April Gallop Sues American Airlines, but claims there was no plane?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 4-1-2009 @ 10:30 AM by CameronFox

April Gallop, a very popular "witness" for CIT, has gained some more popularity around truther land due to her latest law suit against Dick Cheney & others.

There was a discussion here. In addition there was a continued discussion here.

In the second thread I apologized for accusing Ms. Gallop for taking money from American Airlines. This was because I didn't have proof, and thought Ms. Gallop was getting ignored in her quest to receive compensation for her and her son's injuries sustained at the Pentagon on 911.

Today, I am taking back my apology.

I have received a copy of the NOTICE OF MOTION that shows on December 6, 2007 April Gallop and her son received a settlement from American Airlines Inc, AMR Corporation, and Argenbright Security INC.

The amount of the settlement was not disclosed in this document.

This is very interesting due to the most current lawsuit Ms. Gallop has started against Dick Cheney and others regarding the attack on the Pentagon on 911. Part of the "Statement of Facts" Ms. Gallop, via her attorney, lists on her current lawsuit, states this:

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 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.

source

*emphasis mine

Ms. Gallop settled out of court with American Airlines, yet in this most current lawsuit, claims that the plane didn't crash there but somewhere else.

I was thinking someone will come out with the old "but she just learned of this evidence" reasoning. Craig Ranke interviewed her back in April. Prior to her receiving the settlement from American Airlines.

Craig Ranke states in his OP that Ms. Gallop was being neglected by the government.

Well, we know that is not entirely true. The government was giving average settlements of $600,000 per injury at the Pentagon.source

I am not privileged to know what Ms. Gallop and her son were offered from the Victims Compensation Fund, but going by the average, they would have received 1.2 million dollars. Remember this is the average. Keep in mind that medical needs would have had to have been considered prior to the Gallop's receiving such funds. Ms. Gallop refused said compensation and decided to go forth on her own.

More Lawsuits

In addition to her settlement with A.A etc. Ms. Gallop has attempted 3 other lawsuits. (the most current vs. Cheney is the 5th)

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS
GALLOP, APRIL D. nysdce 1:2003cv05738 08/01/2003 890

Closed
07/23/2008

Burnett, et al v. Al Baraka Investment

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS
GALLOP, APRIL D. nysdce 1:2021mc00097 11/01/2002 890

Closed
03/19/2008
In Re: September 11 Litigation

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS
GALLOP, APRIL nysdce 1:2004cv07281 09/10/2004 360
Gallop v. Riggs National Corporation et al

*Information obtained by:pacer.psc.uscourts.gov...

*You will need to file for a registration by mail and there is a fee for each page of information requested.

* 1:2021mc00097 is the consolidated litigation for those who wanted to sue rather than accept payments from the Compensation Fund.
When it got down to about only 10 or 11 remaining personal injury claims, that docket was closed and the remaining few plaintiffs were added to the companion litigation regarding property damage. I don't know if she was one of the remaining few on that one or not.

*From what I have obtained, the only lawsuit that is outstanding is the one v. Riggs National Corporation. As you can see by the document below, this too appears that it will dismissed.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by CameronFox]

reply posted on 4-1-2009 @ 11:03 AM by CameronFox

I should be receiving more documentation tomorrow. These documents are over 400 pages each and not fun to read.

I will look into these pages to see if detail of the settlements are public. Anything that i think is interesting, I will post.

-CF

reply posted on 4-1-2009 @ 02:36 PM by CameronFox

Gallop v. Riggs..... Why sue a bank funding terrorists...if there isn't any?

The only one that hasn't been dismissed (yet) from the original 4 is Gallop v. Riggs. Riggs is Riggs Bank located in Saudi Arabia.

From page 395 from case # O4 CV 7281 RCC Amended Complaint:

2491. Riggs' constant failure to comply with banking oversight laws, resulted in
financial support from high risk Saudi Embassy accounts at Riggs Bank being provided
to and used by at least two September 11th hijackers -- Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-
Mihdhar. (Graham, at 168-169, 202, 229.2.)
2492. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two of the hijackers of AA Flight
77, had already, as of at least January 2000, been identified by United States intelligence
as terrorist operatives, having been involved in providing logistical support for the near
simultaneous bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed
224 people and injured more than another 5,000 people. (Graham, at 3-4.)

So, in this lawsuit, April is suing Riggs bank. It is a known fact that the hijackers of flight 77 used this bank for funding their flight school classes.

Am I to now believe that April thinks that these terrorists were patsies and were told to fly the plane around the explosions made by pre-planted bombs?

These are the same terrorists that truthers believe can't crash a plane into the Pentagon. We are now, per April's latest lawsuit lead to believe that these "patsies" were aircraft stunt performers?

reply posted on 4-1-2009 @ 04:57 PM by CameronFox

Here is a copy of the Final Order document regarding Ms. Gallop's lawsuit against American Airlines:

(I only posted page one, I will post the 2nd two upon request.)

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 05:16 PM by pinch

Originally posted by CameronFox
Here is a copy of the Final Order document regarding Ms. Gallop's lawsuit against American Airlines:

SPreston must be on a mandatory vacation. The silence is deafening.

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 06:10 PM by CameronFox

reply to post by pinch

Yes... his "HERO" took the money!

Pinch, did you also notice she sued a Saudi bank. A bank that had transactions with the hijackers of flight 77.

How can one sue hijackers if they don't exist?

Not a truther in site in here.

reply posted on 5-1-2009 @ 06:12 PM by Soloist

Great work. Seems like she is lawsuit happy, and not at all the "poor little helpless" person *some* truthers would like to spin her story to have others believe.

I have to admit I would love to see her newest lawsuit actually make it into court, the evidence against this "no plane" nonsense would be staggering and the witnesses would be damning to the whole "flyover" camp.

I wouldn't expect them to touch this one though, you can bet right now they're hoping it will get thrown out so they can continue to spout their fantasies on the gullible. I can see it now - "OMG, April's case was dismissed, INSIDE JOB!!!@!@!!!oneone! They don't want you to know the truth!!!!"

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 01:50 PM by CameronFox

Thanks soloist.

No sign of SPreston in here yet.

by SPreston

All right, its about time the disinfo agents and government loyalists produce the evidence that April Gallop signed an agreement with the airlines for a money settlement. No your word is worthless and insufficient.

Do you mind?

I didn't mind SPreston. Have you read the documents?

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 02:56 PM by Pilgrum

Nice work

Puts April in a whole different light to the way she was initially presented. I still feel she's entitled to reasonable compensation but it's looking like her goal is far more than that and not necessarily anything to do with truth.

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:05 PM by Seymour Butz

It's also curious how SPreston has avoided answering to his repeated statements that she sat 40' away from the 20' entrance hole, would have been over the wings and should have been covered in jet fuel.

Then says she should have been shredded by airplane debris.... and then gives an answer that she must have had columns between her and the flying brickwork in his fantasy wall breaching kit, which would also answer the Q about how she wasn't shredded bu airplane debris..... but can't answer why he would pose such a question in the first place....

Oh yeah, I forgot there for a second. SPreston lied all along about where she sat, as proven by her own "X" on the map. And now he's apparently running from admitting that he was wrong and/or was misled.

I'm also curious about his internal reaction to all of this - he was either wrong all along from his own analysis, or was misled by whatever source he used about where she sat/size of the entrance hole.

I wonder if his errors have in any way shaken his beliefs about 9/11, or if the very act of argueing with him results in more "rage against the machine" and thus strengthening his beliefs, and no matter that he's wrong........

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:07 PM by Dr Love

If this is all legit, it seems Ms. Gallop was cleverly hoodwinked. Fortunately I didn't need her firsthand account to see that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Peace

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Dr Love]

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:28 PM by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Dr Love

Fortunately I didn't need her firsthand account to see that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Yep, all you need is a healthy dose of imagination, then mix with a generous helping of paranoia, a dollop of self delusion, and then bake at 400 degrees in that big ole oven of ignorance....... and anyone can come to that conclusion also.

But on a serious note, she should have either taken the settlement, and/or should be getting some sort of disability.....

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:32 PM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Dr Love
Fortunately I didn't need her firsthand account to see that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Dr. Love,

I assure you it is all legit, as docket numbers have been provided and can be verified and HAVE been verified. Phone numbers to attorneys are also on other documents that I have copies of. I will be more than happy to email them to you.

You're a mod here I assume? Please make an attempt to keep the thread on topic please. There are countless threads for the no-planers.

Thank you,

Cam

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:38 PM by Dr Love

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yep, all you need is a healthy dose of imagination, then mix with a generous helping of paranoia, a dollop of self delusion...

Funny, those are the same requirements to get a job at NIST.

Ms. Gallop offered nothing besides more strawman arguments. No big loss.

Peace

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 03:47 PM by Dr Love

Originally posted by CameronFox
You're a mod here I assume? Please make an attempt to keep the thread on topic please.

Yes, but the other mods keep me chained in the basement because of my hideous appearance, leaving me to survive only on a freezer full of ice cream.

I'm not sure how April Gallop discussion doesn't equate to the no-plane theory, but feel free to complain about my thread derailing, I'm not above the law.

Peace

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:09 PM by Kryties

Perhaps she was not ignorant of the fact that the government had instigated the attack but was so angered by it she decided to beat them at their own game and make a little money from it, even if it meant falsely claiming that there was a plane. I know that's what I would do

Lie through my teeth, just as my government did, and set myself up for life

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:12 PM by CameronFox

reply to post by Kryties

Considering she refused the government's money, your argument is flawed.

Sorry, Kryties

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:27 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

The reaction, or non-reaction, is pretty deafening.

A couple of questions for "SPreston":

1. Did you position yourself as a subject matter expert, concerning Ms. Gallop, knowing full-well she is a suit-happy, ambulance chaser

-OR-

2. Did you take a position, defend it whole heartily, assert your opinion, demean those that disagreed with you, without ever knowing the facts of which you were speaking of?

And we should take you seriously because..........?

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:33 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by Dr Love
If this is all legit, it seems Ms. Gallop was cleverly hoodwinked. Fortunately I didn't need her firsthand account to see that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Peace

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Dr Love]

Yes, yes.......she's in on it too!!

This, my friends, is the Inflationary Model in action. That is, as a CT (in this case 9-11 nuttery) is forced to answer obvious questions, anything and everything that contradicts the theory, becomes a part of it.

Plain, simple, ample evidence Ms. Gallop isn't what others originally claimed? Why, she's been duped and therefore "in on it"! Thus, the CT expands to now include Ms. Gallop. Of course, the obvious conclusion is utterly ignored so the fantasy can remain alive.

CIT and the 'no plane/wrong plane' theory anyone? Hello?

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Kryties

reply to post by CameronFox

Eh, just thought I would put it out there, not having read anything about this subject of this April woman of course, the topic just caught my eye.

What I find hard to believe is the war going on between CIT and you fella's. My own personal beliefs aside (A blind, mentally challenged monkey could tell that no plane hit the pentagon) this is a war that cannot be won, on either side. CIT holds fast to its assertions and you fella's resolutely counter all points with your own perspective.

Round and round it goes yet one simple truth remains the same: Whatever did happen on that fateful day will not see the light of day for many a year to come unless the people themselves force this to occur.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^