911 Truther Rewrites April Gallop's Pentagon Case

Originally posted by CameronFox
do you know where the evacuation point was? Perhaps NOT evacuating the Pentagon saved her life.

Oh please. Stop trying the skirt the issue. She says they had drills so often at the Pentagon they were literally annoying. But on 911: No alarms, no nothing. And had they evacuated when that plane was 50 miles out, she wouldn't be in the mess she is in now, and neither would her son. It's not right. So don't try to make it right by trying to bring some righteous credence to failed action.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


True...

Why are you so quick to defend her? She is a liar and you know it. I have proven it.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
She says they had drills so often at the Pentagon they were literally annoying. But on 911: No alarms, no nothing. And had they evacuated when that plane was 50 miles out, she wouldn't be in the mess she is in now, and neither would her son.

Pure BS. Pure unadulterated BS. More embellishment from Gallop to make her story sound better to the CIT crowd. I worked in the building for 2 years AFTER 9/11 and we had only 1 - only ONE - fire alarm where we had to evacuate the building and that turned out to be a malfunctioning alarm. There was no reason whatsoever to have "annoyingly" excessive evacuation drills in the days/months prior to the day.

Its really interesting how you believe everything this woman says - every detail and iota when its been proven she's a charlatan and a liar. I understand her injuries and her son's injuries - after all she was in a building that was hit by a 757, but when you examine the record about her second career of suing everyone and everything and embellishing her story so that it SOUNDS better, one would think you'd have second thoughts about anything that comes out of her mouth.

I believe her because:

A) she was there

B) she had the clearance

C) she would not cave in to corrupt pressure when she knew what they were trying to push on her was not what she had seen

D) She held out for as long as she could on the money issue, but in her situation with medical bills out the roof and no one to help- I can't say I blame her at that point.

E) She petitioned congress and nothing

F) I have a better gut feeling about her truthfulness than any of yours. I am sorry, but I do.

[edit on Mon Feb 2nd 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I believe her because:

A) she was there

No argument about that.

B) she had the clearance

I won't quibble about what her actual clearance was - she just shoudn't go around telling every Tom, Dick, Harry and CIT Boy what it was.

C) she would not cave in to corrupt pressure when she knew what they were trying to push on her was not what she had seen

No comment.

D) She held out for as long as she could on the money issue, but in her situation with medical bills out the roof and no one to help- I can't say I blame her at that point.

SO...that justifies lying?

E) She petitioned congress and nothing

I suppose the possibility that her claims had absolutely no merit doesn't enter into your decision matrix?

F) I have a better gut feeling about her truthfulness than any of yours. I am sorry, but I do.

Gut feeling? Well that answers it. Let's base all our decisions on this event on "gut feelings".

[edit on 3-2-2009 by pinch]

Originally posted by pinch
Gut feeling? Well that answers it. Let's base all our decisions on this event on "gut feelings".

They're not ALL based on gut feelings, Pinch. Please don't insert mountain out of molehill mentality into my belief system. That's merely a part of it for me. I have watched hours and hours of interviews with her, and the more I watch, the more I believe her. She is genuine. That's my take, and I am sticking to it.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I believe her because:


D) She held out for as long as she could on the money issue, but in her situation with medical bills out the roof and no one to help- I can't say I blame her at that point.

Utter nonsense. I want the proof that shows the USG failed to pay her medical bills and her sons.

She was offered a settlement for her and her son. The exact amount is not known, but the average payout would have been 1.2 MILLION DOLLARS for both of them.

She chose to forgo the settlement and sue every company she could think of.

Once again: I am not blaming her for her being appropriately compensated for her and her son's injuries. The problem lies in who she is suing and why.

- Accepted Settlement from American Airlines

- Less than a year later sues the United Stated States Government; stating that the plane never hit the Pentagon. Edit - She filed the lawsuit against Cheney/Rummy,etc. on December 15th 2008; a year and two days after the settlement from AA.

Anyone else see a problem with this?








[edit on 3-2-2009 by CameronFox]

umm....

Interview with April Gallop

I contacted Pentagon survivor April Gallop to see if she could verify David Ray Griffin’s assertion that the Pentagon is one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world. I also wanted to ask April if there were automatic anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon, and whether they were triggered if the “friend or foe” signal did not indicate a friendly aircraft.

April confirmed both of these things, and gave me alot of other information.

I am still undecided about what hit the Pentagon, but I trust April as a source.

Here is the full article. Whatever your beliefs, it is worth reading the whole thing. And please consider helping out April and her son, who were both injured on 9/11, and yet have been largely ignored by both the government and the 9/11 truth community. Whatever you think about the Pentagon, April and her son need our help.

April Gallop worked inside the Pentagon on 9/11, as an administrative specialist (with a Top Secret with SCI clearance) with the U.S. Army. It was her first day back from maternity leave, after delivering her son Elisha, then two and a half months old.

Me: April, did you hear any warning alarms go off before the Pentagon was hit on 9/11?
AG: No I did not. Me: What type of warning alarms would you normally expected to go off in the case of an attack on the building

AG: While I worked at the Pentagon. At random times, there would be drill exercises utilizing an alarm for us to evacuate the building.

Yet on that particular day no alarm. [This is] especially [odd] considering the fact of what had already taken place at the World Trade Center.
Me: When you were first hired to work at the Pentagon, what were you told about the security of the building?

AG: I wasn’t hired. I was selected from the military in Germany. I just was granted approval for an additional 3 years tour in Heidelberg Germany. Which is called an IPCOT (In Place Consecutive Tour). Then I learned I was selected among my peers to go to the Pentagon. Upon arrival,I completed what is known as Reception and Integration.

A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, “you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States.” It is quite an impressive building on the inside.

Me: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?

AG: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?

And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?

You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.

Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm.

Me: I would imagine that security procedures are different now than they were prior to 9/11, so I don’t think you would be revealing any confidential information by answering this question. I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?

AG: Yes that is true. They are either to attempt to guide the incoming aircraft that has violated the airspace to a safe location to land. Making reasonable effort to guide it down. Or shoot it down.

Me: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?

AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.

gren.gnn.tv...

So now I will ask the naysayers the following question. Why should I believe you over her, when she was there, with the clearance, and CONFIRMS the point defenses at the Pentagon?

One ugly baby, indeed.

[edit on Tue Feb 3rd 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So now I will ask the naysayers the following question. Why should I believe you over her, when she was there, with the clearance, and CONFIRMS the point defenses at the Pentagon?

Your whole argument centers on technicality and subjective value over all the other evidence which points to no such defenses? If a person from that time period, who was there on 9/11 with higher clearance and position said the opposite, you would flip your stance on a dime? That's a pretty shallow and blissful way of forming an opinion and using it to label others. Give credence to superficial things if you want but that woman is straight lying or hopelessly misinformed.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Your whole argument centers on technicality and subjective value over all the other evidence which points to no such defenses? If a person from that time period, who was there on 9/11 with higher clearance and position said the opposite, you would flip your stance on a dime? That's a pretty shallow and blissful way of forming an opinion and using it to label others. Give credence to superficial things if you want but that woman is straight lying or hopelessly misinformed.

Or is it, WP, that you simply cannot face the truth? April has not gone through all that she has on this to be cut down by more lies. More attempts at coverup. More attempts at following the official story outright lies. More attempts to get her to tote the line.

And you know what? It fits perfectly. With everything else. It is consistent through and through with the other lies, manipulation of evidence, and the outright lawlessness the Bush administration has exhibited throughout his terms. And the stories are coming out man. All over the place.

I was one of you once WP. I was so shocked at the the things I found out about 911 I got sick. Literally. And life for me changed.

In 1963, if you would have told me about Operation Northwoods, I would have literally called the mental hospital and reported you. But not no more. Depression is the price you pay for knowledge. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

So now I will ask the naysayers the following question. Why should I believe you over her, when she was there, with the clearance, and CONFIRMS the point defenses at the Pentagon?[edit on Tue Feb 3rd 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Ok...how about this...I was there - before and after the event, working in the building for a much longer period of time than Ms Gallop spent there. I have a significantly higher military rank (she was an enlisted E-4, I believe...I was then and remain a Navy reserve 0-5) and suffice it to say my clearance was sufficient enough to do the work required of me. I was at work in Crystal City, a mile and a half away from the Pentagon when the plane hit. I drove past the building 20 minutes after the impact. The Navy reserve unit I was assigned to from Jan 2000 until Sept 2000 was the Pentagon's Navy Command Center, which lost 29 members - personnel I worked with a year earlier. I'll CONFIRM/avow/state/stand-by/emphasize the fact there were no "point defenses" then and there are no "point defenses" now at the Pentagon. No missiles, no CIWS, no MANPADS, no Stingers, no nothing.

Look me up. Track me down. I'm not some anonymous internet troll. I've got nothing to hide, no money to try and get from the government based on my story. Come to DC and I'll give you a tour of the Pentagon. You can walk all around the building, inside and out. You can examine, to your heart's content, every little metal covering on the ground or lid over anything or whatever turns your fancy that *might* look like some hidden, buried subterranean Dr. No missile set-up. Look for those "hidden weapons". Look all you want for those buried missile batteries. Walk all over Arlington Cemetery in search of your CWIS mounts. Look until you can't look any more for those point defenses.

Somehow I think you'll still back Ms Gallop and her fanciful flight of financial fabrication, though, which would show you aren't serious about having an open mind about this.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


You are going on strictly hearsay. Period.

Why for the love of god is she the only person to have come out with this lie regarding anti-aircraft?

She has ZERO evidence. Nada, zilch. All she has is another frivolous law suit that contradicts her previous ones.



[edit on 3-2-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by pinch


I seriously doubt you would be in a position to actually do so, Pinch. If they are normally not going to let a 3 month old baby into the Pentagon into secured areas, why in the world would they clear me? If I got an invite however, from someone like Gates though, I would seriously consider it. I'd probably assemble a team of 911 truthers and former high ranking military officers who are questioning the official story (and who really know what to look for), and take them up on the tour.

Believe me, at this point I'd love nothing more than to really believe it was 19 hijackers and that our reasons were sound for all those wars. In fact, it would change my life back to where it once was, with some measure of faith being restored in our military, although I don't know that I can ever trust politicians again. I am skeptical yes. But not stupid. I want the real truth. That's about it.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


You say you can't believe the Pentagon couldn't defend itself, well what was the most likely weapon to hit Washington during the Cold War? A plane? A cruise missile? A car bomb? How about an ICBM? The only weapons we had that MIGHT have stopped an ICBM were the old Nike systems and similar weapons. That is why Cheyenne Mountain and platforms like TACAMO and Looking Glass existed. They would take over and they would have the battle staff onboard, and run the response. They military KNEW that the Pentagon was going to go, because the other side would take out Washington. If the Pentagon was so irreplacable, then they wouldn't have put it in Washington DC.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I seriously doubt you would be in a position to actually do so, Pinch. If they are normally not going to let a 3 month old baby into the Pentagon into secured areas, why in the world would they clear me?

Well...that's about what I expected. I threw down the gauntlet in the form of an open invitation for him to come take a first-hand, up-close-and-personal look at the place and he turns it down - probably because he knows he'll find bumpkiss with regards to hidden or subterranean missile defenses.

The Pentagon gives formal tours to over 250,000 visitors each year and any Pentagon employee is allowed to take up to 3 visitors anywhere the employee is allowed to go. There's nothing *that* special about the Pentagon. The biggest comment I've heard from other friends I've taken through is that....it's nothing really but a big office building with cubicles and offices and a food court and desks and custodial people and whatever. Yeah, it has some pretty secure areas, but by and large? Its an office building. Unless you have some terroristic behavior in your past that would trigger an red flag, I have no doubt you'd be granted access the same way any of those other 250,000 visitors would. I've taken old high school classmates in, girlfriends, family members, even my 6 yr old nephew and 12 year old daughter. A tour of the building is far different from taking a newborn into a secure office space on a limited basis. Really, equating the two is really pretty silly.

In any event, your refusal to take advantage of this offer is duly noted (and I was serious about it - I've offered it to others here on ATS should they ever visit DC). Your credibility will be duly noted, as well, whenever you talk again about April Gallop's claims of air defenses. You had the opportunity to check out her claims first hand and turned down the offer.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Oh please. Stop trying the skirt the issue. She says they had drills so often at the Pentagon they were literally annoying. But on 911: No alarms, no nothing.

From what I've read of her story(s), this was her very first day back at work after being on maternity leave so the statement re frequent drills must apply to the time prior to taking maternity leave. Is there any info more current in relation to the morning of 9/11 relating to the frequency of evacuation drills?

Also, the type of 'close in weapons systems' described are, by necessity, not obscured or hidden as they have to be ready to be activated in the shortest possible time frame IE it isn't advisable to stand in front of them - I believe the Phalanx system has large warning signs to that effect. If such a system was in place at the Pentagon I doubt we'd be discussing whether it existed or not because it would be extremely obvious to all.

I believe this video to be fake. But, I did have a question Pinch. What are those two big objects on the roof, rear right?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I believe this video to be fake. But, I did have a question Pinch. What are those two big objects on the roof, rear right?

Glad you think that's a fake.

I have no idea what those structures are. A search of "large" Pentagon photos on the web shows them there dating back to at least the mid to late 80's. My work in the building did not include anything requiring knowledge of roofing structures - sorry.

Based on what you know, from personal experience, what do YOU think they are?

[edit on 3-2-2009 by pinch]

reply to post by pinch


Umm, surely that is fake. The impact blast does not match and is CGI'd in. You can clearly see it, watch the blast carefully as the imaginary line comes up. Also the object did not hit on the right side of the helipad.

Well, I don't know what they are. You're the one who worked there. Figured I'd ask you. They do have a slight resemblance to umm....oh nvm, I know you don't wanna hear it.