April Gallop Sues American Airlines, but claims there was no plane?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Not really bumping the thread here. I am curious as to what, if anything is going on with Aprils latest lawsuit?

thank you in advance!

The abandonment of April Gallop by the CIT crew is proof that yet another of their previously sainted witness is now residing under the bus. They tend to do that a great deal when the "witness" in question's usefulness and credibility shelf-life expires.

reply to post by trebor451


No, we do not want to endanger April's lawsuit against the 9-11 perps.

The future of little Elijah is more important than arguing with a bunch of lying government loyalists who care nothing about a severly injured small child.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba6c66dd658d.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by CameronFox
Not really bumping the thread here. I am curious as to what, if anything is going on with Aprils latest lawsuit?

thank you in advance!

The abandonment of April Gallop by the CIT crew is proof that yet another of their previously sainted witness is now residing under the bus. They tend to do that a great deal when the "witness" in question's usefulness and credibility shelf-life expires.

I agree with you, but in a different way. I always thought CIT has a much better proof in the form of physical evidence provided by the pristine hood of Llyode's taxi (photo in the official reprot itself).

Now, when Physics, Geometry and mechanics of the situation are speaking for CIT, where is the need to bring in the weaker evidence in the form of Lloyde's and Gallop's words. They will only provide arsenal to people who are interested in hiding and obfuscating the truth. This is the reason these people avoid talking about "hard physical evidence and keep bumping the threads where they can put different spins on what this or that guy/girl said.

Probably the intent is to bury the threads dealing with hard physical evidence due to lack of active debate. And keep frivolous threads alive by deliberate bumping. This way the active topics on this site will look more and more like main stream media. And when some random new comer happens on this site, he/she will think, there is nothing new here and move on without knowing about the internal discripencies in the official account. A great way for obfuscators of the truth.

Originally posted by neil_86
I agree with you, but in a different way. I always thought CIT has a much better proof in the form of physical evidence provided by the pristine hood of Llyode's taxi (photo in the official reprot itself).

Now, when Physics, Geometry and mechanics of the situation are speaking for CIT, where is the need to bring in the weaker evidence in the form of Lloyde's and Gallop's words. They will only provide arsenal to people who are interested in hiding and obfuscating the truth. This is the reason these people avoid talking about "hard physical evidence and keep bumping the threads where they can put different spins on what this or that guy/girl said.

Probably the intent is to bury the threads dealing with hard physical evidence due to lack of active debate. And keep frivolous threads alive by deliberate bumping. This way the active topics on this site will look more and more like main stream media. And when some random new comer happens on this site, he/she will think, there is nothing new here and move on without knowing about the internal discripencies in the official account. A great way for obfuscators of the truth.

Well, it's obvious you're new here, or you would already know that April Gallop was brought up constantly by the CIT loyalists (the dozen or so out there) in several of their threads as proof of the "flyover". This is hardly what I would call a "frivolous thread", it actually goes a long way to proving that their claims are bunk.

Now about the hard, physical evidence, lol... seriously, an unscratched hood of a car only means it didn't get scratched, nothing more, nothing less. You can say that it should have been scratched if the pole really did go through the windshield all you like, but that does NOT make it so. I've seen horrible car accidents where occupants in the car perished while others didn't receive a scratch, and walked away perfectly fine, it boggles the mind for sure, but does not make it impossible. Don't take my word for it, ask any paramedic or firefighter.

Since you're new here, I'll help you out this once, search around and you'll find out what CIT is all about, their entire theory is based around the assumption that a handful of witnesses saw the plane a bit north that other people did, so in their minds, somehow this plane managed to fly over the Pentagon, while a magic trick explosion somehow distracted everyone in the entire area while this huge jet flew away to which no further explanation or proofhas been given to it's whereabouts.

Not one of their "north side" witnesses (nor any others) claim to have seen the plane they watched fly on the "wrong" flight path pass over the building. Everyone knows it ended up in the Pentagon.

Now, since you want "hard physical evidence" you should not look to CIT, but the real evidence :

Video of the plane slamming into the building and exploding
Pictures of the aftermath
Plane parts from the plane inside and outside the building
100+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the building
Phone calls from the passengers


Things to question about CIT's "hard, physical evidence" :

Where is the evidence/witnesses that light poles were planted?
Where is the evidence/witnesses that the plane parts were planted?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to some "Hollywood special effect explosion"?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to where the plane went to?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to what happened to the passengers?

You know what, you will NOT get any answers to those questions, all they will say is the plane couldn't have caused the damage since it flew on the north side of the Citgo. Oh, and an unscratched hood of a Taxi cab, THAT's their physical evidence.

Ask yourself honestly, does any of that REALLY make sense?

Originally posted by Soloist

Since you're new here, I'll help you out this once, search around and you'll find out what CIT is all about, their entire theory is based around the assumption that a handful of witnesses saw the plane a bit north that other people did, so in their minds, somehow this plane managed to fly over the Pentagon, while a magic trick explosion somehow distracted everyone in the entire area while this huge jet flew away to which no further explanation or proofhas been given to it's whereabouts.

Thanks for being helpful, but please understand that, I am not at all interested in any of the HUMAN witnesses, I am ONLY interested in understanding the PHYSCICS/GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of the pristine hood of Lloydes taxi. I dont want to dismiss that as ONLY ONE of the evidence. That requires an explanation. Neither do I want to be SIDE-TRACKED by discussions about human witnesses.

Originally posted by neil_86 I am ONLY interested in understanding the PHYSCICS/GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of the pristine hood of Lloydes taxi.

If you are indeed ONLY interested in understanding the PHYSCICS(sic)/GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of the pristine hood of Lloydes (sic) taxi, then you must be prepared to categorically state, without any reservation, that there is absolutely no way possible - it would be an absolute violation of the laws of physics - that a curved pole of a predetermined weight could never, ever, ever impale the windshield of vehicle moving at a predetermined speed and not touch the hood. Is this impossible? Forget about improbable. Forget about however unlikely you may think it is. Forget about appealing to the Gods of Chance. Would it be *absolutely* 100% impossible for a light pole, after being hit by a wing of an aircraft, to end up impaled in the windshield and hinged area between a passenger seat and the seat back - without scratching the hood? Could said pole, with the curved angle inside the car, be angled across the base of the windshield, the dashboard acting as a fulcrum keeping the majority of the pole off the main body/hood of the car?

If indeed you are ONLY interested in understanding the PHYSCICS(sic)/GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of this event, then you must - you must - accept that however improbable or unlikely, that pole could have ended up in that car as Lloyd said it did without touching, marring, scratching or damaging the hood.

If you continue to believe and state that it is impossible for this to happen your credibility just shot to absolute zero.

Originally posted by SPreston

No, we do not want to endanger April's lawsuit against the 9-11 perps.

LMFAO. Dude, what don't you get? She is claiming the plane never hit the Pentagon... AFTER she accepted a settlement from the airlines!!

The future of little Elijah is more important than arguing with a bunch of lying government loyalists who care nothing about a severly injured small child.

You calling me a liar? If so, you're not playing nice. (and not being honest yourself)


Please guys... keep the Lloyd Fantasy Chatter on the threads already discussing it.

Thank you - Cam

Originally posted by trebor451

If you continue to believe and state that it is impossible for this to happen your credibility just shot to absolute zero.

This is the attitude which is problematic. My credibility is being shot to absolute zero FOR JUST ASKING A QUESTION.

Looks like you are trying to put me on on defensive in a subliminal manner. You want to implant a message in brain that, asking that kind of question is BAD. If you want to be a nice guy/girl, just go along with what we are feeding you.

Since you did not provide ANY explanation for pristine hood of Lloyde's taxi (or the minimal damage to wind shield itself), I don't think, it will serve any purpose in continuing the discussion with you, but I appreciate your offer of help.

Is there any one else who can help me understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of,

1: Pristine hood of cab,
2: Minimal damage on the wind shield,
3: Minimal damage to back seat cushion.
4: Lack of any injury to Lloyde (Thank God for that).

Remember, the pole has gone all the way to back seat from the windshield, and more important, WAS TAKEN OUT, by two people.

And for God's sake, don't get side tracked or try to side track or derail the thread by human witnesses, or word games of he said/she said.

Lloyde's taxi case is very cut & dried one, it is either explainable through the known laws of physics/mathematics or it is not.

I gave this as an assignment to some of my physics students, and so far every one is hard pressed to come up with a satisfactory explaination.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Please guys... keep the Lloyd Fantasy Chatter on the threads already discussing it.
Thank you - Cam

That's very strange CameronFox, the defenders of official theory are avoiding the threads dealing with the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANIICS of Lloyde's cab like a plague. See for yourself.

Even Grimstad, who said he would come up with a reasonable explanation of this PHYSICAL ANOMALY has disappeared.

CameronFox, why don't you take some interest in threads dealing with Lloyde's taxi anamoly, and put that doubt to rest.

Originally posted by neil_86
This is the attitude which is problematic. My credibility is being shot to absolute zero FOR JUST ASKING A QUESTION.

Sigh. I tried helping, but you keep insisting on trying to derail the topic of this thread for whatever reason.

Is there any one else who can help me understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of,

1: Pristine hood of cab,
2: Minimal damage on the wind shield,
3: Minimal damage to back seat cushion.
4: Lack of any injury to Lloyde (Thank God for that).

Since you are claiming to be a physics teacher why do you need someone on a Conspiracy site to help you with the "physics, geometry, and mechanics" of your list. Can you really not figure it out?

Here's a similar incident from 2004 - Here

All the Kaufman family wanted to do was get to the airport and go see loved ones over the holidays. Then fear rained down out of nowhere.

"There was a loud flash, like lighting. Then debris started scattering all about the road," said John Kaufman.

"Chunks of concrete and stuff coming out of the air, it looked like," Karen Kaufman said. "It was all over the road. It was like a movie. Everything was flying through the air."

Investigators believe the stuff that pounded the Kaufmans' van flew down after the plane clipped a light pole on the Beltway.

A piece of the light pole ended up at Karen Kaufman's feet after it flew through the windshield, just inches from her head.

5 people in the vehicle, and no one was injured by flying light pole and plane debris that smashed through the windshield.

I gave this as an assignment to some of my physics students, and so far every one is hard pressed to come up with a satisfactory explaination.

Explanation - Some people just get lucky.

Originally posted by Soloist

Well, it's obvious you're new here, or you would already know that April Gallop was brought up constantly by the CIT loyalists (the dozen or so out there) in several of their threads as proof of the "flyover". This is hardly what I would call a "frivolous thread", it actually goes a long way to proving that their claims are bunk.

Wrong.

I can't speak for whoever you are referring to as CIT loyalists but we have NEVER referred to April Gallop's account as "proof of the flyover".

So please stop lying about CIT.

Originally posted by CameronFox

LMFAO. Dude, what don't you get? She is claiming the plane never hit the Pentagon... AFTER she accepted a settlement from the airlines!!

So what?

This is a COMPLETE non-issue and has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of this new lawsuit.

April was told an AA jet hit the Pentagon.

April certainly DID believe what she was told because she was told it.

April and her child were permanently disabled from the attack and April lost her career as a result.

April was screwed by the govt and all the so called "victims advocate" groups who have failed to provide her with the assistance she needed to pull her life back together.

April deserves compensation from any lawsuit to help victims who have been denied the assistance they deserve.

As more and more evidence came to light, April started realizing that not only was she screwed for assistance, but the entire event that has in essence destroyed her life was a deliberate deception.

April files new suit based on this evidence.

It's as simple as that and she has every right to seek further compensation in any manner possible given the fact that there is now plenty of hard PROOF that they lied to her about the AA jet hitting the building.

It's not her fault that they lied to her and the rest of the world and that she accepted compensation from a suit based on that lie to help her survive virtual destitution.

The fact that YOU take issue with it as you ATTACK this victim from the comfort of your anonymous screen name on a conspiracy forum is despicable.

The good news is that your opinion is irrelevant and nobody cares about your anonymous cowardly attempts to spit in the face of a 9/11 victim seeking justice as you furiously and desperately work to defend mass murderous war criminals and the blatant slaughtering of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians justified from this deception.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Wrong.

I can't speak for whoever you are referring to as CIT loyalists but we have NEVER referred to April Gallop's account as "proof of the flyover".

So please stop lying about CIT.

Hmmm, let's take a look at your post Here

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Frankly I don't think she was meant to survive but the fact that she did in itself is hard evidence that no 757 hit that building.

Have fun with that one! I'll gladly accept your retraction and apology, however I know you, and it won't happen.





[edit on 12-5-2009 by Soloist]

Originally posted by trebor451


The abandonment of April Gallop by the CIT crew is proof that yet another of their previously sainted witness is now residing under the bus. They tend to do that a great deal when the "witness" in question's usefulness and credibility shelf-life expires.

Spare me.

We have never "abandoned" April Gallop OR used her account as support for the north side evidence proving a flyover.

She was inside the building. She did not see the plane.

Is the fact that she survived at all supporting evidence that no plane hit? OF COURSE!

That has not changed and can not change no matter what she ever says or does.

But the fact that I wasn't compelled to participate in this absurd smear thread that is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the evidence certainly DOES NOT mean that we have "abandoned" April OR thrown her "under the bus".

We support her 100% and she deserves anything she can get as this lawsuit has FULL and COMPLETE merit as I'm sure the original suit against AA did as well.

There is every reason to believe that a deception on this level would have utilized the assistance of at least some major power-brokers at AA and many other corporations.

reply to post by Soloist


Did I say hard evidence for a flyover?

No.

Did I say hard evidence for a north side approach?

No.

Did I say hard evidence that a 757 did not hit?

Yep....just as I said in my post.

It's not what SHE SAYS or HER ACCOUNT that is evidence for this.

It the basic fact that she survived given her location as confirmed by the renovation team.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Did I say hard evidence that a 757 did not hit?

Yep....just as I said in my post.

LOL! So if you didn't mean flyover, what in the world did you mean? The plane just vanished? POOF!

Spin and squirm dude, but you cannot fool me, you've been caught lying. Just admit it, you'll feel better about yourself, I promise.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by neil_86
This is the attitude which is problematic. My credibility is being shot to absolute zero FOR JUST ASKING A QUESTION.

Sigh. I tried helping, but you keep insisting on trying to derail the topic of this thread for whatever reason.

Is there any one else who can help me understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of,

1: Pristine hood of cab,
2: Minimal damage on the wind shield,
3: Minimal damage to back seat cushion.
4: Lack of any injury to Lloyde (Thank God for that).

Since you are claiming to be a physics teacher why do you need someone on a Conspiracy site to help you with the "physics, geometry, and mechanics" of your list. Can you really not figure it out?

Here's a similar incident from 2004 - Here

All the Kaufman family wanted to do was get to the airport and go see loved ones over the holidays. Then fear rained down out of nowhere.

"There was a loud flash, like lighting. Then debris started scattering all about the road," said John Kaufman.

"Chunks of concrete and stuff coming out of the air, it looked like," Karen Kaufman said. "It was all over the road. It was like a movie. Everything was flying through the air."

Investigators believe the stuff that pounded the Kaufmans' van flew down after the plane clipped a light pole on the Beltway.

A piece of the light pole ended up at Karen Kaufman's feet after it flew through the windshield, just inches from her head.

5 people in the vehicle, and no one was injured by flying light pole and plane debris that smashed through the windshield.

I gave this as an assignment to some of my physics students, and so far every one is hard pressed to come up with a satisfactory explaination.

Explanation - Some people just get lucky.

Thanks Soloist, you rose above some other people who think just censuring/ridiculing is enough of a reply.

Back to the point, while you relate an incident which appears similar, the magnitude is vastly different. from your own post,

"A piece of the light pole ended up at Karen Kaufman's feet after it flew through the windshield,"

So, what went in the van was piece of light pole, small enough to drop at Karen's feet. If that small piece can do that much damage, imagine the damage caused by a massive pole, going all the way to the back seat. and more important, got removed by two people, who were so careful in taking the bent pole out that hole in the wind shield still remained very small.

I will appreciate a lot, if you can help me understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS Lloyde's taxi.

reply to post by Soloist


Maybe English is your second language or maybe you don't understand basic logic or maybe you are unable to distinguish the difference between evidence and a hypothesis but your attacks on me and April are FALLACIOUS.

Whatever hypothesis you choose to accept regarding what really happened is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the fact that April's survival is direct evidence that no plane hit.

Take away all the north side evidence, take away all the witnesses to the plane, take away ALL other evidence, and hypothetically assume that April has filed a million lawsuits (even if they are all completely frivolous and unjustified although I do NOT believe that about any of her previous lawsuits) and that can still NEVER change the FACT that April's survival is supporting evidence that no plane hit the building.

That has nothing to do with a flyover nor have I ever said that it does.

Now stop lying about my claims.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
maybe you don't understand basic logic

You said :

we have NEVER referred to April Gallop's account as "proof of the flyover".

After you have previously stated :

Frankly I don't think she was meant to survive but the fact that she did in itself is hard evidence that no 757 hit that building.

No, the logic is quite clear.

People saw the plane.
April lives.
You say the plane doesn't hit the building, since she survived.
Soooooooooo, applying LOGIC, where is that plane? It's not in the building, right? It didn't vanish, correct?

C'mon man, most people who know you also know you believe in this "flyover" nonsense, it is the LOGICAL conclusion that's exactly what you meant.

Originally posted by neil_86
Thanks Soloist, you rose above some other people who think just censuring/ridiculing is enough of a reply.

No problem, however this really needs to be in a thread about the cab, not one about April Gallop, you will get more responses to your questions in one of those threads instead.

Back to the point, while you relate an incident which appears similar, the magnitude is vastly different.

Well, of course, it would be silly to think there is an exact match to the cab incident.
The point of that was that some people get lucky, in answer to your last question. FYI, there are stories out there of similar incidents (with pictures even) of people that weren't so lucky, but I find that in bad taste to post those.

I will appreciate a lot, if you can help me understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS Lloyde's taxi.

As I said above, please post your questions in one of the many taxi threads instead of this one.