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

reply to post by Soloist


Spreston explained it well. The "tail" would have to be above the pentagon.

BTW, I don't believe the fly over scenario, why did you assume that??

Please address the obvious that SPreston stated in the post previously.

Originally posted by Soloist
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.

Yah sure, no problem. Right after your claims are addressed.

First, for you to use that video as evidence of anything is laughable... not to mention even if it wasn't the worst quality video on 911 in existence, it still wouldn't cover enough of the area and angles to show a fly-over.

Second, Witnesses on both sides of the issue contradict each other, but there's two major differences that separate the truth from the BS Oct fantasy you're peddling.

1. the witnesses who claim a plane hit the building are either connected to Government officials and/or the same media perps complicit in covering up the LIE, or their accounts are based on a deduced impact. (but then we've debated that ad-naseum with OCT loyalists such as yourself).

2. the NOC path has been PROVEN which makes the official SOC path IMPOSSIBLE. Didnt happen. You can deny the facts, math, logic and physics that support the NOC all you want. but it wont change the FACT the OCTs flight path has now been DEBUNKED, exposed and proven IMPOSSIBLE.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...








[edit on 13-5-2009 by Orion7911]

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

Sure. Please define 'extremely fast' with a numerical speed. Show your calculations. Remember that you must be able to come up with a figure around 500 mph so you can keep on clutching your official story.

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

Personally, I don't blame you for trying to leave this thread. Now that your Doubletree video has been shot to pieces for the nonsense that it is, you've got no reason to stay here and defend it.

I know you prefer to live South of Heaven, Soloist and it's a damn shame that even Slayer were duped into believing the official story as well. I can't help feeling that Jihad is just a piece of misguided propaganda... (Warning, clicking the link will show some lyrics that might be offensive to some.)

[edit on 13-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
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?

It wasn't even remotely similar... ("piece" of a light pole?? mmmkay, riiiight)

which is why again, i said its IRRELEVANT to this very UNIQUE case.

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
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.

I've explained exactly how and why your logic is flawed and impossible, however you've failed to show how and where what I've said is wrong.

Now since normal physics that govern this universe were suspended on 911 and you blindly support the 911 fairy tale, its no surprise you assert that what happened to Lloydes taxi is possible within that fantasy world.

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
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.

Let me repeat in more detail what you know you have no evidence to prove otherwise:

there is NO video that shows a REAL boeing jet or even a "plane" of any kind slamming into the pentagon. Not even a fake plane.

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
pictures of a staged "aftermath" proves nothing.

Please prove the aftermath was "staged".

The burden of proof isn't on anyone but the government to prove their official conspiracy story aka alternative hypothesis, is true, which you blindly believe.

So once again the null hypothesis argument is all thats needed to destroy your false premise and ill-conceived argument.

Until the Perpetrators you're defending can prove the "aftermath" was from flight 77 and you're implying was from, which is an alternate hypothesis, the null hypothesis I assert is the status quo and not up to me to prove.

Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by Orion7911
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.

1) I NEVER said "CIT" had 100 witnesses, so stop putting words in my mouth.
2) the witnesses they do have are far more credible and their accounts/testimony far more legitimate than the so-called 100 you CLAIM there are.

Originally posted by Soloist
All that being said, what's with the newbs here lately? I have to wonder if these are socks just trolling.

funny, I was just about to say the same thing about you.

Now back to April and No Planes.

Do you still deny the position that April's survival is direct evidence that no plane hit?


[edit on 13-5-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please define 'extremely fast' with a numerical speed. Show your calculations. Remember that you must be able to come up with a figure around 500 mph so you can keep on clutching your official story.

Tezz... soloist has yet another conundrum to deal with in that video he wants to use as evidence to support his claims.

The video is NOT in NORMAL speed... in fact it appears to be at least 2X speed.

which means if he's describing this so-called plane he's been able to identify as going EXTREMELY FAST and we know that the OCT says the plane was going 500+mph (as you point out is already a problem for him), then the speed in that video would have to be close to or over 1000 mph right?

In which case, how could he have possibly seen an object he claims to be a plane, going 1000 mph?



the grave these GL's have dug for themselves continues to get deeper each day. I'm sure they'll be punching through to kim jong ils palace any day now.



[edit on 13-5-2009 by Orion7911]

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.

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.

posted by tezzajw
Please define 'extremely fast' with a numerical speed. Show your calculations. Remember that you must be able to come up with a figure around 500 mph so you can keep on clutching your official story.

posted by Orion7911
Tezz... soloist has yet another conundrum to deal with in that video he wants to use as evidence to support his claims.

The video is NOT in NORMAL speed... in fact it appears to be at least 2X speed.

which means if he's describing this so-called plane he's been able to identify as going EXTREMELY FAST and we know that the OCT says the plane was going 500+mph (as you point out is already a problem for him), then the speed in that video would have to be close to or over 1000 mph right?

In which case, how could he have possibly seen an object he claims to be a plane, going 1000 mph?

Perhaps the aircraft with the visible 'tail' you allude to in the video is already above the 77 ft tall roof of the Pentagon and does not need to pull up Soloist. Since the blocking elevated freeway is much closer than the Pentagon, it is likely the Pentagon roof is much lower in the video than you assume Soloist. The explosion flash and cloud rose hundreds of feet into the air according to eyewitnesses and the alleged official parking lot security videos.

Why is the 'blocked' view a lie Soloist? The elevated freeway is quite obviously 'blocking' the view of the Pentagon and the light poles from the camera eye at the Doubletree. Even the much higher Naval Annex (over 100 feet higher on a hill) which the decoy aircraft flew over is not visible in the video, is it Soloist?

Actually going to google maps street view shows us that the speed limit on Army Navy Drive looking east, which the Doubletree Hotel fronts on is 30 mph. Any government loyalist can go to the address at the top of the screenshot and check if I photoshopped the 30 mph sign.

Your side photoshops lies and disinformation; not ours.

Just the facts please. We do not need any lies or disinformation to easily prove the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY a lie do we?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/257c42ccd7b7.jpg[/atsimg]

That street in front of the Doubletree in the video with the cars zipping by is Army Navy Drive. The cars are zipping by much too fast for 30 mph. And the cars are turning from the parking lot entrance much too fast.

1:50 alleged tail and explosion


The video is double speed or more. Good catch. That alleged 'tail' is certainly going much too slow for the official 535 mph Flight 77. However it could be much closer to matching the actual much slower speed of the decoy aircraft flying from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and above the light poles and overhead highway sign.

That would explain how the Doubletree Hotel camera picked up Soloist's alleged 'tail' when the official aircraft was supposed to be inches above the lawn and the 44 foot tail stabilizer over 30 feet below the Pentagon roof level.

Perhaps this video did capture the flyover and the entire aircraft body and engines are already above the Pentagon roof which we cannot see in the video. Perhaps the slow-moving decoy aircraft turned to the north behind those trees or the 9-11 perps who had this video in their possession for years photoshopped the departing aircraft and 'tail' right out of the video.

Thank you Soloist for bringing this to our attention.



[edit on 5/13/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Soloist

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.

Thaks Soloist for your help. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is, we cannot understand the official explanation of 911 events without invoking the notions of Luck, faith and things like that?

I appreciate your help, but I want to understand myself &explain my students the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of pristine hood of Lloyde's cab.

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

Soloist, I understand your concern, however, we witnessing a very strange phenomenon here.

There already are some very explicit threads dealing with scientific/mathematical anomaly of Lloyde's cab, with titles like "Taxi Cab Challange" etc.

BUT DEFENDERS OF OFFICIAL THEORY ARE AVOIDING THEM LIKE PLAGUE.

The only place I am finding ANY defenders of official theory are in HE SAID/SHE SAID threads. It is very difficult for me to believe that these guys are unaware of existence of these threads. Either they are blind or pretending hard to be ignorant of those threads.

--- OR ---

They are invoking 5th ammendment

Just kidding.

Originally posted by neil_86
BUT DEFENDERS OF OFFICIAL THEORY ARE AVOIDING THEM LIKE PLAGUE.

The only place I am finding ANY defenders of official theory are in HE SAID/SHE SAID threads. It is very difficult for me to believe that these guys are unaware of existence of these threads. Either they are blind or pretending hard to be ignorant of those threads.

--- OR ---

They are invoking 5th ammendment

Just kidding.

--- OR ---

All of those topics have been discussed to the point of nausea. I don't mind helping out someone with genuine questions for the most part, but I personally feel no value out of discussing the same old tired threads with new titles over and over again. This is especially true in any CIT related thread. I usually don't bother to even read them because it's all bunk.

You see, this place used to have a more even representation of both sides (which is healthy), but lately it has been more or less over run with CT'ers who parrot the same mantras, post the same cartoons, pictures and youtube videos. Craig went around begging for help here from the LCF and we had an influx of certain posters who just jam up the bandwidth with the same junk over and over. Most of those people aren't here for the "truth" - however that is defined - but to troll for "skeptics" and the always hilarious "government loyalists".

The problem with this portion of the site turning into an LCF type board means basically everyone will be agreeing with each other. Which is too bad, because there used to be quite a few really bright people engaging each other here, now there are only a handful.

Now that's clear, let's get this thread back on topic, I will not respond any further to off-topic matters in this thread.

Back to money grubbing, opportunistic April Gallop!

From the OP :

Ms. Gallop settled out of court with American Airlines, yet in this most current lawsuit, claims that the plane didn't crash there but somewhere else.

Discuss!

reply to post by Soloist


Are you a bit embarrassed Soloist that your deliberate disinformation has been outed? You pathetic government loyalists sure do avoid the threads which rock your precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY don't you?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bcecdf7f4305.jpg[/atsimg]

post by SPreston

Originally posted by SPreston
Are you a bit embarrassed Soloist that your deliberate disinformation has been outed? You pathetic government loyalists sure do avoid the threads which rock your precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY don't you?

I have not participated in any "deliberate disinformation", sorry.

Your name calling has no effect other than make me laugh at you.

What does this have to do with April Gallop again? Or do you not have anything to add to the topic as usual?

Ok last response to this disgusting smear thread.....

1. Nothing April does or says can change the fact that her survival is evidence against a 757 impact. To suggest that her actions since 9/11 are AT ALL relevant to the evidence that proves 9/11 a black op is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

2. Not Cameron Fox, not CIT, and not ANYONE can possibly know the true situation with April and at what level she was denied assistance and not given the help she was promised. Finding a link that states that victim compensation funds exist and that some people may have received payouts does not prove that everyone saw those funds as promised nor does it prove what choices April has made about these funds or how that all panned out. She may have accepted the victims compensation money, not gotten any, and THEN started litigation to get herself out of destitution from having her life ripped apart. Cameron is merely SPECULATING about intimate details of one woman's life that he knows NOTHING about which is disgusting. But again....this has nothing to do with the EVIDENCE proving 9/11 was an inside job.

3. Cameron has no clue as to April's true level of involvement in the AA suit or what kind of "settlement" she may have received if any. She may have simply allowed herself to be named as a victim by the lawyers and only ended up with a $20 check after everything was said and done and divided up. For all you know she DID send it back. Who cares? I sure don't because this has nothing to do with the EVIDENCE proving 9/11 was an inside job.

4. CIT supports April Gallop 100% and feels she is entitled to any compensation from any awards from any lawsuits going to 9/11 victims for any reason. PARTICULARLY due to the deep nature of this deception.


It's so telling that these guys avoid all threads about the evidence presented by CIT like the plague but stick to speculating and smearing a victim instead because they have an angle with which to paint a picture that they have deemed makes her PERSONALLY look bad.

Sorry but I could care less if April Gallop turned out to be an axe murderer.

That would have no bearing whatsoever on the north side approach evidence proving the plane did not hit the building and kept on going.




[edit on 13-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Soloist
What does this have to do with April Gallop again? Or do you not have anything to add to the topic as usual?

Exactly Soloist, I will go one step further, April Gallop's court case has very little to do with events of 911 on Pentagon. At the very very most you can call her lier/greedy, that's it.

But if some one tries to use her court case in order to dispute Craig's investigation, it is like some one shadow boxing with NPT guys in order to dispute New York events on 911.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED, while defenders of official account are avoiding threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of Lloyde's cab mathematical anomaly, like plague. Some threads dealing with Gallop & NPT have strangely popped up, and I see all official defenders crowding ONLY in those threads. While TOTALLY AVOIDING repeated queries about lack of damage on Lloyde's cab hood & very small hole in windshield.

Soloist, do you think this is intentional?

I think this strange behavior of official theory defenders deserves a separate thread for itself.

Can some one start a new thread titled,

"Why the defenders of official theory avoiding threads dealing with Lloyde's cab"?

In the body of the opening post, please write,

"Please refrain from using any human witnesses in this thread. The purpose of this thread is solely to understand the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of
- lack of damage on cab's hood,
- very small hole in the windshield.
- Comparison of the size of hole & diameter of the pole,
- Study of the radius of curvature of the pole and possibility of it completely missing the hood, driver, windshield frame.
- Discussion of weight of the pole and the existence of intact glass at the bottom of the windshield.
"

We can start with just these anomalies. There are many more, but this will do to start with.


I am too new here to start a new thread myself.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
4. CIT supports April Gallop 100% and feels she is entitled to any compensation from any awards from any lawsuits going to 9/11 victims for any reason. PARTICULARLY due to the deep nature of this deception.

It is 100% logical that an organization like "CIT" would support a woman who is suing an airline company and claiming no aircraft came close to where she was injured by an aircraft.

What...is she suing AA for *not* having an aircraft there?

"CIT"...at the cutting edge of law-suit supporting, again!

Originally posted by trebor451
What...is she suing AA for *not* having an aircraft there?
"CIT"...at the cutting edge of law-suit supporting, again!

I agree that Gallop's position is indeed self contradictory. I wonder, if we can liken her to some one paying ransom to a hijacker hoping to ensure the safety of his/her children.

While the payee of the ransom may not at all want to comply with the criminals, he/she may find himself in such a tight spot that there is no other option left.

Just a thought. But please, please, please, don't let the threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS OF Lloydes cab starve. I am begging all defenders of official theory.

Originally posted by neil_86
Just a thought. But please, please, please, don't let the threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS OF Lloydes cab starve. I am begging all defenders of official theory.

Fine. You still have not stated categorically and unequivocally for any record that from a PHYSICS, a GEOMETRIC and a MECHANICAL perspective a light pole of the configuration in question here would be unable, under any circumstances (in other words "impossible") to cause the damage seen to Lloyd's car.

Until you do that, there's no question that this could have happened exactly as it occurred.

If you DO make those "impossible" claims, then the onus will be on you to prove that under no combination of circumstances could that light pole cause that damage.

Good luck.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by neil_86
Just a thought. But please, please, please, don't let the threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS OF Lloydes cab starve. I am begging all defenders of official theory.

Fine. You still have not stated categorically and unequivocally for any record that from a PHYSICS, a GEOMETRIC and a MECHANICAL perspective a light pole of the configuration in question here would be unable, under any circumstances (in other words "impossible") to cause the damage seen to Lloyd's car.

Until you do that, there's no question that this could have happened exactly as it occurred.

If you DO make those "impossible" claims, then the onus will be on you to prove that under no combination of circumstances could that light pole cause that damage.

Good luck.

Thanks trebor451, probably you missed my list of initial questions. Here they are again.


- lack of damage on cab's hood,
- very small hole in the windshield.
- Comparison of the size of hole & diameter of the pole,
- Study of the radius of curvature of the pole and possibility of it completely missing the hood, driver, windshield frame.
- Discussion of weight of the pole and the existence of intact glass at the bottom of the windshield.


Better, form a separate thread for these questions, I am too new to do that. Thanks in advance.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
4. CIT supports April Gallop 100% and feels she is entitled to any compensation from any awards from any lawsuits going to 9/11 victims for any reason. PARTICULARLY due to the deep nature of this deception.

posted by trebor451
It is 100% logical that an organization like "CIT" would support a woman who is suing an airline company and claiming no aircraft came close to where she was injured by an aircraft.

What...is she suing AA for *not* having an aircraft there?

"CIT"...at the cutting edge of law-suit supporting, again!

Although I cannot speak for April Gallop, if I were in her shoes, I would sue American Airlines and United Airlines as co-conspirators because they co-operated with the 9-11 perps. They provided the aircraft and finagled their flight schedules to provide 'cover' for the replacement aircraft used by the 9-11 perps.

For instance there were two Flt 175 aircraft taking off at Logan International in Boston on 9-11 both with the tail numbers N612UA.

Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bcecdf7f4305.jpg[/atsimg]

And the disappearance of Flight 77 stinks like an Operation Northwoods plane swap. The evidence suggests that Flight 77 did not fly back to Washington at all. And then we have of course the actual aircraft PROVEN beyond any doubt Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles and overhead highway. This supports the fact that Flight 77 did not need to fly back to the DC area, because there was already a replacement aircraft there. Even the FAA was convinced.

Where was Flight 77 after 8:56?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c4d51db76ffc.jpg[/atsimg]

Both airlines helped cover up the fact that there were no hijackers on the flight manifests. Both airlines provided flawed flight manifests which named different passengers allegedly onboard each aircraft on each different fake manifest, and published by the Mainstream News Media.

The American people will definitely have to include the executives of both airlines when it comes time to prosecute and deal out punishment for the traitorous attack on America.

Sue the traitors April and perhaps a side benefit will be their necks in a noose.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1025b113dbed.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 5/13/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by neil_86
Exactly Soloist, I will go one step further, April Gallop's court case has very little to do with events of 911 on Pentagon. At the very very most you can call her lier/greedy, that's it.

Well, the original point I was making before all this OT stuff started was that the CIT loyalists have used her case as proof of their flyover fantasy. They have done this many many times, if you search this forum I'm sure you can find several examples of this.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED, while defenders of official account are avoiding threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of Lloyde's cab mathematical anomaly, like plague. Some threads dealing with Gallop & NPT have strangely popped up, and I see all official defenders crowding ONLY in those threads.

This thread is several months old, FYI.

Soloist, do you think this is intentional?

Yes, and I explained that.

Can some one start a new thread titled,

"Why the defenders of official theory avoiding threads dealing with Lloyde's cab"?

So your intentions here are to worry more about what the "defenders" are doing than actually discussing the topics?

I am too new here to start a new thread myself.

Why start a new thread? There are plenty of threads about that already that you add you questions to the discussion. It sure seems to me you are here to argue.

Good luck.

Originally posted by trebor451
If you DO make those "impossible" claims, then the onus will be on you to prove that under no combination of circumstances could that light pole cause that damage.
Good luck.

Completely junk, false logic.

If you make the claim that the light pole struck Lloyde's taxi, as claimed, then YOU have to prove it.

Anyway, I agree with Soloist that the taxi is off topic in this thread. Please, trebor, why don't you participate in one of the current threads that's begging for anyone to demonstrate how the light pole punctured the taxi.

neil - you won't get a response from some people about Lloyde's light pole. They won't dare touch it. It will rock their fantasy world trying to prove that it happened. Failure must be easy to deny when the government tells you what 'really' happened. Give up on the light poles in this thread and save your energy for the on topic light pole threads, mate.