APPELLANT.JOINT APPENDIX.CORRECTED

Transcription

10-1241
_______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_______________________
APRIL GALLOP, for herself and as Mother and Next Friend of
ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor
Plaintiffs-Appellants
– vs. –
DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A.,
DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense,
General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), in their individual capacities
Defendants-Appellees
– and –
JOHN DOES Nos. 1-X, all in their individual capacities
Defendants
_______________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________
JOINT APPENDIX
_______________________
MUSTAPHA NDANUSA
26 COURT St., Suite603
Brooklyn, New York 11242
(718) 825-7719
TOMOKO ONOZAWA
Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers St, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10007
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
115-A Bartlett Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Attorney for Defendant-Appellees
WILLIAM W. VEALE
2033 North Main Street, # 1060
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX
DOCKET ENTRIES.....................................................................................................JA - 1
COMPLAINT…….........................................................................................................JA - 9
ORDER OF JUDGE CHIN ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PRE-MOTION CONFERENCE,
Dated April 1, 2009.............................................................................................JA - 36
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS,
Dated May 6, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 37
DECLARATION OF HEATHER K. McSHAIN, ASSISTANT UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS,
Dated May 6, 2009...............................................................................................JA - 39
GALLOP v. RIGGS BANK (EXHIBIT B TO APPELLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Dated March 23, 2005..........................................................................................JA - 41
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ORDER (EXHIBT C TO
APPELLEE’s MOTIONN TO DISMISS)
Dated December 23, 2008....................................................................................JA - 93
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM W. VEALE, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS, IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDEN TIARY SUPPORT OF
CONSPIRACY
Dated June 28, 2009..............................................................................................JA- 95
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
Dated June 22, 2009..............................................................................................JA -110
EXHIBIT A IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, LIST OF BOOKS
AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Dated June 25, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 118
EXHIBIT B IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, LIST OF
SCIENTIST, MILITARY PERSONNEL AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN SUPPOORT
OF PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Dated June 25, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 123
EXHIBIT C IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AFFIDAVIT OF
ROBIN HORDON, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
POSITION
Dated June 25, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 127
EXHIBIT D IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AFFIDAVIT OF
ROBERT BALSAMO, CO-FOUNDER OF PILOS FOR 911 TRUTH, IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Dated June 18, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 144
EXHIBIT E IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, SUMMARY OF
WORLD TRADE CENTER AND FLIGHT 93 EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY
Dated June 25, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 147
EXHIBIT F IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, STATEMENTS
OF WITNESS ABOUT EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS
Dated June 26, 2009..............................................................................................JA - 158
MEMORANDUM DECISION OF JUDGE CHIN GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS,
Dated March 15, 2010..........................................................................................JA - 162
CORRECTED JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE,
Dated March 18, 2010...........................................................................................JA -176
NOTICE OF APPEAL BY APRIL GALLOP AND ELISHA GALLOP TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT,
Dated April 1, 2010...............................................................................................JA - 177
Case: 10-1241
[email protected]
ourts.gov
04/05/2010 11: 14 AM
Document: 4-1
To
Page: 1
[email protected]
cc
bcc
Subject Activity in Case 1:08-cv-1 0881-DC Gallop v. Cheney et al
Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic File
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CMlECF system. Please DO NOT
RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required
by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later
charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the
referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 4/5/2010 at 11: 14 AM EDT and filed on 4/512010: .
Case Name:
Gallop v. Cheneyet al
(..
(.J,
Case Number:
1:08-cv-10881.,
Filer:
N
WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 03116/2010
Document Number:
No document attached
Docket Text:
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
Electronic Files for [11] Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by
Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, [16] Endorsed Letter, Set Motion
and R&R Deadlines/Hearings" [10] MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Richard Myers,
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, [21] Certificate of Service Other filed by Richard
Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, [7] MOTION for Dennis Cunningham to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by April Gallop, [18] Affidavit in Opposition to Motion
filed by April Gallop, [26] Clerk's Judgment, [22] Endorsed Letter, [20] Reply
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, [27] Amended Judgment, [19] Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Motion filed by April Gallop, [12] Declaration in Support of Motion,
filed by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, [9] Order, Set Hearings"
[13] Certificate of Service Other, filed by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, [6] Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [5] MOTION for William
Veale to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by April Gallop, [28] Notice of Appeal filed by
JA 1
Case: 10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page: 2
April Gallop, [23] Reply Affirmation in Opposition to Motion filed by April Gallop,
[2] Notice of Appearance filed by April Gallop, [24] Order on Motion to Appear Pro
Hac Vice, [25] Order on Motion to Dismiss, [17] Affirmation in Opposition to
Motion, filed by April Gallop, [4] Waiver of Service Executed filed by April Gallop,
[8] Notice of Appearance filed by April Gallop were transmitted to the U.S. Court
of Appeals. (nd)
1:0S-cv-l0SSl Notice bas been electronically mailed to:
Heather Kirsten McShain [email protected], [email protected]
Mustapha Lakpene Ndanusa [email protected]
William W. Veale [email protected]
1 :OS-cv-lOSSl Notice bas been delivered by otber means to:
Dennis Cunningham
36 Plaza Street
Brooklyn, NY 10238
.I
JA 2
· SDNY CMlECF Version 3.2.3
Case:
10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page 1 of6
Page: 3
APPEAL,CLOSED,ECF
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Gallop v. Cheney et al
Assigned to: Judge Denny Chin
Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Date Filed: 12115/2008
Date Terminated: 0311612010
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
April Gallop
for Herselfand as Mother and Next
Friend ofElisha Gallop, A Minor
represented by William W. Veale
William M. Veale, Esq.,
2033 North Main Street,
#1060
(925) 935-3987
Email: [email protected]
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis Cunningham
36 Plaza Street
Brooklyn, NY 10238
(718) 783-3682
Mustapha Lakpene Ndanusa
Tad & Associates
1215 Bedford Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11216
(718)-832-9008x783-6819
Fax: (718)-504-6160
V.
Defend~lnt
Dick Cheney
Vice Present ofthe U S.A.
represented by Heather Kirsten McShain
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (86
Chambers St.)
86 Chambers Street
JA 3
https:llecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?118039528481848-L 961 0-1 4/512010
· SDNY CMIECF Version 3.2.3
Case:
10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page: 4
Page 2 of6
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2200
Fax: 212-637-2686
LEAD ATTORNEY
Def~.ldant
Donald Rumsfeld
former
Secretary ofDefense
u.s.
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
General Richard Myers
U.S.A.F. (Ret.)
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defenc:iant
John Does
i-X all in their individual capacities
Docket Text
Date Filed
#
12/15/2008
1 COMPLAINT against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers. (Filing
Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 672413)Document filed by April Gallop.(imi)
(Entered: 12118/2008)
12115/2008
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers.
(imi) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
1211512008
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman is so designated. (imi) (Entered: 12/1812008)
12/15/2008
Case Designated ECF. (imi) (Entered: 12/1812008)
0112112009
2
02/05/2009
J AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Dick Cheney served
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mustapha Lakpene Ndanusa on behalf of
April Gallop (Ndanusa, Mustapha) (Entered: 0112112009)
on 1122/2009, answer due 211112009. Service was made by MaiL Document
filed by April Gallop. (Ndanusa, Mustapha) (Entered: 02/0512009)
0212412009
5
MOTION for William Veale to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by April
Gallop. (dIe) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
0212612009
4
WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Dick Cheney waiver sent
on 112312009, answer due 312412009. Document filed by April Gallop.
(Ndanusa, Mustapha) (Entered: 02/2612009)
03/05/2009
~
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION
granting ~ Motion for William Veale to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by
JA 4
https:/lecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?118039528481848-L_961_0-1 4/512010
· SDNY CMlECF Version 3.2.3
Case: 10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page: 5
Page 3 of6
Judge Denny Chin on 3/5/09) (nune) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
03/06/2009
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: ~ Order on
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating
of Attorney Information. (mme) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
03/06/2009
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on .~ Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the
amount of$25.00, paid on 02/24/2009, Receipt Number 678615. (id) (Entered:
03/06/2009)
03/18/2009
7
MOTION for Dennis Cunningham to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by
April Gallop.(dle) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
03/1912009
~
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by William W. Veale on behalf of April Gallop
(Veale, William) (Entered: 03119/2009)
03/2412009
24
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION
granting 7 Motion for Dennis Cunningham to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by
Judge Denny Chin on 3/24/2009) (ipo) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
04/0112009
9
ORDER It is hereby ordered as follows: A pre-motion conference shall be held
on April 8,2009 at 12 p.m. The parties shall appear before the Court in
Courtroom l1A, United States Court House, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York 10007; Defendants time to respond to the complaint is stayed; and All
discovery is stayed pending further order from the Court.. (Signed by Judge
Denny Chin on 4/1/09) (mme) (Entered: 04/0212009)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 1 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the
amount of$25.00, paid on 0311812009, Receipt Number 681857. (jd) (Entered:
04/03/2009)
04/0312009
05/01/2009
14
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on April 8, 2009 before Judge Denny Chin.
(mro) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
05/06/2009
10
MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Richard Myers. Responses due by 6/8/2009(McShain, Heather) (Entered:
05/06/2009)
05/0612009
11
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers. (McShain,
Heather) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
05/0612009
12
DECLARATION of Heather K. McShain in Support re: 10 MOTION to
Dismiss.. Document filed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (part 1), # ~ Exhibit B (part 2), # .:t:
Exhibit C)(McShain, Heather) (Entered: 05/0612009)
05/0612009
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Law,
Declaration of Heather McShain (and accompanying exhibits) served on
Dennis Cunningham, Esq. on May 6, 2009. Document filed by Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers. (McShain, Heather) (Entered: 05/0612009)
05/12/2009
15
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/8/2009 before Judge Denny Chin. (jfe)
(Entered: 05/12/2009)
JA 5
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?l18039528481848-L_96 1_0-1
4/5/2010
SDNY CMlECF Version 3.2.3
Case: 10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page: 6
Page 4 of6
06/05/2009
16
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Mustapha
Ndanusa dated 6/1/09 re: Counsel for Plaintiffs April Gallop and Elisah Gallop
requests that plaintiffs time to oppose the motion to dismiss be extended to
6/29/09 and for defendants time to reply thereafter be extended to 7117/09.
ENDORSEMENT: Approved., Set DeadlineslHearing as to lQ MOTION to
Dismiss: (Responses due by 6/29/2009, Replies due by 7/17/2009.) (Signed by
Judge Denny Chin on 6/5/09) (ae) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/29/2009
17
AFFIRMATION of William Veale, Esq. in Opposition re: 1Q MOTION to
Dismiss.. Document filed by April Gallop. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit
A. Book List, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B. Learned Supporters, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C.
Affidavit ofHordon, # 4: Exhibit Exhibit D. Affidavit of Balsamo, # 5: Exhibit
Exhibit E. WTC and Flight 93 Evid., # (j Exhibit Exhibit F. WTC Testimonials)
(Veale, William) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
06/29/2009
18
AFFIDAVIT of David Ray Griffin in Opposition re: 1Q MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by April Gallop. (Veale, William) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
06/29/2009
19
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 1Q MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by April Gallop. (Veale, William) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
07/24/2009
20
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers. (McShain,
Heather) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
07/2412009
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Reply Memorandum of Law in Further
Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss served on Dennis Cunningham on
July 24, 2009. Document filed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard
Myers. (McShain, Heather) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
08114/2009
22
ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from William Veale
dated 8112/09 re: counsel for plaintiffs writes to request permission to submit a
sur-reply to Defendants' reply-memorandum oflaw in further support of
defendants' motion to dismiss, dated July 24,2009. ENDORSEMENT:
Application granted, but the sur-reply shall be strictly limited to the issue of
intra-military immunity. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/14/09)
(pI) (Entered: 08114/2009)
08/26/2009
2:1 REPLY AFFIRMATION of Plaintiff in Opposition re: lQ MOTION to
-
Dismiss.. Document filed by April Gallop. (Veale, William) (Entered:
08/26/2009)
03/15/2010
25
03115/2010
03116/2010
MEMORANDUM DECISION: granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. For the
foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint
is dismissed, with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/15/2010) (tve) (Entered:
03/1512010)
Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re:
Order on
Motion to Dismiss, to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (tve) (Entered:
03115/2010)
26
CLERK'S JUDGMENT That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum
JA 6
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpLpl?118039528481848-L_961_0-1
4/512010
SDNY CMIECF Version 3.2.3
Case: 10-1241
Document: 4-1
Page 5 of6
Page: 7
Decision dated March 15,2010, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and
the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (Signed by J. Michael McMahon,
clerk on 3/16/10) (Attachments: # 1 notice of right to appeal)(ml) (Entered:
0311612010)
03/1812010
27
Clerk's Judgment, That for the
CORRECTED ruDGMENT amending
reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Decision dated March 15,2010,
defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is dismissed with
prejudice. (Signed by 1. Michael McMahon, CLERK on 311811 0) (Attachments:
# 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL)(ml) (Entered: 0311912010)
04/0112010
28
NOTICE OF APPEAL from 21 Corrected Judgment,. Document filed by April
Gallop for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of Elisha Gallop, A Minor.
(nd) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
04/0112010
Appeal Remark as to 28 Notice of Appeal filed by April Gallop. $455.00
APPEAL FILING FEE DUE.(nd) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
04/05/2010
Transmission of Notice of Appeal to the District Judge re:
(nd) (Entered: 04/0512010)
04/0512010
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US
Court of Appeals re: 28 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 04/0512010)
04/05/2010
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on
Appeal Electronic Files for 11 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed
by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 16 Endorsed Letter, Set
Motion and R&R DeadlineslHearings" I 0 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by
Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 2..1 Certificate of Service
Other filed by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 7 MOTION for
Dennis Cunningham to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by April Gallop, 1R
Affidavit in Opposition to Motion filed by April Gallop, £6 Clerk's Judgment,
2) Endorsed Letter, 2Q Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed
by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, 27 Amended Judgment, 19
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by April Gallop, 12
Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, 2 Order, Set Hearings" 13 Certificate of Service Other, filed
by Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Q Order on Motion to
Appear Pro Hac Vice, ~ MOTION for Wil11am Veale to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
filed by April Gallop, 28 Notice of Appeal filed by April Gallop, bi Reply
Affirmation in Opposition to Motion filed by April Gallop, 2 Notice of
Appearance filed by April Gallop, 24 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac
Vice, 25 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 11 Affirmation in Opposition to Motion,
filed by April Gallop, 4 Waiver of Service Executed filed by April Gallop, 8
Notice of Appearance filed by April Gallop were transmitted to the U.S. Court
of Appeals. Cnd) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
2~
I
PACER Service Center
I
I
I
Transaction Receipt
I
I
04/0512010 15: 18:30
JA 7
https:/Iecf.nysd. uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?118039528481848-L_961_0-1
Notice of Appeal.
4/512010
SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.2.3
Case: 10-1241
iPACER Login: IIuc0166
IDescription:
Document: 4-1
Page 6 of6
Page: 8
IIClient Code:
~======~r--------~
IIDocket Report IISearch Criteria: 111:08-cv-1 0881-DC I IBillable Pages: 114
IICost:
110.32
I
JA 8
https:llecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-hinlDktRpt.pl?118039528481848-L_961_0-1
4/512010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother
and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor,
Plaintiff,
No. _____________
Jury Trial Demanded
vs.
DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary
of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F.
(Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their
individual capacities,
Defendants.
__________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This case arises from the infamous Attack on America of Sept 11, 2001, and
especially on the Pentagon; and is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the
attack on the part of key U.S. Government officials, beginning with and led from the top
by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and
Richard Myers, then acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plaintiffs allege
that these and other government officials, whose identities will be ascertained from their
proven or evident relevant roles and activities, and who are named herein as 'John Doe'
defendants, together with other known and unknown operatives and functionaries, official
and otherwise, engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, or a set of related, ongoing
conspiracies, in which the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of
the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of
innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done.
JA 9
1
1
2. The defendants' purpose in aiding and facilitating the attack, and the overall
object of the conspirac(ies), was to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and
frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a
powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public, and in Washington. This would
generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could
enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional
government in our country. Much of their intention was spelled out prior to their coming
into office, in publications of the so-called Project for the New American Century, of
which defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld were major sponsors. There they set forth
specific objectives regarding the projection of U.S. military power abroad, particularly in
Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas. They observed, however, that the
American people would not likely support the actions the sponsors believed were
necessary, without being shocked into a new outlook by something cataclysmic: ―a new
Pearl Harbor‖. By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a
basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called
Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military
conquest, ―full spectrum dominance‖ and ―American primacy‖ around the world; as they
have done.
3. In pursuit of the goals of the conspiracy, the named and unnamed defendants
knowingly and by agreement committed a series of acts and omissions which were aimed
at and did generally accomplish the following objectives:
+ To permit the men they later identified as the hijackers and any immediate
accomplices to enter and remain in the country, and carry out the activities, movements
and communications needed in their preparations for the hijacking, free from interference
by police or counter-terrorist authorities; and then allow the groups of these men to book
passage, all on the same day, and board the flights;
+ To cause normal operation of the regular off-course airline flight interception
practice of the US Air Force, in cooperation with civil flight control authorities, to be
altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove its protections, at least on that
JA 10
2
2
day, and thus permit three of the four apparently hijacked planes to reach their targets and
crash into them (or appear to do so...);1
+ To cause the normal operation of ground and air defenses which guard the
Pentagon from external attack to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to
remove or negate the building's normal protections, and thus permit an airliner, believed
to be hijacked by possible suicide bombers, and following a forbidden, descending flight
path, to reach the Pentagon undeterred;
+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the
Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the
wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had
crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;
+ To arrange, thereafter, and fabricate, propound and defend, as part of the
conspiracy, an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated cover-up, centering around
the Report of the 9/11 Commission, and continuing to this day. To this end, defendants
misappropriated the highest authority of government to block, misdirect and otherwise
evade any fair, independent investigation of the evidence, and officially if implausibly
explain away the evident wholesale failure of America's defenses with misinformation,
omissions and distortions, withheld and destroyed evidence, and outright lies.
4. In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers that the official
story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the
plaintiff‘s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to
limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been
crashed into the building. This claim is supported by data from the plane‘s supposed
―black box‖, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which
indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and
fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile. This
is supported by the lack of any photographic evidence of a wrecked airliner at the
Pentagon, compounded by the record of reported refusal by the U.S. Department of
Justice to release some 85 video tapes from surveillance cameras in locations at or near
the Pentagon, which it has declared exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.
1
Plaintiff alleges that no airliner actually hit the Pentagon. See below
3
JA 11
3
5. Whatever way the bombing of the Pentagon was accomplished, however, and
whatever else may or may not have been done by defendants to facilitate the hijackings
that day, it is clear the defendant top commanders would have had and did have, at a
profound minimum, enough foreknowledge, on that day and in the intelligence
information they received beforehand, to have sounded a warning in time for plaintiff and
others to evacuate the building, and thereby avoid much if not all the death and injury
which occurred. In the end, more than half an hour passed after flight controllers first
sounded the alert on Flight 77, while all concerned were fully aware of the suicide
crashes in New York; plenty of time for the Pentagon to be evacuated. ‗Top gun‘ jet
fighter-interceptors under defendants‘ command, available with time to spare, were not
summoned; and the people in the building, including plaintiff and her infant, were not
warned. This was the result of unlawful conspiracy among these highest-level
commanders, and others, who acted knowingly and intentionally to have the Pentagon
attacked or to allow it to be attacked, without warning, with deliberate indifference to and
in reckless and callous disregard for the fundamental constitutional and human rights of
plaintiff and her child, and many other people, dead, injured and bereaved.
6. Plaintiff April Gallop brings this action for herself and as next friend of her
son Elisha Gallop now aged 7, who was a two-month-old baby in her arms on that day,
her first back from maternity leave. She was a career member of the US Army, a ranking
specialist with top secret clearance, who had served six years, two-and-a-half of them in
Germany, before being assigned to the Pentagon in 2000. Her desk was roughly 40 feet
from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall. As she sat down to work
there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the
head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing
through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no
burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.
7. Plaintiff and her baby both suffered substantial head and brain injuries, which
seriously affect them still today. Plaintiff charges that, because of the conspiracy alleged
herein, she and her child and others were injured by acts of terrorism participated in by
defendants. Further, as more fully described within at Pars 57-59, she and her child were
JA 12
4
4
and subsequently have been denied fundamental rights — including by acts of retaliation
against her for raising painful questions about what occurred — as the cover-up
continues.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:
a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,
as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;
b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and
mechanisms of plaintiffs‘ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other
communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave
— giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate
actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to
plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead,
defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the
likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;
c. Under the Terrorism Acts, 18 U.S.Code 2333(a), for acts of terrorism brought
about by actions wholly outside the scope of defendants‘ duties, in perversion of their
authority, and beyond the bounds or color of any law; and therefore not exempt or
immune under the provisions of Sec. 2337, the application of which to exonerate these
defendants would be unconstitutional.
9. Venue for the case is set by the special provisions of the Air Transportation
Safety Act of September, 2001, 49 U.S.C. 40101, Subsection 408(b)(3), bringing all
claims arising from events of 9/11 to this honorable Court .
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of
Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11,
claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two
months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully
JA 13
5
5
petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and
related matters.
11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States;
DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.;
Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in
their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons
who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist)
undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or
functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who
certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the
C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as codefendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro
tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both
culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become
known.
12. Existence of a Class. Plaintiff notes that a number of other persons suffered
injury and loss in the Pentagon on September 11 as she did, and are similarly situated to
her, plainly within the provisions of Rule 23, F.R.Civ P., so that she represents a Class,
the members of which evidently are also entitled to recover judgment as sought herein.
She does not now assert the Class interest; but, where it appears there could be action by
the Court affecting this question, and a class could emerge, she wishes to and does hereby
reserve the right, subject to the Court‘s approval, to act as lead plaintiff.
13. Limitations. There is no time bar to the claims in this action. The Statute
does not run against plaintiff‘s child, as a minor, under Virginia law (Va. Code Ann.,
§8.01-229). As to the plaintiff herself, defendants and their cohorts and agents, by means
of elaborate planned and other ad hoc cover stories, public lying, alteration of records,
misappropriation of official authority and other nefarious activities, have concealed and
continue to conceal, fraudulently, the truth about the attacks and the way they occurred
— and their own participation and complicity in the range of acts and omissions needed,
in furtherance of conspiracy, to bring them about. Likewise, the original conspiracy to
act secretly in furtherance of terrorism, and lie and dissemble afterwards, in order to
JA 14
6
6
foment war and vengeance against the supposed perpetrators, has stayed alive and
continued to harm the plaintiff, as she will show.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Background: Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attack
14. As the world knows, four large commercial airliners filled with ordinary
passengers were reported hijacked in the northeastern United States the morning of
September 11, 2001. Two were evidently crashed into the World Trade Center towers in
New York, which later collapsed; a third was said to have hit the Pentagon in Washington
DC, and the fourth, supposedly aiming for the White House or the Capitol, was reported
crashed in Pennsylvania by its passengers, fighting back against the hijackers.
15. The alleged hijackers were quickly identified by US authorities, supposedly
from passenger lists, as 19 men of Middle Eastern descent, fifteen from Saudi Arabia,
two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian and one Lebanese. Their pictures,
apparent police mug shots, were shown on TV around the world soon after the attack. It
emerged that some if not all of these men were already known to police and intelligence
authorities in the US and elsewhere as terrorist suspects. They were said to be associated
with Al-Qaeda, a network of radical 'Islamic' militants, led by the renegade Saudi
aristocrat Osama bin Laden, and pledged to unremitting ‗holy war‘ against the United
States and its people. Al Qaeda was blamed for several previous terrorist attacks,
including suicide attacks in which hundreds died, in the Middle East and Africa, and
against a U.S. Navy warship in the Persian Gulf. An earlier, precursor group of ‗Islamist‘
terrorists, based in Brooklyn and New Jersey, carried out the first bombing of the World
Trade Center, in 1993.
16. At the time the Clinton Administration was succeeded by that of George W.
Bush and defendant Dick Cheney, in January, 2001, an extensive, complex U.S. counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda was in progress, involving personnel and resources
from a number of government agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the U.S.
Military, and others, requiring coordination between these agencies at the highest levels.
The Chief of Counterterrorism under President Clinton, Richard Clarke, was retained by
Bush, but later strongly criticized the Bush Administration for ignoring the Al Qaeda
JA 15
7
7
threat, allowing the effort begun under Clinton to lapse, to the point where he felt
constrained to apologize to the families of those who died, for the failure he said led
directly to the devastation of September 11th. At all events, it is clear from the accounts
of Clarke and others that, once Mr. Bush and Defendant Cheney were in office, the effort
to combat Al Qaeda was decisively blunted at the top, and at key points down the chain
of command.
17. In particular, little or no attention was paid by defendants and others
responsible to an increasingly explicit series of warnings, during 2001, that Al Qaeda was
hoping and planning to strike inside the US; and that there were concrete plans — which
cadres in U.S. agencies were aware of, and were in fact conducting exercises to prepare
for, and defeat — which included attempting to crash planes into important buildings.
U.S. investigators were well aware that the man they believed was the enemy network‘s
chief bomb-maker for the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, Ramzi Youssef, had hoped
and attempted to bring a tower down in that attack; and that this remained a goal of the
group.
18. Responsible intelligence officials were aware that Al Qaeda members were
operating inside the U.S., and there were a number of critical investigative leads. Two of
the hijackers-to-be lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. The CIA monitored a
meeting in Malaysia in 1999, after which two of the participants came to the U.S., where
authorities supposedly lost track of them. There were reports from FBI field offices in
Arizona and elsewhere that figures on the suspect list were taking or seeking training as
pilots — including one who reportedly said he only wanted to learn how to fly an airliner,
not how to land or take off — but coordination and follow-up investigation on these and
other leads was blocked by John Doe defendant CIA and FBI higher-ups and key players.
Notwithstanding such malfeasance, the signs and portents of an imminent attack were
very strong in the summer of 2001. As the then CIA chief George Tenet testified, ―The
system was blinking red.‖
19. Despite the flow of ominous information to various sections of the US
counterterrorism apparatus, however, and the danger to innocent people — and as a result
of conspiracy among defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and other members of the
Government in various positions — the many warnings of a coming attack by Al Qaeda
JA 16
8
8
forces (as many as forty messages in all, according to the Commission Report, from
eleven different countries) were studiously ignored.
20. That is, defendants and others in the highest circles of the Government knew
more than enough beforehand about the threat and gathering danger of an imminent
possible attack by Al Qaeda in the U.S. to understand that they needed to take strong,
thoroughgoing measures to increase the country's protections and alertness. Instead, led
by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and because defendants were callously indifferent
to the rights and safety of innocents — including their own people in the Pentagon,
plaintiff among them — the government did not respond. On information and belief, no
special meetings of high officials and agency heads were called, to make sure protections
systems were on high alert and functioning properly, and that all needed information was
being shared. No special warnings were given to the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Immigration Service, the Military and other affected agencies. No consultations were
had about possible methods of attack, including specifics about possible hijackings, and
the use of planes as missiles to hit buildings, despite operational planning and training
which had already occurred at lower echelons. The FBI did not step up surveillance of
suspected terrorist individuals or ―cells‖, or immigration checks, or let such people know
they were being watched, in order to impede their activities; and it appears that no
coordinated, high-level monitoring and analysis of the threats, and planning for
counteraction, ever took place. Instead, the threat was dismissed, and ignored.
21. It should be noted that plaintiff cannot and does not know with certainty the
outlines of the plot at its initiation. The attacks may have been conceived of as a falseflag operation from the beginning, with the defendants and their operatives as creators,
planners, and executors, with the assistance of others as necessary. Or, defendants may
have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or they may have used
Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies. The roles of the supposed ―nineteen‖ could have
been to hijack the airliners, or simply, unwittingly, to be on the planes when they were
crashed into buildings by remote control. It is also possible that the defendants learned of
a plot originated by Muslim extremists, and co-opted or overrode it with their own plan.
Whatever lay in the minds of the defendant conspirators at the outset, it is clear that the
nineteen men so quickly identified as the hijackers, some if not all of them known
JA 17
9
9
terrorist suspects, traveling under their own names, simply walked onto the four planes
that morning, with their ―box cutters‖, without hindrance or incident.
II. Failure of the Air Defense System.
22. Accounts from the FAA and the National Military Command Center vary
widely, suffer from internal contradictions, and are in conflict with each other; but
credible reports show that FAA flight controllers were aware of a problem with the first
plane as early as 8:14 or 8:15 a.m. the morning of September 11th, and evidently called
the military for emergency assistance, pursuant to routine, by 8:21 a.m. or thereabouts.
They learned the second plane was off course and not responding a short time later.
According to reports, United Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and Flight
175 hit the South Tower at 9:03. The Pentagon was hit at or about 9:32 a.m. — although
the official version says 9:38 — and the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania shortly
after 10:00 a.m. High performance jet fighter planes stationed at various bases around
the northeastern U.S. — tasked to intercept and deal with unidentified or straying aircraft
entering or flying in U.S. airspace under NORAD district command, or otherwise at
NORAD‘s disposal — were available at a moment's notice. None were notified,
however, or sent to the right place, until it was too late; at least for the first three planes.
23. No interceptor planes came to stop the supposed hijackers — shoot them
down if necessary — even though the Air Force has for many years maintained a practice
of immediate response in which the fighters have readily been ―scrambled‖ when aircraft
are seen to go too far off course, or lose radio contact with flight controllers. The
interceptor program has been an elite assignment in the Air Force, even after the Cold
War ended, in which pilots fly regularly, and wait in ‗ready rooms‘ near the hangars, and
planes are kept in top condition, with engines warm and ready for takeoff. The best jets
are used, which can reach speeds of 1600-1800 miles per hour, and the personnel are so
well trained and practiced that pilots routinely go from hearing the scramble order to
29,000 feet in less than three minutes. The scramble orders are normally made by local
NORAD commanders in cooperation with the FAA. Both the FAA and the affected
NORAD North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) military command have radar tracking
coverage of the entire airspace, and special telephone hotlines between them and with
higher authority. Nor are these forays rare, reportedly occurring once or twice a week at
JA118
0
1
0
various U.S. locales during the past several years. Published Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) records showed that, between September 1, 2000 and June 1,
2001, interceptor jets took to the air 67 times to check on ―in-flight emergencies‖
involving wayward planes.
24. No interceptors came to defend the Pentagon, in particular, and plaintiff and
the other occupants, because of actions and failures to act by defendant Rumsfeld,
Defendant General Myers and John Doe others in concert with them, even though more
than an hour passed between the time the first warning went out to the Military, at or
about 8:21a.m., and the attack on the Pentagon at 9:32; even though the first tower was
hit in a suicide crash in New York at least 46 minutes before the Pentagon was hit; and
even though ‗combat air patrol‘ jets from any of several bases in the region could have
reached the Pentagon — or the path of Flight 77 — in a fraction of that time.
25. Having pre-arranged a coordinated failure of the Pentagon defenses, and its
warning system, the defendants hid and distracted themselves, and otherwise failed to act,
just at the time they were needed to ensure defense of the building; and they have
dissembled ever since, as part of the conspiracy, in representing where they were and
what they did during that time. As with the planes that hit the towers in New York, the
Military and the 9/11 Commission, while failing to cast blame, explained away the failure
to launch fighter interceptors at the Pentagon as the result of a failure by flight controllers
— which FAA personnel deny — to notify the Air Force of the flight emergencies in a
timely way. This was cover-up, in furtherance of the conspiracy.
26. Likewise, by the acts of one or more defendants in furtherance of the
conspiracy, no defenses at the Pentagon responded either, no missile or anti-aircraft
batteries opening from the ground around the building, or the roof; no sharpshooters
deployed with hand-held missiles at stations close by; nothing. And, shockingly, when
the towers in New York had already been hit, and Flight 77 (or a substitute, see below)
was out of radio contact and headed back towards the capital; and even when the plane
approached, and then doubled back and headed toward the building in a long dive, no
alarm was sounded.
27. It is evident, particularly with respect to the attack on the Pentagon in which
the plaintiff and her baby were injured, that, if the building was hit by a plane that
JA 19
1
1
1
1
morning, or if, as appears more likely, a plane flew low over the building at the time the
bomb(s) went off inside and/or the missile hit, to give the (false) impression of a crash,
some form of order or restriction was in force which suspended normal operation of the
building's defenses. In particular, it is indisputable that the expected response of the
fighter-interceptors failed completely; and plaintiff avers this resulted from orders or
authorization from within the defendant circle of Rumsfeld and Myers and their helpers,
restraining normal operation of the protections system and armaments at the Pentagon —
including but not limited to jets available at various bases near the capital.
28. Plaintiff alleges further that such ―standdown‖ orders, in whatever manner or
form they had been prepared or issued, were maintained and affirmed by defendants up to
and through that morning, and that defendant Cheney in particular, operating in the
underground command bunker (Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC)
beneath the White House, personally affirmed such an order. His word kept the order in
force during the period between 9:20 a.m., when he was observed in the Bunker and the
moment the Pentagon was hit.
29. In this connection, plaintiff refers the Court to the testimony of then-U.S.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified
that when he arrived at the White House, he was sent to the PEOC, and arrived at around
9:20 a.m., to find Cheney there, and in charge. He said he sat at a table with Cheney for
the next period of time, during which a young man came in the room, three times, and
informed the Vice President that an ―unidentified plane‖ was approaching Washington,
D.C., first at 50, then 30, and then 10 ―miles out‖; and that, when he reported the distance
as 10 miles, the young man asked the vice president, ―Do the orders still stand?‖
Secretary Mineta testified that defendant Cheney responded sharply, ―Of course the
orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?‖ Whereupon the young man
left the room; and a few minutes later, the hit on the Pentagon was announced. This
testimony by the Secretary has never been contested, discredited or explained away by
any U.S. official.
30. Plaintiff alleges that the ―orders‖ were orders not to intercept or shoot down
the approaching plane. If the orders had been to attack the approaching plane, it would
have been shot down before it reached the Pentagon — or at least some attempt to stop it
JA 20
1
2
1
2
would have been made; and the world would know of it.
Based on some two hundred
years of American military history, the failure would have led to a Board of Inquiry or
other public official investigation, to determine how and why the defense apparatus had
failed. Individuals would have been called to account, and disciplinary procedures
followed resulting in findings of responsibility and demotions or formal charges against
those found to have failed the Country. All of these bureaucratic events would have
become part of the official record, and known to the public; none of which has happened.
There has been no publicly recorded disciplinary action against any military or civilian
officer of the United States government as a result of the attacks of September 11th.
Such proceedings would have created a great risk that the truth would be exposed.
31. The public record also shows that no meaningful follow-up questioning of
Sec. Mineta occurred before the 9/11 Commission; that defendant Cheney has never
testified under oath or been reasonably questioned about these events; and that he has
given contradictory accounts, one of which---the account he gave to Tim Russert on
―Meet the Press‖ five days after 9/11--- conflicts with The 9/11 Commission Report. The
9/11 Commission Report adopts an unsworn statement by Cheney that he never reached
the bunker until about 10:00 a.m.; and contains no reference to Mineta‘s testimony,
ignoring completely this contradiction between the two high government officials. The
Commission also ignores the fact that Richard Clarke‘s book ―Against All Enemies‖
supports Mineta‘s testimony and hence contradicts the 9/11 Commission‘s account.
32. Plaintiff charges that, in point of fact, the ―orders‖ referred to were orders not
to shoot the plane down, but to let it proceed, and that such orders were given and/or
approved by defendants Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, pursuant to the root conspiracy
alleged herein, and transmitted down a chain of command. The normal expected
operation of Pentagon defense that day was thus prevented, allowing the attack to
succeed, or to ―succeed‖ in creating a false and deceptive scenario of a plane crash.
III. The Attack on the Pentagon.
33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on
the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in.
Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went
JA 21
1
3
1
3
out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that
an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building,
to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or
remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside
of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no
engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially,
no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in
that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those
present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.
34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent
document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as
she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished —
a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot
out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked
unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by,
picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through
rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that
now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass;
only to wake up in a hospital some time later.
35. Plaintiff‘s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded.
However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators
in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part
of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of wellestablished Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no
alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived
at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an
unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two
apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn‘t she evacuated, with her
baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren‘t alarms going off, and all the people in the
building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants‘ actions and flagrant
failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the
JA 22
1
4
1
4
Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff
and her child were seriously hurt.
36. Plaintiff alleges further that, pursuant to the conspiracy, the attack on the
Pentagon was contrived to ―succeed‖ in only a very limited way. Destruction, death and
injuries, in comparison to what would have occurred if the building had been attacked
straight on with a large plane, by enemies bent on causing the greatest possible
devastation and loss of life, were kept to a minimum; and the conspirators themselves not
put at risk. Certainly the official account of what occurred is full of gross anomalies,
which contradict the physical evidence, the scientific and aeronautical evidence, and the
laws of physics and aerodynamics. The 9/11 Commission Report is exposed as an
artifact of the conspiracy, aimed at covering up the fact that no airliner crashed into the
Pentagon, and that it was bombed a different way.
37. The official account established in the 9/11 Commission hearings is that
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 jetliner, took off from Dulles
International Airport at or about 8:20 a.m., and apparently was hijacked at about 8:55
a.m. some two or three hundred miles west of Washington. Radio contact was lost and
the plane‘s ―transponder‖ was turned off. At that point, Flight 77 was traversing an
apparent radar ―dead zone‖, located over the southeast Ohio-West Virginia borderland,
where another similar plane, fitted with radio control reception equipment, may have
been substituted, so as to ensure that the precise maneuvers required by the conspirators‘
plan could be carried out. Whichever plane it was soon established a flight path leading
back towards Washington at high speed, on a downward trajectory, until it was close to
the Pentagon. There it began a two-and-a-half-to-three-minute spiral dive, from an
altitude of about 8000 feet and in a 330-degree loop, which supposedly carried it into the
northwest wall of the building. Experts agree this dive was an aeronautically fantastic
maneuver, nearly impossible for a plane of that size, which would require the most
skillful and experienced pilot — or remote control.
38. The returning plane, according to the official version, struck the Pentagon just
above ground level. There it disintegrated — even maybe vaporized, according to some
accounts, at least in part — but, paradoxically, also plowed inside. Had it simply flown
straight into the top of the building rather than making its improbable spiral dive, there
JA 23
1
5
1
5
would have been far greater damage and loss of life. Had it turned only 150-180 degrees,
it could have smashed into the East side of the building, where the office of defendant
Rumsfeld was publicly known to be located on the third floor, looking out at the river,
with the Joint Chiefs and other high officials all nearby. In contrast, the ground floor area
that was blown up held offices like the one plaintiff worked in, many of them empty for a
remodeling project, which was said to have included reinforcement to protect against
attack. Another part of the destroyed space held financial records.
39. Also in the official version, the nose of the plane supposedly penetrated the
distance of the three outer ―rings‖ of the building, leaving a large, nine- or ten-foot-high
round hole — shown in official photographs, without any sign of a plane — in the inner
wall of the third (―C‖) ring. The hole was located some 300 feet from the alleged impact
point, through a maze of structural pillars and interior walls. It was also said that the
wings of the plane knocked over five lampposts along a nearby road, as it approached the
building, which meant the wings were a maximum of 50 feet off the ground as the plane
flew past, roughly 300-350 yards away from the near face of the building.
40. This account is at odds with known evidence, and raises substantial questions
about the absence of evidence — and official withholding of evidence — including the
following:
a. There are no photos of a wrecked airplane at the place where the building was
hit and set on fire; or of airplane wreckage at the hole in the inner ring where the nose of
the plane was originally said by Rumsfeld to have come to rest, or elsewhere inside the
building. Moreover, the nose of such a plane contains radar equipment, and the outer
shell is made of a porous, composite material that allows the radar to function.
Therefore, the nose was not capable of surviving an impact with the outer wall without
being crushed, let alone penetrating all the way inside to the C-Ring wall, 300 feet away.
Although this story was later dropped, defendant Rumsfeld has never been publicly
questioned about his statement that this is what occurred.
b. As noted, there is no footage from numerous video surveillance cameras —
reportedly 85 different tapes are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which
are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations where
some or all of the plane and the crash could be expected to have been caught on tape.
JA 24
1
6
1
6
c. The official account says the plane knocked over several lampposts with its
wings — two on one side of a nearby road, three on the other — which meant the wings
were less than fifty feet off the ground as the plane approached, over uneven terrain, and
the undercarriage even closer. The earliest photographs, taken before the upper floors
fell in, about 30 minutes after the explosion(s), show the front blown off an expanse of
the ground floor, no marks on the lawn in front of the impact zone; and several large
cable reels standing in front of the building, unscathed.
d. The ―black box‖ flight data recorder identified by the Government as coming
from Flight 77, and reportedly recovered from the wreckage at the scene, bears data,
according to pilots who have examined printouts provided by the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), which contradict various aspects of the official account, — and
indeed the very notion that a plane struck the Pentagon — in crucial ways, viz:
1. It is a fundamental premise of airliner manufacture and operation that
the black box only stops recording data when a flight is terminated — by the pilot
turning off the engines at the gate, or by a crash. According to the pilots who
studied the printouts, however, the record showing the path of Flight 77, etched
with codes which connect it to that plane that day, cuts off, unaccountably, some
4-500 yards short of the building — a point reached after the pitched, diving loop
described above — at an altitude of 273 feet. The Pentagon is roughly 75 feet
high. Just as they will confirm the improbability of that dive, expert pilots will
attest that for a plane that size to descend from 273 feet, going approximately 500
miles an hour, and then level off inside of a quarter mile without hitting the
ground — let alone get down to 50 feet in time to catch the lampposts, 300 yards
closer — is an aerodynamic and gravitational impossibility.
2. The Safety Board has released a computer simulation of the flight path
of Flight 77, allegedly based on the data from the flight recorder, which
contradicts a simulation adopted by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission
simulation shows the flight path of the official story, at an angle reflected by the
damage inside the building, consistent with the downed light poles, and to the
south of two nearby buildings housing the Navy Annex and a Citgo gas station.
JA 25
1
7
1
7
The NTSB simulation shows the plane headed towards the building on a path
north of the two buildings and the line of lampposts.
3. Similarly, in the one fragment of a surveillance tape the Pentagon has
released, two of the five frames disclosed appear to show an object, not
recognizable as an airliner and apparently trailing a plume of white smoke,
moving parallel to and just above the ground towards the Pentagon wall, followed
by a bright explosion and a fireball mounting from the front of the building. The
NTSB‘s black box data shows Flight 77 was roughly 200 feet above the top of the
Pentagon as it reached its last known position some 400 to 500 yards (2-3
seconds) away. Thus, it could not have hit the building except by diving into it,
and so could not have flown parallel to the ground between there and the point of
impact. So it appears that, contrary to the defendants‘ false cover story of an
airliner suicide crash, there was a different, additional, flying object, which hit the
Pentagon, and was part of the terrorist bombing that caused the plaintiffs‘ injuries.
e. Additionally, the FBI identified the hijacker pilot of Flight 77 as ―Hani
Hanjour‖, supposedly a known terrorist suspect, who was reported to have received flight
training in various places in the months before the attack. His flight instructors, however,
reported that Hanjour was such a poor flight student that he was barely able to fly a small
Cessna; and then he was so erratic that instructors refused to go up with him, and, just a
few months before 9/11, recommended he be washed out and his license taken away.
Thus it seems quite impossible that he could have flown the 757 really at all, let alone in
its great uncanny dive. There have also been repeated reports since 9/11 that several of
the other men named and pictured by the FBI as the hijackers were still alive after 9/11,
and living in various locations in the world — including one, Waleed Al-Shehri, who was
said to be a working pilot for Moroccan Air Lines, correctly shown in the FBI photo,
whose identity and location have been verified by at least one major press outlet, the
BBC. This information has not been pursued by U.S. investigators, or media.
f. Several trained and experienced military personnel at the scene noted the
distinctive odor of cordite, a high explosive used in gunpowder, in the aftermath of the
attack at the Pentagon. This suggests explosives as the cause for the destruction rather
than the impact and fire resulting from burning jet fuel.
JA 26
1
8
1
8
g. One investigator has documented the fact that numerous clocks in the damaged
area of the building stopped at 9:32 a.m., as the plaintiff‘s watch did also, supporting the
idea that electrically timed or detonated explosives were used to bring about the intended
damage to the building — and that the attack occurred at 9:32, not 9:38.
41. All the matters alleged in paragraph #40 are known and demonstrable, and
most would have been immediately evident to the defendants at the time. As Secretary of
Defense, defendant Rumsfeld in particular was in a unique position to determine the truth
and fix responsibility. He did neither. That he did not is confirmation of his complicity in
the attack--and his indifference to and callous disregard for the injuries and loss of rights
suffered by plaintiff and others.
42. Further, it should be noted that on September 10, 2001, the day before the
attack, Defendant Rumsfeld conducted a press conference at the Pentagon in which he
publicly announced that auditors had determined that some 2.3 trillion dollars in Defense
Department funds —$2.300,000,000,000 — could not be accounted for. To plaintiff‘s
knowledge and belief, part of the area of the ground floor of the Pentagon that was
destroyed in the bombing is a location where records were kept that would be used to
trace those funds, and where people worked who knew about them. On information and
belief, there has been to this day no public report concerning the fate of those records, or
that money.
43. In any event, the plainly visible pattern of damage on the outside and in other
photographic views makes it clear the building was not hit by a plane. There may have
been a missile strike, perhaps penetrating through to the back wall, which helped collapse
the section that fell in, possibly augmented by explosives placed inside. Photos taken
before the collapse suggest this, showing a single blown-out window section, above the
ground floor; and witnesses have reported seeing a helicopter above the building, and
disappearing behind it, followed by a big explosion and bright fireball. As noted, a large
roundish hole was found in the C-ring wall, some 300 feet inside the building; and there
were credible accounts, ignored in the Commission Report, of serious bomb damage in
the B-ring, second from the center, and even some reports of dead bodies in the central
A-ring, also ignored. As shown on CNN television, a large military aircraft, identified as
an E-4B — the so-called ―Doomsday Plane‖, which carries the most complete and
JA 27
1
9
1
9
sophisticated military command and control apparatus — was circling above Washington
at the time the Pentagon was hit. It was in perfect position to coordinate the detonation
and/or missile shot with a fly-over; and guide the airliner in its dive by remote control. It
was also in perfect position to spot the oncoming plane on its radar and sound an alarm.
Significantly, the Department of Defense has denied any knowledge of this airplane
flying in that area on that day.
44. Whatever the cause of the bombing, and the traumatic injuries to plaintiff and
others which resulted, the Government, of which the two main defendants were and have
been the highest, most powerful officers, pursuant to the conspiracy they led and still lead
as alleged herein, has been altogether deceptive in investigating, reporting and explaining
the attack and its cause; and defendants, rather than righteously investigate and determine
the derelictions which occurred, have done nothing but lie and cover up.
45. Defendant Rumsfeld in particular has been deceptive from the start, as where,
on September 13, he reported on Good Morning, America that the plane ―...went in
through three rings (of the Pentagon). I‘m told the nose is — is still in there, very close
to the inner courtyard, about one ring away‖; a palpably false statement, contradicted by
numerous witnesses, a total lack of photographic evidence, and evident impossibility.
Rumsfeld has also contradicted himself several times in describing his whereabouts and
movements during the first hour or more of the attack. He does not acknowledge his
presence in a teleconference which Richard Clarke said he, Rumsfeld, and others were
part of, beginning shortly after 9:00 a.m. — after the Flight 77 emergency was reported,
at or about the time the second tower was hit in New York, and more than half an hour
before the Pentagon was hit — and he contradicts himself about whether and when he
went to the Executive Support Center and/or the National Military Command Center,
both within the Pentagon, as events transpired that morning. General Myers also (falsely)
denied he was at the Pentagon in the early stages of the teleconference, as reported by
Clarke. Tellingly, the tape of the videoconference, which obviously would have been
part of any good faith investigation, has been kept secret.
46. Defendant Rumsfeld also made a striking prediction of the attack, as if
speaking compulsively about his secret knowledge, that very morning, and several days
later, he publicly referred to the ―missile‖ that hit the Pentagon. In testifying before the
JA 28
2
0
2
0
9/11 Commission, the defendant stonewalled and double-talked egregiously, responding
to direct questions (some of them personally submitted by plaintiff herself during a
hearing open only to survivors), especially about the Air Force fighter-interceptors not
showing up, with irrelevant and sometimes incomprehensible ramblings. Consistent with
their part in the cover-up, Commissioners failed to question him closely or confront his
non-responsiveness.
IV. The Other Planes.
47. In spite of what the record shows was a regular, timely alert and request to
NEADS commanders by FAA flight controllers at Boston for in-flight emergency
response regarding United Airlines Flights 11 and 175 out of Boston, as described above
in Pars. 22-24, the jets were not scrambled, or properly ―vectored‖, in time to intercept
the planes that hit the Towers in New York — even though there was plenty of time for
the interception.
48. With respect to Flight 93, which was thought to be intended for an attack on
the White House or the Capitol, but crashed in Pennsylvania, there remains a great deal
of mystery. Much of what supposedly happened was a made-in-Hollywood saga, where
the passengers, learning of the earlier suicide crashes, gathered themselves and counterattacked the hijackers, succeeding in heroic, self-sacrificing measure by crashing the
plane (or causing the hijacker pilot to crash it) in a remote field, before it could approach
its target. This story was supposedly recounted to persons on the ground by passengers
with cell phones; but the science is clear that, at least in 2001, cell phones couldn't
operate at the high altitude where the struggle supposedly took place. Also, the FBI, in
presenting evidence at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, denied that any of the high-altitude
calls that had been reported actually took place. The only cell phone calls confirmed by
the FBI were two that reportedly occurred when the plane had descended to 5,000 feet.
Thus, the mythic account is suspicious, to say the least.
49. Moreover, it appears fairly well established that one or more fighters
ultimately did go aloft, and reached Flight 93, although this was also comprehensively
denied in the Commission Report. There is also good evidence that supposed presidential
authority to ―engage‖, meaning shoot down the plane, was given by defendant Cheney at
JA 29
2
1
2
1
or about 9:50 a.m. that morning, wherewith Flight 93 was indeed shot down with an airto-air missile from a U.S.A.F. fighter jet.
50. Finally, there are multiple reports that debris from the plane was found a mile
or more from the crash site, an obvious impossibility if the plane simply fell or dove into
the ground. Likewise, there is no debris visible in photographs of the crash site, despite a
long photographic history of airliner crashes showing plane parts and debris spread
around the point of impact. Instead there was a crater, and no sign of the plane.
Implausibly, however, the official report said that a visa, in the name of the alleged
hijacker identified as the pilot, was recovered near the crater, along with a red headband
of the type the hijackers supposedly wore. Again, available evidence shows the official
account promulgated under the defendants‘ illicit influence is, and plaintiffs allege that it
is, false and fraudulent, in furtherance of the conspirac(ies) alleged herein.
V. The Cover-up.
51. As with the other branches or phases of the conspiracy, wherein a number of
John Doe defendants working on different aspects of the organized enablement of the
hijacking led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld may not have been aware or fully
aware of each other's involvement; so too with the cover-up, a complicated operation
which those involved have maintained for these seven years, and must continue to see to,
indefinitely, on any number of fronts. That is, the skein of misrepresentations,
distortions, omissions, contradictions, withheld evidence and outright lies which
comprise the fraudulent ―official‖ version, must be and plaintiffs allege that it has been
and is assiduously, and fraudulently, maintained by the original perpetrators and various
cohorts, who have kept the original conspiracy alive to this day.
52. In particular, the cover-up — beyond the fact that the simulated plane crash
at the Pentagon was itself a cover-up — has been concentrated around the purported
investigation and analysis of the attack and its supposed background by the 9/11
Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
The United States, and the Report it issued in 2004. There, as extensively shown by a
number of critics and commentators, this official organ put forth a supposedly
comprehensive account of the attacks, the alleged attackers and their history, and various
JA2 30
2
2
2
surrounding events and circumstances, in a version so full of omissions, distortions and
outright falsehoods, as to clinch its purpose as a mainstay of the cover-up, in furtherance
of the underlying conspiracy alleged herein, and its ongoing success.
53. Thus the Report gives a careful account and description of some of the many
warnings the Government received during 2001 about Al Qaeda's intention to attack — in
the United States, possibly with hijacked planes. The Report goes on to describe an
interview with President Bush, which occurred only after intense negotiations in which
the Commissioners acquiesced to White House conditions requiring that defendant
Cheney be permitted to accompany the President, and that no record would be kept and
no notes taken. There the President earnestly insisted to his Commission interlocutors
that no warning of the attack had come. All contradictions were left unexplored, and
ignored in the Report.
54. Similarly, defendant Rumsfeld — like the President himself, then-National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defendant Gen. Richard Myers and others —
testified and said in public, repeatedly, that no one in the Government security apparatus
ever imagined terrorists suicidally crashing planes into buildings. This claim was also
absolutely false. In point of fact, the CIA, the NSA, the FAA and NORAD had planned
and trained for just such a possibility. Indeed, the record shows training exercises
involving such a potential attack had in fact been carried on at the Pentagon in October,
2000 and May, 2001, and that NORAD had begun planning in July, 2001, for a training
exercise in which the premise would be that a hijacked airliner was crashed into the
World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission, however — with the same studied
indifference it showed towards the Mineta testimony — failed even to mention these
contradictions in its Report, let alone explain them away.
55. In any event, it is in the nature of the acts alleged that the participants would
endeavor from the outset to keep their actions — and the meeting of the minds that
unleashed them — the deepest and darkest of secrets, forever. Thus the cover-up, even as
it continues today, and will be manifest in the litigation of this complaint, was inherently
part of the original unlawful agreement, and thereby part of the cause of the injuries and
deprivations plaintiffs suffered on 9/11, and continuing injury since that time.
JA 31
2
3
2
3
56. As to the overall plot, with its roots in the command positions and unhinged
political fantasies and intentions of the two main defendants, Cheney and Rumsfeld,
plaintiff alleges that, necessarily, there were multiple meetings of the minds among the
various necessary parties in various implicated locations, positions and phases of the
action. Indeed, the narrative reflects an evident form of rolling conspiracy, or multiple
successive, interlocking, sub-conspiracies, by which defendants and their cohorts
maintain and have maintained the original agreement to cover up the original crime(s) of
terrorism, and their part in it, to this day.
VII. Plaintiffs’ Injuries.
57. The injuries, loss and deprivation of rights suffered by Plaintiff April Gallop,
her child and others in the bombing of the Pentagon, however it was accomplished, were
the result of terrorism, and terrorist acts, and conspiracy to commit terrorism, and to
violate constitutional rights, and they include serious head and brain injuries she and her
child both sustained when the ceiling caved in on them, as well as the loss and deliberate
denial of their rights involved in their being made innocent victims of the attack.
Plaintiff‘s son, Elisha, has had ongoing problems as he has grown older, associated with
injury to his brain, and has required continuing medical care and other special help. Both
mother and child have had continuing difficulty, pain and suffering as a result, and
sustained need for medical care, and financial and other loss; and they evidently will
continue to suffer and to need medical and other assistance for the future.
58. Further, clearly as a result of and in retaliation for her public statement that
no airplane wreckage was present in the building after the explosion(s), and for raising
other questions, John Doe Department of Defense (DOD) defendants, pursuant to the
conspiracy, have wrongfully caused plaintiff to be denied medical care and other benefits
she should have received since the attack, and have acted to discourage others from
helping her, all to her consequent, actionable loss. Most recently, on being discharged
from the Army earlier this year, plaintiff‘s financial account was closed out with a zero
balance. A short time later, however, she was refused service at the VA medical center,
on grounds that she supposedly owed the Defense Department more than $14,000; for
which no documentation has been provided.
JA 32
2
4
2
4
59. The plaintiff and her child also will experience more general loss, pain and
suffering, forever, from what was done to them by high officials of their own
government, who, attacking the Country and the Constitution, were willing to see her
killed, and did see many others, thousands, killed, simply to further crass political
designs. They were and are themselves terrorists, in truth, without whose crucial
complicity the Al Qaeda attacks would never have occurred.
PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION
One. Violation of Constitutional Rights – Bivens.
a. Conspiracy. The defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or series of
interlocking conspiracies whereby they and various co-conspirators and others took
various concrete steps, pursuant to a meeting of the minds around the objective of
facilitating and enabling the terrorist attacks, specifically by de-activating and defaulting
various normal defense systems and measures, as described and to be shown, so that the
Al Qaeda hijackings and bombings of September 11 could succeed. They thereby helped
cause the attacks and the resulting injuries to plaintiff, denial of her fundamental rights
under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and death and
injury loss to so many others; entitling plaintiff to judgment against the defendants under
the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may
determine; and Punitive Damages.
b. Deliberate Indifference. The concerted actions of defendants in their efforts
to facilitate and enable the terrorist attacks of September 11 in various ways as described
hereinabove and to be shown, and the defendants‘ deliberate indifference to the
likelihood of serious injury and deprivation of rights arising therefrom, resulted in
plaintiff and her child being made unknowing, defenseless victims of the attack, and
thereby seriously injured and denied fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, entitling her to judgment against the defendants,
under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury
may determine; and Punitive Damages.
c. Retaliation. The actions taken against plaintiff in retaliation for her speaking
out with questions about the official explanations of what happened violated her rights
JA2 33
5
2
5
under the First Amendment, entitling her to a further judgment against those responsible
for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive
Damages.
Two. Common Law Conspiracy to Cause Death and Great Bodily Harm.
The plaintiff is further entitled to judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally,
for the injuries she and her child received which were caused by the acts and omissions of
defendants and others pursuant to the conspiracy(ies) alleged herein, and by breach of
defendants‘ duty of care towards the plaintiff, for compensatory and punitive damages in
such amounts as the Jury may determine, and costs and attorneys fees.
Three. Acts of Terrorism Causing Injury – 18 U.S.Code 2333(a). The
aforesaid acts and omissions of and by defendants were part and parcel of a terrorist
attack on the United States, and the Pentagon in particular, resulting from a conspiracy or
conspiracies to cause and help cause, facilitate and enable the hijacking and crashing of
the planes and other elements of the attack; and these acts resulted in serious injuries to
plaintiff and her child, entitling her to judgment against the defendants for compensatory
damages as determined by the Jury, treble damages, and Attorneys Fees, under the
Terrorism Acts — notwithstanding the provision of Sec.2337, purporting to exempt or
immunize U.S. officers and employees acting ―within… official capacity or under color
of legal authority‖; in that the agreements, acts and omissions alleged herein are outside
and beyond the reach and compass of any conceivable official capacity or legal authority,
actual or colorable, and therefore unconstitutional as applied in this case, as a deprivation
of Due Process of Law, and of her right under the Seventh Amendment to have her claim
tried by a Jury according to Law.
///
JA 34
2
6
2
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands Trial By Jury, and Judgment against all
defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such
amounts as the Jury may see fit to award; treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), and
costs of suit, expenses and attorneys fees...
Yours, etc.,
DATED: December 15, 2008.
Dennis Cunningham (DC 7142)
36 Plaza Street
Brooklyn, NY 10238
718-783-3682
[email protected]
William W. Veale
2033 North Main Street, #1060
925-935-3987
[email protected]
JA 35
2
7
2
7
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 9
Filed 04/01/2009
JA 36
Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 10
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 1 of 2
LEV L. DASSIN
Acting United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By:
HEATHER K. McSHAIN
86 Chambers Street
Tel.: 212.637.2696
Fax: 212.637.2702
E-Mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother
and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a
minor,
08 Civ. 10881 (DC)
Plaintiffs,
NOTICE OF MOTION
v.
DICK CHENEY et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached Memorandum of Law in
Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dated May 7, 2009, Declaration of Heather K.
McShain, dated May 6, 2009, and attachments thereto, and all other pleadings and
proceedings in this action, defendants Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard
Myers (the “defendants”) will move this Court before the Honorable Denny Chin for an
order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and for such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to the Court’s Order of
April 8, 2009, opposition papers, if any, are due on or before June 8, 2009, and reply
papers, if any, are due on or before June 19, 2009.
JA 37
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Dated:
Document 10
Filed 05/06/2009
New York, New York
May 6, 2009
LEV L. DASSIN
Acting United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for Defendants
By:
TO:
/s/ Heather K. McShain
86 Chambers Street
Telephone: 212.637.2696
Fax: 212.637.2702
E-mail: [email protected]
Mustapha Ndanusa, Esq.
Tad & Associates
1215 Bedford Avenue
[email protected]
William Veale, Esq.
[email protected]
Dennis Cunningham, Esq.
36 Plaza Street
[email protected]
JA 38
2
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 39
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12
JA 40
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 41
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 1 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 42
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 2 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 43
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 3 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 44
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 4 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 45
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 5 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 46
Page 6 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 47
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 7 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 48
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 8 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 49
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 9 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 50
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 10 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 51
Page 11 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 52
Page 12 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 53
Page 13 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 54
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 14 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 55
Page 15 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 56
Page 16 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 57
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 17 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 58
Page 18 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 59
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 19 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 60
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 20 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 61
Page 21 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 62
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 22 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 63
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 23 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-3
JA 64
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 24 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 65
Page 1 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 66
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 2 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 67
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 3 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 68
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 4 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 69
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 5 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 70
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 6 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 71
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 7 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 72
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 8 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 73
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 9 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 74
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 10 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 75
Page 11 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 76
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 12 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 77
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 13 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 78
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 14 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 79
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 15 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 80
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 16 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 81
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 17 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 82
Page 18 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 83
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 19 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 84
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 20 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
Filed 05/06/2009
JA 85
Page 21 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 86
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 22 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 87
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 23 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 88
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 24 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 89
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 25 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 90
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 26 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 91
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 27 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-4
JA 92
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 28 of 28
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-5
JA 93
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-5
JA 94
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-5
JA 95
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 12-5
JA 96
Filed 05/06/2009
Page 4 of 4
WILLIAM W. VEALE, ESQ.
Phone: (925)-935-3987
WILLIAM W. VEALE, ESQ (WV0333)
APRIL GALLOP, for herself and as Mother
And Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor,
Plaintiffs,
No. 08 CV 10881
AFFIDAVIT OF
WILLIAM W, VEALE
vs.
DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of
Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F.
(Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1-X, all in their
Defendants.
_________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM W. VEALE
Re: INVESTIGATION and STUDY OF 9/11, and EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR
„CONSPIRACY THEORIES‟
I, William W. Veale, under penalty of perjury, and in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss—and in particular the claim that the Complaint is frivolous—
make this Affirmation to demonstrate to the Court the serious and considered support that exists
in the scientific, scholarly, and aeronautically experienced communities in the U.S. and
elsewhere for the theory and belief that the attacks of 9/11/01 were, at least in crucial part, a
'false flag' operation, or “inside job”, based in an unlawful conspiracy, led by the named
defendant high U.S. officials and joined by a number of others still unknown; and the extensive
JA 97
evidence which underlies the theory, as follows:
1. I have practiced law for thirty-five years, thirty-two as a public defender in Contra
Costa County, California, retiring as Chief Assistant Public Defender in 2006 after thirteen years
as the supervisor of the Alternate Defender Office.
2. I have tried roughly 120 cases to a jury, some 20 of which were homicide cases. I
have handled and consulted on many capital cases and tried six to conclusion.
3. I am well aware of the strong, dismissive skepticism, and, frequently, anger, with
which many people respond to the idea that '9/11 was an inside job'. I have experienced it
myself, both in my own initial response, and later, in the responses of others, after I was
persuaded to begin an examination of the objective evidence, and at length became convinced of
the soundness and validity of the „conspiracy theory‟.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
curriculum and bibliography tracing the themes and materials I have now spent some years
looking as deeply into as I could.
4. Contradictions arising from official and other statements and explanations about
various aspects of 9/11, and research, investigation and writing such as that of Professor David
Ray Griffin, have led a large number of experienced and learned Americans to question the
official version of 9/11 events, and to call for a new investigation. Those citizens who have
spoken out or subscribed to various statements in the matter include more than 190 senior military,
intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, including 41 counter-terrorism
and intelligence agency veterans; more than 670 registered architects and engineers; more than
200 pilots and aviation professionals; more than 400 college and university professors, and at least
200 established artists, entertainers and media professionals. In addition, more than 230 9/11
survivors and family members, and at least eight senior former Republican administration
JA 98
appointees have questioned the government‟s explanations and conclusions. The attached Exhibit
B contains a partial list of such persons. See also, www.Patriotsquestion911.com
5. According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released on October 16, 2006,
consistent with a Canadian and a CNN poll, the vast majority of Americans do not believe the
story of the attacks as recounted by the Bush Administration. "Do you think members of the
Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or
are they mostly lying? ANSWERS: Telling the truth 16%; Hiding something 53%; Mostly lying
28%; Not sure 3%"
6. I have made extensive study of The 9/11 Commission Report, W.W. Norton and
Company, 2004; The 9/11 Investigations, edited by Steven Strasser, Public Affairs, 2004, which
contains some of the testimony taken by the 9/11Commission as well as staff reports and Against
All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, Free Press, 2004.
7. I have interviewed in person, Richard Humenn, the chief electrical engineer for the
construction of the World Trade Center Towers, who professed profound skepticism that the
buildings would have fallen as they did, and William Rodriquez, custodian at the World Trade
Center, the last man to leave the North Tower before it was destroyed who related his personal
experience, while on the first subbasement, of feeling and hearing an explosion below him, and
then a few seconds later of another far above him, which was the impact of American Flight 11.
8. I have communicated with many journalists concerning the attacks of 9/11 in an effort
to raise questions. I interviewed in person Walter Pincus, senior staff writer on intelligence for
the Washington Post. I have had extended phone and e-mail communications with Jim Dwyer,
writer for the New York Times and author of two books on the World Trade Center. I have had
an extended phone conversation with Professor Charles Shank of the University of California at
JA 99
Berkeley and Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I have interviewed in
person a staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and have communicated by email with a
senior investigative journalist from that paper. I have had phone and email communications with
Dr. Manuel Garcia of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and his editor at
Counterpunch Magazine, Alexander Cockburn. I have had e-mail exchanges with Professor
Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have spoken at some length in
person with Hamilton Fish of the Nation. I have spoken to Robert Fisk, of the Guardian, and
Neil Lewis of the New York Times, and conversed in person and by email with Mark Hertsgaard,
and by e-mail with Peter Lance, Thom Hartmann, and Robert Parry; with all about the pros and
cons of 9/11 conspiracy theor(ies). All expressed disbelief at the beginning of the conversation,
and only a few professed an open mind at the end. Since then, as far as I have been able to
ascertain, Thom Hartmann and Robert Fisk have publicly called for further study.
9. In addition, showing the resistance to the subject matter which flows on, I submitted
questions to the editor of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, without response, and submitted
questions to James Risen, Philip Shenon, and Craig Whitney of the New York Times, without
response. I submitted questions to Christopher Hitchens, of Vanity Fair, Bill Moyers, fo PBS‟s
Bill Moyers‟ Journal, Perry Anderson, Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA and an
editor of the New Left Review, Rachel Maddow, of MSNBC and Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC
without response.
10. I have encountered uniform skeptical resistance from members of the mainstream
media. Most significant was the exchange I had with Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, who
sued the City of New York on behalf of the paper to force release of the 503 oral histories given
by 9/11 firefighters and EMT‟s.
JA 100
11. Dwyer said in an email there was “no testimonial evidence” to support the
“explosives” theory with regard to the Towers‟ collapse. Contained in the oral histories are 182
instances where 118 people used the words, “bomb”, blast”, “explosive”, or “explosion” in
telling of their experiences that morning. See Exhibit F, post for a sampling of the oral histories.
12. Dr. David Ray Griffin, an author and former professor of theology at Claremont
College, in Los Angeles, California, who had published some 20 books on various subjects had a
'conversion experience' concerning the attacks of 9/11 very similar to my own, and began a
systematic inquiry— far broader and more thoroughgoing than my own—of all the information
and testimony he could find.
He has done magisterial work, winning literary prizes and
developing as a perfect master of the false flag conspiracy theory, and the meaning of all the
evidence on which it thrives.
13. Professor Griffin has written six books and edited a seventh about 9/11. In the series,
he has gathered, described, analyzed, and tested the evidence. He has concluded that the 9/11
Commission and its Report are part of a profound cover-up, and that the case for governmental
complicity, as he most recently noted, is “overwhelming”. These books, beginning with “The
New Pearl Harbor”, in 2004, portray a vast, exhaustively detailed, and still-growing body of
information, from innumerable sources, which he has concisely summarized in an Affidavit,
included herewith in plaintiffs‟ Appendix. (See Appendix, No.1)
14. The matters alleged in Pars 5 and 22-24 of the Complaint now challenged by the
Government are based on an analysis discussed in all of Prof. Griffin‟s books. Particularly with
regard to American Airlines Flight 77, alleged to have hit the Pentagon and caused the injuries to
Plaintiffs, his work in 9/11 Contradictions is essential, and emblematic of his ability to lay bare
the meaning of interrelated facts, reports, records, testimonies, science and the ideas of others,
JA 101
which relate to an understanding of the 9/11 events. Thus, as to Flight 77 he concludes,
” [T]he 9/11 Commission‟s claim about American Flight 77, according to which
the military did not know of its hijacking until after the Pentagon was struck, was
contradicted by a number of reports: a New York Times story of September 15,
2001; NORAD‟s timeline of September 18, 2001; the FAA‟s memo of May 22,
2003, which was discussed the next day by 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben
Veniste and at least partially by General Craig McKinley of NORAD; the
Arlington County After-Action Report; Secret Service statements; and reports of
the presence of military liaisons at FAA.” (p. 108).
15. See also the attached Affidavits of former FAA flight controller Robin Hordon,
attached as Exhibit C.
16. Discrepancies in a story are often the first spur to investigation.
Serious
contradictions are found within and between separate governmental agencies‟ accounts of the
Pentagon attack, as Prof. Griffin shows. For example, as stated in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint,
there is a discrepancy between the flight path of what the government alleges to be American
Flight 77 as described by the 9/11 Commission and as described by the National Transportation
Safety Board. As described in the Complaint, p.17, Par.40d., and further set out in Exhibit D,
attached, an Affidavit by Robert Balsamo, co-founder of the organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a
request was made to the National Transportation Safety Board to release data from Flight 77‟s
Flight Data Recorder (black box), under the FOIA. The NSTB complied. Balsamo and other
members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyzed the data provided by the NTSB, and reached the
following conclusions:
(a) The NTSB “Flight Path Animation” shows an approach path and altitude which
do not support the official explanation: where the 9/11 Commission‟s animation
describes a path south of the Navy Annex and the Citgo gas station, the data analyzed
by Pilots for 9/11 Truth demonstrates a path north of those two buildings.
(b) All altitude data show the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the
street light poles by the road near the building.
(c) The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact
the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object
JA 102
traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
(d) The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
(e) If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude still would have been at least 100
feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
17. As set out in Paragraph 40d2 of the Complaint, the damage to the Pentagon is
consistent with the flight path as described by the 9/11 Commission Report and also five downed
light poles leading to the Pentagon.
18. Two investigators referring to themselves as the Citizen‟s Investigation Team
interviewed a number of witnesses to the supposed flight of American Flight 77. They took
statements from four such individuals, two of whom were Pentagon police officers, Sgts
Lagassie and Brooks, both of whom exhibited a pronounced interest in refuting any conspiracy
theories that suggested that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Each of the four witnesses
asserted that the flight path of the aircraft they believed to be Flight 77 was north of the Navy
Annex and the Citgo station. Subsequent interviews by the Citizen‟s Investigation Team of other
percipient witnesses have corroborated, in large measure, the flight path described by the first
four witnesses.
19. As alleged in the Complaint in Paragraph 5, the presence of an E-4B “Doomsday”, or
“Flying Pentagon” plane over the White House on the morning of 9/11, around the time of the
attack at the Pentagon, strongly contradicts the claim that the Department of Defense was
unaware of the approaching danger embodied in the airplane claimed to be American Flight 77.
th
20. The officially-released radar data compiled by the USAF 84
Radar Evaluation
Squadron does not reflect the E-4B flight, shown clearly on CNN videotape and broadcast
repeatedly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF9Fd4UyMY, demonstrating the ability of
governmental officials to fashion physical evidence as necessary. (See The 9/11 Mystery Plane
and the Vanishing of America, by Mark Gaffney (Trine Day LLC, 2008)
JA 103
21. Providing cover for, and evidently helping enable the execution of the attacks, was
the operation of multiple “war games” and training exercises by various agencies of the US
government on the morning of 9/11. Among as many as five or more others were “Vigilant
Guardian”, “Vigilant Warrior”, “Northern Vigilance”, a program at the National Reconnaisance
Office in Chantilly, Virginia, and one by FEMA in New York City. See, Associated Press,
August 21, 2002, Aviation Week, Newhouse News Service, January 25, 2002, Clarke, Against
All Enemies,(Free Press, 2004) p.5; Toronto Star, December 9, 2001, Ruppert, Crossing the
Rubicon, (New Society Publishers, 2004) p.333 et seq.
22. As the Complaint states in Paragraph 4, photographs taken shortly after the attack at
the Pentagon show very little in common with traditional portrayals of the aftermath of a plane
crash. There is almost nothing in the way of identifiable pieces of airplane or its contents.
Certainly there are no substantial sections of wing, tail, or fuselage that everyone is used to
seeing in the news or on television.
23.
(http://911research.com/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#precollapse);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA
24. As referred to in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs were located inside the
JA 104
Pentagon in the approximate path of the left engine of Flight 77, if the government‟s story is to
be credited.
25. According to the findings of a team of engineers that conducted a study concerning
the effects of the attack on the building, American Flight 77 hit the first floor of the west wing of
the Pentagon at an approximate 45 degree angle while flying parallel to the ground. The plane
penetrated to the inner wall of the C-Ring and created a virtual round hole there with a diameter
of about seven feet.
26. See, American Society of Civil Engineers, Pentagon Performance Study, at
(http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
There is no object to which the
government can point that could have caused this damage. A rebuttal of the ASCE study is
found at http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/asce_en.html
27. As alleged in Paragraph 34, p.14, of the Complaint, the scene as viewed by Plaintiff,
and as depicted in photographs, was incompatible with an airplane crash.
The proffered
explanations, that the plane was reduced to confetti upon impact with the building, or was
vaporized by the heat, are in conflict with the amount of damage caused and the distance
apparently traveled within the building.
28. Any object capable of traveling such a distance inside the Pentagon should have left
JA 105
some mark on the outer B-Ring wall, some forty feet away, but none exists.
29. The aforementioned study by the American Society of Civil Engineers details a
pattern of destruction to the inside of the building, along the supposed interior course of the
purported crashed aircraft, that is total; both in front of and behind where Plaintiffs were located
at the time of the attack. (See ASCE Pentagon Performance Report, cited above).
30. A number of witnesses have given statements that refer to two explosions at the
Pentagon, between a few and fifteen minutes apart, and a film of the Pentagon played behind
correspondent David Martin as he spoke during a CBS News broadcast that morning shows an
explosion in the building, even as smoke is rising from an earlier event. See
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5751351276150910098
31. There are photographs of clocks that come from different places in the west wing of
the building that are stopped at 9:31 am, and 9:36 am. Plaintiff‟s watch stopped at 9:30, and
other witnesses gave statements that the first explosion took place at 9:32 am contradicting the
version of events which is set out in the 9/11 Commission Report. The Report, according to one
investigator, used an average of times from varying sources, but never allowed for the possibility
of more than one explosion.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Pentagonclocks.jpg
JA 106
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/A-3JetAttackTime.jpg;
32. There is video footage of first responders caring for the injured at the Pentagon,
presumably after the first event, during which it is possible to hear a subsequent explosion and
see military personnel turning in reaction to the sound.
33. Witnesses at the Pentagon, including Don Perkal and Gilah Goldsmith, referred to the
familiar smell of cordite, which accompanies the use of explosives, when they were in the
vicinity of the attack in its immediate aftermath. Such a smell does not accompany jet fuel fires.
9/11 Ultimate Truth, by Laura Knight Jadczyk and Joe Quinn, (Red Pill Press, 2006).
34. Veteran military personnel, including USAF Lt. Col. Marc Abshire, retired
commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, Donald R. Bouchoux, and Stars and Stripes
reporter Lisa Burgess, felt shock waves inconsistent with jet fuel explosions. Retired Marine Lt.
Col. John Bowman, a contractor with an office in Corridor Two, said, “[M]ost people knew it
was a bomb. Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of military people who
have been shot at.” 9/11 Ultimate Truth, by Laura Knight Jadczyk and Joe Quinn, (Red Pill
Press, 2006).
35. Defendant Rumsfeld was the source of misleading information on the day of the
attack when he told aides that “the nose (of Flight 77) is right there almost to the B-Ring”, a
demonstrably false statement. Good Morning America 9/13/01.
36. Defendant Rumsfeld predicted a terrorist attack sometime in the next months that
JA 107
very morning and then, according to Representative Christopher Cox, after the New York
attacks, said that there likely would be more, potentially at the Pentagon. Associated Press,
September 16, 2001.
37. Defendant Rumsfeld, speaking at a press conference some days after the event,
referred to “the missile that hit the building” days before. Parade Magazine, October 12, 2001.
38. As alleged in the Complaint in Paragraph 42, Defendant Rumsfeld reported in a press
conference on September 10, 2001, that DOD accountants were unable to locate some $2.3
trillion in pentagon funds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU Though there
were stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times on
th
September 11 , which covered Rumsfeld‟s announcement, only the Los Angeles Times gave the
story any prominence, but even that article did not mention the $2.3 trillion figure stated by
Rumsfeld. Neither of the other two newspapers mentioned the number in their articles both of
which were very short. Since September 11, 2001, according to a computer search of the three
newspapers, only the Washington Post, in a single article about Rumsfeld‟s deposition in another
Pentagon investigation, in 2006, has made any reference to the $2.3 trillion figure, and that in the
last paragraph without explanatory context.
39. Additional information and analysis concerning the collapse of the World Trade
Center towers (all three of them), and Flight 93, is contained in the attached Exhibit E; and a
sampling of testimonies by persons at the scene concerning explosions in the towers before and
as they fell are attached in Exhibit F.
40. I spoke with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in person on May
22, 2009, in an effort to learn about his memory of the events of 9/11, and his testimony before
the 9/11 Commission. He said he preferred to let the legal process run its course rather than be
JA 108
interviewed further then and there, but he did ask questions about this lawsuit, and we had a
short colloquy about the purpose of my visit. Before the end, I asked if there was anything in
what he was reported to have said about the events that he now thought he had gotten wrong, or
was mistaken about; and he said “no.”
Dated: Walnut Creek, California
June 28, 2009
Signed : ___/S/_________
William W. Veale (WV0333)
Phone: (925)-935-3987
JA 109
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 1 of 8
And Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP ,. a Minor ,.
10881
Plaintiff
No. 08 CV
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID RAY
GRIFFIN
vs.
DONALD RUMSFELD, former u.s. Secre.tary of
fRet.), and John Does Nos. I-X, a·ll in their
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID RAY GRIFFIN
I, David Ray Griffin, have written this affidavit in response to the
claim that the lawsuit filed by April Gallop against Dick Cheney,
Dollald Rurtlsfield, R1.chardMyers, 'and others is frivolous. 'This could be
true only if there were no good reason to believe that the official
account of 9/11, told by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and the 9/11
Commission, is false. In my various books on the SUbject, I have shown
that there are many good reasons to consider it false.
I. In "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11 l' P004), I provided a su1Tlirtary of the various
forms of evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement had discovered at that
time. I presented this summary as a prima facie argument that the 9/11
attacks had been orchestrated by Cheney , Rumsfeld, Myers, and other
members of the Bush-Cheney administration.
II. In "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" (2005),
I showed that "The 9/11 Commission Report;" which appeared in t;he
summer of 2004, had either distorted or simply omitted the evidence
summarized in my-previous book.
III. In an essay entitled "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 57l-Page Lie"
(available on the Internet), I summarized 115 lies of omission or
commission in the Commission's report that I had identified. For
example:
•
"The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (Which was not hit by an
airplane and which had only small; localized fires) also
collapsed~--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not
explain."
•
"The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was
America's 'most wanted' criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an
American dbctor in the American Rospi~a± in 9uaai and visited by
the local CIA agent."
JA 110
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
•
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 2 of 8
"The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's
testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President
Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26
that arr aircraft was approaching the Pentagon."
IV. In "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and
0ther Defenders ef the .Official CenspiracyTheery" (2007) ---which was
awarded a Bronze Medal in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards--
I responded to four publications of 2006 intended to bolster the
official theory.
V. One chapter disputed a vanity Fair article, "9/11 Live: The NORAD
Tapes," in which Michael Bronner claimed that tapes released by NORAD
in 2006 verified the claim, made in "The 9/11 Commission Report," that
the military was unable to intercept the four airliners because the FAA
had notified the military too late (American Flight 11) or not at all
(American 77, United 175 and 93). Part of my evidence was based on
interviews with FAA personnel.
•
One interview was with Laura Brown, the Deputy in Public Affairs
for the FAA~ She had sent the 9/11 Commission a memo to the
Commission explaining that the FAA had not waited until 9:24 AM
to tell the military about Flight 77's troubles, as NORAD's
official document implied, but that the FAA and the military had
been in conversation about this flight long before. This memo was
read into the 9/11 Commission'S record by Richard Ben-Veniste on
May 23, 2003. And yet the Commission's report, in rejecting the
9:24 time in favor of its own claim that the FAA did not notify
themi~~taryab0ut.F~~ght 77 until after it had crashed into the
Pentagon, simply ignored this memo.
•
I also interviewed Colin Scoggins, the military specialist at the
FAA's Boston Center, who was mentioned in "The 9/11 Commission
Report" and played a major role in Bronner's Vanity Fair article.
Scoggins'S report of what happened in relation to American 11, I
pointed out, showed that the military had to have known about
this flight's troubles much earlier than it claimed. I also
reported Scoggins's refutation of the claims by Bronner and the
Commission that there were only four military fighter jets
available that morning. Also available, Scoggins reported, were
fighters at Andrews (in Washington DC), Toledo, Selfridge,
Burlington, and Syracuse.
VI. Another chapter dealt with the defense of the official story by
popular Mechanics .(PM..) in its 2006 book, "Debunking 9/11 M.yths" (which
was endorsed by the US State Department when Condoleezza Rice was in
charge). I showed, among other things, that PM's' defense of the
official account of the attack on the Pentagon failed on every point.
For example:
•
PM simply ignored the reports of many people at the site,
inclUding Army officer April Gallop and reporters Jamie McIntyre
and John Mcwethy (of CNN. and. ABC, respec"tively)j "that; "the deb£is
at the Pentagon did not support the idea that it had been struck
by a -Boeing 757.
JA 111
?
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
•
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 3 of 8
Besides g1v1ng an explanation of the hole in the Pentagon's C
ring that was inherently nonsensical., PM failed to. point out that
its explanation, like that of the official "Pentagon Building
Performance Report"---contradlcted the fabsurd)' claim of
Secretary Rumsfeld that the hole had been made by F'light 77's
nose cone.
VII. In my first book of 2008, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to
Congress and the press j" I laid out; 25 int;ernal cOIit;radict;ions within
the official story (in which one supporter of the official story
contradicted 'another ~. SOIne of these cdntr'adi<::tions involved the three
men named in April Gallop's lawsuit, Dick Cheney, Donald'Rumsfeld, and
General Richard Myers:
• Whereas the 9/11 Commission claims that Cheney did not arrive in
the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the
Wh-iteHouseunt-i-l "-short-ly ,be·fore ·10':00', perhaps at 9: 58., "
Richard Clarke had reported in his best-selling book, Against All
Enemies, that Cheney had gone to the PEOC shortly after 9:03,
when the second WTC tower was hit. Also, Secretary of
Transportation Norman Mineta reported that when he arrived in the
PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there.
• Whereas the 9/11 Commission claims that Cheney did not issue a
shoot-down order until after 10:10; and that Richard Clarke did
not receive it until 10:25, Clarke himself reported in his book
that he hadreceived it ,at ,about 9: 50 (and hence many minutes
before Uni~ed93 went down).
• Whereas the 9/11 Commission report supports Donald Rumsfeld's
claim that; he was in his office with a CIA briefer unt;il the
Pentagon was struck (so that he had no "situational awareness"
until almost 10 :00) ,Richard Clarke had rel>Orted iuhis ·book that
Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon's ~eleconferencing studio,
participating in the teleconference Clarke was running from the
White House, from about 9:15 until the Pentagon was struck.
• Whereas the 9/11 Commission report supports Richard Myers's claim
t.hat. he was up on Capitol Hillt.hat. morning',diseussing his
upcoming hearing to be confirmed as the new Chair of the Joint
Chiefs of·· Staff, and that he had no idea what was going on until
shortly before the pentagon was struck, Richard ~larke had
reported that Myers, like Rumsfeld, was in the Pentagon's
teleconferencing studio, participating in Clarke's
teleconference. According to Clarke, he had ongoing conversations
with Myers about what was going on.
VIII. In my 2008 book, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, The
Cover-Up, .and t.he Expose" (which-was named "Pick of the Week" by
Publisher's Weekly in the third week of November 2008), I provided an
overview of the case against the official· story. Many of the points
made in this book are summarized in the following article (available on
the Internet):
JA 112
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 4 of 8
21 Reasons to Question the Official Story about 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Rote: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case
the pa~es in my ~s~ reeen~ BaaK---"The New Pearl Harbor
Revisited"---where the issue is documented and discussed more
extensively.)
(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin
Laden ordered~the attacks, the FBI dbeS not list 9/11 as one of
the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that
it "has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (NPHR 206
ll) .
(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners
were hijacked. by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs ~a earn a
heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers
regularly d~ank heav11y, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex
(NPHR 153-85) •
(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from
loved ones or flight a~t;endan~s en ~he airliners, during whieh
they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the
planes. One recipient,oeena Burnett, w·as certain that her
husband had called her several times on his cell phone because
she had recognized his number on her Caller 10. But the calls to
Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the
planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11
truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time,
cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been
impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls
from the planes at the trial- of Zacarias Mouss8oui in 2·00-6, it
had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone
calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had
descended to 5,000 feet {NPHR 111-17).
(4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson's claim that his wife, Barbara
OlSon, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had
taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which
saysth·at the only call attempted by her was "unconnected" and
hence· lasted "'-0 seconds'" fNPRH 60-62).
(5) Although decisive evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for
the attacks was. reper~edly feund in Mahamed A~~a's IU9gage--
which allegedly failed to get loaded onto Flight 11 from a
conunuter flight that Atta took to Boston from Portland, Maine,
that morning--~this story was made up after the FBI's previous
story had collapsed. According to that story, the evidence had
been found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan
Airport parking lot and the trip to Portland was taken by Adnan
and Ameer Bukhari. After the FBI learned that neither of the
Bukhar is had died on September 11., it simply declared that the
trip to Portland was made by Atta and another al-Qaeda operative
fNPHR 155-62).
(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers--
such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports
JA 113
4
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 5 of 8
discovered at the crash sites, and a headband discovered at the
crash site of United 93--~also show clear signs of having been
fabricated (NPHR 170-73).
(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the
planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had
broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have "squawked" the
universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of
seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners
did this (NPHR 1'15-'19).
(8) Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the
to waien planes -snowing 's~gns of an in-flight
emergency are normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the
military's failure to intercept any bf the flights implies that
something, such as a stand-down order, prevented standard
procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10, 81-84).
~i~~tary) a~€ord4ng
(9) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode
in which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the
Whi.te House, appaFently G0:nfl:Fmed a stand-down onieF at> abou"t
9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on the Pentagon. Another
man has reportedheari'ngmembers of LAX Security learn that a
stand-down order had come from the/highes't level of the White
House" (NPHR 94-96).
(10) The 9/11 Commission did not mention Mineta's report, removed
it from the Commission's video record of its hearings, and
claimed that Cheney did not enter the shelter conference room
until almost 10:00, which was at least 40 minutes later than he
was really there, according to Mineta anti several 'other
witnesses, including Cheney's photographer (NPHR 91-94).
(11) The 9/11 Commission's timeline for Cheney that morning even
contradicted what €heney himself had told Tim Russert on "Meet
the Press" September 16, just five days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).
(12) Hani Hanjour, kn.own as a terrible pilot Whb could 'not safely
fly even a single-engine airplane, could not possibly have
executed the amazing trajectory reportedly taken by American
Flight 77 in order to hit wedge 1 of the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).
(13) wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the
Pentagon to be tar~eted by foreiqn terrorists; for several
reasons: It was as far as possible from the offices of Rumsfeld
and the top brass, whom Musl'im terrorists presumably would have
wanted to kill; it was the only part of the pentagon that had
been reinforced; the reconstruction was not finished, so there
were relatively few people there; and it was the only part of the
pentagon that would have presented obstacles to a plane'S flight
path (NPHR 76-78).
(14) Contrary to the claim of Pentagon officials that they did
not have the Pentagon evacuated because t.hey had-lIo way of
knowing that an aircraft was approaching, a military E-4B---tfie
Air Force's most advanced communications, command, and control
airplane---was flying over the White House at the time. Also,
although there can be no doubt about the identity of the plane,
JA 114
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 6 of 8
which was captured on video by CNN and others, the military has
denied that it belonged tothem.(NPHR 96-98).
(15) The Secret service, after learninq that a second World Trade
had been a~~aeked---which would have meant that
terrorists were going after high-value targets---and that still
other planes nad apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush
to remain at the school in 'Sarasota, Florida, for another 3D
minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would
not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the
agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the
school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of
9/-U-'t the Wh-ite Heusesta-rtedte-U::inganewstory, aeeerding to
which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several
minutes after Andrew Card'whispered in his ear that a second WTC
building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This
lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television
(NPHR 129-31).
Cen~e~ b~ilGing
(16) Given the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had steel
columns running from. their basements to their roofs, they s.imply
could not have come down as they did---straight down at virtually
free-fall speeq---unless these ,columns had :been sliced by means
of exp'losives • Therefore , 'the official theory, according to which
the buildings came down because of fire plus (in the case of the
Twin Towers} the impact of the planes, is scientifically
impossible (NPHR 12-25).
(17) The destruction of the Twin Towers had many other features-
-such as the horizontal .ejections of steel beams# the melting of
steel, and the sulfidation and thinning of steel---that can be
explained only in terms of powerful explosives. For example, the
fires could' not have come within 10'00 degrees Fahrenheit of the
temperature needed to melt steel (30-36).
(18) Members of the FDNY (Fire Department of New York) provided
oral histories shortly after 9/11 in which one fourth of them
testified to having witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers.
Explosions in the WTC 7 as well as the towers were also reported
,by city dfficials, WTC 'employees, and journalists (NPHR 27-30,
45-'48, '51).
(19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that
day: "we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street •• • i and we
were operating out of there when we were told that the World
Tr'ade Center was gonna collapse. :And it [the South Tower] did
collapse before we could actually get out of the building.
However, there was no objective basis for expecting the towers to
collapse; even the 9/11 Commission admitted that none of the fire
chiefs expected them to come down. The FDNY oral histories show
that the information that they were going to collapse came from
the Of·f-ice of ,Eme-rgencyManagement---Giuliani's own office. How
could Giuliani's people have known that the towers were going to
come down, unless they knew that the buildings had been laced:
with explosives? (NP"H 40)
ff
(20) NIST, which produced the official reports on the Twin Towers
and (recently,) WTC 7# has been "fully ;hijacked from the
JA 115
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 7 of 8
scientific to the political realm," so that its scientists are
little more than "hired guns," a former employee has reported,
and the 9/11 Commission was no more independent, being run by
Philip Zelikow, who was essentially a member of the Btrsh White
House (NPHR 11, 238-51).
(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly
growing numbers of physicistsichemistsiarchitect.s,engineers,
pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence
officials (NPHR xi).
IX. To expand on the final point of that essay: During recent years,
the official story has been publicly rejected by various organizations
of scientists and professionals.
• These organizations include Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth (Which has over 700 licensed members), Firefighters for
9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11
Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
and Justice, Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine
Eleven, Veterans for 9/11 Truth., and Political Leaders for 9/11
Truth (Which includes past or present members of the parliaments
of Australi·a, Denltlark, Germany,Italy, Japan,New Zealand,
Norway,Pakistan, Sweden, the UK, the United States, and Europe).
• As these organizations show, among independent scientists and
prefessienals in ~he relevan~ fields whe have s~uGied ~he
evidence, the weight of scientific and professional opinion is
now ove-rwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
X. The quality of the 9/11 Truth Movement's support is also illustrated
by the list of people who have endorsed my books; which includes:
•
Physicists Steven Jones, John Wyndham, and David Griscom (a
fellow of the American Physical Society, now retired from the
Naval Research Laboratory).
• National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis.
• AlA architect Richard Gage.
•
Engineer Jack Keller (who had been given special recognition by
Scientific American for h·is contribut.ions t.o American societ.y).
• Attorney Gerry Spence.
• Professors of international law Richard Falk and Burns Weston.
•
Retired US Marine Corps Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford.
• Theologians John B. Cobb, Jr., Harvey Cox, Joseph C. Hough,
Rosgmary Ruether, and the l·ateWilliamSloane Coffin, Jr.
• Economists Michel Chossudovsky and Paul Craig Roberts,
JA 116
7
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 18
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 8 of 8
•
Former intelligence officers Robert Baer, William Christison, Ray
McGovern,. and Robert David. S_teele~
•
9/11 widows Lorie Van Auken and Monica Gabrielle.
•
Authors Peter Dale Scott, Jim Hightower, Mark Crispin Miller,
Marcus Raskin, and Howard- zinno
•
Several political leaders, including Yukihisa Fujita of the
Japanese Senate: Michael Meacher of the British Parliament:
former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura: Terrell Arnold (former
deputy director of the US State Department Office of
Counterterrorism).:- and Catherine Austin Fitts (former assist-ann
secretary of housing).
I, David Ray Griffin, declare under the penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing is true.
4 . /J,t .
;f{:~ /7c-r--
Dated, JUne 22, 2
Signed:
/~
JA 117
David Ray Griffin
Phone: (925)-935-3987
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK______
APRIL GALLOP, etal.
No. 08 CV 10881
Plaintiff
Exhibit A
Wm Veale Affirmation
vs.
CHENEY, RUMSFELD, MYERS, Does etal,
Defendants
_________________________________________
I William W. Veale, as part of my within Affidavit, regarding investigation, study and evidence
concerning 9/11, in pursuit of conspiracy theory, affirm further as follows:
1. The following is a partial list of books concerning the attacks of 9/11; most of
which I have read, several in considerable depth:
- The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin, a general treatment of all the then-known
facts surrounding the events, Olive Branch Press, 2004
- The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by David Ray Griffin, a companion and updated
version to the first, Olive Branch Press, 2008
- 9/11 Contradictions, by David Ray Griffin, a detailed exposition of some of the more
salient flaws in the government’s case, Olive Branch Press, 2008
- Debunking 9/11 Debunking, by David Ray Griffin, a response to four published efforts
to shore up the official version, Olive Branch Press, 2007
- The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin, an
exhaustive response to the 9/11 Commission Report, detailing over 100 instances where
the Commission failed to address essential factual discrepancies, Olive Branch Press,
2005
-Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive, by David Ray Griffin, the history of bin Laden’s
alleged communications since 9/11, Olive Branch Press, 2009
- 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and
Peter Dale Scott, a number of essays by scholars addressing a variety of issues
surrounding the event, Olive Branch Press, 2007
- The 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11, by James Ridgeway, a journalist’s treatment
JA 118
of five of the myriad questions that have arisen, Seven Stories Press, 2005
-The Road to 9/11, by Peter Dale Scott, a treatment of the historical antecedents to the
event and the relationships of some of the important actors, University of California
Press, 2007
- 1000 Years For Revenge, by Peter Lance, the history of the 1993 WTC bombing, Regan
Books, Harper Collins, 2003
- Cover Up, by Peter Lance, the history of the 9/11 Commission’s failure to explore the
Ramsi Youssef case, its relationship to the bombing of TWA Flight 800, and the FBI’s
failures with regard to those events, Regan Books, Harper Collins, 2004
- Triple Cross, by Peter Lance, the story of Ali Mohammed, Able Danger, and a
recapping of his other two books, Regan Books, Harper Collins, 2006
- The Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis, a treatment of the Oklahoma City bombing and the
FBI failures surrounding it, WND Books, 2004
- Pentagate, by Thierry Meyssan, Carnot Publishing, 2002
-9/11 The Big Lie, by Thierry Meyssan, two examinations of the Pentagon attack and the
first exposition of the “no airliner hit the Pentagon” thesis, Carnot Publishing, 2002
- Welcome to Terrorland, by Daniel Hopsicker, the history of Mohammed Atta’s contacts
with Huffman Aviation in Florida, Madcow Press, 2004, 2007
- The 9/11 Mystery Plane, by Mark Gaffney, an exposition of the E-4B flight over the
White House and the Radar Data from 9/11, Trine Day LLC, 2008
-Debunking 9/11 Myths, edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics’
effort at debunking some of the “government complicity” arguments, Hearst Books, 2006
-Crossing The Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, an exposition of the “governmental
complicity” theory, with particular attention to covert governmental activities as a
foundation, New Society Publishers, 2004
- Truth Jihad, by Kevin Barrett, an American Muslim’s exposition of the “governmental
complicity” case, Progressive Press, 2007
- The Scorpion’s Gate, by Richard Clarke, a novel by one of the major actors on 9/11
important for its use of the “false flag”, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2005
- Angler, by Barton Gellman, a mainstream critical treatment of the Cheney vice
presidency, Penguin Press, 2008
- Rumsfeld, His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, by Andrew Cockburn, a critical
history of Rumsfeld’s time as Secretary of Defense, Scribner, 2007
- Towers of Deception, by Barrie Zwicker, an exposition of the “governmental
complicity” case with particular attention to the media’s performance, New Society
Publishers, 2006
- Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal, a number of essays, one of which
th,
addresses September 11
Thunder’s Mouth Press/ Nation Books, 2002
- 9/11 Revealed, by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, a treatment of some of the major
evidentiary questions by two British journalists, Carroll and Graf, 2005
JA 119
- 9/11 Synthetic Terror, by Webster Tarpley, an exposition of the “governmental
complicity” case as a continuation of US policies since World War II, Progressive Press,
2006
- Skeptic Magazine’s: 9/11, Was There a Conspiracy? Vol. 12, No. 4, 2006, an effort to
debunk some of the “governmental complicity” arguments,
- False Flag 911, by Philip Marshall, a treatment of some aspects of the crime by an
experienced airline pilot and covert operative during Iran/Contra, self-published, 2008
- The War On Truth, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, the history of US policies with regard
to Muslim extremists as underpinnings to the attacks of 9/11, Olive Branch Press, 2005
- The Big Wedding, by Sander Hicks, a journalist’s personal exploration of some of the
less well-known facets of 9/11, Vox Pop, 2005
- The Commission, by Philip Shenon, a critical history of the 9/11 Commission that does
not address the questions raised by the “governmental complicity” thesis, Twelve, 2008
- Eyes on the Horizon, by General Richard B. Myers, an autobiography, Threshold
Editions, 2009
- The Terror Conspiracy, by Jim Marrs, an exposition of the “governmental complicity”
case. Disinformation, 2006
2. Other books on the subject include:
- 9/11 and Empire, Muslims, Jews and Christians Speak Out, edited by Kevin Barrett,
John Cobb, and Sandra Lubarsky
- Bearer of Light, by Paul Deslauriers
- Behind the Scenes/Ground Zero by William Bunch
- Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, by David Ray Griffin
- The Hidden History of 9/11, edited by Paul Zaremka
- Hungry for Truth, One Man’s Struggle to Confront September 11, 2001, by Blair
Gadsby
- Maybe the People Have the Answers, by Pat Shannan
- The Shell Game by Steve Alten
- Support the Truth, by Dennis Kyne
- The War on Freedom, by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
- War and Globalization, The Truth behind September 11, by Michel Chossudovsky
3. The following is a list of scientific papers and articles I have studied and relied on
; all are published at www.journalof911studies.com unless otherwise indicated:
1. Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, by Dr. Steven Jones,
2. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, Open
Chemical Physics Journal http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm by Dr.
Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James
Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe,
JA 120
3. Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World
Trade Center Destruction pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge,
Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley doi:
10.2174/1874149500802010035 http://www.benthamopen.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
4. Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories by
Prof. Graeme MacQueen,
5. 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible by Dr.
Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti, ME,
6. 9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events, by Prof. Peter
Dale Scott,
7. Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence, by Dr.
Gregory S. Jenkins,
8. Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence , by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins,
9. 9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney’s Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should
Testify Under Oath, by Prof. Peter Dale Scott,
10. 9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations by Frank Legge,
Ph.D.,
11. Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact
Damage by Dr. Crockett Grabbe,
12. High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers by
Kevin Ryan,
13. Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over
The White House on 9/11? by Mark H. Gaffney,
14. Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich
Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of
Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001by Jerry Lobdill,
15. Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to
9/11 Truth by Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc.,
16. 9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for
9/11 Truth and Justice,
17. Request for an Investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and
Environmental Health into the Falsification of pH Corrosivity Data for World Trade
Center Dust by Dr. Cate Jenkins,
18. Addendum: Request for an Investigation by the FBI into the Falsification of pH
Corrosivity Data for World Trade Center Dust by Dr. Cate Jenkins,
19. Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method ,by Dr. Steven E. Jones,
20. The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction
of the Twin Towers by Tony Szamboti, ME,
JA 121
21. NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure ,by Gordon Ross, ME, The
American Empire and 9/11 , edited by Prof. David Ray Griffin (Also published in
March/April 2007 Issue of Tikkun; here: full-length version with notes),
22. Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to
Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01, by Prof. Terry
Morrone,
23. Jones v. Robertson, A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled
Demolition of the World Trade Center, by Gregg Roberts,
24. A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel by Wes Lifferth,
25. Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1 by Robert Moore, Esq.,
26. The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?, by Eric
Douglas, R.A.,
27. 9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition by Dr. Frank Legge,
28. Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version III) by Craig T.
Furlong & Gordon Ross,
29. To whom it may concern by Dr. Frank R. Greening,
30. Reply to Dr. Greening (See also How the Towers were Demolished) Gordon
Ross, ME,
31. 118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers by
Prof. Graeme MacQueen,
32. NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire, by Dr. Frank Legge,
33. WTC 7: A Short Computation by Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler,
34. 9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations by Dr.
Frank Legge,
35. 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions by Dr. Frank
Legge.
June 25, 2009
Signed : ___/S/_________
Phone: (925)-935-3987
JA 122
Phone: (925)-935-3987
APRIL GALLOP, etal.
No. 08 CV 10881
Exhibit B
Plaintiff
vs.
William Veale Affirmation
Defendants
_________________________________________
I, William W. Veale, as part of my within Affirmation, affirm further that in my
investigation of the facts and „inside job‟ conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 I have learned of
support for the the pursuit of the underlying questions concerning the 911 investigation. Below
is a list of learned person who have questioned the 911 Commision Report and called for a new
investigation.
STATE DEPARTMENT, CIA, NSA, FBI, FAA, US CUSTOMS
Terrell E Arnold, MA, Former Deputy Director of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning,
US State Department
Angelo Codevilla, PhD, Former US State Department Foreign Service officer specializing in US
intelligence operations in Western Europe. Member of President-elect Ronald Reagan‟s State
Department transition team and principal author of the team‟s report on intelligence
Edward Peck, Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs, US State Department
Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD., US Air Force (ret), Former member of the staff of the
Director of the National Security Agency
Maj. John M. Newman, PhD, US Army (ret), Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the
JA 123
National Security Agency
Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA and briefer of President Ronald Reagan and
President George H. W. Bush
William Christison, 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer and former
Director of the CIA‟s Office of Regional and Political Analysis
Melvin Goodman, PhD, former senior CIA official, former Division Chief of the CIA‟s Office of
Soviet Affairs, former Professor of International Security at the National War College, 19862004
Robert Baer, 21-year veteran of the CIA, specialist on the Middle East, awarded Career
Intelligence Medal upon retirement
Robert David Steele, veteran of 25 years with CIA and Marine Corps, former second ranking
civilian in US Marine Corps intelligence, 1988-1992
David MacMichael, PhD, former Senior Estimates Officer at CIA
Lynne Larkin, former CIA Operations Officer
Edward Costello, Jr., former Special Agent, Counterespionage, FBI
John M. Cole, former Intelligence Operations Specialist in the FBI‟s Counterintelligence
Division
Sibel Edmonds, former Language Translation Specialist for the FBI
Rosemary N. Dew, former Supervisory Special Agent for Counter-terrorism and
Counterintelligence, FBI, former member of the President‟s National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent FBI, Washington Field Office Counterintelligence
Division
Behrooz Sarshar, Retired Language Translation Specialist, FBI
Jane A. Turner, Retired Special Agent, FBI
Fred Whitehurst, JD, PhD, Retired Supervisory Special Agent, Forensic Laboratory Examiner,
FBI, former US Army Intelligence Officer
Coleen Rowley, former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI
Robert G. Wright, Jr., Special Agent, International Terrorism Unit, FBI
Bogdan Dzakovic, 14-year Counter-terrorism Expert in the Security Division of the Federal
JA 124
Aviation Administration
Steve Elson, former Special Agent with the US Navy, DEA, and FAA, Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence and Security
Lt. Col. Brian F. Sullivan, US Army military police (ret), former Special Agent for the FAA‟s
New England Regional Security Division
Mark Conrad, JD, Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, US Customs
Raymond Ciccolilli, former US Sky Marshall and US Customs Inspector
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND US MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
Major General Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret), former Commanding General US Army
Intelligence and Security Command
Morton Goulder (1921-2008) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and
Warning under Presidents, Nixon, Ford and Carter
Mike Gravel, former US Senator from Alaska, former US Army officer serving as Adjutant in
the Communications Intelligence Service in Germany and Special Agent in the counter
Intelligence Corps in France
Wayne Madsen, former US Navy Intelligence Officer, investigative journalist
John Loftus, Former US Army Intelligence Officer, Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special
Investigations, US Department of Justice
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, former Chief of Army‟s Controlled Human Intelligence Program
Capt. Scott Phillpott, US Navy, former head of Able Danger data mining program
Maj. Scott Ritter, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, Chief Weapons Inspector for the
United Nations Special Commission in Iraq
Capt. Eric May, former US Army intelligence officer
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, former US Army intelligence officer
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD, former US Army Signals Intelligence officer, Director of
Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El
Paso
Commander Larry Tortorich, US Navy (ret), Former Deputy Program Manager for LogisticsTomahawk Cruise Missiles
Theodore J. Pahle, Former Senior Intelligence Officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency
JA 125
Commander Ralph Kolstad, US Navy “Top Gun” pilot
Lt. Col Robert Bowman, PhD, Former Director of Advanced Space Programs under Presidents
Ford and Carter, fighter pilot
SCIENTISTS
Lynn Margulis, PhD, Member, National Academy of Science
James Quintero, PhD, Former Chief of NIST‟s Fire Science Division
J. Mark Ayers, Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner, former member, National
Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
Enver Masud, MS, PE, former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, US
Department of Energy
Dwain Deets, MS, former, Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA‟s Dryden Flight Research
Center
Edward Munyak, MS, PE, Fire Protection Engineer for the US Departments of Energy, Defense,
and Veterans Affairs
David Griscom, PhD, retired research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory
Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment, and former Director of Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources for the
National Governors Association
June 25, 2009
Signed : ___/S/_________
Phone: (925)-935-3987
JA 126
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 1 of 17
Plaintiff
No. 08 CV 10881
AFFIDAVIT OF
ROBIN D. HORDON
vs.
Defendants
_________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBIN D. HORDON
_____________________________
I, Robin Dirk Hordon, declare, under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am a former Air Traffic Controller who worked at the Boston ARTCC [Air
Route Traffic Control Center] located in Nashua, NH, and further, worked the specific
airspace in which American Airlines flight Eleven [AA11] went off course and showed
signs of an “in-flight emergency” before being considered a “hijacked aircraft” on
September 11, 2001.
2. As an employee of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], in addition to
performing all the skills and requirements of an Air Traffic Controller, I also served for
several years in a management capacity [in an “Area Office”] which is charged with
developing and coordinating airspace and procedural changes, improvements and
modifications, and this included working closely with the U.S. Military aviation
operations.
JA 127
1
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 2 of 17
3. I have served in a temporary supervisory role at specific “area specialties” in
which I supervised operations of several air traffic control sectors. I assigned and
supervised personnel which required that I have basic understandings of communications
and procedures required to perform all the duties required of an area of specialty
including the communications flows upward to higher supervisory levels, downward to
sector operations, parallel to other areas of specialty and outward to various other air
traffic control facilities, including military facilities, with whom we shared many
common goals.
4. As an Air Traffic Controller, Area Specialist and Facility Training Instructor,
I was part of the team that upgraded the entire Air Traffic Control system into a
computerized era installing and performing the upgrade training required for the use of
the IBM9020 computer and its RDP [Radar Data Processing] computer programs. This
enabled me to become familiar with both older analogue and modern digitized radar
systems. I am familiar with how radar data is collected and how it is chosen or selected to
be displayed at FAA air traffic control sectors in the ARTCC environment.
5. As an Air Traffic Controller, I have experienced the successful scrambling of
military aviation assets in the assistance of an aircraft suffering an in-flight emergency.
Additionally, I was peripherally involved in an aviation hijacking and directly involved in
handling a US Air Carrier which reportedly had on board an altitude sensitive bomb as it
transited through my airspace.
6. I have performed the duties required of me as part of the National Air
Defense System working closely with Air Defense Command [the precedent organization
to NORAD, the North American Air Dense system] in the operation of various War
Games, low altitude Oil Burner Bombing Runs, aerial refueling, scramble and flush
operations, and interceptor operations.
7. I have accumulated 1600 hours of flight time in light aircraft ascending to
pilot of a third level air carrier operating small twin engined aircraft in the northeastern
part of the U.S.A.
8. I have achieved the following piloting licenses:
Commercial Pilots License with an Instrument Rating and with the following ratings:
JA 128
2
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 3 of 17
Airplane Single Engine Land
Airplane Single Engine Sea
Airplane Multi-engine Land
Glider
Flight Instructor Airplanes and Instruments
9. I have been certified as a ground instructor and passed the Flight Engineer
Basic Exam that was based upon the B727 aircraft.
10. I have accumulated approximately 2000 hours of supervised aviation
mechanic training working on airframes and engines, and the installation of electronics in
light aircraft.
11. I have a solid understanding of aviation operations from aircraft upkeep,
repair and fixed-base operations, to the flying of aircraft, to the training of new pilots, to
understanding, operating and training within the air traffic control system as a pilot, to
understanding, performing duties and training, that is required of air traffic controllers in
the NAS [National Airspace Systems] in the En Route ATC [ARTCC] environment
including, being an integral part of Military Aviation Operations and the National Air
Defense System as well as pertaining to procedural and airspace development, planning
and operations, which also includes operating with Military Aviation facilities such as
NORAD as part of the National Air Defense System.
12. As the attacks of 9/11/2001 ensued, and then shortly thereafter, upon finding
out that there was no major communication or radar system failure between the FAA
facilities and those of NORAD in the morning hours of 9/11/2001, I concluded that there
had to have been a major failure of the National Air Defense System, specifically, within
the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], the Pentagon , and NORAD. Somehow the
standard operating procedures, finely honed for over 50 years, operating to defend the
United States, had been stood down or compromised to allow such an attack to be
successful.
JA 129
3
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 4 of 17
SPECIFIC SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION, FACTS, and EVIDENCE
13. In the ensuing years after 9/11/2001 I have had access to information, facts,
data, and evidence that supports the statement shown in Paragraph 12. Below, I set out
this information and my interpretations of, and conclusions about, this evidence.
SCRAMBLING PROTOCOLS, NORAD and WAR GAMES
14. On 9/11/2001 there were three modes of scrambling interceptors in active
use:
a. in defense of country;
b. in assistance of aircraft suffering in-flight emergencies;
c. in dealing with hijacked aircraft.
The first two of the three scrambling protocols call for the immediate scrambling of
interceptors without delay once the decision is made that requires a scramble.
15. In the first case, upon the notification of enemy aircraft [or sometimes
missiles] inbound towards the continental United States, or in some instances the
continent of North America, interceptors are immediately scrambled to conduct this
interception action, and there is no need for approvals from the Pentagon to scramble
aircraft. NORAD and its facilities, including scramble or “hot” bases react to the situation
immediately AND MAKE DECISIONS TO SCRAMBLE TOTALLY WITHIN FIELD
FACILITY OPERATIONS. Reports of these activities are filed in an “after action”
format. The immediacy of the need to scramble military aviation assets in this scenario is
of utmost importance because of the emergency.
16. In the second case, upon notification from the FAA that assistance of any
U.S. Military aviation asset, such as interceptors, are required to deal with an “in-flight
emergency”, NORAD’s field facilities are required to IMMEDIATELY SCRAMBLE
pertinent military aviation assets to respond to the situation.
17. In the third instance, the possible hijacking of an aircraft, the request for
JA 130
4
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 5 of 17
Military aviation assets comes from whatever facility or information source suspects that
a hijacking may be unfolding. This may be law enforcement, the State Department, or
sometimes an FAA air traffic control facility that hears something from an aircraft
suggesting that a hijacking is taking place, or from seeing a special hijacking transponder
code being transmitted by an aircraft. In these situations the need for an immediate
scrambling of Military aviation assets is less time critical.
18. In the unfolding events of 9/11/2001 each of the four airliners involved,
AA11, UA175, UA93 and AA77, showed all the signs of aircraft suffering “in-flight
emergencies” WELL BEFORE any of them were considered to be suffering a possible
“hijacking”. These signs are:
Loss of radio contact;
Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval;
Loss of transponder;
19. Each of the four airliners showed each of these characteristics and therefore
should have been considered as suffering “in-flight emergencies”. In fact, there were no
signs establishing that the airliners were suffering a possible hijacking, most importantly,
the transmission of the hijacking transponder codes to ATC [air traffic control].
The ONLY information that was presented to ATC that these airliners were being
hijacked were a few radio transmissions that noted some troubling disturbances in the
cockpits, and that sounded like radio transmissions from an Arabic sounding person.
It is CRITICAL TO NOTE that these radio transmissions cannot be positively established
as coming from any of the specific airliners themselves and could have come from ANY
OTHER aircraft aloft at high altitudes in the northeastern part of the U.S..
20. The first indication that there was trouble in an airliner came from the Boston
ARTCC air traffic controller noticing the loss of radio contact, then the loss of
transponder, and then the radical and unapproved course change exhibited by AA11. This
sequence of events started at 08:14am.
21. Normal protocols for the FAA to reach out to NORAD for assistance would
place the first call to NEADS for help no later than 08:21am while AA11 was exhibiting
the symptoms of suffering an “in-flight emergency”.
JA 131
5
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 6 of 17
22. The first radio transmission suggesting that a hijacking was taking place
happened at 08:24am. For a period of ten minutes, the ONLY possibility to explain the
odd behavior of AA11 was that it was suffering an “in-flight emergency” such as a total
loss of electrical power or circuitry.
23. This observance of an “in-flight emergency” should have called for an
IMMEDIATE scramble of Military aviation assets to help out AA11, and this
information should be available for discovery through a thorough analysis of ALL ATC
audio tapes. The FBI has not released all FAA sector audio tapes as noted by Collin
Scoggins, the Military Liason Officer working at ZBW on 9/11/2001.
24. The net affect of the Arab sounding radio transmissions was to make ATC
suspect that a hijacking was taking place, which in turn, would engage a different and
slower scramble protocol, where the Pentagon’s approval was needed before interceptors
were scrambled.
25. At 08:38am the Boston ARTCC called NEADS [the Northeast Air Defense
Sector] and asked for direct support of scrambled interceptors. This request
SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER PROTOCOLS because the FAA is the responsible
organization when dealing with aircraft in ANY kind of distress.
26. NEADS did NOT follow this request by Boston ARTCC. The interceptors
were allowed off the ground only after there was a pertinent and “impromptu” decision
made by a NORAD commander in Florida. This order in itself was outside the “hijacking
scramble protocol”, demonstrating that the commander who issued the order saw and
understood that the precedent activities of the U.S. Military had not followed the correct
scramble protocol.
27. The approval for scrambling was issued at 08:46am, and the interceptors
were airborne at 08:52. This six-minute delay was the result of the interceptors NOT
being given higher departure priority as called for in scrambles for “in-flight
emergencies” and instead being slotted for normal first-come-first-served departure
sequences used in hijacking protocols unless specifically requested otherwise.
28. It has been established that there were several overlapping War Games
Exercises that were scheduled and in operation on or about 9/11/2001. The U.S. Military
actually moved up dates for one or more War Games that usually occur in or after
JA 132
6
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 7 of 17
October every year to the 9/11/2001 timeframe. It is also understood that these War
Games included many hijacking scenarios as almost all War Games Exercises do.
29. It is my experience that all participants in upcoming War Games Exercises,
IE: the FAA facilities and all participating Military facilities and squadrons, are not only
briefed ahead of time about the possibility of upcoming War Games Exercises, but
indeed, these early warnings are used to create opportunities for both new and refresher
training of such War Games Exercises within ALL the facilities and squadrons that will
soon be included in executing the War Games Exercises. This is certainly true within the
FAA’s En Route ATC environment, and I have been told that it is the very same within
the Military.
30. I conclude that the “hijacking” protocols and associated expectations were
deliberately pre-placed in the minds of individuals participating in the events of
9/11/2001. Testimony and recorded conversations within the Military by those
participating in these War Games Exercises have been made public. In them concerns
are expressed that the hijacking portions of the War Games Exercises may have been
early, and whether or not the unfolding events were “real world” or still part of the War
Games Exercises.
31. In conclusion, I am convinced that the Air Defense System for the United
States of America, as historically provided by NORAD and their northeast geographical
sector known as NEADS, was deliberately compromised by elements within the U.S.
Military by:
a. scheduling War Games Exercises which included “hijacking scenarios”so
that, because of confusion, there would be a delay in appropriate reactions, including the
usual and expected immediate scrambling protocols associated with “in-flight
emergencies”.
b. radio transmissions that sounded like the voices of Arabic sounding people
which have not been established as having come from the radios onboard the affected
airliners and could have come from another airborne platform flying in the northeast
airspace.
c. the failure of NEADS, which served as the communications nexus and
JA 133
7
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 8 of 17
SINGLE FACILITY responsible for all air defense activities in the northeast region of
the U.S.A. on 9/11/2001, and was responsible for all the airspace in which all the flights,
including the interceptors, finally scrambled, to take appropriate, timely and affirmative
action to scramble interceptors when they were directly asked to do so by the FAA’s
Boston ARTCC.
32. NORAD, through its northeast sector facility NEADS, was directly told at
08:38 am that the FAA needed Military assistance due to possible hijackings.
33. Existing immediate scramble protocols to assist the FAA were not followed,
and three OTHER airliners were suffering from either “in-flight emergencies,” or
hijackings, or both, and these three airliners were allowed to fly unabated in U.S.
airspace until they each allegedly crashed at: 09:03, 09:32/38, and 10:03/06, respectively.
34. There was a delay in response of 25 minutes for UA175 before its crash,
a delay of 54/48 minutes for AA77 before its alleged crash, and a delay of 85/88 minutes
for UA93 before its alleged crash-shootdown.
35. A senior commander at NORAD, upon finding out about the delayed scramble
situation, IMMEDIATELY gave instructions to allow the interceptors to be scrambled
because he knew that the usual scramble protocols had not been adhered to.
36. Once interceptors were scrambled from Langley well in time to intercept the
unknown high speed air vehicle displayed as a primary target [eventually thought to be
AA77] approaching Washington, D.C. from the west over West Virginia, they were not
broken off of their normal easterly departure routings, thus resulting in a further delay in
response.
UNSEEN TARGETS, TRACKS and RADAR DATA ANALYSIS
37. After analyzing all the radar data available to me from the FAA via the 84th
RADES Radar Squadron, a military facility tasked with monitoring and recording all
radar data fed into it from its various military radar sites, FAA radar sites, and joint use
radar sites, I have concluded that three of the four airliners, AA11, UA175 and UA93
were kept in full and positive radar contact from just after lift off at their departure
JA 134
8
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 9 of 17
airports up until their respective crash points as follows:
AA11-Boston to WTC1
UA175-Boston to WTC2
UA93-Newark to Shanksville, PA
38. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio, and was NEVER reradar identified. The high-speed eastbound primary radar target eventually seen by
Danielle O’Brien at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach and on a heading towards
Washington, D.C., which then made a large turn into, or over, the Pentagon, has been
PRESUMED to be AA77, but that presumption is based upon unreliable evidence found,
or placed, at the Pentagon crash site, or misread in a reverse-engineered identification
process.
THE PHANTOM AA 11
39. It is my conclusion that the “phantom AA11,” eventually offered as an excuse
for the misdeployment of the scrambled interceptors from Langley away from the actual
primary target headed for Washington, D.C. was in fact the computer generated TRACK
for AA11 that kept on heading in a southwesterly direction after AA11, the real airplane,
struck WTC1.
40. Tracks are created from computer programs that place alphanumeric symbols
in the vicinity of the target that the track is associated with enabling the system to
maintain the identity of, and the tracked location of, that specific target. Tracks are
designed to “search” for its associated target along the route of flight, or along the last
generated heading and ground speed noted by the track for its specific host aircraft.
41. After the track for AA11“lost”its host target [because AA11 entered WTC1],
the track for AA11, showing all the same specific alphanumerics identifying it as AA11
[with the exception of a coast track symbol “#”] that were attached to the real AA11
before it hit WTC1, kept on traveling on the last heading and groundspeed known
[towards Washington, D.C.] as it kept “searching” for its recently-lost host target.
42. Tracks will remain in COAST MODE and moving at the last known heading
and speed, or routing and speed, until manually ended by human computer inputs.
An inexperienced person seeing this alphanumeric display, but failing to see that the host
JA 135
9
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 10 of 17
target was not there, could conclude that AA11 was still airborne even though only the
track for AA11 was moving across the radar scopes.
43. An experienced person would see the COAST MODE of this track and could
potentially convince an inexperienced person that AA11 was still airborne because all the
alphanumeric zymology was the same except for the smallish “#” sign having replaced
the target symbol.
WHY AA11 WAS NOT SEEN BY NEADS
44. The government has acknowledged the existence of a 24-second delay in the
delivery of radar data from NORAD’s main computers to NEADS’s radar displays in
upstate New York. It is my opinion that the attempts to point out AA11 to NEADS failed
because the system was compromised within that 24-second delay.
45. Long Range Radar [LRR] sweeps, or refreshes, occur every twelve seconds.
The 24-second delay represents two separate opportunities for target elimination by a
radar technician planted in between the original radar source in NORAD and the NEADS
radar sectors and radar scopes.
46. NORAD radar systems have the computer program capacity to create
“inputs” that present fake aircraft targets to affected NORAD sectors during War Games
Exercises so indiscernible from REAL targets so as to make it impossible for NORAD
radar technicians to be able to tell the difference between computer generated targets and
real targets. This capacity allows for the presentation of War Games that are as close to
reality as possible.
47. NORAD radar and computer systems have the capacity to “output”, or “outtake”, specific targets from the radar data base as well. Therefore, after an “input” has
served its purpose in a War Game Exercise, this target can be eliminated, returning the
radar screens to “real world”.
48. This radar target “out-take” capability enabled the secret elimination of the
real target of AA11 from the radar data base generated by NORAD prior to the radar data
being sent along to NEADS.
JA 136
10
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 11 of 17
49. It is my conclusion that this was the purpose behind the inexplicable, and so
far, unexplained, 24-second delay acknowledged by the Department of Defense and
NORAD as being in existence on 9/11/2001.
50. The net result of the removal of the REAL target of AA11 was that the radar
techs at NEADS could not get a geographical position for AA11 and consequently, had a
more difficult time assessing the critical nature of the unfolding events, and had to spend
over 40 phone calls busy with such identification activities. In addition, NEADS would
have had a far more difficult time in transmitting any target location information to
interceptors’ target and tracking systems.
AA77 LOST TO INDIANAPOLIS ATRCC IN EASTERN OHIO
51. Radar data collected from radar antennae across the country is processed by
the RDP [radar data processing] computer programs in all the ARTCC computers.
Pertinent radar data, both secondary radar returns and primary radar returns, which are
handled separately, are eventually sent to individual air traffic control sectors. It is first
allocated or sent to geographical areas or zones called “radar sort boxes” which are
established as a large contiguous grid-matrix-mozaic covering the entire United States of
America and somewhat beyond where needed. These “sort boxes” usually have several
radar antennae sweeping through them. The best radar returns of the multiple radar
antennae coverages are selected to be sent to each individual “radar sort box”. There are
computer commands that are entered which control which radar data from which radar
site is to be allowed to be sent through to each individual “sort box“. These commands
include the capacity to inhibit all radar data sent into any specific “radar sort box or
boxes”.
52. The primary radar “black hole” in which AA77 was lost to positive radar
contact in eastern Ohio could have been created by inputting commands into the RDP
[radar data processing] computer programs that instructed that primary radar data NOT
be sent into the group of “radar sort boxes” that represented the region in which AA77
was lost to positive radar identification and contact.
JA 137JA
11
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 12 of 17
53. The computer commands controlling the sending of radar data to all the
applicable “ radar sort boxes” is usually located at the “systems engineers” station at each
individual ARTCC. Through keyboard inputs from such stations, all of the “radar sort
boxes” within the entire airspace that each ARTCC is responsible for, is assigned the
appropriate radar data input.
54. Like any other computer input station, or computer program, it is hackable or
controllable from other locations should the proper hacking or code-breaking be utilized.
55. On the morning of 9/11/2001, it is entirely possible that some agent other
than qualified Indianapolis ARTCC personnel, or a secretive operative within the
Indianapolis ARTCC, could have, without detection, eliminated the input flows of
primary radar data into the specific “radar sort boxes” that covered eastern Ohio where
AA77’s primary radar target was never observed.
ANALYZING RADAR DATA AROUND WASHINGTON, D.C. AND THE
PENTAGON
56. I have analyzed the radar data made available via FOIA requests and
provided by the Military’s RADES 84th Radar Data Squadron, and I have crossreferenced this data with eyewitness accounts developed by researchers such as Mark
Gaffney as represented in his book, The 9/11 Mystery Plane.
57. I have concluded that the RADES radar data has been tampered with and
truncated so as to NOT show certain radar targets after the alleged impact time at the
Pentagon.
58. Multiple eyewitnesses have reported seeing a large aircraft flying low around
the Washington, D.C.-Pentagon-Mall area at altitudes that would normally create an
observable target for local and long range radar systems in that area.
59. One eyewitness establishes a large aircraft making a low altitude left bank
over the Georgetown section of the Washington, D.C. area, just northwest of the
Pentagon across the Potomac.
JA 138
12
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 13 of 17
60. The RADES radar data shows a target approaching the Pentagon from the
west, then making a sweeping 330 degree right hand turn, then heading back to the
Pentagon on a northeasterly heading, then a loss of that target just west of the Pentagon.
61. Another radar hit is shown on that projected target right AT the side of the
Pentagon, and then no target at all for a few terminal radar sweeps [approximately five
seconds apart].
62. When radar stations are situated near tall buildings, the buildings constitute
what is known as “ground clutter” on the radar screen. It appears as a primary target, but
it never moves. The radar data that I analyzed contains ground clutter that could be the
Washington Monument or the high rises in Rosslyn as the object approaches the
Pentagon, but that clutter disappears just after the aircraft reaches the Pentagon.
63. I conclude : a. that the loss of the target to the immediate west of the
Pentagon is most likely due to the low altitudes between the Navy Annex and the
Pentagon;
b. that the reappeared target is most likely because this target
climbed up and over the Pentagon thereby becoming visible to local radar systems;
c. that the loss of the ground clutter in the vicinity of
Georgetown at the projected location and time that an over-flying air vehicle would be in
that exact geographical location indicates that the radar data was scrubbed or eliminated
at that point to hide the fact that it was an over-flight.
64. The radar data made public stops shortly after the alleged crash at the
Pentagon permitting no further analysis.
65. Also scrubbed from the radar data is any evidence of the E-4B flight captured
by CNN.
FLIGHT DATA RECORDER OF AA11
66. There are questions concerning the reliability of the information provided to
the public allegedly derived from the FDR [Flight Data Recorder] found at the Pentagon
JA 139
13
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 14 of 17
that is said to belong to AA77.
67. The last modification to the data inside the FDR happened approximately
four hours before it was found at the Pentagon which was many hours after the alleged
crash of AA77 at the Pentagon. This is evidence that the FDR was tampered with at
some point between the alleged crash time at the Pentagon and the recovery time
established by the government.
68. There are no matching serial numbers establishing a history that the FDR
recovered at the Pentagon was indeed the FDR that was onboard AA77 on 9/11/2001.
69. There is radar data and air traffic controller testimony that AA77 had begun a
descent at the west end of its westbound leg just before it was lost to positive radar
contact in eastern Ohio.
70. The FDR data does NOT show the beginning of this descent, further evidence
of tampering.
71. The last heading noted by FAA air traffic controllers and FAA radar data
establishes that AA77 was headed southwest bound and NOT eastbound before AA77
was lost to positive radar contact.
72. AA77 was captained by Chic Burlingame, who, approximately a year before
9/11 and while on National Guard duty, participated in the analysis of the defensive
capabilities of the Pentagon should it be attacked by a hijacked airliner that would be
used as an airborne bomb.
73. According to Burlingame’s family he would NEVER give up his aircraft to
anyone attempting to take control of it, especially anyone wielding small box-cutter
knives who was many inches shorter and tens of pounds lighter in physical stature.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS AS HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
74. Operation Northwoods was a secret plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for the approval of President John F. Kennedy that called for the “swapping out”of
an airliner with a substitute that would then be deliberately crashed or shot down.
According to the plan, the destruction of the airliner was to be blamed on Cuba in order
to precipitate military interventiion against Castro
JA 140
14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 15 of 17
75. The “swapped-out”aircraft was to be flown by a trusted and cooperative agent
of the U.S. Military who would pilot the original aircraft to an undisclosed or secure
airport so that its passengers could be dealt with accordingly.
76. A further part of Operation Northwoods included bombing U.S. cities causing
deaths of U.S. citizens and blaming the event on Cuba.
77. The primary target approaching the Pentagon did not have its civilian
transponder turned on which would have shown the altitude of this aircraft, reported to be
some 7000 feet as it began its 330 degree turn and dive toward the Pentagon.
78. A military air vehicle equipped with a military IFF [Identification-Friend or
Foe] transponder would not be seen by any FAA radar system, yet this IFF transponder
WOULD be seen by Military radar systems in use for the protection of the Washington,
D.C. area.
79. Such a Military IFF transponder would contain altitude information of the air
vehicle, and this would be seen by the Military radar facility.
80. There appears to be no other source for the 7000 ft altitude reported by the
government.
81. Upon reading the Military IFF transponder, the ground-to-air defense system
protecting the Washington, D.C. area on 9/11/2001, would automatically “stand-down”
or disarm.
THE PRIMARY TARGET APPROACHING WASHINGTON, D.C.
82. An unidentified air vehicle “popped up” or appeared on the radar screens of
the PLA (The Plains, VA) radar site approximately 150NM west of the PLA radar site.
The floor of the PLA radar system in this region and west to a point 200NM west of the
PLA radar site [the outermost range of the PLA radar system], was low enough to have
the capability to pick up the primary target of AA77.
83. Had AA77 been the air vehicle flying the route between just east of where
AA77 first was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio, and where the
unidentified high speed primary target “popped up”, it should have been tracked by the
PLA site.
JA 141
15
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 16 of 17
84. According to the FDR data allegedly in use onboard AA77, on this specific
portion of the flight, AA77 was flying at an altitude well above this radar coverage floor,
and therefore, SHOULD have been seen by the PLA radar site in this area at such
altitudes.
85. AA11 was NOT seen by the PLA radar site until a target “popped up” at the
150NM point west of the PLA radar site.
86. This primary target that “popped up” at the 150NM point west of the PLA
radar site over central West Virginia WAS NOT AA77 because if it were AA77 flying at
the altitudes established by the FDR, the PLA radar site would have seen and presented
this primary target.
87. There is a radar target report, or readout, covering the above mentioned route
segment prepared by the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center that shows such a
high speed primary target traveling this exact leg on the eastbound route.
88. The FAA person responsible for creating this radar report or readout
acknowledges, within the report:
a. being unqualified to create such a report or readout, and
b. that he was helped in this assignment by a Military person at the
Indianapolis Center, and
c. that, the report or readout from the Indianapolis ARTCC derived its radar
data from a radar site located in Bedford, Virginia.
89. Upon comparing geographical locations in time between the FDR that was
alleged to be that of AA77, and the geographical locations in time for the Bedford radar
site, the geographical locations in time were within 400 feet of each other.
90. In the real world, such duplicate and exacting geographical locations in time
from two radically different sources, the FDR and the Bedford radar site, is a virtual
impossibility because of the width and inaccuracies of the radar beam and the timing
mechanisms used to record radar beam returns.
91. I conclude that one of the above noted sources establishing geographical
locations in time, was used to create the OTHER source’s geographical location in time, a
further indication of evidence tampering and data manipulation.
JA 142
16
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-4
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 17 of 17
CONCLUSION
92. It is my opinion that during the chaos of landing all of the airborne aircraft on
the morning of 9/11/2001, AA77 could have easily diverted to any number of undisclosed
airports or Military airbases without detection.
93. The Boeing 757, piloted by Chic Burlingame, is similar to Boeing aircraft
used for transport purposes by the U.S. Military and could have been absorbed into the
Military fleet of aircraft.
94. The gap of eight minutes of radar returns after AA77 was lost to positive
radar contact, in which there were no primary radar target returns shown between 150NM
and 200NM west of the PLA radar site, comprised enough time and opportunity for the
“swapping in” of a replacement flight and “swapping out” of the original AA77 to be
achieved at low altitudes in and around the valleys and between the ridges of the
Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia.
The foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: June 25, 2009
Kingston, WA
Signed:__________/S/__________
Robin Dirk Hordon
JA 143
17
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-5
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 1 of 3
Plaintiff
No. 08 CV 10881
AFFIDAVIT OF
ROBERT BALSAMO
Exhibit D
vs.
Defendants
_________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT BALSAMO
I, Robert Balsamo, declare, under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am the Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
2. I was a pilot for Independence Air and Atlantic Coast Airlines and have over 4000
hours of flight time.
3. In October of 2004, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth made a request of the National
Transportation Safety Board under the Freedom of Information Act for “Investigative Report(s)
concerning the Flight Data Records (FDR) of AAL Flight 77”.
4. Pilots For 9/11 Truth received, pursuant to its request, a “Specialist’s Factual Report of
Investigation: Digital Flight Data Recorder”, that included two attachments and a CD-Rom.
5. I began an analysis of the material and was joined in my efforts by other members of
Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
6. On August 4, 2006, members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth made a request of the NTSB
JA 144
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-5
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 2 of 3
under FOIA for “reports of the flight path study for American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines
Flight 175, and American Airlines Flight 77.”
7. The NTSB responded by sending 3 CD-Roms in August of 2006.
8. The NTSB responded to a further request dated February 18, 2007 by sending “all
Safety Board records that the Board has determined are subject to release under the FOIA.”
These included “2 DVD’s consisting of electronic animations that the Safety Board created
regarding United Airlines flight 93 and American Airlines flight 77.”
9. I, and the following listed members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, completed our analysis
and arrived at conclusions that we published in a press release dated March 26, 2007:
Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA,
Continental Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former
Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More
than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time Captain Jeff Latas USAF
(ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander,
USNR Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the “Star Wars” programs
under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions
John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
11,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States
Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions
Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino
Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic Dennis
Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation
Safety Officer Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF
(ret)
10. We concluded that:
(1.) The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support
official events.
(2.) All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the
JA 145
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 17-5
Filed 06/29/2009
Page 3 of 3
light poles.
(3.) The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact
the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object
traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
(4.) The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
(5.) If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100
feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(6) The NTSB and FBI have been contacted and refuse to comment.
The foregoing is true and correct.
Dated : June 18, 2009
/S/
Robert Balsamo
JA 146
Phone: (925)-935-3987
APRIL GALLOP, etal.
vs.
No. 08 CV 10881
Plaintiff
Wm Veale Affidavit
Exhibit E
Summary of World Trade Center &
Flight 93 Evidence Showing
Conspiracy.
Defendants
_________________________________________
I, William W. Veale, as part of my within Affidavit re Evidence regarding 9/11, affirm and
submit additional information and references concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center
towers, which further supports plaintiffs‟ conspiracy theory herein.
Link references to
www.911Mysteries.com are contained in a DVD available through that site. Additional material
concerning Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, is found at the end of this document.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
36. The explosions at the World Trade Center can be seen on videotape footage of the
Towers at the time of their collapse. www.911mysteries.com
37. Still photos of the Towers at the time of their destruction show the clear results of
explosions, with smoke and dust billowing away from the buildings and large pieces of steel
blown
sideways,
away
from
the
buildings
as
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/Explosions.htm
JA 147
they
were
destroyed.
38. Still photos show enormous pieces of the outer frame of one of the Towers imbedded
in 3 World Financial, a building adjacent to the World Trade Center, some four hundred feet
from the collapsed Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzrescue2.html
39. Video footage of the South Tower‟s collapse shows the top of the building listing at
approximately a thirteen degree angle at which point, instead of the top section simply falling
over whole as should be expected, it disintegrates, and its exploded parts drop straight down.
www.911mysteries.com
40. Video footage of the destruction of the North Tower shows the first movement in the
collapse to be the antenna on the top and in the middle of the building where no fires burned.
41.
Both towers collapsed in 12-14 seconds, very near free-fall speed.
42. There are many reports of molten steel in the rubble at Ground Zero, even weeks
after 9/11, by rescue workers and by inspectors from Johns Hopkins University. See Videotaped
interview in www.911mysteries.com
43. The “slurry wall” surrounding the basements of the towers and keeping the East
River out, suffered substantial damage indicative of explosive force in that area, as described by
employees working in that area. www.911mysteries.com
44. There is video footage showing damage to the lobby of the North Tower within
minutes of 8:46 AM and testimony establishing the destruction of elevator doors in the lobby
when the plane hit the building some ninety floors above. www.911mysteries.com
JA 148
45. There are still photographs and videotape footage of white to yellow-hot pieces of
steel in the rubble at Ground Zero that establish conclusively the existence of temperatures
greater
than
those
produced
by
a
jet
fuel,
or
any
hydrocarbon
fire.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/1017-moltenmetal.jpg
46. There are still photographs of girders or beams that have been neatly severed or cut
by extreme heat.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=New-Scientific-
Study-Smok-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-090404-371.html
47.
There are still photographs and video footage of enormous girders bent while
obviously in some extremely hot condition, not obtainable from a jet fuel fire.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4_s.jpg
48. There are still photographs that show steel columns cut in a manner consistent with
controlled
demolition
at
an
approximate
45
degree
angle.
See
http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=New-Scientific-Study-Smok-by-JoshMitteldorf-090404-371.html
49. There are satellite images of Ground Zero in the weeks following the attack which
show temperatures on the ground far in excess of those created by a hydrocarbon fire.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots
50. Records from the Columbia Seismographic Center show an event at the World Trade
Center consistent with the detonation of an explosive device approximately 10-15 seconds before
Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46 AM. They show a similar event some 12-14 seconds
before
the
South
Tower
JA 149
is
hit.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRo
ss.pdf
51. Ginny Carr was working at a building across the street from the World Trade Center
on the morning of 9/11. She was in charge of audio taping a meeting that she attended. On the
tape, it is possible to hear the voices of the people in attendance just before the sound of a loud
explosion, and then, nine seconds later, the sound of a second explosion. It is the second
explosion which breaks up the meeting and appears to have been the collision of Flight 11 with
the North Tower, but even if it is the first sound that is the impact of the airplane, there appears
to be no explanation for the second sound other than the detonation of an explosive device.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRo
ss.pdF
52. Steven Jones, then a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, began a
study of the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2004. As outlined in his study, Why Indeed Did The
World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, published in the online Journal of
911studies.com, in September of 2006:
a. He was initially struck by the presence of molten steel in the rubble which
would be impossible if the heat created was the result, solely, of a hydrocarbon fire.
b. He analyzed the events, the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, and
concluded that the collapses could not have occurred as the result of a jet fuel fire.
c. He was unable to find a single example of a steel frame skyscraper collapsing
because of fire. In contrast he was able to find many examples of fires of much greater
severity and length in buildings of similar construction that remained standing after many
hours of being engulfed in flame. A fire in a high rise in Madrid in 2005 burned for
twenty hours; was an inferno; and did not cause the building‟s collapse. The North
Tower of the World Trade Center itself suffered a three hour blaze over several floors in
1975, a fire twice as long as those of 9/11, but the building survived.
JA 150
d. Jones wrote a paper which he published on the internet that set out his beliefs
and called for a new investigation, suggesting that there were many areas of study that
should be pursued that could provide answers to the many questions that remained.
e. He was subsequently contacted by four individuals with no knowledge of, or
connection to, each other. Each had collected small quantities of dust or metal from
Ground Zero. They gave him portions of what they had collected, and he tested each to
determine their constituent elements.
f. He found that each sample possessed the signature ratios of certain elements,
zinc, magnesium, barrium, aluminum, copper, iron, and sulfur that define a compound
known as thermate, a substance used for the cutting of steel in controlled demolitions.
Thermate is capable of producing temperatures in excess of 4000 degrees.
g. He noted the existence of phenomena on the videotape footage of the collapse
of the towers which are emblematic of alumino-thermic reactions (the use of thermite or
thermate, as it is known when it includes sulfur). Those phenomena included certain
colored fires, flowing, molten metal, and a light gray plume of smoke rising above the
area of the reaction. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11
h. Because it was suggested that the molten metal seen on the videotape could
have been the aluminum from the airplane, which melts at a lower temperature than steel,
he performed tests in the laboratory designed to determine if that possibility could be
excluded. All of his testing led him to conclude that the characteristics seen on the video
footage were consistent with the use of thermate and inconsistent with any other tendered
or imagined explanation.
i. Building 7 of the World Trade Center was central to Dr. Jones‟ analysis
because it appeared to be a textbook example of what a controlled demolition looks like,
an impression given support by the fact that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom
Brokaw all alluded to the similarity as they reported the collapse of WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
53. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Though it was damaged by falling debris and on
fire, there should have been no reason, given the history of buildings of similar construction, to
believe it would collapse. Even so, its collapse was predicted by city officials, just as the
collapse of the South Tower was predicted just before the collapse, and too late to save those still
trapped inside, or rescue workers trying to save lives.
54. The leaseholder of the World Trade Center towers and owner of WTC 7, Larry
JA 151
Silverstein, made statements in the years following 9/11 that suggested that WTC 7 was
destroyed by controlled demolition.
a. On the television program Frontline he told of having conversations with fire
officials during the day on 9/11 during which the tremendous loss of life was discussed,
and Silverstein suggested, „maybe the smartest thing is to pull it.‟ He said that the
decision was then made to “pull it” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
b. The building subsequently came down at 5:20 PM. Some people watching the
show took note of the use of the words,”pull it” and claimed that those were terms of art
used in the demolition industry to refer to the controlled demolition of a building. The
claim was made that Silverstein had admitted to participating in the decision to demolish
WTC 7.
c. Because it takes a matter of weeks to prepare a building for controlled demolition, it then
seemed clear that the attacks and the destruction of the buildings had to have been arranged in
advance and planned by forces in control of the World Trade Center.
d. It was noted that among the tenants of WTC 7 was the CIA, the Department of Defense, the
Secret Service, and the SEC, making it unlikely that some non-governmental entity could have
planted the necessary explosives without the government‟s knowledge and acquiescence.
e. Destroyed in WTC 7 were records of corporate fraud kept by the SEC, including that
involving Enron.
f. When the accusations concerning Silverstein and his statements surfaced, a refutation was
offered by Silverstein that he had been referring to the FDNY battalion that had been in WTC 7.
He claimed that the decision referred to was to pull the battalion out of the building. Further, it
was claimed that “pull it” is not a term of art in the industry.
g. Critics of the Silverstein response made two key points in rebuttal:
(1). The battalion that had been fighting the fire was actually pulled out of the building
around 11:30 that morning. There was no firefighting going on in WTC 7 when Silverstein
claims the decision was made.
(2). Proponents of the governmental complicity theory were then able to obtain an audiotape
of a phone conversation during which a demolition worker was heard saying that they were
about to “pull building six”, referring to the cleanup efforts at Ground Zero that involved
demolishing the building known as WTC 6. www.911mysteries.com
h. Within the last year, a Brooklyn College student demanded in a public forum that
Silverstein explain his comments about WTC 7. He avoided the question, gave the
accepted,”official “explanation for WTC 7‟s collapse that had nothing to do with explosives,
and then, when pressed, told the moderator to take another question, refusing subsequently to
address the issues raised by the student. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8
JA 152
55. Silverstein leased the World Trade Center from the Port Authority in the last six
months before 9/11. The insurance policy that he took out on the towers specifically included
acts of terrorism. He collected over $8 billion dollars on the policies.
56. The World Trade Center was not financially viable at the time of its destruction.
There was asbestos clean-up that was needed which was to cost at least $1 billion. In addition,
occupancy was falling in the towers leading to declining revenues.
57. A number of prominent structural engineers, including Hugo Bachmann, emeritus
professor of structural analysis and construction at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have
said that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Others, including Jorg Schneider of the same
institution and Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah State University, have
concluded as well that the demise of WTC 7 was the result of controlled demolition.
58. As stated in Prof. Griffin‟s The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,
“The most dramatic demonstration of this obviousness [that the destruction of WTC 7 was a
controlled demolition] was provided when Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert in the
Netherlands, was asked to comment on a video of the collapse of WTC 7, without knowing what
it was---he had not realized that a third building had collapsed on 9/11. After viewing it, he said:
„They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards....This is controlled demolition.”
When he was asked if he was certain, he replied: „Absolutely, it‟s been imploded. This was a
hired job. A team of experts did this.‟ When he was told that this happened on September 11, he
was at first incredulous, repeatedly asking, „Are you sure?‟ When he was finally convinced,
Jowenko said: „Then they‟ve worked very hard.‟ When asked in 2007 whether he stood by his
original statement, he replied: „Absolutely....I looked at the drawings, the construction and it
couldn‟t be done by fire...absolutely not.‟ “ (p. 44-45).
59. The collapse of WTC 7 was preceded by the signature “crimp” in the roof of the
building indicative of controlled demolitions. The “crimp” is the result of the destruction of the
middle or interior of the building first so that the remains of the building fall in, as opposed to
out, where damage might be caused to surrounding structures. www.911mysteries.com
JA 153
60. The penthouse of WTC 7 collapsed first, when there was no fire anywhere near that
part of the building.
61. Richard Siegal set up a camera on a tripod in Hoboken, New Jersey after the World
Trade Center towers were hit. An analysis of the videotape taken from his camera, the pictures
and the sound, shows that there were multiple explosions just before and as the towers came
down. www.911mysteries.com
62. There was smoke at the bottom of the towers just before their collapse consistent with
the detonation of an explosive device at the bottom of the building allowing gravity to achieve
total collapse.
63. In August of 2008, NIST concluded its report concerning WTC 7 finding that it
collapsed as a result of the damage done to the building from falling debris and the fires that
occurred as a result: a. NIST did not explain the molten steel and iron in the rubble of WTC 7;
b. NIST did not explain the presence of sulfidation in metal in the ruins of WTC 7 as noted by
scholars at Worcester Polytechnic Institute; c. There were no tests for thermate conducted by
NIST; d. The eyewitness experience of Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency
Services Department of New York City Housing Authority, who survived explosions in WTC 7
in the morning of 9/11, many hours before its collapse, was not accounted for in The NIST
report.
64. Brian Clarke was in the South Tower when it was hit at 9:03 am. He was located on
the 84th floor, above the impact of the airplane. He managed to rescue a person on the floor
below him, and climb down the stairs to safety through the floors that were on fire. Videotaped
interview on DVD: Zero:9/11
JA 154
65. Kevin McPadden was in a position to give assistance to the injured on 9/11 and at
5:20 PM was close enough to a Red Cross representative‟s radio to hear the last three counts of a
countdown that preceded the demolition of WTC 7. Just before that he was told that “they” were
thinking about bringing a building down.
66. A firefighter was caught on videotape saying that the building(WTC 7) was coming
down. 911mysteries.com
67.
There were bone fragments found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building
hundreds of feet from the Towers, none of which was larger than one centimeter in length.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06remains.html,
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/04/more_wtc_bone_f.html
68. At least one rescue worker remarked on the absence of items such as telephones,
computers, desks, or chairs in the rubble at Ground Zero. 911mysteries.com
69. Ben Fountain and Scott Forbes, two people who worked in the World Trade Center
towers, have stated that there was an unusual power down the weekend before 9/11 and that
there was unusual construction going on in the building in the weeks before the attack.
911mysteries.com
70. The company Securacom/Stratasec, whose director from 1996 to 2000 was Marvin
Bush, the younger brother of the President, was responsible for updating the security system at
the World Trade Center in those years. Wirt D. Walker III, cousin of the President, was the CEO
of Securacom/Stratasec from 1999 to 2002. 911mysteries.com
71. The government denies that the “black boxes” from American Flight 11 and United
JA 155
Flight 175 have been recovered.
72. Three of the four “black boxes” from the two flights were found by New York City
firefighter Nicholas DeMasi who escorted federal agents to the site of their recovery on an allterrain vehicle. Witnessing the recovery of the boxes was Mike Bellone, chronicled hero of the
Ground Zero rescue efforts. Philadelphia Daily News, October 28, 2004
73. General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan‟s ISI, had $100,000 sent to Mohammed
Atta just before 9/11. Sunday London Times, January 6, 2008
74. General Mahmoud Ahmad met with the National Security Council during the week of
9/11, a fact which then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice has denied. (Response to a
2008 FOIA request)
FLIGHT 93
75. The site of the supposed crash of United Flight 93 does not agree with general idea
of what an airliner crash site looks like, as there are no substantial pieces of plane visible.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/pacrater.html
76. The pattern of damage to the surrounding vegetation contradicts the official version‟s
flight path. Chapter Three, Pandora’s Black Box, Flight of United 93 by Pilotsfor911truth.org
77. There is debris from Flight 93, including the engine, spread over a large area.
78. Susan McIlwain witnessed a low-flying plane, or missile, as she was driving her car
near the crash site outside of Shanksville, PA. The object, solid white and without rivets, came
JA 156
from her right, in front and just above her, ascended over a stand of trees, banked right out of
sight, at which point there was an explosion at what is known as the Flight 93 crash site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An_nXpr5K0A
79. Secretary Rumsfeld, on December 24, 2004, at a press conference in Iraq, referred to
Al Qaeda as “the people who shot down the plane in Pennsylvania.”
80. Air Force officers have stated that it was an Air Force mission to shoot down Flight
93, and there is a hearsay account from the pilot who carried out the mission.
June 25, 2009
Signed : ___/S/_________
Phone: (925)-935-3987
JA 157
Phone: (925)-935-3987
APRIL GALLOP, etal.
vs.
No. 08 CV 10881
Plaintiff
Wm Veale Affidavit
Exhibit F
Statements of Witnesses About
Explosions in the Towers Before
They Fell
Defendants
_________________________________________
I, William W. Veale, as part of my within Affidavit re Evidence regarding 9/11, affirm and
submit excerpts from collected testimonies concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center
towers, taken from oral histories collected from witnesses at the scene by the City of New York,
and obtained and published by The New York Times, as follows:
1. “Captain Karin Deshore, the commander of the FDNY‟s Emergency Medical Services, said:
Somewhere around the middle of the [North Tower], there was this orange and red flash
coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Thenthis flash just kept popping all the way around
the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would
just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the
explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building...So
here these explosions are getting bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally
explodes, still unaware that the other building had collapsed, I‟m going in the water.” (p. 244).
2. “Jay Swithers, captain of the FDNY‟s Bureau of Health Services, said:
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn‟t see it falling, I saw a large section of it
blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary
JA 158
device.” (p. 244).
3. [FDNY] “Captain Dennis Tardio said:
I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor
down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can‟t believe what I am
seeing. This building is coming down.” (p. 243).
4. “Battalion Chief Brian Dixon...said:
[T]he lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted
explosives around it because...it just looked like that floor blew out....[Y]ou could actually see
everything blew out on that one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up
there.”(p.241).
5. “Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said:
[W]e saw...a puff of smoke coming from about two thirds of the way up. Some people thought
it was an explosion...It looked like sparkling around on specific layer of the building. (I assume
now that that was either windows beginning to collapse like tinsel or something.) Then the
building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this is exactly the way it looks when
they show you those implosions on TV.” (p.241).
6. “Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said:
I thought that...I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never
mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the
building, and I agreed with him...[A]t that time I didn‟t know what it was. I mean, it could have
been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash, flash, flash and
then it looked like the building came down....[It was at] the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That‟s what i thought I saw. (p.241-242).
7. “Sue Keane, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said...:
[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs.... I can‟t
tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and
threw me.... There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out on the
street.” (p. 244-245).
8. “Stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, describing what he and his co-worker experienced after
seeing lights flicker in the sixth sub-basement and hearing about a big explosion at about
8:46AM, said:
[We went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop, but there] was nothing there
but rubble. We‟re talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press---gone! [We then went] to the parking
garage, but found that it, too, was gone. [On the B level, we found that] a steel and concrete fire
door that weighed about 300 pounds [was] wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil. [Finally
JA 159
when we went up to the ground floor, the] whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were
missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls.”(p.245).
9. “Anthony Saltalamacchia, a maintenance supervisor who was in his sub-basement office,
reported:
We heard a massive explosion...about 8:46AM.... Then we heard a series of other explosions....
And about, I‟d say 14 to 15 people came running and screaming into our office.... Then right
after that the floor started shaking. The tile from above, which was above us, started coming
down, falling on us....A man came into the office. He was a black man, very shaky, like in
shock. He had multiple wounds. His arms were bleeding. Skin was peeling off....And as we‟re
standing there, more explosions were happening. A lot of screaming confusion....It was very
smoky, very cloudy.... We knew we had to get out of the building.... The amount of explosions I
have heard from 8:46 until the time we got out was so many, at least ten. It was just like
multiple explosions to where I felt like there were different grenades. That‟s what it sounded
like, it was different grenades being set off in the building...There was one major explosion, and
then there was different explosions throughout that period of time until we got out.” (p.245-246).
10. “Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company, reported that after she got
off of the elevator on the 47th floor, „the whole building shook. I thought it was an earthquake.‟
That shaking occurred at the time that the airplane struck the building. But shortly thereafter, she
said, „the building shook again, this time more violently.‟ Then, after a terrifying experience of
making her way downstairs and outside, she said:
There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted
all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.... There
was another explosion. And another. I didn‟t know where to run.” (p.246).
11. “Stephen Evans, a New York-based business correspondent for the BBC, told his BBC
audience:
I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit---I didn‟t think it was an
explosion---but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake... then when were outside, the
second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions.... We We can only wonder
at the kind of damage---which was caused by those explosions---those series of explosions.”
“While being interviewed by someone else, Evans said:
„There was another big, big explosion. In the other tower, flames coming out and this billowing
smoke....[S]omebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then an hour
later...we had that big explosion from much, much lower. I don‟t know what on earth caused
that.” (p 246-247).
12. “Pat Dawson of NBC News gave a report in which he said:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, Chief
Albert Turi. He received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb
going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another
JA 160
explosion which took place, and then an hour after the...first crash that took place...there was
another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually
devices that were planted in the building.” (p 247).
13. Aaron Brown of CNN, Peter Jennings of ABC, Dan Rather of CBS, and other reporters
from Fox News, and MSNBC all reported on explosions that took place in the Towers before
their collapses.
The foregoing were taken from materials published in “9/11 Contradictions”, by Prof. David
Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, Northampton, Mass, 2008. The entire oral histories can be
found online at CITE
June 26, 2009
Signed : ___/S/_________
Phone: (925)-935-3987
JA 161
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 162
Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 163
Page 2 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 164
Page 3 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 165
Page 4 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
JA 166
Filed 03/15/2010
Page 5 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 167
Page 6 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 168
Page 7 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 169
Page 8 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 170
Page 9 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 171
Page 10 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 172
Page 11 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 173
Page 12 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 174
Page 13 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 25
Filed 03/15/2010
JA 175
Page 14 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 27
JA 176
Filed 03/18/2010
Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC
Document 28
Filed 04/01/2010
JA 177
Page 1 of 1

APPELLANT.JOINT APPENDIX.CORRECTED

Transcription

Similar documents

your tax return and save a tree.

Please use one form per client, send the filled booking form back to

SR3600 Product Brochure

Movato Kitchen Issue 2016

- Santa Clara Law Digital Commons

Declaration of Douglas M. Brooks in Support of Motion for

english - Sunpan

FBME Declaration with public exhibits

TerraMap-3D® TerraMap-3D®

Syberg`s at Dorsett and I-270