It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:20 PM

I think this video is clear evidence of a missile, from the pentagon's own surveillance tapes, so regardless of what any eyewitness said, how do you deny video evidence? Remember this is video from the government.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by mikelee

I just read your reply and all I see is your frustration and personal attacks and name calling.
It doesn't sound like you have closure at all.

And no, I am not gullible or confused. And please don't be concerned about me "discovering my own truth one day."
I know what my truth is. And at least my truth hasn't flip-flopped like yours.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:22 PM
Did you hear her interesting comment about pressing the button to turn on her computer and right at that point the explosion happening? She stated she thought she had activated a bomb.

How far was she from the exterior wall of the Pentagon which was penetrated when the explosion happened? Why doesn't she make any mention of hearing an airplane prior to the explosion? It would seem to me that if an airplane was bearing down at you at over 450 MPH, you would hear something.

What were the nature of the injuries to her, her son and co-workers? If that was an actual large commercial airliner, chances are that very few of them would be walking out of the alleged entrance hole under their own power.

She said she and her son did not have any jet fuel on them. Did she smell any jet fuel? Since the alleged plane had at least 25,000 L of jet fuel when it impacted, this is quite odd.

Someone mentioned earlier that the testimony from an administrative assistant does not make a conspiracy. Is that what the 9/11 conspiracy/snow job is about? Just one piece of testimony from one person? If that's what you think, then I have one question for you...where the hell have you been these past nine years? Oh yeah, checking out your buddies cell phone pictures and PDAs. And I thought those things were only used for porn.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:28 PM
"And please don't be concerned about me "discovering my own truth one day."

Maybe he really cares about you and your well being.

"I know what my truth is. And at least my truth hasn't flip-flopped like yours."

C'mon now, you're talking about the poster boy for fake truther turned OS fairy tale believer. Please show a little more respect than that for such a novel one of a kind character.

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:41 PM
Personally, i find her credible, witn none of the expected body language that goes along with prevarication.
Her statement seems to agree with the statement of a woman colonel who was also a survivr, and somewhat more familiar with explosives.She claimed that she smelled cordite fumes from the explosion, not jet fuel.(imlying a warhead of he such as a missle strike)
Think rationally here, one of these aircraft is made up of thousands of pounds of metals that just simply were not recovered from the pentagon.
The two 8 ft dia engines (about at least a couple of tons each were not there.....Whats up with that?
Something stinks to high heaven and no matter how long you hold yer nose, youll have to recognise the stench sooner or later.....

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by exponent

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?

firefighters and dmort can be bribed or threatened, that is those that are not totally corrupt or supplanted. any sort of dna analysis can be published. and the sheeple believe it.
where is any photo of the boeing, the wings, the indentation from the wings on the building, the planes image on the video shot from the car park? why did rumsfelt (wanted in some country)cover all the evidence with gravel?
if you were told in no uncertain terms your children would die if you talk to much, would you go ahead and talk?

wake up now before TPTB take over completely. go on, you can do it!

posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Seti_Starr

She would in no way be considered an expert at all. According to her own statement,.she was inside holding her child and walked thru the impact point afterward. She states "there was no plane" but how many mothers linger around a horrific site such as that trying to determine if it was a plane or not all the while holding her baby? Sounds more like a passive statement rather than one of fact, any person with common sense would get that. Except those looking for the conspiracy speculation aspect.

Just so you are clear on one thing, I have seen many photos taken by my former colleagues who were at the Pentagon on 911 taken on their personal phones, pdas and regular cameras and have no doubt an airplane crashed there. The people who were there and participated in the rescue of people who were injured have no doubt either. Its always those who were "a little off" in distance as well as mindset who claim otherwise.
edit on 10/7/2010 by mikelee because: Add text

well, thats great then, i am so relieved! now you can exhibit some or all of those photos of the "plane" that we have waited 9 years to see! you could probably sell them to TV stations, newspapers etc.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

It's all very interesting, for sure!
Eyewitness accounts!

Man I want some videos!

A friend of mine who worked at the Pentagon on 9/11 told me he was just entering the parking lot of the Pentagon and he saw this huge jet fly into the Pentagon and explode.

Just saying.............

i want videos! I recall seeing videos that same day on the internet. But they were quickly removed.

I'm not surely saying my friend is a liar. He saw something and it happened quickly! I'm not saying this woman in the video in the OP is a liar, either.

I just want to know what actually occured on 911.

Something just doesn't seem "right" about it all. Nomeen?

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Now I know some people at the Pentagon may be incompetent, but if they are having people that have no clue what they are talking about giving tours of their defenses to top-secret-cleared staff like April, then I guess us truther's continual bitch that no one has been fired for gross negligence or held responsible for 9/11 applies all the more, doesn't it. And waterboarded confessions don't count, so don't even go there.

I am only going by what I am told, and what I was told is that she didn't see any of these air defenses herself, but was told to her by others, and I have seen no proof these other people knew what they were talking about either. Personally, I doubt very much the Pentagon had any antiaircraft defenses before 9/11 becuase although Washington, D.C may be crime ridden, not too many drug dealers would have their own fighter bombers.

...and who in the Pentagon was waterboarded into making a confession? I must have missed that news article.

Well personally, I just think she got so desperate with nowhere else to turn that she ended up having to settle for some not-so-great attorneys who didn't approach her case with the right angles to have some real teeth. Framed beggars can't be choosers.

No, actually, everything started to go sour for her once she started associating herself with conspiracy Chicken Littles like Jim Marrs and Alex Jones, who constantly scream the sky is falling from these never ending sinister gov't plots to murder us all. You don't see the corelation?

Oh, well I should have known! :shk: More character assassination. Is that all you've got? Don't you think that we're seeing right through that now? It's a little more like quoting you is of increasingly dubious value- and you were already off the scale.

It isn't character assassination, it's pointing out that she's consistantly changing her story. First she said she didn't pay any attention to anything other than tryign to find her infant son, and then she turn around and says she didn't see any aircraft wreckage. Of Course she didn't see any aircraft wreckage, she was concerned over looking for her infant son and wouldn't have noticed any wreckage, particularly when at that time she admits she didn't know what happened and only found out when she was at the hospital. First she sues the airlines for her injuries, then she turns around and claims that airplanes didn't hit the Pentagon to begin with. All during this time, she was inside the Pentagon sitting at her desk not knowing what was going on outside, while all the people outside from motorists to people in nearby office buildings to even a groundskeeper from El Salvador specifically saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. It's blatantly obvious she's getting all this baloney from other people.

Seriously now, are you so desperate in grasping at any straw that even remotely supports your conspiracy claims that you'll even quote this person? If anyone on the OS side was as wildly inconsistant as Gallop is, you'd be all over them like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake. You know that and so do I.
edit on 8-10-2010 by GoodOlDave because: Correcting misspellings to placate the grammar Nazis

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Alfie1
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."

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 ?

What I heard was that sueing the airline was hoped to be a way to get the airline to prove none of its planes hit the Pentagon that day.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 12:58 AM
it's very hard for someone in the united states to speak out about these things and takes rather a lot of courage. I think that based on that alone, her claims have merit. I think its really negative to scrutinize the people who speak out too harshly. It should be common knowledge by now that no commercial airliner hit the pentagon that day, once we all understand this then we can finally start asking the real questions.
edit on 8-10-2010 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:06 AM
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:

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:17 AM
The government people that caused this set up AA to be the perfect patsy.. No other choice to get injury payment except for suing them, and what a great way to make it all look legitimate too. They probably worked out a way to reimburse AA for playing ball...

So, Ms Gallup sued the only ones accepting responsibility for the occurance.. No one else could be successfully sued since it was meant to be that way to give credence to the plan.

Very ingenious by the ones behind 911
edit on 8-10-2010 by alienreality because: eta

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:11 AM
The only thing April Gallup has been consistent about is her pursuit of money, never mind how many flip flops and contradictions that involved. The only reason some truthers seem to regard her as a put upon victim is because, in later mode, she said she believed no plane hit the Pentagon and Pentagon " no-planers" need any help they can get.

However, to turn to what she said in the OP interview, I do not believe she is telling the truth. At 2.10 she says she came out of the Pentagon at " the place of initial impact ".This doesn't make any sense to me and I don't believe it could possibly be true. This is the place of " initial impact " :-

soon after that impact. How could anyone exit through that furnace and, of course, the whole area was to collapse in about 30 minutes.

April Gallup was clearly on the periphery of the damage that day or she wouldn't have survived. What on earth would have led her and other survivors to head for the blazing point of most destruction ? No, the obvious thing is that they would have moved away from that area as soon as possible and exited elsewhere. So her observations about no luggage, plane seats etc are hardly relevant.

Anyway, here is a project for truthers. Find some other survivors who exited the Pentagon through that inferno.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

April Gallop and her son were offered money from the Victims Compensation Fund, (average payments of $600,000 to 1.2 million dollars) and she refused this compensation. It doesn't sound like she's pursuing money…

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by Alfie1

April Gallop and her son were offered money from the Victims Compensation Fund, (average payments of $600,000 to 1.2 million dollars) and she refused this compensation. It doesn't sound like she's pursuing money…

Because a condition of recieving money from Victims Compensation Fund, was that she would agree to not sue the airline(s) involved.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
reply to post by Alfie1

April Gallop and her son were offered money from the Victims Compensation Fund, (average payments of $600,000 to 1.2 million dollars) and she refused this compensation. It doesn't sound like she's pursuing money…

Thank you for eliminating TrueAmerican's claim that she only sued American Airlines, despite believing their plane had nothing to do with her injuries, because she had no other recourse.

She refused the compensation payment because she thought she would get more by sueing .

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 07:06 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

A prerequisite to receiving compensation money was that you sign a form agreeing to keep your mouth shut.

April realised someone must tell the truth about what happened.

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Kailassa
A prerequisite to receiving compensation money was that you sign a form agreeing to keep your mouth shut.

April realised someone must tell the truth about what happened.

No it wasn't. It was not to sue companies involved.

Do you have any evidence at all that you had to sign a form 'agreeing to keep your mouth shut'?

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 07:21 AM
I have information that a contractor fortified the walls of the Pentagon surrounding the area of the 'crash' prior to the 9/11 event.

The contractor is a relative of a person I see every day. This person is over 60 years old and very honest with me.

The 60+ year old person I see every day is also convinced the official 9/11 story is fake....

I believe this April Gallop woman and whatever lawsuits came from her don't bother me because she could have been forced to make them, or they could have been made on her behalf, whereas this first-hand testimony she gives seems independent and full of conviction.
edit on 8-10-2010 by againuntodust because: more info

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in