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

reply to post by Yukitup


No, it was a statement of fact. It does not put me or my story above reproach. Although I am sure Evel Kinevel would appreciate the leap you made. It does however, illustrate that I will listen to people I know, that were there, before I will listen to someone who cannot keep her story straight to save her life.

reply to post by GhostLancer


You do realize the problem of putting a Phalanx at the Pentagon right?

In case you dont...here are some points for you.

1. The Phalanx is designed as a point defense weapon to guard against high speed threats primarily missiles.
2. A Phalanx could empty its magazine into an airliner and not necessarily cause enough damage to drop it from the air.....provided that it was reprogrammed to engage a slower speed target (missiles tend to move a LOT faster) Of course, that brings us to the last point
3. Putting an automatic weapons system programmed to engage airliners on a building in the approach/departure lanes of a busy airport??????????????? That is BEYOND stupid.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I have been angry and questioned everything told to us since 9/12/2001. Another diamond in the rough! The truth keeps flowing out!

How long can this game go on! The truth keeps coming but every voice ignored!

Isn't this event what got their little Middle East war?

Isn't this event and unnecessary war what helped to bankrupt our Nation? When it wasn't enough and they couldn't go straight into Iran, they created the Wall Street bailouts! Now that we are still keeping it strong they want Iran again!

If you can't see Israel - Globalism and all this BS - then you are blind!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


regardless of her statements, the fact that surface-to-air missiles (SAM) did not take out the plane when it crossed over restricted airspace on 9/11 is a true anomaly. This is a default response unless the plane's transponder is cleared for that airspace which a commercial plane could not be and no "terrorist" could fake.

Anyone who lives in DC knows there are SAMs everywhere. they are visible on building tops and there are a few around/on the pentagon. I have seen them myself.

so which is it? Were SAMs disabled on 9/11? Or was the projectile a sophisticated missile that evaded radar and defense? perhaps our govt is truly incompetent and the DC SAMs are just props that dont actually do anything? you make the call.

Originally posted by okbmd
April Gallop is either honestly mistaken , deliberately lying , or , she still suffers from brain damage , as was alleged in her lawsuit .

Is this because she has an opinion different from yours?

Read that OP and look at those pictures , and tell yourself no plane struck the Pentagon .

If you can do that , then you are probably on medication of some sort . Or , should be .

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=816414#pid816414

edit on 8-10-2010 by okbmd because: ETA

edit on 8-10-2010 by okbmd because: corrections

OK - if you put it that way, I'll agree with anything you say ---- just don't accuse me of needing to be on medication in the event that I don't agree with you!

C'mon, let your evidence speak for you - don't rely on such silly and fallacious arguments.

To be clear, your photo ONLY established that she could not leave through "place of initial impact" at the moment your photo was taken.

How long did that fire burn?

Did she not state that she looked around for her son for a while, helped some other people, and then left?

Thank you for being the first to actually address the subject of my point.

Yes, the picture I posted was taken a few minutes after impact but the situation became worse. The whole area caved in about 30 minutes later.

This is a picture taken much later of the medical triage set up on the lawn :-

www.boerner.net...

This is very likely where April Gallop says she was taken. As you can see, the impact point in the background is still belching thick smoke. I cannot see how anyone could exit that way and I am not aware that anyone did. However, if anyone has any information about any survivors exiting from the impact point I would be very interested to hear it.

Kudos - well positioned. The evidence for and against a plane hitting the Pentagon should be fairly evaluated for what it is - the debate needn't focus on irrelevant or fallacious premises.

I would posit that it is possible for an individual seeking to survive to run through a smoking hole in the side of a building, but the evidence presented in this manner is worthy of a healthy debate.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Have you seen the link Of no debris?

Parts found on Pentagon site too small to be that of an 'airliner'.

Yes, 'all' the evidence is overwhelming.
What is lacking is 'courage and conviction'.
Many prospective witnesses have either been paid off or removed one way or another.
The 'paid off' variety does not excuse their conscience.
Being paid off for a crime has no 'lawful' authority in any court of Justice.
Folks should not 'allow' themselves to be muzzled like slaves.

People must come together, band together and demand Justice.....for All.
The wrong message has been received by the tyrants that be.

When peaceful tactics no longer work.....what choice does that leave the 'subjects'?
Do what you have to do folks.
It's 'your' world, not anothers.....

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

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.

My sister was a personal eyewitness and saw the plane fly over the Mall a minute before the attack.

Originally posted by chaeone86
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

regardless of her statements, the fact that surface-to-air missiles (SAM) did not take out the plane when it crossed over restricted airspace on 9/11 is a true anomaly. This is a default response unless the plane's transponder is cleared for that airspace which a commercial plane could not be and no "terrorist" could fake.

Anyone who lives in DC knows there are SAMs everywhere. they are visible on building tops and there are a few around/on the pentagon. I have seen them myself.

so which is it? Were SAMs disabled on 9/11? Or was the projectile a sophisticated missile that evaded radar and defense? perhaps our govt is truly incompetent and the DC SAMs are just props that dont actually do anything? you make the call.

There were not so many SAMs before 9/11/01, and they will not "auto-launch" against any target above a major city, especially a commercial airliner.

And besides, if an unmanned missile hit, where did the airliner and passengers go?

And if this were a 'faked' attack by nefarious government agents, what possible reason would they target the Pentagon of all places? Why not choose Disney World?

reply to post by mbkennel


Oh, that plane flew 'over' the pentagon and into illegal air space above the White House.
Do you seA what we mean?

Unmanned aerial vehicle seems more likely, no?
.....including charges placed inside the Pentagon to ensure the 'evidence' in that part of the building was destroyed. Are you aware of what evidence they were trying to conceal? The pentagon had 'lost' or had unaccounted for a few 'trillion' worth of Pentagon funds of which was reported the day before 9/11.
This is not new news folks.
Again, the evidence is overwhelming.
All the evidence Is a 'discovery' session.
All you need now are the subpoenas.
Judges must band together to ensure justice is served.

reply to post by Yukitup

Is this because she has an opinion different from yours?

Not at all . It is because her opinion is in direct contrast to solid , irrefutable evidence that shows airplane wreckage inside and outside of the Pentagon .

If she saw no aircraft wreckage , then she did not exit the building at the point that she says she did , as the impact zone was littered with plane wreckage .

Therefore , she is either mistaken , lying , or delusional .

reply to post by vipertech0596


I believe she has only sued those she knows to be complicit in the act. Other entities may be untouchable, but their accomplices are no less guilty, at least by my moral standard, and the law.

An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.
Law relating to complicity varies. Usually complicity is not a crime although this sometimes conflicts with popular perception. (See The Finale (Seinfeld)). At a certain point a person that is complicit in a crime may become a conspirator depending on the degree of involvement by the individual and whether a crime was completed or not.
Complicity is a doctrine that operates to hold persons criminally responsible for the acts of others. Complicity encompasses accessorial and conspiratorial liability. Accessorial liability is frequently referred to as accomplice liability.
An accomplice is a person who helps another person commit a crime, Accomplice liability involves primary actors who actually participate in the commission of the crime and secondary actors who aid and encourage the primary actors. The aid can be either physical or psychological. The secondary actors are called accomplices.

Compicity - Wikipedia

She was there. She knows. She freely states that there was no plane. Why doesn't AA sue her?

reply to post by okbmd

solid , irrefutable evidence that shows airplane wreckage inside and outside of the Pentagon .

I have been around the block a few times yet never seen anything that would show me there was a plane there. Nothing, nada, zero, zilch.

I'm thinking you are either mistaken, lying and/or delusional.

reply to post by Dogdish

I believe she has only sued those she knows to be complicit in the act.

So , does this mean that she "knew" American Airlines was " complicit in the act " ?

So now , we can add AA to the laundry list of scoundrels who were 'in on it' ?

reply to post by TheLoony


So , you can't see from these photos that there was an airplane there ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or , are you one of those who will say these parts were planted while scores of people who were in the direct vicinity failed to notice the men-in-black lugging around airplane parts and placing them inside and outside of the Pentagon ?

Or , maybe , you will tell me those photos were faked ?

I'd really like to know what your take is on those photos , don't be shy , I've probably heard it already .

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.

Show me a plane hole in the pentagon and i ll consider all the people your talking about.

Stop lying about the socalled evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon....the only evidence of a plane are a handful of photos of small pieces of wreckage that anyone could carry and plant.

The evidence for NO plane is far greater than that of their being a plane.The sheer lack of any plane wreckage(aside from the small planted debris) makes a mockery of anyone even attempting to argue this point.
Likewise Shanksville....no plane.
It's doesn't work that the more you repeat something the truer it becomes, a lie is a lie nomatter how loudly you defend it.

As to all those popping up saying they have friends who took photos of corpses still strapped into their seats, or to others arguing their sister saw the plane, you are lying.



My sister was there too.... She saw a missile hit, followed by Gallop crawling from the missile damaged building....


Do you believe me??