Pentagon attack victim April Gallop interviewed by CIT

posted by SPreston
The World Court has repeatedly described the attack on Iraq as a war of naked aggression haven't they?

posted by pinch
The World Court?

Why are you so dead set against April Gallop and her little boy and eventually many others receiving justice and financial aid from the treacherous perpetrators of 9-11? Should all veterans and victims of war policy be denied treatment and compensation in your learned opinion?

Yes pinch [snip]. The International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague, where they try War Criminals such as Slobodan Milošević, Charles G. Taylor, and Radovan Karadzic. Known terrorists Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin and Itzhak Shamir dared not go anywhere near the ICC because they were charged as war criminals. Saddam Hussein should have been tried in the World Court instead of a US kangeroo court. But the Bush Regime would have been unable to contain the real evidence and resulting damage to US 'National Security', so the World Court was not an option.

The World Court is immune from US laws preventing prosecuting and hanging former US pResidents and Vice pResidents guilty of Treason and War Crimes and illegal Wars of Naked Aggression. At the Nuremberg Tribunals, many Nazis were tried and hung for war crimes and waging a war of naked aggression against neighboring nations. Why should the US war machine be immune from the same world justice system?

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court and refuse to participate in it or to permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilians as shields
Using child soldiers
The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"

As you can see pinch, there are a lot of tools of the US war machine on this list, which they would wish to retain in their mission of spreading the NeoCON version of 'peace' and 'freedom' across the world. That is why the US and the Israelis and the Chinese refused to join the International Criminal Court. How could they have any fun?



[edit on 12/22/08 by SPreston]

[edit: personal information removed]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by SPreston

Saddam Hussein should have been tried in the World Court instead of a US kangeroo court. But the Bush Regime would have been unable to contain the real evidence and resulting damage to US 'National Security', so the World Court was not an option.

Please elaborate more on this SPreston.

Hussein was on trial for gassing his own people. He killed and killed often. His son's raped and tortured women. They are all resting comfortably in hell. Where they belong.

But you think that he deserved a trial at the "World Court?"

His own people deserved to hold him accountable for what he had done to them. His own people deserved to see him die.

reply to post by CameronFox


Bush needs to be tried in a "World Court” for his part in 911 and the war in Iraq. I bet he would be found guilty of all the crimes he has committed and I want to be on the jury.

Hussein was guilty of his crimes and he has been dealt with appropriately but Bush and Chenney need to get theirs, THEY ARE CRIMINALS! It’s plain and simple. They are NOT going to get away with anything, you see when they die they have to answer for the hundreds of thousands death that they where responsible for. There is a place on the other side for creeps like them Bush, and Chenney, and Rumsfeld, and Condi, and they will probable be in the same place with Hitler.

reply to post by pinch


Hey, Pinch, with your intelligent and command sense, why are you having a problem seeing your boy George is guilty of war crimes. Heck! A blind man can see it why cant you! The whole world sees Bush as a war criminal, and that is another reason why a Democrat has won the Presidency. Most people do not want a Republican as a President the reason is, they have lost their way, and the Republican Party practically destroyed this Country. The only good Republican that did run for the Presidency was Ron Paul; however, Ron Paul made it clear he was going to “undo” everything Bush did while he was in office. Therefore, those that are in control that are the Bush loyalist made darn sure Ron Paul was push out of the media spot light. The networks would not televise some of the Republicans debating, if Ron Paul was going to be aloud to precipitate. I learned something valuable after watching the Presidential debates, that was, some one up high has such strong control over our media I mean all the networks that “they” selected our two running Presidents. It seems the good just do not have a chance when “evil” is pulling all the strings.

April Gallop is my hero for standing up for her rights, as a human being and has more guts to tell the truth, I praise her. April Gallop is in a war against the lairs, evil will try to prevail, she has a tough fight on her hands. I just hope she has some very good lawyers.

Originally posted by SPreston
However you are just a mechanic, and April Gallop had a top secret clearance. So her knowledge and intellect and position outranks yours by a great amount.

I don't know exactly who you are accusing of being "just a mechanic", but with the investigative skills and intellectual acumen that came up with that gem you ought to get on the CIT payroll.

As far as "intellect" goes, I'm pretty sure that filing a lawsuit as frivolous and silly as this one, not to mention one claiming the "self-defense missiles" were "deactivated" and suing for not evacuating the building when a "non-existent plane" was inbound does not make for much intellect.

Plus, I would advice you not to talk about security clearances since you obviously know absolutely nothing of them. Something about not getting into areas where you are at a distinct disadvantage through ignorance of the subject matter, I think.

Faster, please!

Just a mechanic.....


[edit on 23-12-2008 by pinch]

I don't discount that she actually believes what she is saying is true but there is kind of an interesting dilemma to this one.

If she was suppose to be killed or placed in a position believed to be a death trap so to speak a much larger question would come from it.

What did she know that was so important her death was required? This route would lend more credibility to her plea.

Really the only thing I can find in it would be that she knows there are air defense missiles for the pentagon. But there is one problem with that belief:

Link

They don't appear to exist as they moved battery air defenses into place, not to mention there is an airport close to the pentagon that has planes taking off from it and could be targeted on accident and shot down by a defense missile system.

Here's a link to that:

Link

At the end of the day the only question I have is about the airman that asked "Does the order still stand?" I would love to find this person and find out what the order was in the first place.

Originally posted by SPreston
Perhaps she was ignorant of the defensive abilities of Pentagon security. However you are just a mechanic, and April Gallop had a top secret clearance. So her knowledge and intellect and position outranks yours by a great amount.

Funny how when someone inside the government is a viable witness only when they tend to support the conspiracy fantasy. Everyone else that doesn't agree (the VAST majority) are all lying or in on it somehow.

Anyhow, the idea that she would trigger the bomb by turning her monitor on seems rather silly when put in context of the hilarious "flyover theory", how could that have been timed so precisely that all the outside witnesses were "fooled" into believing an impact took place? Or perhaps maybe she was in on it after all, hmm?

Originally posted by Soloist
Or perhaps maybe she was in on it after all, hmm?

There you go. She was in on it, along with Bush and Cheney and all the rest of us!

And CIT is supporting her to the hilt!

Excellent! Our plan is coming together!

[edit on 23-12-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by pinch
Till then, however, could you explain, Craig, why, if April doesn't believe a plane hit the building, did she sue and accept a settlement from the airlines and security companies? Was it the temptation of easy, free money? If a plane never hit the building, why did she accept that settlement?

This is why her lawsuit will fail, as in a matter of law. Let's get this straight: she has accepted a settlement from the airline and others on the basis that a plane hit the pentagon.

You can follow the flaw in her new logic, correct? This case is over. Just like Judy 'space beams' Woods. She's going to have to answer the obvious questions around her previous settlement(s) and....wait for it.........prove what she is alleging.

As per the standard truther canard: because she filed a case doesn't mean any of what's contained in the unproven allegations are true, simply because she filed.

For goodness sake: believe in anything you want to but, at least be honest with yourself and especially others.

As before: will this ‘smoking gun evidence’ be included in your upcoming court case bringing the “perps” to justice? Oh, there isn’t a court case?


[edit on 24-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by pinch

Don't be scared, Craig. Just because this latest little scam won't see the inside of a courtroom doesn't mean you journey isn't worthwhile - at least you learned that the Camp Springs One departure does indeed fly due west (270), OVER approaching aircraft into DCA, and you learned that Captain Bob isn' treally that sharp of a pilot. Well, you should have.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by pinch]

Do you ever add anything to a thread or just troll to insult? You post over and over questioning others but never back up anything. You rarely ever even say anything other than "NYAH NYAH YOU ARE WRONG AND STUPID!!!" Come on man. Are you a 6th grad girl? If so, then I get it. I can understand and you can go on. I want a friendship bracelet though, ok hun.

posted by Soloist
Anyhow, the idea that she would trigger the bomb by turning her monitor on seems rather silly

April Gallop no longer believes turning the monitor on triggered the explosives outside the Pentagon wall. She was initially startled by the coincidence of the explosives blowing exactly when she pushed the monitor button, as would anyone be.

Obviously the fact that she and her son and fellow Pentagon personnel in the initial 'impact area' and who survived without burns and are still alive, is strong evidence that a 90 ton aircraft filled with jet fuel and shredded by the columns and exterior wall, did not crash through the Wedge One 1st floor E-Ring area at 535 mph.

April Gallop did not have to state that there was NO SIGN OF JET FUEL in her office that morning officially 35-45 feet from the place of impact, for people with a lick of common sense to figure out on their own, that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

Because the actual aircraft was witnessed flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have impacted the five light poles nor possibly have created the actual damage path through the Pentagon, simply adds to the conclusion that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.




[edit on 12/24/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
...simply adds to the conclusion that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

Let's put the rubber to the road here, Preston.

Are you calling Brian Birdwell a liar?
Are you calling Arthur Rosati a liar?
Rob Schickler?
Matt Hahr?
Ron Turner?
Mike DiPaula?
Jerry Henson?
Kevin Shaeffer?

Or the more than a dozen others who were burned by jet fuel or reported smelled jet fuel at the Pentagon liars?

You must be. Why don't you go track them down in fine CIT fashion and tell them to their faces there was no jet fuel and that they were actually part of some grand scheme.

posted by SPreston
...simply adds to the conclusion that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

posted by pinch
Let's put the rubber to the road here, Preston.

How odd. Even though jet fuel on walls is promised, not one photo of jet fuel on walls from Mr Riskus. A person must need to be a believer to see that jet fuel on walls.

4. Jet Fuel on Outside Walls and Inside Pentagon

The explosion and ballooning fire afterwards, in pictures, is typical of jet fuel in the wings of an airliner upon impact. See photographs of jet fuel on the front of Pentagon at criticalthrash.com...

Gee willikers pinch; did you even bother to read your own link? Not one single person was burned with burning jet fuel among YOUR witnesses. Since the aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have impacted the Pentagon along the official damage path; that makes sense to me. April Gallop also was not burned with jet fuel and she said NO JET FUEL didn't she?

How is it in YOUR link of alleged witnesses, so many of them were allegedly covered with not-burning jet fuel, yet supposedly a 90 ton aircraft filled with jet fuel crashed into the wall? Was that an explosion of burning jet fuel in the security video or not?

How can the jet fuel be burning one second and not the next instant? How can all that burning jet fuel not burn up the people just inside? How can burning jet fuel leave people coated with not-burning jet fuel? There must be another explanation. What kind of BS story is that anyway? Something really stinks inside the Pentagon doesn't it pinch? Can't you smell it?

reply to post by pinch

Are you calling Brian Birdwell a liar?
Are you calling Arthur Rosati a liar?
Rob Schickler?
Matt Hahr?
Ron Turner?
Mike DiPaula?
Jerry Henson?
Kevin Shaeffer?

YES! They are LIARS! They sold out for promotions and money! Traitors anyone who supports the terrorist are terrorist them selves. I believe in April Gallop story, she refused to go along with the other traitors, those names you listed above, everyone of them, need to be lock away in a prison camp that has been out source from a foreign Country. Why would April Gallop lie? What is she trying to do, destroy her reputation and her job, not likely.

reply to post by Gonenuts


Lets see, why would she lie...hmmmm......

Well, what was her record at the Pentagon? What kind of performance reports did she have? Was she a sit on her ass and do nothing type? Or was she a go-getter?

Maybe shes looking for fame and fortune...who knows? But plenty of people directly contradict her statement, people that had nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Lets see, why would she lie...hmmmm......

Well, what was her record at the Pentagon? What kind of performance reports did she have? Was she a sit on her ass and do nothing type? Or was she a go-getter?

Why don’t you go find out and post the facts!

Maybe shes looking for fame and fortune...who knows? But plenty of people directly contradict her statement, people that had nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.

No! You are wrong! They all had something to gain like ‘MONEY’ and PROMOTIONS!

Please show who had nothing to gain with proof and sources?
Who are these people who “directly” contradict her statement that (had nothing to gain or lose)? This ought to be a good one!
Please show they had nothing to lose?
Please show they had nothing to gain?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The only thing you have to say are speculative questions attempting to cast doubt on April's character? Are you just trying to steer the thread, or do have information about April that you are not sharing? Please support your ramblings with some sort of factual evidence.

Originally posted by SPreston
How odd. Even though jet fuel on walls is promised, not one photo of jet fuel on walls from Mr Riskus. A person must need to be a believer to see that jet fuel on walls.

Fuel on the walls? What the hell are are you talking about?

Gee willikers pinch; did you even bother to read your own link? Not one single person was burned with burning jet fuel among YOUR witnesses.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I'd be embarrassed if I claimed the level of investigative acumen that you and the CIT Sleuths do and weren't aware of the burn injuries and the extensive presence of jet fuel throughout the Pentagon wedge. Closing your eyes and mind to those facts just makes your whole shtick more both funnier and more unbelievable.

Simply saying something didn't happen doesn't make it not-happen.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Im asking the questions about her that need to be asked. Unlike truthers that are deciding ALL of the other witnesses are lying without checking any of them out. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to be suspicious of a career officer that says an airliner slammed into the building, then you have to be suspicious of an officer that says the opposite.....if you want to be fair and impartial and then research the individuals. Of course most "truthers" do not want that and are willing to buy her story hook, line, and sinker. I am not. One hundred plus individuals who aren't rich (or even still in the military for some) who say one thing and ONE sue happy individual that says another...hmmmmmmmmm

reply to post by Gonenuts

Why don’t you go find out and post the facts!

Nope, I am challenging you to go against what you believe and look for yourself. But I am betting you wont, because you cannot handle the truth.