NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How do you know she is telling the truth? ... surely she would have been in the plot and already knew what to say ...

    let's just ignore all the other witnesses (planted?) and focus on April Gallop ... did she see "participants" hauling in aircraft and body parts? ... I mean, she was there right?
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,552
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know she is telling the truth because I know the place where she worked is well known for its deceptions and drug smuggling. Years ago when in Uncle Sam's Army I saw the same thing myself. Her account is painfully true. AA77 did not hit that building. The purpose was the destruction of records being examined by congressional auditors. Mission Accomplished.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you were Army? ... so thank you for your service brother ... I was Air Force ... 3380th Civil Engineering Squadron ... Biloxi, MS ... Keesler is a training base so we would get foreign AF troops from all over the world ... the Germans smuggled in Jaegermeister ... the sorry ass Brits would bring nothing but old newspapers ... the Saudis would smuggle in cans of mutton ... the Venezuelans would shop for Levis ... but the best were the Swedes ... they would just take us to the NCO club and pay for everything ... the Swedish Air Force apparently pays very well ...

    everyone brought in smokables ... :weed:
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey! I'd like to your "analysis" of this!

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-april-gallop.html

    Great name for that website!

    "When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back. She hears her injured co-workers calling for help. She sees the shards of metal, the broken furniture and shattered lights jutting dangerously every which way. It feels . . . so real.

    "You live with it, almost every day," Gallop said. "You carry it with you.""

    "GALLOP: Again, it wasn't anything expected. I was just going to turn on the computer to do a letter. And I never got to do that. As soon as I touched the computer, boom, and I actually thought it was a bomb. And to leave out graphic details, you know, all of a sudden, due to the impact of the plane, we were blown away from the location we were at and covered under four floors of debris, walls, office equipment, et cetera."

    AND THIS:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...estigation-team.548562/page-2#post-1070065581


    --------------------------------------------------------------


    Your video is utterly hideous the way the questioner is leading her with loaded questions!

    Here, I have a question for you ,because you show zero consistency in what you claim and believe:

    She was saying things they didn't want anyone to hear, is that what you claim? So, fairly simple for them to threaten her, her kids and her family with "accidents". How come they didn't if what she had to say was so incriminating!? Every time you are asked how come no whistleblowers come out etc. - it's always the bullshit "they were threatened". Yet somehow, little old April is free to say what she wants?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Maybe she had so much intergity that she spoke anyway and now she's so famous that it would be too obvious if she or a family member died mysteriously; it would be obvious to too many people. They can't swat the moth without breaking the bulb. If she says the said those things to her, they probably did say those things to her. Are you saying that she's lying?


    Do a YouTube search on this video and go to the 46:50 time mark.
    The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed Part 2

    At first Roosevelt Roberts was willing to talk. Later, he became reluctant to talk. This would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious that he was gotten to. Doesn't that look a little suspicious to you?
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------
    What was this evidence for a planeflying over the Pentagon instead of impacting it on 9/11? CIT found four witnesses claiming that the plane flew in a direction that would place it north of the CITGO gas station on 9/11. Ranke explains what he believes to be the significance of this evidence, “[nobody] directly refutes the north side claim. NOBODY! …until you can counter this evidence with stronger evidence there is a much higher probability that north side claim is accurate.” However, three of these same witnesses strongly suggested that the plane impacted the Pentagon, which is in direct conflict with the claim that the plane flew north of CITGO gas station since the physical damage could only be explained by a south approach.
    ------------------------------


    I watched this a while back.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=National+Security+Alert++Sensitive+Information

    I'd have to watch the whole thing again but if I rember correctly, those witnesses saw the plane fly over north of the Citgo station and just assumed that it hit the Pentagon when the explosion occurred. They didn't actually see it as it was out of their sight. The above site seems to be misrepresenting what the witnesses said to mislead those people who haven't watched the videos of their testimonies.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Aaah. Integrity ok. So just her out of all the untold others who contradict your batshit claims, has integrity. She resisted the evil and got too famous.

    What an absolute crock!

    Is she lying?

    You tell me!!

    "When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back. She hears her injured co-workers calling for help. She sees the shards of metal, the broken furniture and shattered lights jutting dangerously every which way. It feels . . . so real. "You live with it, almost every day," Gallop said. "You carry it with you."" "GALLOP: Again, it wasn't anything expected. I was just going to turn on the computer to do a letter. And I never got to do that. As soon as I touched the computer, boom, and I actually thought it was a bomb. And to leave out graphic details, you know, all of a sudden, due to theimpact of the plane, we were blown away from the location we were at and covered under four floors of debris, walls, office equipment, et cetera."

    Seems unambiguous. Jet fuel!


    Or maybe he got sick of repeating himself to lying interviewers! He contradicted himself and you keep tap dancing around that.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Roosevelt Roberts probably had integrity too but his fear was stronger than his integrity. Who knows what kind of threats the people with the power use to get people to obey. Start watching this at the 30:45 time mark.

    Sammy Davis Jr - The Kid in the Middle . Documentary




    edit
    --------------------

    Do you mean this?
    (from post #20)
    This is open to several interpretations. He also said it was a large aircraft liner so when he said "Jet" he may have been referring to a small executive jet as opposed to a large aircraft liner such as a 757. You're really groping for anything you can get if you're stooping to this.


    That's explainable. Maybe part of the preparations included putting a few containers of jet fuel in there along with the planted plane parts. You're totally ignoring that she said she saw no sign of anything from a plane. She'd lost her shoes and she was paying attention to where she was stepping but she would have seen something that was too obvious to miss. You're really playing this down which shows that you have a foregone conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So all your cherry picked segments of bullshit come from witnesses with integrity and the massive majority proving it to be nonsense are all planted. And just because you say so.

    What a bigger crock of ****.

    I mean the exact parts I have quoted that you have thus far ignored!

    He said It wasn't a jet.
    "It" being the thing he saw.
    "Wasn't" as in was not ie. NOT what he saw.
    "A jet" as in a plane with jet engines the type of plane he did NOT see.

    You really ARE a work of extreme art if you are going to tell me that is open to several interpretations!

    INCORRECT. He said it WASN'T a jet. That IS NOT a jet. How can that confuse you?

    The very thing you are doing shamelessly and without any thought. There is nothing groping about interpreting that he didn't see a jet, to mean he didn't see a jet!


    So now we have jet fuel fairies to go with all the rest of this riduculous claim.
    She wasn't given a guided tour and just guessing now, but I assume she wanted to get her child the hell out of there.

    And nowhere near the blazing inferno of the impact.

    Yeah sure. She was carefully looking where she was stepping but would have noticed all the plane parts in the inferno as she leisurely meandered away from the life threatening situation!

    Oh the irony. You are not a truth seeker. You are many levels up from simple confirmation bias!
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Before she had formally accused her government of making up that story about an airliner crashing into her Pentagon office.

    She holds up her hands.

    “All I’m doing is asking questions. When you walk out barefoot and you don’t step on any plane parts. . . .”

    The hands come down, tired.

    “Lord, help me make sense of this.”
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well when something travelling 500+ mph hits a building, it doesn't do a comedic bounce off. There were certainly some parts expelled from the impact, that have been photographed, but pretty much the whole plane went into the building and the ensuing fireball. It isn't even complicated to explain to the lady tiptoeing out with her infant son, sightseeing for plane parts when chaos is all around her, that there isn't going to be that much in her vicinity. There were fires visibly much wider than the impact area, so how did this woman exit the building anywhere near all this raging heat!

    Is it being suggested that she strolled out with her baby near the impact area?
     
  13. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont even know why anyone uses Gallop's testimony. She was inside the building when the impact happened. Its because she doesnt see the boeing descending and impacting the pentagon. Meanwhile well over 125 people did that were outside the structure. Its a full stop argument. But when you are dealing with the mindset of "no-planers" anything that is impossible suddenly becomes possible under the manifestation of fantasy.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When dealing with OCT defenders/apologists, anything suddenly becomes possible under the manifestation of fantasy. Such as 47 story steel frame buildings dropping symmetrically at free fall strictly from fire.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Off topic diversion Bob. Rake up a building 7 thread if you want to spout ignorant hoax clichés. Maybe the magical demolition experts added in the penthouse drop for show. Maybe one day a truther will explain what happens when a support gives way after most of the day on fire and a whole corner of the lower building caved in.

    Just because nobody bothered to explain physics to you doesn't stop it from doing its thing!
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Building seven is such clear proof of an inside job that it makes a good objectivity test.

    Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truthorg


    The New Pearl Harbor ~ full

    (4:30:55 time mark)


    Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org


    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chandler+building+seven


    You just failed the objectivity test.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
    Bob0627 likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because you want to remain willfully ignorant about the physics of buildings suddenly dropping symmetrically, uniformly and unimpeded at free fall doesn't mean the event was caused strictly from scattered fires no matter how much you fantasize that's what happened because you bought that fairy tale from a bunch of charlatans.

    Regurgitating a phony NIST hypothesis proven to be impossible by experts who have actually done the research is not going to make it true no matter how much you fantasize it is.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's a lie Bobby.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah if you close your eyes and wish upon a star fires do that all the time.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did it Bobby? Did WTC7 suddenly drop "unimpeded at free fall speed"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not for you Gamo, don't let reality get in the way of your dreams.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, reality. Let's look at your supposed realistic description of WTC7 "dropping symmetrically, uniformly and unimpeded at free fall"...


    At 0:03 the east mechanical penthouse collapses into the interior.
    At 0:10 the rest of the penthouse collapses into the interior and PASSES behind the roofline and as the perimeter collapses SLOWER than the penthouse.

    That sure is "symmetrically, uniformly and unimpeded at free fall" as you describe it.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep it sure is, I agree.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well Bob, I think I know more about physics than you do. I also know about recognizing a downright lie. I'm sure you can safely negotiate this video Bob, it's only 4 minutes, but it shows how somewhere along the line YOU bought the conspiracy bullshit lie:



    • It didn't drop symmetrically, the penthouse gave way first and the left corner(from the video often cited) falls first.
    • The building was massively damaged, confirmed by fire teams and images.
    • The fires burnt for many hours.
    • One of the 3 trusses gave way, immediately bringing down sections above, clearly visible - the penthouse.
    • The load distribution initiated a bottom down collapse.
    • The building most certainly did not collapse at freefall speed

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-n...freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.t9524/
    "In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

    To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky."


    I don't have a problem with anyone analysing what caused the building to collapse. I missed the part where it says it was from demolition or that it was free-fall speed? I also missed your invaluable notes to address. I don't care to go through a paper aimlessly, when it has been inspired by the whack-jobs at a AE911TRUF.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But Bob, it isn't though - surely you recognise sarcasm, surely you can't seriously argue against the visual record. The bit you see isn't even at free-fall, which is a strawman anyway. When the trusses give way, that's a whole lot of building unsupported.
     

Share This Page