that we’re told is true that terrorists attacked the world trade center and we know this. That had happened for an hour and then we’re looking at the Pentagon. So if something is flying through the air in a no fly zone over the Pentagon, what should we have assumed would have happened?

Bill Veale: Oh well … you know, if you go back even before then… back to the earliest moments, it was 815 or something like that when there was any indication at all that in the country there was a problem. And so from my understanding talking to air traffic controllers and things like that… as soon as there is an in-air emergency, an in-flight emergency, then when you don’t know anything, when the transponder goes off, when somebody takes a route that they’re not prescribed you determine that there is an emergency there and when somebody can’t get through to them the first thing that you do is you go to the air force and you say, “hey, listen we have a problem here. Get somebody up there”. That’s the first thing that you do. Now it had, for example, the pilots squawked in the highjack code which takes a matter of several seconds but that’s about all it takes, which should have happened, and it hasn’t happened yet on any of those flights, there was never a highjack code squawked, so you wonder whether or not, whether that was what was actually going on. But anyway, if it’s made clear to the air traffic controller that there was a highjack going on then there is not this immediate sense of emergency.

You don’t necessarily send the jets up in order to intercept right away when there’s a highjack. You might get into the air and have them trail behind. But when you have an in-flight emergency like we have here and you don’t know that it’s a high jacking. You just have an in-flight emergency and what you do is you get the airplanes up in the air right away. And so it’s usually within 10 minutes you got airplanes right there up next to the plane trying to figure out what’s going on. And so then if at some point or another they actually have the ability to shoot the plane down and that used to be clearer than it is, than it was in June of 2001, but certainly even then if you follow protocol properly they would have had jets in the air before those planes ever got close to new york. And when they saw them flying towards the World Trade Center they would have called their boss and said “hey what should I do” and the boss would say “shoot it down” because this is something we can’t… this is getting bad… we don’t know what’s going on here… something is flying right towards the World Trade Center. So we gotta shoot them down. And that probably would have gone to the Secretary of Defense or to the President.

Beth Trutwin: Not to interrupt you, but can I interject something here?

Bill Veale: Sure, sure.

Beth Trutwin: I grew up on long island and my Mom worked for Lufthansa for 10 years and she was a cargo agent. And growing up on long island we knew it was common knowledge that over Manhattan there is a no fly zone. So there wouldn’t even be a disabled aircraft that close to lower Manhattan. That would shoot off the alarms for even civilians – who know nothing.

Bill Veale: Yup, right. That’s right. Well, it’s certainly…. If you talk about the Pentagon, there’s a problem with the Pentagon in the fact that the Reagan national airport is right next to the Pentagon. So there are planes flying in that neighborhood all the time. And there are a pair of lanes that they are able to fly in and these codes that says “you know, I’m friendly, I’m flying to Reagan, or whatever.” So if you have somebody come in the airspace there which is not responding, then something has to have happened to disable our defenses. And that’s what I believe did happen in this instance. They were told to stand down.

Beth Trutwin: Right. I went to high school with a friend who was an air traffic controller working at JFK when this happened. And to this day he still won’t share his story but all I was told was a few days after this happened he was offered a job at Homeland Security.

Bill Veale: Hmm-mmm.

Beth Trutwin: And I don’t know what else they said to him. He won’t talk. My next question is regarding April’s case, what are the obligations of the secretary of defense and the joint chief of staff in the event of attack on the military on American soil by a foreign invasion?

Bill Veale: There is a duty to protect the United States and its citizens. Put simply, that’s the facts, so you know, they have their forces and they deploy them to repel the attack – that’s their job. If you’re looking for something more than that… but that’s the fact.

Beth Trutwin: Right. Well that’s a point of the case that’s not talked about a lot.

Bill Veale: I’m not sure I understand what… you’re saying that… well, explain what you mean to me more because I’m not sure that I understand.

Beth Trutwin: I work, I blog, and I talk to people on the radio and people ask me questions and I get thousands of emails every week and I feel the pulse of what people remember about 9/11 and what questions still linger because we were all given this psychological attack that day. And so there’s glitches in the memory and the Pentagon was the least talked about of all of them and I think the fact that our leadership and our military completely ignored this incoming whatever it was, apparently a plane, on our military is just confounding.

Bill Veale: No, no. No, no, you’re right. And lemme just say that… if… if you could just take yourself out of that moment of horror where we learned about these things and just say however many words there are, the Pentagon was successfully attacked. So here he is, if the headquarters of the greatest military force ever conceived by man, created by man, there it is, and somebody hit it. Somebody attacked it.

Successfully. Now wait a minute. Now that just has to stop you in your tracks to say, “wait a minute. How could that possibly happen?” There is such enormous quantities and resources of intelligence, of machinery, of human resource, there’s the wealth of the American defense establishment is right here. Why would you not be able to protect that building? And the answer is, of course you protect that building. And there are all kinds of stories about there actually are, there are batteries, of anti-aircraft batteries, around in some way or another, but a friend of mine who worked as an air force army officer, at the very least have these handheld, have people stationed who have handheld missiles that can take out anything. There are protections literally there so when you’re presented with a notion that the headquarters was attacked, you’ve got to stop yourself in your tracks and say, “wait a minute. We got some questions to ask here”. And that’s where this investigation has gone. That’s why April Gallop is in the position that she is in now today. She said, “where are our protections?” and she tried to get those questions asked of the 9/11 commission and Rumsfeld just danced around them and wasn’t going to answer anything to the extent that the commissioners would ask that which wasn’t particularly impressive either. So the ideas, there are a couple of, well there are 50 ideas, but you take 2 or 3… the Pentagon was attacked successfully and this is a takedown idea, it’s a very powerful one that can’t be, but the other one that just lights me up is April Gallop walked out of the Pentagon. Well… where did she walk out? She walked out where the plane flew in according to [unclear].
What plane?

Well it was a 757, a Boeing 757.

It’s an enormous aircraft. How did it get in there?
Well it was flying 530 miles/hour.

I see, it was flying 530 miles/hour when it hit the building and it went into the building. I see…. She was 40 feet away from the edge of the hole that that plane flew into. Now where’s that plane?

Well, it was vaporized by all the heat that was created.

Oh, I see so there’s nothing left of the plane.

Well basically no there’s nothing left of the plane because of all the heat.
I see… and April Gallop walked out of that hole within minutes? She was knocked … she picked up her child, she walked… she ended up on the lawn without any… without being burnt? Have you ever seen anything like that?

Beth Trutwin: Can I interject something just for… real quick? I worked for Worker’s Compensation Reinsurance Association in the state of Minnesota and I’m a registered nurse and I reviewed medical cases. We had a lady, a single engine air craft flew into the building where she was typing on her computer and exploded near her desk and we were treating her for burns on 80% of her body and that was a single engine aircraft. So it’s insane to assume that that’s even possible what you’re saying… that April…

Bill Veale: I think that you’ve used a good word. It’s insane. It’s insane. But apparently the… I don’t know… who knows what [unclear] can do but they weren’t particularly interested in that particular point I’ll have to say during…

Beth Trutwin: Well, when the airplane flew into the World Trade Center it was so hot it and there was so much fuel it exploded it and made it fall to the ground but when it flew into the Pentagon April could walk through the hole a few minutes later.

Bill Veale: That’s right. Well, I’m afraid I’ve pretty much run out of time here. If you don’t mind I apologize but I’m literally in the middle of some other things so if I could thank you very much for interviewing me I appreciate it. But I have to say good bye.

Beth Trutwin: It’s been so nice to get to talk to you. I appreciate your time so very much.

Bill Veale: Take care of yourself. Thank you very much.

Beth Trutwin: Thanks a lot.

Bill Veale: Yup.

Beth Trutwin: Bye

Bill Veale: Yup. Bye bye

APPEAL FROM SOURCE BLOG ADMINISTRATOR:
Did you like what you read here? If so, please be kind enough to donate to support the cause. It takes time and money to create a website like this and times are tough for me right now so anything would be very much appreciated. And I’ll send you a free thank-you gift in return – my 214 page ebook about debt, credit, bankruptcy, investing and much more!

Friday, March 25, 2011

Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice

Herold Online

Center for 9/11 Justice

NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.

The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.

Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care.

Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.

The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.

Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck at 9:38 a.m.

The 9/11 Commission reported that "by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center."

Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?

Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.

Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 – the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day – with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.

On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.

In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

"No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks."

Also, that "it is not acceptable for a constitutional state...to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation," without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. "was under burden of proof" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world's understanding of history, not to mention American citizens' relationship with their government.

Media contact: William Veale centerfor911justice@gmail.com, 292929@msn.com, 510-845-5675, 925-212-3678

SOURCE Center for 9/11 Justice