911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[Faun]

this one here is ANOTHER one of those paid shills it is asinine to argue with in the fact he ALSO says oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do.^

Proving you're a liar couldn't be easier than challenging you to quote me ever saying Oswald acted alone.

Now that you've claimed I said, "oswald is the lone assassin doing what his handlers instruct him to do," you either link to a post of mine where I said that or you prove me right when I say you're a delusional liar.

Ready ... set ... go!

Dang ... looks like to 9/11 whack job logged off not long ago (last seen 34 minutes ago) without finding any post I ever made where I said I thought Oswald acted alone. That's about 1½ hours he had to look for it and as expected, came up with nothing.

So now how is 9/11 whack job going to erase to evidence that he lied?

 

[phoenyx]

84 confiscated cameras and yet there hasn't been one video that shows a bus with wings making that incredible 270 degree turn that knocked over lamp posts while skimming mere inches over the grass (as to not disturb it) by a pilot that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna plane....seriously? What are the odds?

Very good points, I believe these and other points are mentioned in the 5 minute video "Pentagon Strike":



And then there's the impossible pull up right at the end:

Any wreckage that we were allowed to see was minimal and could easily be planted with minimal effort.

Good point.

Where are the wings? Why don't we see them because the hole that was made certainly didn't have the width of wings....where are they and where is the film footage of impact? I do not need to prove that this was a farce, I am the one needing solid proof that this actually happened and I haven't seen shit as far as visual evidence goes. and there were 84 cameras surrounding the scene of this event that can dispel the conspiracy that this was a missile in lieu of a plane.......waiting........(yawn)

The government said that none of the cameras showed the plane, and we are just supposed to take their word for it -.-..
FBI Claims 84 Videos Show NO Flight 77 Impact

They released a few that indeed showed no plane, the rest they have kept...
9-11 Research: Pentagon Attack Footage

 

[phoenyx]

It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.

In defense of those who support the OCT here, there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence. That being said, it's still far from persuasive.

 

[phoenyx]

dude you dont REALLY expect me to read that bible length rant of yours do you?

Laugh . This is actually your response though, so technically you did...

You know maybe you should go back and forth with agent candyass,thats one thing you both have in common,bible length rants nobody wants to read.

If you're trying to understand where your discussion partners are coming from, reading what they have to say is probably a good idea...

I was guility of it myself recently,which is why i made the last post.

Unfortunately, I had already started responding to your earlier draft- it was kinda messed up, but I made it work, lol .

Because of the JFK assassination and how i was lied about that for so many years in our corrupt school system,i had my suspencions from the very get go 9/11 was done to get us into another fake and phony war same as why they killed JFK but i never had the facts or the evidence to prove that till three years later.

I originally wholly believed the official story on 9/11. Then I read a book on 9/11 from an author I trust, Jim Marrs. He wrote one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone's film "JFK" was based on (the other being Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins). In case you haven't seen the film, let's just say that Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison were not fans of the official narrative concerning the JFK assassination .

If he trolls and says oswald killed JFK,why do you think you could ever change his mind on 9/11 possibly ? fair question.

I've spent years discussing 9/11. In all that time, I don't know if I've persuaded a single person online that 9/11 was an inside job. That being said, I definitely think I have gotten people to question certain aspects of it atleast. One of my proudest moments was when I saw official story supporters informing -other- official story supporters that atleast one element that has long been known to be true amoung truthers is, in fact, true (nanothermite is, in fact, an explosive, not an incendiary; that would be conventional thermite). This, in my view, is what this is all about; changing a person's worldview from OCT believer to truther is not something that happens easily.

agent candyass will tell you oswald killed JFK.ask him,you'll see for yourself.

Perhaps I'll ask him one day, but for now, I'm not that interested in that. The JFK assassination happened before I was even born. I certainly believe it's important, but I think I've got my hands full discussing 9/11 right now...

I wish I had known Dale smith in 2004 because had I known him then,I could have woke him up much sooner about 9/11 than he was. For 12 years after 9/11,he believed the official version even though he knew the CIA killed JFK. I would have asked Dale back then-Dale WHY do you accept it that there was a conspiracy by the CIA to kill JFK but wont look at the evidence they did 9/11 as well?

see that STUMPS them everytime and that is WHY it is asinine to argue with agent candyass when he lies about the JFK event ignoring facts and tells everyone oswald killed JFK.if he says oswald killed JFK and trolls on that all the time,WHY do you think he would be open minded on 9/11?

I'm willing to try to persuade him that 9/11 was an inside regardless of whether or not he believes that Oswald killed JFK alone. Furthermore, Candy isn't the only person in this thread who believes in the OCT concerning 9/11. There is, for instance, Faun. And while you have said that he, too, believes JFK was killed by Oswald alone, judging from his 3 posts contradicting you on that point, it would appear that he isn't .

 

[phoenyx]

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.

I never said that, nor did I mean to convey this. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but using double quotes is meant to be used when you are quoting someone, not when you are paraphrasing what you believe they meant (that would be using single quotes).

It only takes a few people to plant false narratives. Many people can repeat these false narratives, believing them to be true. How few, I don't know. This shouldn't really be the issue at this point, however. First, I think we need to establish what happened. The hows, whys, and whos are generally questions that should be examined after we have established what happened in my view.

I like how you question candycorn's assertion that you'll just try to dismiss evidence shown to you as made up (emphasis added)...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof.

What leads you to this conclusion?

... immediately after you insinuated the evidence could have been faked....

So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?

Ah, the sinister insinuation, laugh . I simply ask candy whether the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence and somehow this means that I will dismiss any evidence that candy presents in the future -.-? I didn't even dismiss the evidence at Moussaoui's trial; I simply asked candy whether he believed the prosecutor was -incapable- of furnishing false evidence.​

 

[Faun]

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.

I never said that, nor did I mean to convey this. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but using double quotes is meant to be used when you are quoting someone, not when you are paraphrasing what you believe they meant (that would be using single quotes).

It only takes a few people to plant false narratives. Many people can repeat these false narratives, believing them to be true. How few, I don't know. This shouldn't really be the issue at this point, however. First, I think we need to establish what happened. The hows, whys, and whos are generally questions that should be examined after we have established what happened in my view.

I like how you question candycorn's assertion that you'll just try to dismiss evidence shown to you as made up (emphasis added)...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof.

What leads you to this conclusion?

... immediately after you insinuated the evidence could have been faked....

So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?

Ah, the sinister insinuation, laugh . I simply ask candy whether the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence and somehow this means that I will dismiss any evidence that candy presents in the future -.-? I didn't even dismiss the evidence at Moussaoui's trial; I simply asked candy whether he believed the prosecutor was -incapable- of furnishing false evidence.​

Candy presented no other evidence from the trial. And what she did present, you dismissed.

But the best part was the irony of you asking her why she thinks you will dismiss evidence after you just dismissed evidence.

Thanks, that was a gem.

 

[phoenyx]

Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.

Ummm... not one of the witness videos in that CIT video were recorded on 9/11. It even appears they recorded many years later.

CIT recorded them in 2006, yes. However, as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later."

The entire documentary can be seen here:

Meanwhile, on the morning of 9.11, a person claims they saw the plane, "coming down to where the side of the ummm... 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below it..."

@ 1:23 ...



... you'll note 395 follows the official path, which is south of the gas station...

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all? CIT has compiled a long list of witnesses, but Barbara isn't in it, perhaps for the very reason that she is impossible to identify as an actual person. Here's their list:
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

 

[phoenyx]

Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.

Here's another eyewitness, reporting what he saw; not in 2008, not in 2006, but on September 11th in 2001....

".... I saw the plane coming down. It actually came up 395."

@ 0:42 ...

Mark Petit is another highly dubious witness. This one -is- mentioned by CIT, perhaps because in this case, a last name is in fact provided. He's listed as the very last witness, perhaps because of his dubious account:
**Unable to make sense of account:
Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because he works "across the street" which can only mean Army Navy Drive in Crystal City which is the ONLY thing that can be "across the street" from the Pentagon-but that is in the other direction that he is driving. If he works at Arlington National Cemetery or the gas station(the Citgo I doubt) Rt 27 or 110 as he called it is a highway, not a "street" like Army Navy DriveEither way-Sounds like he is deducing the impact, not describing it in detail.
it went over the horizon then it came back in front of a bridge where I was sitting. And... I knew it was gonna hit [...] And the next thing you know it was just a huge explosion. Umm, black smoke everywhere.)**

 

[phoenyx]

Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.

Here's another eyewitness, reporting ON 9.11, that he saw the plane from 395...

"This particular plane was awful low and as we were coming down on the 395, it came across the front of us and it was low ... too low ... we were seeing before and we followed it in."

@ 0:37 ...

Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.

 

[phoenyx]

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.

I never said that, nor did I mean to convey this. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but using double quotes is meant to be used when you are quoting someone, not when you are paraphrasing what you believe they meant (that would be using single quotes).

It only takes a few people to plant false narratives. Many people can repeat these false narratives, believing them to be true. How few, I don't know. This shouldn't really be the issue at this point, however. First, I think we need to establish what happened. The hows, whys, and whos are generally questions that should be examined after we have established what happened in my view.

I like how you question candycorn's assertion that you'll just try to dismiss evidence shown to you as made up (emphasis added)...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof.

What leads you to this conclusion?

... immediately after you insinuated the evidence could have been faked....

So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?

Ah, the sinister insinuation, laugh . I simply ask candy whether the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence and somehow this means that I will dismiss any evidence that candy presents in the future -.-? I didn't even dismiss the evidence at Moussaoui's trial; I simply asked candy whether he believed the prosecutor was -incapable- of furnishing false evidence.​

Candy presented no other evidence from the trial. And what she did present, you dismissed.

Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?

 

[Wyld Kard]

It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.

In defense of those who support the OCT here, there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence. That being said, it's still far from persuasive.

there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.

I'm well aware that.

 

[Faun]

Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.

Ummm... not one of the witness videos in that CIT video were recorded on 9/11. It even appears they recorded many years later.

CIT recorded them in 2006, yes. However, as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later."

The entire documentary can be seen here:

Meanwhile, on the morning of 9.11, a person claims they saw the plane, "coming down to where the side of the ummm... 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below it..."

@ 1:23 ...



... you'll note 395 follows the official path, which is south of the gas station...

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all? CIT has compiled a long list of witnesses, but Barbara isn't in it, perhaps for the very reason that she is impossible to identify as an actual person. Here's their list:
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

I watched the documentary which is how I know CIT interviewed them many years after 9.11. Meanwhile, I offered some who were interviewed ON 9.11 who said they saw the plane coming from the direction of 395, not from north of the gas station.

And those were fresh recollections.

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.

 

[Faun]

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all?

Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because...

Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.

Which brings us full circle to candycorn's most accurate, if not prophetic, expectation of you...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything.

 

[Faun]

And, “they are all lying” isn’t an answer that will be accepted…just so you know.

I never said that, nor did I mean to convey this. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but using double quotes is meant to be used when you are quoting someone, not when you are paraphrasing what you believe they meant (that would be using single quotes).

It only takes a few people to plant false narratives. Many people can repeat these false narratives, believing them to be true. How few, I don't know. This shouldn't really be the issue at this point, however. First, I think we need to establish what happened. The hows, whys, and whos are generally questions that should be examined after we have established what happened in my view.

I like how you question candycorn's assertion that you'll just try to dismiss evidence shown to you as made up (emphasis added)...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof.

What leads you to this conclusion?

... immediately after you insinuated the evidence could have been faked....

So you're saying that the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence?

Ah, the sinister insinuation, laugh . I simply ask candy whether the prosecution in Moussaoui's trial was incapable of furnishing false evidence and somehow this means that I will dismiss any evidence that candy presents in the future -.-? I didn't even dismiss the evidence at Moussaoui's trial; I simply asked candy whether he believed the prosecutor was -incapable- of furnishing false evidence.​

Candy presented no other evidence from the trial. And what she did present, you dismissed.

Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?

Well for starters, you didn't address the evidence. That alone qualifies as "dismissing it." But you didn't just question the evidence... in the form of a question, you suggested the evidence was falsified.

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up." and then you suggest the evidence was "made up."

C'mon... even you can see the irony in that, can't you??

 

[Wyld Kard]

For those who don't know April Gallop she's a Pentagon event victim and this is her testimony which contradicts the so-called "Official Story".

In her own words, "As I was coming out of the area, I didn't see any type of plane debris, no metal, no airplane seats, nothing that would cause me to believe that what had just happened was an actual plane hitting the building."

 

[phoenyx]

It's funny how those who bought into the bullshit of the so-called "Official Story of 9/11" thinks that this particular piece of scrap metal is proof positive that a "plane", AA77 struck the Pentagon.

In defense of those who support the OCT here, there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence. That being said, it's still far from persuasive.

there was more then just this picture of scrap metal entered into evidence.

I'm well aware that.

Cool . I think it should definitely be said that if this bit of metal isn't from a 757, it was either planted or it came from something that was probably a great deal smaller then a 757.

 

[phoenyx]

Again, please watch CIT's video on Lloyd England, your conjectures on what I believe on the matter are rather painful to watch.

Ummm... not one of the witness videos in that CIT video were recorded on 9/11. It even appears they recorded many years later.

CIT recorded them in 2006, yes. However, as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later."

The entire documentary can be seen here:

Meanwhile, on the morning of 9.11, a person claims they saw the plane, "coming down to where the side of the ummm... 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below it..."

@ 1:23 ...



... you'll note 395 follows the official path, which is south of the gas station...

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all? CIT has compiled a long list of witnesses, but Barbara isn't in it, perhaps for the very reason that she is impossible to identify as an actual person. Here's their list:
Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

I watched the documentary which is how I know CIT interviewed them many years after 9.11.

I think we should probably get a bit specific here; the interviews were conducted in 2006, which would be 5 years after 9/11; if people had been asked what hat they were wearing on 9/11, I can see it could be difficult for them to remember, but this was concerning something a tad more memorable, considering what happened after this plane approached the pentagon. Also, I want to make sure everyone who may not have read previous posts knows the following:
**as CIT notes in its documentary, National Security Alert, 16 minutes in:
"Virtually all of the following first-hand witnesses were video recorded on location, and they have been separated into 5 separate and opposing vantage points. Many of these same witnesses were officially recorded by the Center for Military History or the Library of Congress only weeks after the events placing the plane in the same location. This eliminates the notion that their accounts are innacurate and from faded memory due to the amount of time between the event and their recorded independent interviews a few years later."**

Meanwhile, I offered some who were interviewed ON 9.11 who said they saw the plane coming from the direction of 395, not from north of the gas station.

And those were fresh recollections.

I've gone over the 3 accounts you've mentioned and I see you've responded to my posts, we'll go over those later.

As far as the "witness list" you posted, sorry, but I don't accept a list of witnesses compiled by a group of people determined to prove 9.11 was not carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers. Evidence of their bias can be found in the fact that they excluded her account, which was available from day one.

I've already mentioned why they may have excluded the account of "Barbara"; she has only been mentioned as "the wife of a friend of mine" by the reporter mentioning her, and was given no last name. Put simply, her account is impossible to verify. You may not know this, but when CIT went down to Virginia, they didn't know what to expect. There were many rumours flying around at the time. They were definitely surprised when they found that all the witnesses that they could interview on location all placed the playing flight a path north of the Citgo gas station. The implications of such a flight path were crystal clear; the plane could not have brought down the light poles or caused the damage at the pentagon- only taking a flight path south of the citgo gas station could have caused that.

 

[phoenyx]

Indeed. Have you noticed how this reporter identifies this woman? "Barbara, who is the wife of a friend of mine". No last name. Has anyone verified that she truly exists at all?

Mark Petitt ( Very dubious account due to being "110", "on a bridge", unless he is referring Rt 27 it would still be dubious because...

Steve Mccoy is in one of the sublists in CIT's master list. They contacted and confirmed his account. He was in the "Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact" list.

Which brings us full circle to candycorn's most accurate, if not prophetic, expectation of you...

It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything.

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof? How do you explain all the witnesses filmed -on location- describing a north side flight path?

 

[phoenyx]

Since when is questioning evidence the same thing as dismissing it?

Well for starters, you didn't address the evidence.

What exactly do you mean by that? I questioned some of the evidence you and candy have provided. How does that not address it? I have also pointed out a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story. The many verified witnesses which all specific a flight path north of the citgo gas station is very damning to the official account of a flight path south of the citgo gas station, but you seem to be casually dismissing it.

But you didn't just question the evidence... in the form of a question, you suggested the evidence was falsified.

I suggested the evidence could be falsified, yes. Are you suggesting the evidence -couldn't- have been falsified?

And you did this immediately before asking candycorn why she thinks you'll just dismiss the evidence as "made up."

She brought up some evidence, and I asked her if the prosecutor was incapable of furnishing false evidence. I later specified that the prosecutor might -think- the evidence was real, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was. Candy then went on to declare that simply because I was questioning some of the evidence she had provided, that this must mean that I would dismiss any evidence that didn't fit with what my beliefs. Meanwhile, I've found that it is your side that refuses to look at a great deal of the evidence. You may have seen CIT's documentary on Lloyd England, but up until now, it appears that Candy hasn't, which would explain many of the statements she's made regarding Lloyd England that she would know were patently false if she'd seen it.

 

[phoenyx]

For those who don't know April Gallop she's a Pentagon event victim and this is her testimony which contradicts the so-called "Official Story".

In her own words, "As I was coming out of the area, I didn't see any type of plane debris, no metal, no airplane seats, nothing that would cause me to believe that what had just happened was an actual plane hitting the building."

Nicely done. For those unfamiliar with the case of April Gallop, April Gallop sued Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers. Her case went up to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was dismissed. It's interesting to note -who- dismised it:
**Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an Army Specialist’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards,” Veale added.

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest...**

Read more at:
April Gallop versus Dick Cheney: Court Dismisses 9/11 Suit against Bush Officials