Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7

Not to be combative, but seems kind of like they were sensationalizing her as upper-echelon personnel, when in reality she's pretty much a coffee-fetcher.

So what? Does it really make a difference? But the mods can change that word in the thread title if they like. It doesn't change the fact that she was there, and all that implies. Rank really is really a minor issue.

Originally posted by ImaNutter
This is testimony that verifies, along with the recent NIST report, that these so called "nut job" "conspiracy theory" 9/11 truthers are on to something, and have been.

What facts does it verify? Its interesting that there were two explosions I suppose, but that isn't exactly damning evidence of anything.

The only way this could ever be a big deal is if it were widely reported on major news networks. And even then the only big deal about it would be that more people would realize how questionable everything is that happened on that day... rather than anything actually moving forward in either the investigation or punishment of anybody.

Again, if it makes it to the discovery process, it is a huge deal. Otherwise it is not that significant.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Edited my post to clarify, that her rank may be played to her credibility.

Guaranteed if this makes MSM, she will be torn apart by the "trial by media".

Also wanted to say if they can get this past discovery, some s**t is gonna get blown wide open, namely people's eyes concerning this whole mess.

May not be the truth that some think, but there will be truths that TPTB wish had stayed concealed.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by hotrodturbo7]

Originally posted by Muundoggie
reply to post by lunarminer

 

I can see you didn't read the posts. Your "GUY" officer is a woman.
Oh, you finally got it right in your subsequent posts

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Muundoggie]

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Muundoggie]

Likely lunar miner is a paid cointelpro shill ....

2 lines.

Peace

Great thread. Here is April Gallop's testimony in her own words.

Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallop. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallop - audio live testimony

Perhaps she will get somewhere with the right attorney. April Gallop and son were sitting in her office only 40 feet from the place of impact. Yet they both survived without burns. April was ordered to lie by the Defense Dept and April refused. April stated that she saw NO JET FUEL anywhere in her E-Ring area of the Pentagon.

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.

Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008
A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

April and little Elisha were located inside that circle on the diagram below only 35-45 feet from the alleged place of impact or the location of the initial explosion. This was an official distance from place of impact according to the Pentagon Renovation Team.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS

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.

34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.

35. Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded. However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of well-established Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn’t she evacuated, with her baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren’t alarms going off, and all the people in the building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants’ actions and flagrant failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff and her child were seriously hurt.

A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

According to a timeline of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

Webmaster's Commentary:
If this suit does go to trial, the Pentagon will try to move heaven and earth for an out of court settlement on this.

There is still a great deal this government doesn't want the public to know about why an evacuation order was not given.

whatreallyhappened.com...

Can anyone imagine April and little Elisha surving this maelstrom of alleged explosive destruction?

Original Purdue Animation - April and Elisha and other people were in the midst of all that alleged fire

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:

a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;

b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;

Originally posted by SPreston
Can anyone imagine April and little Elisha surving this maelstrom of alleged explosive destruction?

First, thank you for contributing very good material to this thread!

Answer: pretty hard to believe that they could be anywhere near that close to the explosion, given its magnitude, and survive! Much less walk out the hole! Unless of course, it really wasn't an airplane.

I appreciate people who help bring substance to threads, and you'll get stars from me every time if nothing else for effort.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]

posted by SPreston
Can anyone imagine April and little Elisha surving this maelstrom of alleged explosive destruction?

posted by TrueAmerican
Answer: pretty hard to believe that they could be anywhere near that close to the explosion, given its magnitude, and survive! Much less walk out the hole! Unless of course, it really wasn't an airplane.

Keep in mind, if you go by the only official photo of the initial fireball (for the moment) from the leaked video still, that the white hot high explosive fireball appears to be back from the wall perhaps in one of the construction trailers, and most of the energy seems to be expended upward above the Pentagon roof. Personally, I believe the initial hole in the exterior Pentagon wall, and the hole in the C-Ring Exit Hole were blown with military rapid wall breeching kits. Perhaps that initial fireball was a Hollywood Special Effects explosion for maximum Shock & Awe value, and only made to appear powerful.



It is quite possible that April Gallop and Elisha were protected from what initial explosive force which did penetrate through the wall to the interior where April sat 35-45 feet away, by one or more steel reinforced concrete columns which were very numerous in the open 1st floor area.



Many columns were destroyed in the immediate area where April was officially located according to the Pentagon Renovation Team. Perhaps they absorbed enough of the force to protect April and Elisha and several other co-workers, or perhaps many of those columns were blown later after April escaped the building.



This photo was taken later after the initial explosion by Daryl Donley. That is the #5 light pole in the foreground, the camera is about in the alleged official flight path, and the fireball is just about at the alleged impact area. That is not the fuel tank of the generator, as it is at the right side of the photo. The roof has not yet collapsed.



Original Daryl Donley photo



[edit on 12/18/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Not to take away from the original post/story in this thread. But since you brought up the pentagon explosion pictures. I did want to ask if you or anyone else here as well, has seen this video, and what their thoughts are? I admit that, being a film student myself (and having dealt with a good number of editing programs) I find this kind of interesting.

Latest particulars of April Gallop's lawsuit

12-18-2008
The case was filed by April Gallop on December 15, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case is entitled April Gallop, for Herself and as Mother and Next of Friend of Elisha Gallop, a Minor v. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S.A., Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General Richard Meyers, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does I-X, all in their individual capacities, Case No. 08-CV-10881-DC.

Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman has been assigned to the case.

United States District Court Judge Denny Chin has been assigned to the case.

The complaint was entered on the Court's docket today. The complaint is not available in electronic form on the Court's website (PACER), probably because it was filed in paper form.

The clerk of the Court has issued a summons for the defendants.

April Gallop is shown as representing herself, PRO SE, in the case.

I don't think a Lawyer from California can pratice law in New York unless he/she is a member of the NY Bar.

This is not true. Attorneys can practice in federal courts by being admitted, pro hac vice, in a particular case.

Pro hac vice means, for this turn, for this one particular occasion. (See Black's Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979).)


It is evident that April Gallop did not prepare the complaint herself. It is unclear to me why Mr. Veale is not listed as counsel of record. Perhaps he has been told that he needs to submit an application to appear in the case, pro hac vice.

Originally posted by Question
II find this kind of interesting.

Kind of interesting? Just kind of? If he is indeed using the authentic ( ) Pentagon footage, and there are those 30 + missing frames, then that pretty much settles that. We've been pentaconned. Again.

UPDATE:

Important follow up story from Rawstory on this here:

rawstory.com...

April Gallop 'will be very disappointed,' lawyer tells RAW STORY.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Well that's the whole question isn't it? Is he using official footage? What if he himself was respnsible for the editing? That's why I say "Kind of" too many unanswered questions that need to be verified before we say one thing or another. Don't get me wrong, whether this guy's got it right or not, it still doesn't change my position that I don't trust the official story of the govt. But that doesn't mean I'm going to jump to the first youtube video I see discrediting the govt. and hold on to it like gospel.

I wish there was a link of the official footage out there that we could get a hold of and study. No, not the ones shown in the news because for all we know, those could've been doctored and tampered with as well.

reply to post by Question


Well yeah, but on the same token, given the degree to which he described exactly what the problem was with the fade up of the fireball and the nose of the projectile still being there in the same frame, , I'm kinda feeling like on the surface that the Pentagon just got busted by a very clever, persistent 911 truther who happened to have some serious video editing experience.

But hey, if you got the time and will, by all means. The original footage I believe was secured by FOIA request, and is available (or was). Do a couple searches, and knock yerself out.

On a more positive note from the same Raw Story link three posts back.

Sterns' prediction of failure is tempered by attorney Phillip L. Marcus out of Colombia, Maryland, who specializes in intellectual property and copyright law. Marcus professed to RAW STORY an expertise in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, a case in which the Supreme Court determined that the government could be sued for the violation of a Constitutional right, even if no federal statute exists to support such action.

"Jurisdiction is the big hurdle for the plaintiff, but there are two routes over the hurdle, the Bivens Doctrine (that where the facts support serious rights violations by federal agents there is a kind of federal common law jurisdiction, else violations of the Bill of Rights could not be remedied), and 28 USC sec. 1331, which is the Tort Claims Act," said Marcus.

"Mr. Veale has made extraordinary allegations. Normally if you simply allege enough facts for jurisdiction the court goes past that defense.

"But with such bizarre facts the judge is going to want to see a little bit of evidence to believe it has Bivens jurisdiction or FTCA jurisdiction, before letting Veale go ahead with what will be massive discovery -- tons of documents, and depositions under oath of Cheney, Rummy and many others, defendants and plain witnesses."

He concludes: "I'd bet [this story] lives at least four or five years, lots of news stories."

[edit on 12/18/08 by SPreston]

posted by mybigunit
There we go. I hope she doesnt just settle on this. Its about time we get what happened on 9/11 out in the open whether you believe it was a conspiracy or not. Lets get all the evidence in the open in a court of law. I really really hope this goes through. The MSM seem to not want to mention it.

Whether or not she wins; this is great publicity. This is potentially a difficult lawsuit to dismiss, because it is filed in a liberal state with a strong history of prosecution of civil rights violation statutes. The state of New York and especially the city of New York has the largest percentage of citizens demanding a real investigation into 9-11 of any state in the union. That will be difficult for a judge to go against, especially with the PRIMARY SUSPECTS out of office and supposedly unable to intervene and punish the judge for going against their demands. It would be politically expedient for Obama to not intervene and order his DOJ to allow the chips to fall where they may. It will be interesting; and regardless the results, this will not be the last 9-11 lawsuit by a long shot.

The fanatical defenders of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY fantasy tale have a nightmare of unending collapse of the official script to apologize for ahead of them. I certainly hope their pay scale is rewarding enough.

California attorney William Veale is a member of Lawyers For 9-11 Truth. Bill Veale is a former instructor of Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, with an 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career.

Attorney William Veale took part in this video and can be seen at 99:30

Google Video Link

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands Trial By Jury, and Judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may see fit to award; treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), and costs of suit, expenses and attorneys fees...

Yours, etc.,

DATED: December 15, 2008.

i just did a google search for the title of the article to see if it had been posted on any MSM websites. I couldnt see any and was wondering if theres a way to find all the sites that link that article?

or am i just being naive and theres no way the MSM would report that?

I have alot of things to say on this. Some will make sense, some won't. Some come from experience, some are speculation. I feel alot will not be met with open arms.

As far as her hearing 2 explosions, I was not there so I do not know for certain, but I am not a 9/11 conspiracy beleiver.

As someone who has suffered a head injury, I can only explain a little of what I remember and how things seemed to happen. When I hit my head in a tank collision ( of all things ) I was thrown into the sights of the main gun. I remember an extremely bright light and a massive amount of noise. I remember actually thinking I had just fired a main gun round because that was kind of what it felt and sounded like.

It did not matter that we were not on the range and no round was loaded, but I still tried to give a "target" report. It also did not matter that I was no longer sitting in the gunners seat but actually sitting on the floor of the turret.

My point here is that what she thought was 2 explosions could very well have been a symptom of the initial head injury itself.

I an truly sorry for the loss of her son and am no way trying to compare what she has had to endure with what happened to me, but this is where some people will get upset with me.

For her to sue the DOD for an act of war is unbelievable. It serves no purpose at all. She signed the papers when she enlisted and she had to know; given her rank and responsabilities that was also something possible.

An order for the Pentagon to be evacuated should never be given in the first place. That being the case why the lawsuit?

Maybe I should sue the Army for what happened to me. Cheney was the Sec. Def at the time, Bush sr. was the President at the time. Should I sue my Company Co. who was an idiot and who's moronic order that led to my situation.

Maybe I should sue General Dynamics for putting the gun sight where I could get hurt.

Where do I go after 20 years of constant pain and 14 operations on my head? How do I cash out? Can I sue myself because I was the one who enlisted in military in the first place?

Originally posted by capgrup
For her to sue the DOD for an act of war is unbelievable. It serves no purpose at all. She signed the papers when she enlisted and she had to know; given her rank and responsabilities that was also something possible.

And normally, I'd agree. But that other something possible did not include a conspiracy of this magnitude, of which there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation. What happens if your "act of war" is discovered to be an act of sabotage and conspiracy? What will you say then to the families of all those lost, both during and after? And further, how will that impact you a person serving in the armed forces?

Remember it is her duty, and yours, according to your own military code of justice, that if you suspect a domestic enemy to do something about them too.

An order for the Pentagon to be evacuated should never be given in the first place.

Not even in this case, for all non-essential personnel, with clear advance warning, under impending attack? It would seem she would be just the kind of low rank office worker to be excused in that case.

TrueAmerican;

At this time I do not feel that 9-11 was perpetrated by our government. If that is ever proved then I will be more than angry and more than willing to help burn those involved. I have lost some friends and neighbors to the war in Iraq and I never believed for one second Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

As far as the Pentagon being evacuated I really have mixed feelings on this. The civilians should have been removed, but you do not abandon your post without orders, and those should not be given without concrete evidence and even then it would still depend on your duties.

Unfortunately I could not finish out my career due to my injury. Could not wear a helmet anymore.

reply to post by capgrup


My friend, I really feel for you that you got caught on a very bad side of circumstances beyond your singular control. But your effort was not in vain. And you are not alone. If you don't know about it, you might check out Iraq Veterans Against The War. There are good reasons to end this thing, and they present some powerful testimony.

As to the suit, unless some real loosening of tight executive judicial strings on National Security issues occurs when (and if?) Obama takes over, I don't have any expectation but I shower it with hope. A discovery process in a suit like this would serve the country well. Assuming it doesn't turn out to be another 911 Omission Report.