Pentagon Survivor April Gallop: "It's obvious the official story was fabricated..."

reply to post by againuntodust


So you believe her in the OP interview when she says she exited the Pentagon at " the place of initial impact " despite it looking like the mouth of hell at the time ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Please refer back to the video of the missile hitting the Pentagon.

Originally posted by seti_starr
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Please refer back to the video of the missile hitting the Pentagon.

I see no missile and, more to the point , neither did anyone who was there that day. Lots saw a big plane though.

reply to post by Alfie1


That IS the video of the event. So did you see a plane?

reply to post by Alfie1


www.youtube.com...

This is one of your guys … he claims both missile and plane. Oops. I wonder if he got a slap on the wrist for that one.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I just want to remind everyone that when April Gallop says "It's obvious the official story was fabricated...", be aware from what perspective she says that. From someone with top secret clearance, who could have seen defenses she can't even talk about- and she has said that in so many words...She knows more than she can say. From someone who was chosen to be there because of her exemplary job performance.

In other words, she is saying that from an on-site, insider, hands-on perspective that none of us can, or ever will see. Certainly more credible than any Q-Group wannabe or paid shill.

I don't remember if I"ve ever posted this on here or not, but....

I worked in DOD Intelligence for six years, holding a higher than top secret clearance (still do). One of my friends had just been transferred to the pentagon and was due to start on Sept 11, He was called the night before and told not to bother to come in, to go ahead and take care of anything he might have to take care of on that day. His name was Kevin Bolden. I'm sure this can be verified by anyone that's willing to try. He would've been working in the area that was hit.

For a long time, I thought he was just lucky, but the more I've learnt about the circumstances, the more I'm apt to believe that the nature of his bosses job predicated a potential knowledge of what was going to happen.

Jaden

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Alfie1

 

She wasn't lying initially. She reported what she experienced. The fact that she had to sue someone is besides the point.

How is who she sued " besides the point ".

What you seem to be suggesting is that she didn't believe she was injured by AA 77 at the Pentagon but she thought she would sue American Airlines anyway because she needed someone to sue.

American Airlines , an employer of many people and in a shaky financial state at the time , was just a suitable patsy to be sued ?

Sound like the actions of an honest person ?

Maybe it is better to put ourselves in her shoes? Fact: she and her son, were affected by the events surrounding the Pentagon on that day. Fact: the official story indicates that it was AA 77 that was flown into the Pentagon. Belief: her recollection of the events surrounding 9/11 was either not accepted as legitimate by her superiors, or was accepted, but not officially made public. Belief: in order to be compensated for her "pain and suffering", she decided to go with the official story and follow the lead of the other sheep, by obtaining some financial compensation. So I ask, what would you do in her situation?

I feel that she had no logical choice but to do what she did, to protect herself and her son's interests. I wouldn't necessarily call that dishonest, since we are led to believe that her account, and those similar to hers are said to be inaccurate and that the official story is what really happened. For all we know, she may have been told by the government, that if she wanted any sympathy at all, that she should file suit against American...attempting perhaps, to buy her silence. After all, why would she ultimately decide to not allow the footage to be aired?

ESV

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Seti_Starr
You were not there. I was not there. I would believe someone that was actually there! Makes sense, no?

Sure, this makes perfect sense.

I assume then you agree with the 100 or so people who saw a plane, the few who were nearly hit by it, the firefighters who found people strapped into seats, the teams who identified the remains by DNA etc.

These people were all actually there, and much more involved in the matter than this woman. Somehow I doubt you will believe these people quite as strongly.

Well hold on here just a minute....

WE would have to have a LOT more qualifying data to make an informed decision as to which, if not all, stories to believe.

One, we know that she was there, crawling out of the debris from the crash, MOMENTS after it occurred.... Do we know when the firefighters that DID see bodies strapped in seats were there?

How long afterwards were the plane components etc... found????

I think that her telling of what she saw is much more important in determining causation BECAUSE of the time frame that it occurred, but I wouldn't be willing to state anything without a LOT more qualifying data and you shouldnt either,

Your attitude in regards to this and just dismissing it out of hand goes to your credibility as an analyst of the information. Which leads me to believe that you just WANT to accept the official story wholeheartedly....

Let me ask you this, I know completely unrelated but, Do you believe that the people down at gtmo actually flushed a Koran down the toilet to insult the Muslims there?

Jaden

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TheLoony

 

From a "fool" debunker....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Solid misdirection and spot on ad hominem ad nauseum.

Its a thread dealing with the various lawsuits Ms Gallop has filed. Michael Moore is a more credible witness to the events of 9/11 than Ms. Gallop is.

Ignoring your non sequitur here for a moment, I can think of no better way to compel the production of evidence than through the judicial system. She is TOLD by the media AND the government that an airplane hit the Pentagon and caused her damages (suit). She BELIEVES it might be something else (suit - compel production of evidence -- it's called DISCOVERY for a reason). Were she to sit on her hands and wait for it to be sorted out, the statute of limitations would run and she would be time barred from filing suit and performing discovery.

It is misleading and fallacious (non sequitur and affirming the consequent) to state that Michael Moore is a more credible witness to the events of 9/11 than Ms. Gallop because Ms. Gallop has filed various lawsuits. Do you really expect people to believe that if you file multiple lawsuits you are not a credible witness? Are you implying that Michael Moore has never filed a lawsuit?

Regardless of your position regarding Ms. Gallop, she WAS actually at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Anyways - carry on with the attack and I'll go back to ignoring these types of (*allegedly*) agenda driven posts. Remember: deny ignorance.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TheLoony

 

She had no recourse but to sue a company that she believes had nothing to do with her plight? Interesting take on events I must say. Then she sues a bank for financing terrorists she doesnt really believe exist? Again, interesting.

In a situation where the government attacks a country they admit had nothing to do with the people who they claimed attacked them, looking for weapons they knew didn't exist, run by a person that same government had financed, I can believe that this woman was put in a situation that gave her no other recourse but to sue. Seems as credible as that same government at the very least

..Ex

reply to post by mikelee


Where are these pictures that your friends took??? because I know people that worked at the pentagon and I"ve never seen any of these pictures. You sound like you're lying... I'm sorry but you do, you come on and say, oh I used to be a believer but now I"ve seen evidence (that I can't produce) that convinces me otherwise, so believe me and ignore someone who was actually there....

That sounds a little hokey to me. I"m not saying I believe her story, just that I don't yours without some evidence that shows what you say is true.... I provided the name of one of the people that I knew that was there, you have provided nothing but conjecture...

Jaden

reply to post by roboe


Hey, when the opportunity for easy money comes along, a lot people are willing to "go for it" whether they believe the circumstances around it or not.

reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas


I find it bizarre that so many people seem to be falling over backwards to justify April Gallop's financial/legal shenanigans, She didn't have to sue anybody; she was entitled to victims' compensation.

Not only does she sue American Airlines, while allegedly believing their plane had nothing to do with her injuries , but she also sues Riggs Bank because they supplied funds for the hi-jackers who she presumably thinks don't exist. The whole thing only finally came to a stop when Judge Chin described her as frivolous and delusional.

And why are there all these attempts to prop her up ? Simply because she has said that she saw no sign of a plane at the Pentagon. But, if you look at her interview in the OP she says she left the Pentagon at the "place of initial impact ". This is obvious nonsense, she must have left from an exit that was not a blazing inferno so her statements about not seeing luggage, seats etc means nothing. Why should she have seen them ?

And yet, a man like this, Lt Col O'Brien, an experienced pilot who was in the air in the area at the time is ignored. He could actually see AA 77, he wasn't hunched over a computer in the Pentagon, and, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't been sueing Uncle Tom Cobley and all, nor contradicting himself all over the place :-
www.youtube.com...

The preference for April Gallop's word over this man's is simply perverse.

I'm not being funny but if I was at work with MY child and there was a bloody big explosion (caused by Plane on Bomb) I would grab said child and run in the OPPOSITE direction........NOT WALK THROUGH THE HOLE CREATED BY SAID EXPLOSION!!!!!!


says a lot about this woman to me..

*** obviously meant "plane OR bomb"

reply to post by seti_starr


The one frame clearly shows the vertical stabilizer of the plane. The frame rate of the camera in question was slow enough that that is all you are going to see.

On to other matters...

What continually amazes me is that so many people believe that the Pentagon was some sort of heavily defended, highly reinforced building. It was nothing of the sort. It IS an office building, hastly constructed during World War II and designed to basically be a warehouse AFTER WW II. The primary security for it was provided by the Pentagon security force and by security systems INSIDE the building. No high tech systems on the exterior, no missile systems to shoot down aircraft, nothing of the sort.

reply to post by Yukitup


And I have three friends who were at the Pentagon that day. One who now wears a Purple Heart for the injuries he suffered that day as Flight 77 slammed into the building close to his office. The other two spent that day involved in search and rescue. All three of them know exactly what hit the building, all three of them saw plane wreckage. Two of them saw what was left of human beings, strapped into what was left of airline seats. I will take their words over the words of a frustrated, poorly advised, money hungry secretary any day.

reply to post by v3_exceed


And you show a colossal ignorance of history. As do many on this site.

reply to post by whaaa


"I think her allegations have merit.

I've always been amazed that the pentagon of all places; with cameras everywhere, have to submit a lame video showing no plane as evidence of the attack. They should release all the tapes if they want credibility."

I agree wholeheartedly...it would be so easy to clear up this particular part of the whole 911 conspiracy if they would just release ONE of the videos from the (purportedly) 80 cameras in the area of the impact.
National security issues, doesn't cut it for me.

This alone is VERY suspicious

Originally posted by BURYMAN
I'm not being funny but if I was at work with MY child and there was a bloody big explosion (caused by Plane on Bomb) I would grab said child and run in the OPPOSITE direction........NOT WALK THROUGH THE HOLE CREATED BY SAID EXPLOSION!!!!!!


says a lot about this woman to me..

Exactly right; this is the point I have been trying to make. This is what she alleges she walked through :-

911review.org...