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

reply to post by vipertech0596


Me? Running out of ammo? I wouldn't if I had a 9/11 transcript provided to me like you do...compliments of the OS team!

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Thanks for the info. Here is what is known about the footage of Pentagon attacks and lawsuits to obtain them:

911research.wtc7.net...

This backs up what I wrote.

You were incorrect in your initial post and should admit it.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I will not admit anything. None of the videos have been released or shown by the MSM.
If I walked down the street today and asked people if they have seen these videos, no one would say yes or know what I'm talking about. Another red flag don't you think?

Originally posted by v3_exceed

So, this statement is to suggest the infallibility of the American Judicial system? People make choices based on the information they have on hand at the time. Simply because these images were used as evidence doesn't bear any additional credibility to their source.

Yes, it does. They have had to undergo the scrutiny of the court. It makes it far more likely that they are genuine.

For one thing, it would be in the interests of the defence to prove them fake. If they didn't even attempt to do so it suggests that they are genuine.

If you can prove, that the USA has never imprisoned, nor executed any innocent person... ever, then I will happily retract my statement.

What a pointless thing to write. Obviously people are imprisoned - or, in a society as barbaric as the US, executed - wrongly all the time. But that doesn't mean that this evidence is fabricated.

You're basically saying that you are determined to believe one thing in the face of all the evidence against it. Much of which is compelling. So you're looking desperately for reasons to discredit it in your own mind.

All of this is however a distraction from the initial thread. Which was the "Un-Truthers" trying to discredit a witness who claimed she didn't see a plane. Now, she has top secret clearance, so would be considered of sound mind, and.....didn't see a plane. hmmm

..Ex

If one flew a plane into your office building and you didn't see the plane it might well be because you didn't happen to be looking in its direction in the few seconds available.

This woman is a lone crank. You choose to believe her because she fits your preconceived ideas.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I will not admit anything. None of the videos have been released or shown by the MSM.
If I walked down the street today and asked people if they have seen these videos, no one would say yes or know what I'm talking about. Another red flag don't you think?

Have you read what you linked to?

I'll help you. It points to two confiscations:

# The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack

# The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack

It details the attempts to have them released, ending with

# September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.

# December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner.

This linking to the nearest conspiracy site as a catch-all rebuttal is one thing, but when that CT site doesn't even back up what you claim... that's pretty weak.

You said

None of the videos have been released

which is wrong. You should admit this if you want to retain any credibility.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Alfie1, you keep asking about the impact area. Yes, April Gallop stated that she exited there. And so what? I am sure that at initial impact, the area was still escapable moments later, the pictures you keep sending links to could be a quite a while later when the fires were raging. I read somewhere that people saw her crawling out. So basically, you've got nothing.

Set Starr, You have seen the enormous fireball on impact because it is in the security camera frames. The picture I posted was fairly soon after that when the area was a raging inferno; and it was to get worse when the area caved in. No-one could have exited that way and it would have been insane to try. April Gallop was not burned so she was away from the fire. Why would she move towards it to try and exit at that point ?

She has plainly made up a silly lie because she is astute enough to realise that if she was evacuated away from the impact point, as she must have been, and loaded onto an ambulance then her observations about plane debris are worth little more than mine in south-west England.

Who are these people who saw her " crawling out " ? Where did they see her crawling ? If through the impact point they must have been asbestos people as must April herself.

Frankly, your extreme determination to hang on to every word of April Gallop, despite her contradictions, in preference to witnesses who were outside the Pentagon and actually saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, is not doing a lot for your credibility.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by exponent

 

All the things you listed are planted evidence. Sorry, go convince someone else. I'm not confused. Just don't believe the OS and I'm certainly not going to take your fake list as gospel (which is part of the OS).

April Gallop's testimony is good enough for me!

So one woman, who it can be proved has serious inconsistencies in her story, is enough to trump the mounds of other evidence?

It's almost as though you have already made up your mind...

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You think? That I've already made up my mind?

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You think? That I've already made up my mind?

It looks that way.

You've posted a series of falsehoods which I've shown you are wrong. If you knew this you were lying. Though I think it more likely that you're just incredibly sloppy.

And you have yet to admit your error even though, amusingly, you managed to post a piece which itself disproved your ideas. Not very impressive.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I'm just playing your game. Exhausting isn't it?

I have a good name for you all…"Twisters."

Also, out of respect for the OP, this is my last post on this thread.

Star and Flag!
I hope one day we get the option of reopening the 9/11 investigations.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I'm just playing your game. Exhausting isn't it?

I have a good name for you all…"Twisters."

My game? You know nothing about me, other than presumably that I disagree with you on this point.

It takes extraordinary chutzpah to make yourself look this foolish and then suggest that you're just copying the approach of the person who has proved - in, if I may, a simple, logical and markedly un-"twisted" fashion - you incorrect.

I'll ask you a direct question, which you will duck: do you acknowledge your mistake on the subject of the videos' release?

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
All the things you listed are planted evidence. Sorry, go convince someone else. I'm not confused. Just don't believe the OS and I'm certainly not going to take your fake list as gospel (which is part of the OS).

April Gallop's testimony is good enough for me!

What a surprise, everyone who doesn't agree with you is lying, the evidence is planted, and somehow the only reliable witness is the only one that agrees with you.

I can't even tell if this is a troll, because if not the attitude is so mind blowingly inept that I can't imagine you ever admitting you're wrong.

Originally posted by zcflint05
How could you take someone just looking to male a quick Buck off of 9-11 so seriously? Talk about strings being pulled.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Haliburton, Carlysle Group, military contractors, high level financiers and industrialists, Larry silverstein, have made more money off 911 than any Loose Change guys or Alex Jones or this poor chick and her lawsuit.

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Me? Running out of ammo? I wouldn't if I had a 9/11 transcript provided to me like you do...compliments of the OS team!

Wow, the paranoia of the truth movement rears it's head again. You are right, alfie, Derek, exponent, thedman and myself all gather in the conference room every morning to be handed our assignments from our boss, Glenn Beck.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

Originally posted by zcflint05
How could you take someone just looking to male a quick Buck off of 9-11 so seriously? Talk about strings being pulled.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Haliburton, Carlysle Group, military contractors, high level financiers and industrialists, Larry silverstein, have made more money off 911 than any Loose Change guys or Alex Jones or this poor chick and her lawsuit.

You have actually only named one individual there, Larry Silverstein. Can you please lay out for me in detail how precisely he profited from 9/11. Thanks in advance.

Alfie--no I can not lay out for you in detail how "Lucky Larry" made money on the 911 attacks. That would be beyond the scope of this web site. However, info isn't hard to find. Here is a link:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you denying that 911 hasn't been a cash cow for the Carlysle Group or Haliburton? To be honest with you I have seen any balance sheets from these companies. I would say they made a lot more than the loose change guys...a whole lot more!!!!!

To name names I would say that: cheney, the bushes, the neocons -take your pick-all profited greatly from the 911

Bush and Cheney are traitors. I wonder about you!?

Alfie---"precisely" should have preceded "how"....Poor grammar on your part!!!

reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13


If you can't actually set out for me how Larry Silverstein made money from 9/11 don't you think you are being unfair by accusing him of it ?

reply to post by Alfie1


The place jus looked like it had been hit by a couple of pounds of conventional charge, or some low explosive, I was given the official report by the brits when i was in the regiment and it said no major plane wreckage other than the fuselage witch was not very damaged, or aviation fuel were found on site.
There are 2 options,
-Either the US did it and covered it with a plane crash, jus to make sure the world knew they were being attacked and to promote the war on 'terror'
-or the Pentagon has a MASSIVE security breach and had to cover it up sparing embarrassment and further promoting the 'just' war.

I have a question for both sides of this discussion:

Let us say that you are sitting in your office one day when a gunman breaks loose from outside and starts shooting at your office. You have rounds zipping past your head as you try desperately to escape. Once you have gotten outside reports by the hundreds come in of a lone gunman that in no way matches your description being seen fleeing the scene of the shooting. However in all those reports there is one lady whom was in the office next door to you reporting that she saw you doing the shooting. This lady reports it was you doing all the blasting away at innocent people. She says that she saw it was you because she exited the building through the broken windows the gunman was shooting into so therefore her observation is more valid given her route of exit and exposure to the shooter. This same lady then takes to court another person and wins a verdict in a wrongful death suit because her cousin worked with her and was killed by the gunman.

Somehow you end up arrested and on trial for this shoot based upon this woman's testimony of you being the shooter. Hundreds of witnesses take the stand and say it was not you. After that one lady takes the witness stand, a lady whom has already sued another person for the crime she accuses you of committing, and after her testimony the jury goes into deliberations.

Now we finally get to the question. Whom do you feel in the above situation is the right party to listen to, the sole woman or the hundreds of eyewitnesses?