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

Originally posted by Soloist

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.

****

I, being new here, don't really understand the meaning of flyover. It seems, Craig et al have some very credible witnesses (from their pt of view) which grossly contradict the official flight path. But all that is before plane reaches the light poles. What I am seeing here is something very magical happens when the plane reaches the light poles, and Lloyde's taxi. The PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, & MECHANICS of plane, light pole and taxi interaction completely defies the laws of physics & Eucledian geometry. Looks like I may have to resort to some non-Eucledian geometry of warped spaces (all too common in science fictions like Star Trek/wars etc) in order to explain the pristine hood, small windshield hole etc. There is no other way.

Now, this much is only from the examination of Lloyde's cab. Since it clearly doesnt make sense, I look at officially released video (double tree), and lo and behold, I see time going backward in the video.

Space warp, Time warp, in officially released reports, not from Craig's independent investigation.

Soloist:
This thread is several months old, FYI.

*******
Sorry, Soloist, I didn't realize that, I just saw a burst of activity, in this thread when an obvious flaws in official reports were caught, I thought defenders of official theory started this thread in order to take the attention away from impossible PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of official account of 911.


Soloist:
So your intentions here are to worry more about what the "defenders" are doing than actually discussing the topics?
*******
You caught me on that Soloist, I am indeed extremely surprised at the way defenders of official theory are avoiding the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of official account of 911 like plague.

Soloist:
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.

********
But all those threads are being deserted by defenders of official theory. Were are they hiding? Do you think it is intentional Soloist?

Good luck.

********
Soloist, instead of wishing me luck, why don't you come over to those threads and inject some activity there, please, please, please.

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

Tezzajw, I think a discussion of Lloyde's taxi/Light pole/Plane interaction is not totally out of place here. Here is my logic.

In order to call Gallop greedy/lier we must be able to say exactly what happened at Pentagon and how Gallop's account differs from that. BUT, upon examining the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of official account we run into serious contradictions. So we really dont know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED at the Pentagon on 911.

Now, you can call Gallop greedy/lier in another way, since, if my understanding is correct, in one law suit she claimed there was no plane, and in another she claimed there was.

My take on this, is, in any legal settlement, the attorneys give you many deals. You agree to this, we will give up this, that sort of thing. It happens everyday in courts. Probably a mother traumatized by a disabled child did not fully understand the full implications of what she was agreeing to. This looks far more likely to me. We should not be so hard on her, we should try to help her. Has any defender of official theory tried to contact her?

But all this is speculation on my part, I might be right, or I might be wrong, on Gallops situation/intention etc.

But their is no speculation regarding the, PHYSICAL, GEOMETRICAL & MECHANICAL contradictions in the official account of events on 911 at Pentagon. It is very cut & dried.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok last response to this disgusting smear thread.....

Yet 90+% of your threads smear! The hypocrisy is numbing:

-Lloyd

-ALL USA Today reporters

-American Airlines

- FBI

- US Armed Forces

- First Responders

- Civilian Construction Workers.

You also lie to people and release their unauthorized recordings.

1. Nothing April does or says can change the fact that her survival is evidence against a 757 impact.

Her survival is evidence of nothing but that she survived a tragic act of terrorism.

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.

Didn't say it was.

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. ....... But again....this has nothing to do with the EVIDENCE proving 9/11 was an inside job.

I never stated that April and her countless lawsuits had ANYTHING to do with evidence either way regarding your fantasy flyover theory.

April would not be allowed to start litigation if she accepted any money from the compensation fund. Since she has sued everyone from here to Saudi Arabia proves this.

Who cares? I sure don't because this has nothing to do with the EVIDENCE proving 9/11 was an inside job.

You don't care.... then why post in this thread at ALL? Stick to smearing the names of the innocent and accusing people of mass murder.

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.

Agreed.... 100%.

It's so telling that these guys avoid all threads about the evidence presented by CIT like the plague

We have danced your dance for years now Ranke. We have debated the facts and quite frankly grew bored of it. No-Planers are as much interest to me now as those of the Flat Earth Society.

I will start posting in your threads once you get your grand jury investigation that you promised...what two years ago???

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

What if she killed Aldo?



[edit on 14-5-2009 by CameronFox]

There is an update in the April Gallop case as mentioned at 911 Blogger:


911blogger.com...-229246

It was thrown out:

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on several grounds: Gallop has not sufficiently alleged constitutional violations; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; the Anti-Terrorism Act claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; Gallop's claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel; the constitutional claims are untimely; and the complaint is frivolous. I reach only the last prong of the motion: I agree that the complaint is frivolous. Hence, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.

sites.google.com...

reply to post by Kryties


That's almost exactly what I was thinking. If all that the PTB said that happened actually happened, her other lawsuits should then be reasonable, right? Unless it didn't really happen that way. She may have been trying to get them to slip up and admit those things did not occur so they wouldn't have to pay, therefore proving conspiracy.... or like you said. Just try to set her self up with some nice $$. Either way, lots of interesting stuff to take in here.