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

reply to post by Soloist


Ok got it.

You don't understand what the word evidence means.

The evidence we have PROVING a flyover has no direct connection April's account from inside the building.

While April's survival is direct evidence that no plane hit I have never claimed that it is evidence for a flyover as is perfectly evident from the quote of mine that you cited.

So either you LIED about our claims or are simply not educated enough to understand them.

Take your pick but I have been 100% accurate and I stand by all my statements.

Furthermore we stand by her right to seek compensation and to file numerous suits as more and more evidence comes to light exposing the deception.

But go ahead and keep spitting in the face of a 9/11 victim while cheerleading the slaughter of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians all you want from behind your anonymous screenname.

It makes you look like a real man.






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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
While April's survival is direct evidence that no plane hit I have never claimed that it is evidence for a flyover as is perfectly evident from the quote of mine that you cited.

Where's the plane? You said it didn't hit since she lived. Where is it?

So either you LIED about our claims or are simply not educated enough to understand them.

Actually it seems you are too far in denial to understand your own statements. Or you are deliberately trying to wiggle out of it. My bet is on the wiggling.

Take your pick but I have been 100% accurate and I stand by all my statements.

Sure, you have no choice, they were posted for all to see. Wiggle wiggle...

Furthermore we stand by her right to seek compensation and to file numerous suits as more and more evidence comes to light exposing the deception.

Hmmmmm, which deception do you mean? The one where you believe the plane FLEW OVER the Pentagon?

But go ahead and keep spitting in the face of a 9/11 victim while cheerleading the slaughter of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians all you want from behind your anonymous screenname.

Ahhh, the real Craig finally comes out. I have 4 in-laws that perished on 9/11 so please keep these over-dramatic uninformed statements to yourself. They serve no purpose here other than to make you look a fool.

It makes you look like a real man.

A "real man" admits when he's wrong, not dodge or wiggle out of it. Think about that.

reply to post by Soloist


Yes the OTHER evidence we present proves a large airliner flew north of the citgo and therefore did not hit.

Yet I have NEVER cited April Gallop's account as direct evidence for a north side approach which is what proves a flyover.

You lied about that and you are continuing to try and push that lie.

Different evidence can support different things in the real world.

I understand that may be a difficult concept for you to understand but that is how it works.

People who saw a plane fly on the north side are evidence for a plane on the north side.

April did not see a plane so her account can not be evidence for this which is why we have NEVER cited her account as evidence for this despite your lie about our claims.

To elaborate further since clearly you are having trouble:

Witness Steve Chaconas was about 6 miles down river from the Pentagon. He could not see the Pentagon, the citgo, or even planes taking off from Reagan National airport because he was too far south.

But he saw the attack jet approach from EAST of the river contrary to all official data that has the plane west of the river at all times.

Is his account evidence for a north side approach?

Nope.

Is his account evidence for a flyover?

Nope.

Is his account supporting evidence that the NTSB and 84 RADES data is fraudulent?

You better believe it.

So....mr soloist....if you don't get it yet....just because an eyewitness contradicts the official story doesn't automatically mean they are direct evidence for a north side approach or a flyover. No matter how much other evidence we have supporting this.

We have never stated that April, who did not see a plane at all, is direct evidence for a flyover.

You LIED about our claims and the quote you cited from me proves it.




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

Originally posted by Soloist 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.

Your example has no relevance in this case and in the face of the actual physics regarding this particular "accident" and situation.

Whether or not the pole didn't scratch or hurt "Someone" is not the issue.

Whether or not a 40foot light pole that was STRUCK by a 90 ton 757 going 500+mph can hurl through the air and randomly pierce a vehicle travelling 40 mph and come to a rest on the dashboard without causing so much as a SCRATCH on the Hood is the ISSUE.

When all those elements or factors are added to "your" version of the story and all facts are taken into account which you conveniently leave out, then what you've attempted to claim is not impossible, is ABSURD.

In other words, the point is that you clearly don't seem to understand that the STORY of that POLE *IS* not only pure fantasy, but its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. If you believe its possible, then explaining the physics about why it isnt which is based on the official conspiracy theory, is a waste of time.

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

oh right and here we go, your opinion about what you THINK is so-called "hard physical evidence" after you've just been caught cherry-picking a version of the event to fit your agenda. Rofl.

Originally posted by Soloist

Video of the plane slamming into the building and exploding

there is NO video of a "plane" slamming into the building. Not even a fake plane...

SO TRY AGAIN.

Originally posted by Soloist
Pictures of the aftermath

pictures of a staged "aftermath" proves nothing.

Try again.

Originally posted by Soloist
Plane parts from the plane inside and outside the building

planted plane parts that have never been identified or verified to belond to flight 77 isn't by any stretch of your imagination hard physical evidence of anything other than a few pieces of debris were there that may or may not have been from some type of plane.

TRY AGAIN.

Originally posted by Soloist
100+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the building

100 random witnesses that have been contradicted by another 100 witnesses isn't hard physical evidence of anything.

Try again

Originally posted by Soloist
Phone calls from the passengers

...which contradictory evidence has put all under suspicion and in question
is not hard conclusive physical evidence proving anything.

when one asks themselves does any of what you've asserted REALLY make sense... the answer is an unmistakable NO.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

So what?

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

It is an issue. She accepted the payment AFTER her interview with you. Her other lawsuit is against a Saudi bank that allowed transactions from the flight 77 hijackers. So, if flight 77 or hijackers..didn't hit the Pentagon.... why is she suing?

April was told an AA jet hit the Pentagon.

And since she took their money...she agreed to it.

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

Appeal to emotion. April and her son were injured. There is no mistaken that. I don't think anyone disagrees there. I don't think anyone disagrees that they BOTH deserved compensation.

As noted from the victims compensation fund; the average payout was $600,000 per injury. April chose to not accept the government payout and filed several lawsuits. This of course was her right.

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.

Do you have documentation to back this up? Describe what "screwed" means please. Was she offered the 1.2 million for her and her son? I seriously don't know. I am going by the average.

Do you know the settlement she received from AA?

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

If an airplane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, why should they have to pay her?

Again, I think she deserves compensation for her injuries. (and her son's)

Please provide said proof that she was denied compensation from the government through the victims compensation fund.

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.

Says... CIT. Not the rest of the world.

April files new suit based on this evidence.

April now clogs up the courts with frivolous lawsuits that award her nothing. Why? NO EVIDENCE!! Perhaps she can bring a Pentacon Video with her to court?

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.

Then have her give the money back to AA. They are the only ones that paid her.

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.

What is her fault is that she buys the snake oil that CTers like you peddle.

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.

Despicable? LMFAO. Craig, I have proven her to do nothing but hire incompetent lawyers to file ridiculous lawsuits. You should focus your anger at the idiots that represent her.

Not sure what you don't get. I have always said that she DESERVES COMPENSATION.

Unless you can prove that she was denied adequate compensation from the government, I stand by all my posts 100%

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.

No Craig, what is irrelevant is your Pentacon Theory. If you didn't notice, it's been many years since you started peddling your cute little DVD. No one is buying it! No grand Jury, no arrests, No main stream media (besides you being the laughing stock of the OC), traffic on your website is stagnant at best.

You blatant appeals to emotion are noted. I spit at no one, but the charlatans that prey on those that NEED a conspiracy.

I am not furious and I am not desperate. There is nothing to defend.








[edit on 12-5-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

Oh this is fresh. How did I overlook this gem?

American Airlines is in on it now!!! Does the list ever end Ranke?

I read a few pages ago that somebody said there was a video of a plane hitting the pentagon.

I would love a link to this video. I don't think I have seen it yet.

Can anyone furnish this video?

posted by sticky
I read a few pages ago that somebody said there was a video of a plane hitting the pentagon.

I would love a link to this video. I don't think I have seen it yet.

Can anyone furnish this video?

Unfortunately Soloist was referring to the photoshopped parking lot security videos with the heavy white smoke trail and the too small and almost invisible aircraft poorly drawn in, which proves nothing except the government is a liar once again.

Apparently a Defense Department insider screwed the 9-11 perps way back in 2002, by leaking five frames from the unfinished video #2 and prevented the 9-11 perps from completing the photoshopping. Then the two outed security videos were forced out into the public sector by court enforced FOIA in 2006, and the 9-11 idiots were caught with their pants down once again.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/694cca2e5e33.jpg[/atsimg]

Thank GOD for court enforced FOIA which also released many of the CMH eyewitnesses originally interviewed way back in 2001 and censored, to prove as fact the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Even the FAA was convinced. They even show the flight path above the light poles and overhead highway sign and above the Pentagon 3rd floor. What would we do without loyal honest court enforced FOIA?

Video #2



Video #1



They can both be downloaded to reside on your own hard drive here



[edit on 5/12/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes the OTHER evidence we present proves a large airliner flew north of the citgo and therefore did not hit.

Yet I have NEVER cited April Gallop's account as direct evidence for a north side approach which is what proves a flyover.

You lied about that and you are continuing to try and push that lie.

Yet you say her account means the plane "didn't hit the building". So what DOES that mean? Where is the plane?

Different evidence can support different things in the real world.

LAWL! What a sleuth!

People who saw a plane fly on the north side are evidence for a plane on the north side.

April did not see a plane so her account can not be evidence for this which is why we have NEVER cited her account as evidence for this despite your lie about our claims.

Evidence for "this" meaning the plane being on the "north side"?
I never said she saw the plane, north side or not. But implying the plane did not hit the building is saying that it went elsewhere. Period.

Originally posted by SPreston

Unfortunately Soloist was referring to the photoshopped parking lot security videos with the heavy white smoke trail and the too small and almost invisible aircraft poorly drawn in, which proves nothing except the government is a liar once again.

Unfortunately SPreston has assumed too much by attempting to speak as to what I was referring to, there is that video BUT there is also the Doubletree vid which show the tail of the plane heading towards the Pentagon as it smashes into the building. What that video does NOT show is the plane at any point pulling up to "fly over" the building.

They will try and say the view is blocked, but you can see the plane is far to close and too low to pull up over the building anyhow.

They will also say that one has been "photoshopped" (LOL) if you don't believe their first (blocked view) lie.

Originally posted by Orion7911

Your example has no relevance in this case and in the face of the actual physics regarding this particular "accident" and situation.

I'm sorry you don't understand the relevance in the context that post was made. Maybe you should read what it was in reply to?

Whether or not the pole didn't scratch or hurt "Someone" is not the issue.

It was one of the issues brought forward by the post I was replying to. So please don't try to redefine the issue if you don't get it.

Whether or not a 40foot light pole that was STRUCK by a 90 ton 757 going 500+mph can hurl through the air and randomly pierce a vehicle travelling 40 mph and come to a rest on the dashboard without causing so much as a SCRATCH on the Hood is the ISSUE.

Did you not read the news article of a similar incident that was posted?

When all those elements or factors are added to "your" version of the story and all facts are taken into account which you conveniently leave out, then what you've attempted to claim is not impossible, is ABSURD.

This is not "my" version of anything. Just because you don't believe something is possible does not make it impossible.

there is NO video of a "plane" slamming into the building. Not even a fake plane...

There are two, please do some research before attempting to engage in a debate with people that know alot more about this that you currently do.

pictures of a staged "aftermath" proves nothing.

Please prove the aftermath was "staged".

100 random witnesses that have been contradicted by another 100 witnesses isn't hard physical evidence of anything.

Once again, CIT has about a dozen so called "north-side" witnesses, not even close to 100. Please do your research, making up numbers will get you ignored.


All that being said, what's with the newbs here lately? I have to wonder if these are socks just trolling. Not to play mod but as I said before this is pulling the thread about April Gallop way off topic, I'm guilty of biting, so my apologies to the OP, I will respond only in the appropriate threads for these individual subjects from now on.

Thank you, come again.

Yah, um..

So, I'm just an average american, and I don't wanna get involved in the debate.

You said there was a video that shows a plane hitting, can you give me a link to it, or email me the video. The videos that Preston posted don't show anything but a pencil point and then what appears to be a few skipped frames, and an explosion. I thought you guys said there was a plane in the video. Is there a video of a plane or not?

I'd like that very much if anyone has that video. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by sticky]

Originally posted by sticky
Yah, um..

So, I'm just a an average american, and I don't wanna get involved in the debate.

You said there was a video that shows a plane hitting, can you give me a link to it, or email me the video. The videos that Preston posted don't show anything but a pencil point and then what appears to be a few skipped frames, and an explosion. I thought you guys said there was a plane in the video. Is there a video of a plane or not?

I'd like that very much if anyone has that video. Thanks in advance.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by sticky]

Here ya go :

www.youtube.com...

That's all we get. I guess it kinda does look like a plane's tail, but wouldn't I see more of its entry into the footage.

I've been around this site long enough to say such video is not convincing enough to be taken as proof.

I've seen better UFO videos, and I don't believe them either. The Pentagon has to have better security footage. How is that the best video that is out there?

I don't get it still.

reply to post by Soloist


Where's the plane?

The car/truck that drives by is not the plane. I'm tired of this garbage.

BTW, I'm back after a year or so.

Conundrum04.

Originally posted by sticky
The Pentagon has to have better security footage. How is that the best video that is out there?

I agree with you there, for the most part. I'm willing to bet they have much better surveillance now. There very well may be better video the government has, who knows? What I don't buy is that they would "photoshop" the videos we do have after going through such an elaborate conspiracy of pulling some so called "magic trick flyover" and then fake some crappy security cams without making it look real.

That makes no sense to me at all.

Originally posted by truthtothemasses
The car/truck that drives by is not the plane.

Correct, the truck is not the plane. The tail of the plane can be seen outpacing the truck at an extremely high rate of speed right up to the explosion. Notice it does not pull up or "fly over" the Pentagon.

BTW, I'm back after a year or so.
Conundrum04.

wb

Originally posted by Soloist

Correct, the truck is not the plane. The tail of the plane can be seen outpacing the truck at an extremely high rate of speed right up to the explosion. Notice it does not pull up or "fly over" the Pentagon.

Well whatever that thing is it's still there after the impact. I guess you've never passed someone on the freeway going 100mph while they were going only 60mph I imagine. It's a great experience I must say.

That is not the tail of an airplane.

posted by SPreston

Unfortunately Soloist was referring to the photoshopped parking lot security videos with the heavy white smoke trail and the too small and almost invisible aircraft poorly drawn in, which proves nothing except the government is a liar once again.

posted by Soloist
Unfortunately SPreston has assumed too much by attempting to speak as to what I was referring to, there is that video BUT there is also the Doubletree vid which show the tail of the plane heading towards the Pentagon as it smashes into the building. What that video does NOT show is the plane at any point pulling up to "fly over" the building.

They will try and say the view is blocked, but you can see the plane is far to close and too low to pull up over the building anyhow.

They will also say that one has been "photoshopped" (LOL) if you don't believe their first (blocked view) lie.

Such nonsense. The official aircraft is supposed to be flying across the screen at 535 mph, and that 'tail' you allude to is at a fraction of that speed, and could not possibly be Flight 77.

Also the 77 ft roof of the Pentagon is hidden below the elevated highway and if that was the 44 ft tail 'above' the roof, then the aircraft would hit about the 3rd or 4th floor and could not possibly be Flight 77.





[edit on 5/13/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by Soloist

Correct, the truck is not the plane. The tail of the plane can be seen outpacing the truck at an extremely high rate of speed right up to the explosion. Notice it does not pull up or "fly over" the Pentagon.

Well whatever that thing is it's still there after the impact. I guess you've never passed someone on the freeway going 100mph while they were going only 60mph I imagine. It's a great experience I must say.

That is not the tail of an airplane.

I see an extremely fast moving tail ending in an explosion right as it gets to where the Pentagon is.

You CT'ers believe what you will, there is no way I'm going to change your mind. But, consider :

Witnesses saw the plane hit the building. CIT says it flew over. Where in the video do you see the plane flying over the building?

Sorry, but this "flyover" nonsense simply didn't happen. Either way, this discussion needs to go to another thread.