911 Survivor Won't Back Down

______beforeitsnews/story/531/483/911_SURVIVOR_WON_T_BACK_DOWN.html

911 SURVIVOR WON’T BACK DOWN Sunday, April 03, 2011 7:14 By Mark Anderson Perhaps the most compelling direct testimony regarding the harrowing events of Sept. 11, 2001 comes from survivor and former Army Spec. April Gallop, who—with her two-month-old child, Elisha, in tow—arrived at the Pentagon just minutes before a powerful explosion rocked the building that Tuesday morning. Ms. Gallop spoke out on her experience at conferences where this AFP writer heard her story—which has never wavered.

Ms. Gallop wants justice. So, in coordination with the Center for 911 Justice, she filed a federal lawsuit and is staying the course, whatever the odds. The defendants are former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers (USAF, retired), former acting Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.

Transportation Secretary and eyewitness Norman Mineta testified to the now disbanded 911 Commission that Cheney, on duty during the attacks, urgently spoke of an approaching hostile attack against the Pentagon but, incredibly, ordered a military stand down. Since the World Trade Center in Manhattan had already been hit, Ms. Gallop continues to ask why neither air defenses nor alarm warnings were implemented in and around the Pentagon.

The moment she turned on her work computer on Sept. 11, 2001, a powerful blast knocked her unconscious. Injured, she soon awoke with debris on her, even while reaching around and pulling her child, also injured, who survived, from the debris pile.

When Ms. Gallop exited the building through the hole made by the explosion, she saw no sign of plane wreckage. Yet the world is still told 10 years later that American Airlines Flight 77 rammed into history’s most sophisticated command center without any attempted interception and vaporized, which various researchers say is absurd.

Ms. Gallop also maintains that federal officials repeatedly preached to her that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon and that she was strongly advised not to state otherwise.

“I could have very early given up,” Ms. Gallop told AFP March 29. “My efforts are much larger than many people think they are.” She now is fighting to obtain subpoena power, with the help of attorney William Veale and support through Centerfor911Justice.org.

Talking with AFP, she asked: “Do we want certain people in a position where they cannot ever be brought to justice?”

Federal District Judge Denny Chin dismissed Ms. Gallop’s lawsuit in a lower court, claiming that the complaint was based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” But Ms. Gallop won’t buckle. Her appeal, as AFP went to press, was slated to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on April 5 in New Haven, Conn. She is citing a “violation of civil rights, conspiracy and other wrongs,” the complaint states.

“This case . . . is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. government officials,” the complainant said.

Full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

reply to post by Yankee451


Just another eye witness who reported explosives at the Pentagon.

Good for her for not giving up for her and her daughter's sake. That is probably her driving motivation... you hurt the cub, Mama Bear is going to tear you apart.

Thanks for sharing this. S&F for you.

reply to post by Yankee451


Maybe "just another eye witness," but one that's actually doing something about it.

Here's another link I found to an interview with her that I found interesting.

reply to post by Yankee451


It's good to see some one still speaking out, i hope justice is served

Based on several eyewitness accounts, the logical evidence regarding the area of damage to the pentagon and lack of plane debris, it seems apparent a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Something did, just not flight 11. I would be interested in hearing the reasons why those that still do hold to the belief that a plane hit the pentagon belive as they do. It seems to me a lawsuit should be filed on behalf of the American people.

Well it is already the 6th of April here in Australia, any word on how this is progressing. It is the first 9/11 case that I have heard of to make it to the appeals court. This has to crack sooner or later.

Originally posted by drifter1109
Based on several eyewitness accounts, the logical evidence regarding the area of damage to the pentagon and lack of plane debris, it seems apparent a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Something did, just not flight 11. I would be interested in hearing the reasons why those that still do hold to the belief that a plane hit the pentagon belive as they do. It seems to me a lawsuit should be filed on behalf of the American people.

I have to admit that I don't believe that flight 11 hit the Pentagon either. Flight AA77, yes, flight 11 no.

There was no lack of plane debris, any official challenge will meet a bulkhead of evidence and witnesses to the contrary. Same thing with the "area of damage" argument.

reply to post by Yankee451


Thank you for posting this Yankee S&F. My research of 9/11 is one of the reasons I joined here although I don't post in this section of the forum much I always keep an eye out for your posts/threads. This as usual didn't disappoint.

It's good to see someone still standing and fighting for the truth of that day, and I wish her the best in her journey

That is all.

Trowa

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by drifter1109
Based on several eyewitness accounts, the logical evidence regarding the area of damage to the pentagon and lack of plane debris, it seems apparent a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Something did, just not flight 11. I would be interested in hearing the reasons why those that still do hold to the belief that a plane hit the pentagon belive as they do. It seems to me a lawsuit should be filed on behalf of the American people.

I have to admit that I don't believe that flight 11 hit the Pentagon either. Flight AA77, yes, flight 11 no.

There was no lack of plane debris, any official challenge will meet a bulkhead of evidence and witnesses to the contrary. Same thing with the "area of damage" argument.

I look forward to the vast amounts of evidence being put forward at trial. Then at last we might be able to see something tangible that supports the OV.

Good luck to the plaintiff, I wish her well. But, she is up against a system that's more slippery than a slippery slip in slippery land.

reply to post by hooper


I don't think we'll ever know for sure at this point. She makes some good points in that interview I linked to though. There are (or at least were) automated defenses for the Pentagon that would have shot the plane down under normal circumstances. I think that would leave 3 possibilities, although I'm definitely no expert on it. It seems to me that it would have to be either something the system wasn't capable of shooting down, something already in the building such as a bomb, or the systems were deactivated.

reply to post by hooper


It's funny how the bulkhead of evidence contradicts itself greatly, especially when it comes to the Pentagon. You have an eyewitness who claims that the wings curled in and that's why there was no wing damage to the sides of the building while the MIT computer simulation shows the wings hitting the building, not curling. One is wrong, do you know which? Is it the eyewitness, who happened to also be a reporter driving to work? Or the MIT simulation which utilizes all of the "official" data to create it?

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by hooper

 

I don't think we'll ever know for sure at this point. She makes some good points in that interview I linked to though. There are (or at least were) automated defenses for the Pentagon that would have shot the plane down under normal circumstances. I think that would leave 3 possibilities, although I'm definitely no expert on it. It seems to me that it would have to be either something the system wasn't capable of shooting down, something already in the building such as a bomb, or the systems were deactivated.

Or Cheney gave a 'Stand Down' order? That's probably the likeliest reason.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by hooper

 

I don't think we'll ever know for sure at this point. She makes some good points in that interview I linked to though. There are (or at least were) automated defenses for the Pentagon that would have shot the plane down under normal circumstances. I think that would leave 3 possibilities, although I'm definitely no expert on it. It seems to me that it would have to be either something the system wasn't capable of shooting down, something already in the building such as a bomb, or the systems were deactivated.

Or Cheney gave a 'Stand Down' order? That's probably the likeliest reason.

That would fall under deactivated systems.

Originally posted by warbird03

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by hooper

 

I don't think we'll ever know for sure at this point. She makes some good points in that interview I linked to though. There are (or at least were) automated defenses for the Pentagon that would have shot the plane down under normal circumstances. I think that would leave 3 possibilities, although I'm definitely no expert on it. It seems to me that it would have to be either something the system wasn't capable of shooting down, something already in the building such as a bomb, or the systems were deactivated.

Or Cheney gave a 'Stand Down' order? That's probably the likeliest reason.

That would fall under deactivated systems.

Of course, my bad!!

reply to post by Dendro

It's funny how the bulkhead of evidence contradicts itself greatly, especially when it comes to the Pentagon. You have an eyewitness who claims that the wings curled in and that's why there was no wing damage to the sides of the building while the MIT computer simulation shows the wings hitting the building, not curling. One is wrong, do you know which? Is it the eyewitness, who happened to also be a reporter driving to work? Or the MIT simulation which utilizes all of the "official" data to create it?

Uh huh, no wing damage to the building. Ok. That's the kind of fantasy that exposes these arguments as soon as they are postulated.

reply to post by warbird03

I don't think we'll ever know for sure at this point. She makes some good points in that interview I linked to though. There are (or at least were) automated defenses for the Pentagon that would have shot the plane down under normal circumstances.

Oh really? And exactly what kind of defenses were they? Exactly where were they located? When were they installed? Command and control system dynamics? C'mon - give us some details.

I think that would leave 3 possibilities, although I'm definitely no expert on it.

No expert? Boy is that an understatement.

It seems to me that it would have to be either something the system wasn't capable of shooting down, something already in the building such as a bomb, or the systems were deactivated.

Or, just a possibility here, the Pentagon didn't have a system of automated ground to air missiles because smarter people then you decided that would be a bad thing to have on a building that was located on the landing approach to a public airport!!!

reply to post by hooper


There are windows still intact in the places that should've been impacted by the wings and/or engine. I believe the fantasy is all your own creating.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Dendro

 

It's funny how the bulkhead of evidence contradicts itself greatly, especially when it comes to the Pentagon. You have an eyewitness who claims that the wings curled in and that's why there was no wing damage to the sides of the building while the MIT computer simulation shows the wings hitting the building, not curling. One is wrong, do you know which? Is it the eyewitness, who happened to also be a reporter driving to work? Or the MIT simulation which utilizes all of the "official" data to create it?

Uh huh, no wing damage to the building. Ok. That's the kind of fantasy that exposes these arguments as soon as they are postulated.

After Thermo's post, with all the images from the Pentagon that don't show evidence of a jet, can you tell me who's story is more reliable; the person who claims a jet wing caused the below damage to the wall before folding back and disappearing into the Pentagon, or the person claiming explosives?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd7ef961e453.jpg[/atsimg]