T Carter

[John Geraghty]

a continuation from this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9131

Sid,

The flight 93 reference is indeed a typo. It is not a COPA site, it is a report of a COPA conference on the parapolitics site. T Carter does not administrate the site so take it up with whoever does.

With regards to T Carters account of inside information re: phone calls, you could have found that on the COPA page at the parapolitics site ...

QUOTE

She said that she believes the plane actually went into the Pentagon, contrary to a popular internet theory. Her friends bodies and aircraft wreckage were recovered from the scene of the impact which she visited. Other revelations included privy knowledge of her flight attendant friends personal cell phone call to her mother. During the call the flight attendant friend to the mother that there were SIX hijackers - contradicting the number claimed by the Government "authorities." She implored the audience to research September 11th for this and other "discrepancies."

I will email John Judge in reference to T Carters account and I will also try to obtain a copy of the COPA 2002 conference so that you can hear her testimony in full.

Here is another account of T's MLK and JFK research

QUOTE

T is a dedicated researcher who has worked on both JFK and MLK cases with Judge Joe Brown, among others. Her first report was on her efforts to weigh the infamous Minox camera held in the National Archives. The effort to weigh the alleged CIA spy cam "found" at Oswald's residence is to discover what if anything may have been used to seal and/or fill the interior portion of the Bic lighter sized camera. The camera has been impenatrable. As it turns out the camera does weigh more than the 200 or more weighed by T. Carter. On the second night of the conference gave an update on the Martin Luther King case related to securing of the rifle everyone believes is NOT the real assassination weapon and how Denny's (!) has taken up sponsorship of the MLK Assassination museum

The question still stands Sid, what are you basing your mistrust for T Carter on? You have made insinuations that because she has researched MLK and JFK she, therfore, must be some kind of conspiracy nut and is writing herself into history. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the general feeling that I get.

I will post more info later today.

All the best,

John

Edited January 19, 2007 by John Geraghty

[John Geraghty]

I have ordered the 2002 COPA conference on dvd, anyone that wishes to do the same can do so at http://justicevision.blogspot.com/2004/11/...-late-2002.html .

When I get the dvd I will make a transcript of T's account.

John

[Jack White]

a continuation from this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9131

Sid,

The flight 93 reference is indeed a typo. It is not a COPA site, it is a report of a COPA conference on the parapolitics site. T Carter does not administrate the site so take it up with whoever does.

With regards to T Carters account of inside information re: phone calls, you could have found that on the COPA page at the parapolitics site ...

QUOTE

She said that she believes the plane actually went into the Pentagon, contrary to a popular internet theory. Her friends bodies and aircraft wreckage were recovered from the scene of the impact which she visited. Other revelations included privy knowledge of her flight attendant friends personal cell phone call to her mother. During the call the flight attendant friend to the mother that there were SIX hijackers - contradicting the number claimed by the Government "authorities." She implored the audience to research September 11th for this and other "discrepancies."

I will email John Judge in reference to T Carters account and I will also try to obtain a copy of the COPA 2002 conference so that you can hear her testimony in full.

Here is another account of T's MLK and JFK research

QUOTE

T is a dedicated researcher who has worked on both JFK and MLK cases with Judge Joe Brown, among others. Her first report was on her efforts to weigh the infamous Minox camera held in the National Archives. The effort to weigh the alleged CIA spy cam "found" at Oswald's residence is to discover what if anything may have been used to seal and/or fill the interior portion of the Bic lighter sized camera. The camera has been impenatrable. As it turns out the camera does weigh more than the 200 or more weighed by T. Carter. On the second night of the conference gave an update on the Martin Luther King case related to securing of the rifle everyone believes is NOT the real assassination weapon and how Denny's (!) has taken up sponsorship of the MLK Assassination museum

The question still stands Sid, what are you basing your mistrust for T Carter on? You have made insinuations that because she has researched MLK and JFK she, therfore, must be some kind of conspiracy nut and is writing herself into history. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the general feeling that I get.

I will post more info later today.

All the best,

John

Despite T. Carter's research credentials and that she is personally vouched for by

John Judge and Bill Kelly, I have serious doubts about the story she tells...not that

she is lying, but that she was duped. The story she tells is extremely odd.

1. Though she was a regular stewardess on AA77, she did not fly that day.

2. At some point after the event, Pentagon officials invited her to the Pentagon

to view a PHOTOGRAPH OF A SEVERED ARM. The arm had on its wrist a bracelet.

3. The officials asked her if she could identify the bracelet.

4. She identified the bracelet as belonging to a fellow stewardess on AA77.

5. Why was she chosen to view this bizarre photograph? Why not next of kin?

6. What are the circumstances of this photo being taken? It is the only known

incident of this sort.

7. How did the arm and bracelet survive the crash in recognizable condition

and no other parts of the body? Skulls nearly always survive accidents like this

and are easily identified by dental records...why an arm and bracelet?

8. Who were the Pentagon officials who arranged this bizarre show and tell?

Did they call in other people to view such photos?

9. If the photo of the arm and bracelet exist, are they part of the investigative

record? If so, the photo should be made available to researchers.

Does this all seem strange to you?

Jack

[William Kelly]

I don't think T. Carter should be an issue.

Whether a plane or a rocket hit the pentagon does not rest with T. C.

I talked with a school teacher who witnessed the plane hit the pentagon and also know of dozens of other witnesses.

The only people who challenge her account are those who disbelieve a plane hit the pentagon.

T. C. is currently enrolled in a Masters of History program and most certainly will not debate the subject.

There is no debate. There are only those who refuse to believe a plane hit the pentagon, and they can believe that.

As John Judge says, "We now can believe anything and know nothing."

BK

[Sid Walker]

The case of this woman and her strange tales only became an issue because (a) John mentioined her in one of his posts (2) he took great umbrage at a quip I made at her expense.

Why did I make that quip?

Because her story, as related by John, sounded utterly unbelievable to me.

Jack White's post in this new thread - which goes into more (occasionally gruesome) detail than I knew existed when I made the quip - helps explain why.

So what's the truth about 'T Carter'?

I don't know - and don't much care either.

The evidence I've seen of the Pentagon debris - or scarcity thereof - suggests a large jet airliner was not responsble fo the damage on 9-11. However, that IS off topic.

My free advice to T Carter, for what it's worth (nothing), is to tone down her stories if she would like them to be more widely believed.

Too many 'co-incidences', too much 'inside info', not enough evidence...

She needs to change the ratio.

Specialist advice is available.

Finally, when someone says "There is no debate" I experience a strong sensation of deja vu.

Where have I heard that phrase before?

Edited January 19, 2007 by Sid Walker

[William Kelly]

The case of this woman and her strange tales only became an issue because (a) John mentioined her in one of his posts (2) he took great umbrage at a quip I made at her expense.

Why did I make that quip?

Because her story, as related by John, sounded utterly unbelievable to me.

Jack White's post in this new thread - which goes into more (occasionally gruesome) detail than I knew existed when I made the quip - helps explain why.

So what's the truth about 'T Carter'?

I don't know - and don't much care either.

The evidence I've seen of the Pentagon debris - or scarcity thereof - suggests a large jet airliner was not responsble fo the damage on 9-11. However, that IS off topic.

My free advice to T Carter, for what it's worth (nothing), is to tone down her stories if she would like them to be more widely believed.

You are free to believe anything you want, but T. Carter has no interest in who believes or disbelieves her story. She gave her personal report at a Dallas COPA, it was taped and is available on the internet, and John has promised to make a transcript of it and post it for those who want that.

While she was and is a dedicated researcher, she also became a 9/11 witness against her will, and I tend to have sympathy with witnesses, and whether it is Don Norton, Jim Braden Adele or Gerry Hemming, those material witnesses should be protected until their story can be told in the proper venue - which I think is under oath in court of law or Congressional Hearing, and not an internet debate site.

Whether a witness is trustworthy or is of evidentiary value is not a matter of popularity.

Your belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, without any explanation of what happened to the plane or what the witnesses actually saw, places you in a minority whose judgement on other issues is I now suspect.

It's not TC's character on the line, it's yours.

BK

[Evan Burton]

1. Though she was a regular stewardess on AA77, she did not fly that day.

Perhaps a rostered day off?

2. At some point after the event, Pentagon officials invited her to the Pentagon

to view a PHOTOGRAPH OF A SEVERED ARM. The arm had on its wrist a bracelet.

3. The officials asked her if she could identify the bracelet.

4. She identified the bracelet as belonging to a fellow stewardess on AA77.

5. Why was she chosen to view this bizarre photograph? Why not next of kin?

Perhaps no NOK was available, and therefore workmates could help identify the remains.

6. What are the circumstances of this photo being taken? It is the only known

incident of this sort.

That's incorrect. Photographs of remains in situ are always taken at crash sites.

7. How did the arm and bracelet survive the crash in recognizable condition

and no other parts of the body? Skulls nearly always survive accidents like this

and are easily identified by dental records...why an arm and bracelet?

Again, incorrect - the skull does not always survive intact. It depends on the circumstances of the crash. Besides, the dental records might be able to indentify whose head this was - it does not identify whose arm that was.

8. Who were the Pentagon officials who arranged this bizarre show and tell?

Did they call in other people to view such photos?

They probably did.

9. If the photo of the arm and bracelet exist, are they part of the investigative

record? If so, the photo should be made available to researchers.

These are the remains of a person; images of them generally is not and should not be made available. There are very few such images publically available; those that are have been made so because of some importance they hold & probably because the remains cannot be indentified by the public to a specific individual.

[Sid Walker]

You are free to believe anything you want, but T. Carter has no interest in who believes or disbelieves her story. She gave her personal report at a Dallas COPA, it was taped and is available on the internet, and John has promised to make a transcript of it and post it for those who want that.

While she was and is a dedicated researcher, she also became a 9/11 witness against her will, and I tend to have sympathy with witnesses, and whether it is Don Norton, Jim Braden Adele or Gerry Hemming, those material witnesses should be protected until their story can be told in the proper venue - which I think is under oath in court of law or Congressional Hearing, and not an internet debate site.

Whether a witness is trustworthy or is of evidentiary value is not a matter of popularity.

Your belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, without any explanation of what happened to the plane or what the witnesses actually saw, places you in a minority whose judgement on other issues is I now suspect.

It's not TC's character on the line, it's yours.

BK

Thanks Bill.

Those who believe that others may believe whatever they wish seem to be in a minority, these days.

We should stick up for each other

My views on the Pentagon strike were influenced to a considerable extent by THIS ARTICLE.

I guess if we are to discuss that much-discussed topic once again, we should do it elsewhere.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Sid Walker

[William Kelly]

You are free to believe anything you want, but T. Carter has no interest in who believes or disbelieves her story. She gave her personal report at a Dallas COPA, it was taped and is available on the internet, and John has promised to make a transcript of it and post it for those who want that.

While she was and is a dedicated researcher, she also became a 9/11 witness against her will, and I tend to have sympathy with witnesses, and whether it is Don Norton, Jim Braden Adele or Gerry Hemming, those material witnesses should be protected until their story can be told in the proper venue - which I think is under oath in court of law or Congressional Hearing, and not an internet debate site.

Whether a witness is trustworthy or is of evidentiary value is not a matter of popularity.

Your belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, without any explanation of what happened to the plane or what the witnesses actually saw, places you in a minority whose judgement on other issues is I now suspect.

It's not TC's character on the line, it's yours.

BK

Thanks Bill.

Those who believe that others may believe whatever they wish seem to be in a minority, these days.

We should stick up for each other

My views on the Pentagon strike were influenced to a considerable extent by THIS ARTICLE.

I guess if we are to discuss that much-discussed topic once again, we should do it elsewhere.

Hi Sid,

Well I've read that before and other articles and I've seen photos of AA debree on site - and the reason there is no wing debree is that the wings contained most of the fuel that burned and disintigrated.

Where did the other airplane parts come from - ?

And where did the plane go if not into the pentagon?

I'm willing to be persuaded but after attending most of the 911 Com public hearings, reading their reports, talking with the pilots who flew on 911 and with a number of witnesses including a schoolteacher with his students - not a military guy - since all military witnesses are in on hiding the rocket conspiracy - I believe that the AA77 was hijacked and flown into the pentagon.

That said, I also take issue with the government's version of events.

In the course of my 911 I research, from the beginning I decided to narrow the scope of my interest to John O'Neill of the FBI and the Air Defenses - why no hijacked planes were hijacked - and I consider them both still works in progress without the answers I am still seeking.

I find that John O'Neill's story, the ali Mohamid story, the still incomplete chronology, the military transport that witnessed both 77 and 93 crash - and other similar anomalies as fantastic and improbable coincidences and conspiracies - and am following my instincts.

Those who believe LHO a lone-nut lone assassin can go home, research done, while those who suspect he is a covert operative and thus a pawn in a more interesting story can research the truth further.

Those who make the case that something other than 77 hit the pentagon, must have some alternative scenario in mind - but I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.

It's also a distraction from the real issues and unanswered questions.

BK

[William Kelly]

You are free to believe anything you want, but T. Carter has no interest in who believes or disbelieves her story. She gave her personal report at a Dallas COPA, it was taped and is available on the internet, and John has promised to make a transcript of it and post it for those who want that.

While she was and is a dedicated researcher, she also became a 9/11 witness against her will, and I tend to have sympathy with witnesses, and whether it is Don Norton, Jim Braden Adele or Gerry Hemming, those material witnesses should be protected until their story can be told in the proper venue - which I think is under oath in court of law or Congressional Hearing, and not an internet debate site.

Whether a witness is trustworthy or is of evidentiary value is not a matter of popularity.

Your belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, without any explanation of what happened to the plane or what the witnesses actually saw, places you in a minority whose judgement on other issues is I now suspect.

It's not TC's character on the line, it's yours.

BK

Thanks Bill.

Those who believe that others may believe whatever they wish seem to be in a minority, these days.

We should stick up for each other

My views on the Pentagon strike were influenced to a considerable extent by THIS ARTICLE.

I guess if we are to discuss that much-discussed topic once again, we should do it elsewhere.

Hi Sid,

Well I've read that before and other articles and I've seen photos of AA debree on site - and the reason there is no wing debree is that the wings contained most of the fuel that burned and disintigrated.

Where did the other airplane parts come from - ?

And where did the plane go if not into the pentagon?

I'm willing to be persuaded but after attending most of the 911 Com public hearings, reading their reports, talking with the pilots who flew on 911 and with a number of witnesses including a schoolteacher with his students - not a military guy - since all military witnesses are in on hiding the rocket conspiracy - I believe that the AA77 was hijacked and flown into the pentagon.

That said, I also take issue with the government's version of events.

In the course of my 911 I research, from the beginning I decided to narrow the scope of my interest to John O'Neill of the FBI and the Air Defenses - why no hijacked planes were hijacked - and I consider them both still works in progress without the answers I am still seeking.

I find that John O'Neill's story, the ali Mohamid story, the still incomplete chronology, the military transport that witnessed both 77 and 93 crash - and other similar anomalies as fantastic and improbable coincidences and conspiracies - and am following my instincts.

Those who believe LHO a lone-nut lone assassin can go home, research done, while those who suspect he is a covert operative and thus a pawn in a more interesting story can research the truth further.

Those who make the case that something other than 77 hit the pentagon, must have some alternative scenario in mind - but I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.

It's also a distraction from the real issues and unanswered questions.

BK

[Sid Walker]

Those who make the case that something other than 77 hit the pentagon, must have some alternative scenario in mind - but I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.

It's also a distraction from the real issues and unanswered questions.

BK

Alternative scenarios?

Try Operation Pearl by the same author.

Decisive proof for any scenario will be hard to obtain, IMO, as long as the criminals who orchestrated 9-11 remain in effective control of the US Government.

What is clear, IMO, is that the essential 9-11 narrative is bogus. It's a hoax.

The likelihood, furthermore, is that it's a hoax that involved no actual 'Arab hijackers' at all.

The 'War on Terror' - a 'war' that flowed directly from 9-11 - is therefore as valid as a 2-dollar bill.

[Jack White]

You are free to believe anything you want, but T. Carter has no interest in who believes or disbelieves her story. She gave her personal report at a Dallas COPA, it was taped and is available on the internet, and John has promised to make a transcript of it and post it for those who want that.

While she was and is a dedicated researcher, she also became a 9/11 witness against her will, and I tend to have sympathy with witnesses, and whether it is Don Norton, Jim Braden Adele or Gerry Hemming, those material witnesses should be protected until their story can be told in the proper venue - which I think is under oath in court of law or Congressional Hearing, and not an internet debate site.

Whether a witness is trustworthy or is of evidentiary value is not a matter of popularity.

Your belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, without any explanation of what happened to the plane or what the witnesses actually saw, places you in a minority whose judgement on other issues is I now suspect.

It's not TC's character on the line, it's yours.

BK

Thanks Bill.

Those who believe that others may believe whatever they wish seem to be in a minority, these days.

We should stick up for each other

My views on the Pentagon strike were influenced to a considerable extent by THIS ARTICLE.

I guess if we are to discuss that much-discussed topic once again, we should do it elsewhere.

Hi Sid,

Well I've read that before and other articles and I've seen photos of AA debree on site - and the reason there is no wing debree is that the wings contained most of the fuel that burned and disintigrated.

Where did the other airplane parts come from - ?

And where did the plane go if not into the pentagon?

I'm willing to be persuaded but after attending most of the 911 Com public hearings, reading their reports, talking with the pilots who flew on 911 and with a number of witnesses including a schoolteacher with his students - not a military guy - since all military witnesses are in on hiding the rocket conspiracy - I believe that the AA77 was hijacked and flown into the pentagon.

That said, I also take issue with the government's version of events.

In the course of my 911 I research, from the beginning I decided to narrow the scope of my interest to John O'Neill of the FBI and the Air Defenses - why no hijacked planes were hijacked - and I consider them both still works in progress without the answers I am still seeking.

I find that John O'Neill's story, the ali Mohamid story, the still incomplete chronology, the military transport that witnessed both 77 and 93 crash - and other similar anomalies as fantastic and improbable coincidences and conspiracies - and am following my instincts.

Those who believe LHO a lone-nut lone assassin can go home, research done, while those who suspect he is a covert operative and thus a pawn in a more interesting story can research the truth further.

Those who make the case that something other than 77 hit the pentagon, must have some alternative scenario in mind - but I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.

It's also a distraction from the real issues and unanswered questions.

BK

Bill...stop and think. We all KNOW LHO DID NOT KILL JFK. Right?

Most of us can PROVE THE OFFICIAL WC VERSION IS A LIE. Right?

But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COME

UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Likewise, many of us can PROVE that the OFFICIAL STORY OF 911

IS A LIE! But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED

TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Alternative scenarios are not a requirement for proving an official

story to be false. Do you disagree?

How can you require a different standard of proof for 911 than for JFK?

Jack

[William Kelly]

[quote

Bill...stop and think. We all KNOW LHO DID NOT KILL JFK. Right?

Most of us can PROVE THE OFFICIAL WC VERSION IS A LIE. Right?

But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COME

UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Likewise, many of us can PROVE that the OFFICIAL STORY OF 911

IS A LIE! But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED

TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Alternative scenarios are not a requirement for proving an official

story to be false. Do you disagree?

How can you require a different standard of proof for 911 than for JFK?

Jack

Jack, Either LHO was a patsy or a shooter though he couldn't be both, and there was a conspiracy regardless of which role he actually played.

However many possible scenarios there are, it only happened ONE way, and our job, as I see it, is not to come up with alternative scenarios, but to learn how it really happened.

And I think we are closer now than ever before of figuring out everything about JFK down to the shooters. Since the accused assassin was not a nut case as the official story implies - but a covert operative - the assassination was a covert intelligence op.

Now I also recognize that the network responsible for what happened at DP was domestic intelligence, anti-Communist network with military and military contractor affiliations, and those responsible for JFK's murder took over the power of the presidency - a coup d'etat.

It's also my belief that those responsible for JFK's murder still maintain that power today, and will continue to maintain that power until the truth about the assassination is revealed and they are exposed.

As for 9/11, we also know the official story is bogus, but the alternative proposed by OP PEARL - as Sid suggests - that the passangers and crew of three of the hijacked planes were put into one plane and flew over the ocean....

Well to me, that doesn't hold water.

BK

[William Kelly]

[quote

Bill...stop and think. We all KNOW LHO DID NOT KILL JFK. Right?

Most of us can PROVE THE OFFICIAL WC VERSION IS A LIE. Right?

But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COME

UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Likewise, many of us can PROVE that the OFFICIAL STORY OF 911

IS A LIE! But for that to be a valid position WE ARE NOT REQUIRED

TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. Right?

Alternative scenarios are not a requirement for proving an official

story to be false. Do you disagree?

How can you require a different standard of proof for 911 than for JFK?

Jack

Jack, Either LHO was a patsy or a shooter though he couldn't be both, and there was a conspiracy regardless of which role he actually played.

However many possible scenarios there are, it only happened ONE way, and our job, as I see it, is not to come up with alternative scenarios, but to learn how it really happened.

And I think we are closer now than ever before of figuring out everything about JFK down to the shooters. Since the accused assassin was not a nut case as the official story implies - but a covert operative - the assassination was a covert intelligence op.

Now I also recognize that the network responsible for what happened at DP was domestic intelligence, anti-Communist network with military and military contractor affiliations, and those responsible for JFK's murder took over the power of the presidency - a coup d'etat.

It's also my belief that those responsible for JFK's murder still maintain that power today, and will continue to maintain that power until the truth about the assassination is revealed and they are exposed.

As for 9/11, we also know the official story is bogus, but the alternative proposed by OP PEARL - as Sid suggests - that the passangers and crew of three of the hijacked planes were put into one plane and flew over the ocean....

Well to me, that doesn't hold water.

BK