Pentagon Survivor April Gallop: "It's obvious the official story was fabricated..."

page: 1
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+34 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Now here is some interesting footage of April Gallop, that never made it into the final version of 911 Ripple Effect after she asked that it not be included. It was released by William Lewis, who produced and directed the film. Just the kind of jewel we like to find at ATS.




Of particular interest to me is when she says that she or her child were not covered in jet fuel, and they saw no evidence anywhere of a plane crash. No seats, luggage, NOTHING! But the kicker is when she says that she asked around, and got a consensus of this!

April has been interviewed at length on the Alex Jones show, and also by the fine team at CIT. I can never forget her mentioning that she was given a classified tour of Pentagon defenses, and believes that nothing should have been able to come within miles of that building. Which in turn raises the critical question of whether the Pentagon had any air defenses on 9/11, and why they did not blast the alleged flight 77 out of the sky before it could come anywhere near the building. It would seem from April's statements that there were some kind of air defenses- but debunkers say no.

In any case, this footage is not widely known, and worth a watch to 9/11 researchers.




posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
It would seem from April's statements that there were some kind of air defenses- but debunkers say no.


I would find it incredibly irresponsible and implausible that the HQ for the most powerful military on the planet (purportedly) would not have at least basic ground to air defenses. If it were true, that would show an incredible level of arrogance on their part of rassuming that noone would ever get that far.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

It's kind of funny really, if April Gallop doesn't believe AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, why did she sue American Airlines? And won a fairly good settlement IIRC.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


As you know, April Gallop was discussed here earlier this year. That was when her second lawsuit was thrown out , the judge commenting that her allegations were " frivolous and based on fantasy and delusions."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If she was so convinced from the start that there was no plane was she making fraudulent allegations when she sued American Airlines on the basis of hurt and suffering caused by their plane ?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Well, when she could get no help anywhere else, what was she supposed to do? The military shut her mouth, they wouldn't take her case, and in the meantime she was hurting bigtime. There were more important things to do, like invade foreign countries without so much as an indictment...



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Well, when she could get no help anywhere else, what was she supposed to do? The military shut her mouth, they wouldn't take her case, and in the meantime she was hurting bigtime. There were more important things to do, like invade foreign countries without so much as an indictment...


So, are you saying she was lying initially to serve her own best interests ? Why should we believe her about anything ?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


She wasn't lying initially. She reported what she experienced. The fact that she had to sue someone is besides the point.


+4 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I think her allegations have merit.

I've always been amazed that the pentagon of all places; with cameras everywhere, have to submit a lame video showing no plane as evidence of the attack. They should release all the tapes if they want credibility.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Regardless of the lawsuits, her experience and eyewitness account is quite valid.
I would not discredit her. Her report is very important and accurate and shows yet ANOTHER smoking gun! How many do we need? Even one is reason enough to open a new investigation. There are hundreds of reasons to reopen the investigation on 9/11. April Gallup's is just one of MANY!

Great post! S&F!



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Alfie1
 


She wasn't lying initially. She reported what she experienced. The fact that she had to sue someone is besides the point.


How is who she sued " besides the point ".

What you seem to be suggesting is that she didn't believe she was injured by AA 77 at the Pentagon but she thought she would sue American Airlines anyway because she needed someone to sue.

American Airlines , an employer of many people and in a shaky financial state at the time , was just a suitable patsy to be sued ?

Sound like the actions of an honest person ?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
How is who she sued " besides the point ".


It is besides the point. Because what we're after here is not what happened after all the cluster**** ensued, and she had to make choices from a very imposed, very limited set of options. No. All of that is anyone's guess.

What interests me is her initial story, not the aftermath. Her experience as recounted in many interviews. And notice that did not change to any meaningful degree. And no matter how hard you try, you can never take that away. I realize she is a pain in the rear to the OS, and you must try to assassinate her character at all costs, but hey, you lose.

And aren't you in on this thread a bit early? Usually you guys wait till threads at least get 20 flags or so and threaten to get front page exposure...



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
What interests me is her initial story, not the aftermath. Her experience as recounted in many interviews. And notice that did not change to any meaningful degree. And no matter how hard you try, you can never take that away. I realize she is a pain in the rear to the OS, and you must try to assassinate her character at all costs, but hey, you lose.


So let me get this straight.

Her story hasn't changed, except for the part where she sued an airline over a plane she didn't think hit the Pentagon?

How is that not changing a story? Also, why is it you accept her story, but ignore those of all the firefighters who were in the Pentagon. Or the DMORT teams who recovered bodies? Or the DNA analysis done that found the passengers remains in the Pentagon?

Isn't it strange how when someone says something that disagrees with the 'official story' you will believe them without question and insist they are beyond criticism, yet when it is someone who agrees, they are lying, a shill, mistaken or just delusional?

Don't you think that your bias is showing here?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But surely her " initial story " was that she was injured by AA 77 ? that is why she sued. Was she sueing American Airlines but saying in interviews at the same time that she didn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon ? Doesn't sound very likely, got any evidence of that ?

This is another truther witness who has zero credibility. I can't improve on Judge Chin's assessment :- her allegations are " frivolous and based on fantasy and delusions ."

If you want to use her after that I think that is simply indicative of truther desperation to hang on to anything, never mind how shot full of holes, because there is precious little in the locker.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.


And...


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___

APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________

Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded

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.), 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.

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.


Source and full text of lawsuit here


+12 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
From the post and link above me I see she sued Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and a bunch of John Does.

Where does it say she sued AA? Any of you fool debunkers got a link to where she sued the airline? Because I'd love to see it.

Maybe she did in a separate suit but the above makes no mention of AA at all.

What a sad country we have become. Where people blindly believe tripe like the 9/11 OS, which is so clearly a lie that anyone with two working brain cells can see it. Vehement protesting on internet boards like this, which is usually just a bunch of name calling from the debunkers. Debunkers of 9/11 make me ashamed to be a American and share my country with people like them.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


From a "fool" debunker....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its a thread dealing with the various lawsuits Ms Gallop has filed. Michael Moore is a more credible witness to the events of 9/11 than Ms. Gallop is.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Thanks. I musta missed that one when it was put up.

Still changes nothing. I agree with TA that what happened after is a different deal, as she had no recourse.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


She had no recourse but to sue a company that she believes had nothing to do with her plight? Interesting take on events I must say. Then she sues a bank for financing terrorists she doesnt really believe exist? Again, interesting.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think Ms. Gallop is very credible.I believe what she is saying.

She can't win with debunkernation, though. If she tells the truth she's a liar because she disagrees with the OS. If she adopts a stance of agreeing with the OS for legal purposes, she's untrustworthy.

9/11 was an inside job. She knows it. We know it. Does debunkernation know it? Maaaaaybe so.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


First she tries to pass herself off as an Officer, then she admits she was only enlisted. Then she tries to claim that she was given a personal tour of the super secret defenses of the Pentagon, now she says she was "told" about them.

Then she tries to sue everyone.......

Keep swallowing her Kool Aid.




top topics
 
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join