Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Credibility of Toronto 9/11 hearings jeopardized by replacing of Pentagon witness
Supposed truthers who want to suppress the truth about the Pentagon win the latest round at the Toronto 9/11 hearings (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)
It appears that the organizers of the Toronto 9/11 hearings have utterly caved to pressure and thrown fairness and common sense under the bus in the process.
April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 along with her infant son, has been removed from the list of witnesses at the upcoming hearings (Sept. 8-11), to be replaced by an “unconfirmed” witness. If that replacement is assigned to make the case that a 757 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon then truthers everywhere should scream bloody murder.
I really hope that the disappearance of Gallop’s name from the schedule on torontohearings.org has some innocent explanation (no official reason has been given), but I’m not optimistic. Her appearance was to have been in video form.
A recent opening up of the hearings to some Pentagon research (it was to be kept to a minimum originally on the grounds that it is too “controversial”) had raised the ire of the “truthers” who support the 9/11 official story as it pertains to the Pentagon.
This group was already perturbed that another Toronto event focusing on the Pentagon had been announced, involving the main objects of their scorn – Citizen Investigation Team and their film National Security Alert. This event was organized by Barrie Zwicker, author, media critic and 9/11 researcher who supports CIT’s conclusions. Neither Zwicker nor CIT’s Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis were invited to speak at the hearings. Same for Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also supports CIT.
Despite these omissions, it wasn’t all bad news. In addition to Gallop, Barbara Honegger was added to talk about explosions inside the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin was scheduled to give a talk about the anomalies of flights 77 and 93. Pilot Ted Muga of San Diego was also invited to speak (he supports CIT’s research) but he couldn’t attend because of knee surgery.
This all indicates that openness was winning out over suppression with the Toronto organizers. That’s when the gang who relentlessly attacks the idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon got busy (people like SnowCrash, Victoria Ashley, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Chris Sarns, “jimd3100” and others, whose wisdom can be found on 911blogger.com, truthaction.org, 911oz.net and other sites).
They had tried to keep the Pentagon off the agenda entirely, and they failed. So over the last day or two, they got to work lobbying to get their Pentagon witness heard. And it’s not like no one they favour was scheduled to speak. Richard Gage, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Jonathan Cole are all on the roster and all oppose CIT.
Here’s what Ashley had previously posted this week on truthaction.org:
“I’ve made an effort to get a “a Boeing hit the Pentagon but never should have” speaker in to the conference to offset the “no Boeing” line-up so far — even suggested we would pay for the flight — but aside from some support by fellow attendees, I have so far been met with silence from the organizers (have emailed 3 different people, one yesterday, 2 more than a day ago).
“Many of the Canadian activists and speakers have been supporters of “no Boeing” for years now, so I think the only way to have avoided this would have been to completely keep the Pentagon topic off the agenda, which is what I thought was the original plan.”
“Apparently it never was, if what Snowcrash dug up is true.”
But what a difference a couple of days make.
When Gallop and Honegger were added, Frank Legge said his group had been “deceived.” Yesterday, Ashley announced on truthaction.org that a change had occurred with the hearings following a meeting (presumably of the Toronto steering committee). The implication was that her people would be happy with the change. I’m sure they are.
How did they succeed in getting the organizers to cave? Not only does it appear that the “Pentagon-official-story” people have access to inside information about the hearings, but they also clearly have inside clout. Didn’t organizers understand the implications of this type of last-minute change? They would have been better not to invite Gallop in the first place.
It seems that this group of anti-CIT disruptors is only happy when they are driving a wedge into the movement. I don’t think they’re after the truth at all.
They’ve succeeded in getting Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) to denounce CIT in writing. By taking this very poor advice, Gage has harmed his own reputation.
Chandler and Cole have also attacked CIT in a sloppy and illogical “statement” that – like Gage’s piece on CIT – was posted on 911blogger, the site that has been denounced for harming the movement and banning those who support the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
While the additions of Gallop and Honegger clearly angered the anti-CIT gang, they were still left with David Ray Griffin, who was part of the witness line-up from the beginning. In addition to his “anomalies” talk, he will also speak about the problems with the 9/11 Commission Report.
Despite doing the best job of anyone in picking apart the whole official story of 9/11, Griffin is being bashed along with CIT because he supports their contention that a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon.
Hmm. Victoria Ashley or David Ray Griffin… They’re both so credible, it’s hard to choose.
SnowCrash comments on truthaction.org that Griffin “still hasn’t retracted” his statements supporting the position taken by CIT. But Griffin is not Gage, and unless I’m seriously mistaken, he won’t compromise his considerable reputation to please a group whose goal is to suppress the truth about the Pentagon.
It seems that the Toronto hearings organizers have made that compromise.
April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 along with her infant son, has been removed from the list of witnesses at the upcoming hearings (Sept. 8-11), to be replaced by an “unconfirmed” witness. If that replacement is assigned to make the case that a 757 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon then truthers everywhere should scream bloody murder.
I really hope that the disappearance of Gallop’s name from the schedule on torontohearings.org has some innocent explanation (no official reason has been given), but I’m not optimistic. Her appearance was to have been in video form.
A recent opening up of the hearings to some Pentagon research (it was to be kept to a minimum originally on the grounds that it is too “controversial”) had raised the ire of the “truthers” who support the 9/11 official story as it pertains to the Pentagon.
This group was already perturbed that another Toronto event focusing on the Pentagon had been announced, involving the main objects of their scorn – Citizen Investigation Team and their film National Security Alert. This event was organized by Barrie Zwicker, author, media critic and 9/11 researcher who supports CIT’s conclusions. Neither Zwicker nor CIT’s Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis were invited to speak at the hearings. Same for Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also supports CIT.
Despite these omissions, it wasn’t all bad news. In addition to Gallop, Barbara Honegger was added to talk about explosions inside the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin was scheduled to give a talk about the anomalies of flights 77 and 93. Pilot Ted Muga of San Diego was also invited to speak (he supports CIT’s research) but he couldn’t attend because of knee surgery.
This all indicates that openness was winning out over suppression with the Toronto organizers. That’s when the gang who relentlessly attacks the idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon got busy (people like SnowCrash, Victoria Ashley, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Chris Sarns, “jimd3100” and others, whose wisdom can be found on 911blogger.com, truthaction.org, 911oz.net and other sites).
They had tried to keep the Pentagon off the agenda entirely, and they failed. So over the last day or two, they got to work lobbying to get their Pentagon witness heard. And it’s not like no one they favour was scheduled to speak. Richard Gage, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, and Jonathan Cole are all on the roster and all oppose CIT.
Here’s what Ashley had previously posted this week on truthaction.org:
“I’ve made an effort to get a “a Boeing hit the Pentagon but never should have” speaker in to the conference to offset the “no Boeing” line-up so far — even suggested we would pay for the flight — but aside from some support by fellow attendees, I have so far been met with silence from the organizers (have emailed 3 different people, one yesterday, 2 more than a day ago).
“Many of the Canadian activists and speakers have been supporters of “no Boeing” for years now, so I think the only way to have avoided this would have been to completely keep the Pentagon topic off the agenda, which is what I thought was the original plan.”
“Apparently it never was, if what Snowcrash dug up is true.”
But what a difference a couple of days make.
When Gallop and Honegger were added, Frank Legge said his group had been “deceived.” Yesterday, Ashley announced on truthaction.org that a change had occurred with the hearings following a meeting (presumably of the Toronto steering committee). The implication was that her people would be happy with the change. I’m sure they are.
How did they succeed in getting the organizers to cave? Not only does it appear that the “Pentagon-official-story” people have access to inside information about the hearings, but they also clearly have inside clout. Didn’t organizers understand the implications of this type of last-minute change? They would have been better not to invite Gallop in the first place.
It seems that this group of anti-CIT disruptors is only happy when they are driving a wedge into the movement. I don’t think they’re after the truth at all.
They’ve succeeded in getting Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) to denounce CIT in writing. By taking this very poor advice, Gage has harmed his own reputation.
Chandler and Cole have also attacked CIT in a sloppy and illogical “statement” that – like Gage’s piece on CIT – was posted on 911blogger, the site that has been denounced for harming the movement and banning those who support the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
While the additions of Gallop and Honegger clearly angered the anti-CIT gang, they were still left with David Ray Griffin, who was part of the witness line-up from the beginning. In addition to his “anomalies” talk, he will also speak about the problems with the 9/11 Commission Report.
Despite doing the best job of anyone in picking apart the whole official story of 9/11, Griffin is being bashed along with CIT because he supports their contention that a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon.
Hmm. Victoria Ashley or David Ray Griffin… They’re both so credible, it’s hard to choose.
SnowCrash comments on truthaction.org that Griffin “still hasn’t retracted” his statements supporting the position taken by CIT. But Griffin is not Gage, and unless I’m seriously mistaken, he won’t compromise his considerable reputation to please a group whose goal is to suppress the truth about the Pentagon.
It seems that the Toronto hearings organizers have made that compromise.
For more information:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
It's all pretty simple -- a real plane hit the Pentagon with real passengers and a lot of people were killed, injured or personally traumatized that day.
And it was likely intentional on the part of government insiders, as is shown by the staging of massive and confusing war games that day and the effective "stand-down" by the military, as covered in many comprehensive articles on Shoestring's blog --
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/
Hoffman, Legge, Chandler and many others support the idea that FL77 hit there, real passengers and hijackers were likely killed, but that the event was allowed or made to occur, and was not due to "total incompetence".
Because of the absence of public evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and assertions that damage to the building and crash debris were inconsistent with the crash of such a large aircraft, speculation has flourished about what really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. Most such speculation ignores, discounts, or misrepresents the abundant eyewitness evidence that a jetliner flew into the building and exploded.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/attack/index.html
That doesn't take a PhD to understand.
Those claiming a missile hit, that the plane flew over and no one noticed, that bombs went off ahead of time, that a drone or an A-3 Skywarrior hit and not a Boeing, etc. have little to stand on but claims that "everything was fake!" and that all the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken or if they weren't interviewed by Craig and Aldo, then they "don't count".
This doesn't take a high school diploma to understand.
It's complete garbage that Craig McKee puts out here on Indymedia over and over, mucking around in the drama of event organizing to try to spotlight the "no plane" nuttery and make the people seeking the truth of 9/11 look insane.
We are not. That's Craig's agenda, not ours.
The Pentagon Strike
Mysteries Persist in Pentagon Attack
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html
Pentagon Attack Errors
Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.
'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'
'The Jetliner that appeared to crash into the Pentagon actually flew over it'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
The Pentagon
There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion , have gotten some of the least attention.
* How could the Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the buildings in New York City had already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
* Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
* Why was the target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars announced just the day before?
* Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
* Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
* How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what hit the Pentagon. The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon. Read through the many eyewitness accounts.
http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219
Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11:
Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable
In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.
Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1899
And it was likely intentional on the part of government insiders, as is shown by the staging of massive and confusing war games that day and the effective "stand-down" by the military, as covered in many comprehensive articles on Shoestring's blog --
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/
Hoffman, Legge, Chandler and many others support the idea that FL77 hit there, real passengers and hijackers were likely killed, but that the event was allowed or made to occur, and was not due to "total incompetence".
Because of the absence of public evidence proving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and assertions that damage to the building and crash debris were inconsistent with the crash of such a large aircraft, speculation has flourished about what really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. Most such speculation ignores, discounts, or misrepresents the abundant eyewitness evidence that a jetliner flew into the building and exploded.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/attack/index.html
That doesn't take a PhD to understand.
Those claiming a missile hit, that the plane flew over and no one noticed, that bombs went off ahead of time, that a drone or an A-3 Skywarrior hit and not a Boeing, etc. have little to stand on but claims that "everything was fake!" and that all the eyewitnesses were lying or mistaken or if they weren't interviewed by Craig and Aldo, then they "don't count".
This doesn't take a high school diploma to understand.
It's complete garbage that Craig McKee puts out here on Indymedia over and over, mucking around in the drama of event organizing to try to spotlight the "no plane" nuttery and make the people seeking the truth of 9/11 look insane.
We are not. That's Craig's agenda, not ours.
The Pentagon Strike
Mysteries Persist in Pentagon Attack
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html
Pentagon Attack Errors
Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.
'A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver'
'Eyewitnesses saw a small plane'
'The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris'
'Aircraft crashes always leave large debris'
'The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole'
'The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon'
'Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757'
'Standing columns in the Pentagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757'
'The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead'
'Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757'
'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
'The Pentagon Attack Plane was a Boeing 737 Instead of a Boeing 757'
'The Jetliner that appeared to crash into the Pentagon actually flew over it'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
The Pentagon
There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion , have gotten some of the least attention.
* How could the Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the buildings in New York City had already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?
* Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?
* Why was the target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars announced just the day before?
* Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?
* Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
* How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what hit the Pentagon. The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. Still, speculation persists that the Pentagon was hit by something else, such as a Global Hawk or a cruise missile. The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon. Read through the many eyewitness accounts.
http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219
Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11:
Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable
In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.
Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1899
The reason the insiders of the thermite gang's "Toronto Heaings" need to kill all open and honest investigation of the Pentagon is that Muslim terrorists could not place internal explosives in the Pentagon and no plane there would suggest that. The thermite gang needs to hold on to the idea of Muslim terrorists having planted "explosive nanothermite" in the World Trade center Twin Towers and Building 7, and they need to hold on to the whole official story about "Muslims terrorists" flying planes into buildings. The thermite gang is all about subversively continuously pushing the "official story", even now that they have been forced in to deploying "Ridiculous Version II" [ explosive nanothermite, explosive controlled demolition, World Trade Center buildings] to do that.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network