April Gallop: Who Will Show Her The Love?

reply to post by userid1

Dude it's Gallop not Galloway. But other than that your info is accurate.

reply to post by waypastvne


cool video thanks.

I just thought it didn't look like a millitary uniform. I was under the impression that she was air force?

reply to post by waypastvne


Thanks for the correction.

She was Army to the next poster. She was basically an admin asst. - low level and made next to nothing as far as salary is concerned. Wonder if that had anything to do with her "patriotic" law suits?

In case anybody is wondering why April's lawyer is so stupid. It's because her lawyer is none other than
William Veale of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth.

L911T.com

She is going to appeal the case again by the way.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Who said anything about a "bunker buster"? You seem to think that a missile would presumably do more damage than a 757? What about planes exploding with such force they knock down buildings they don't even hit, i.e. WTC 7? I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I expect her to be, I don't know, burned or have some sort of major trauma considering a friggin' huge airplane "supposedly" crashed through the side wall of her office. Talk about a ridiculous comment.

Yeah, you're right. Missiles don't hurt people that much. It's not like they're designed to kill is it?

You expect her to have been badly hurt by the plane, but not by a missile. Given that the latter is designed to penetrate and destroy as much as possible I think it's arguable which would be more destructive - but that's not really the point. Is it really futile to have to explain that when something blows up people near it are usually killed, and then as you move further away the chance of death and injury diminishes? Unless you can show that nobody was hurt this is kind of a stupid point.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
You said this lawsuit was about flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The defense has had their evidence confiscated. Your troll post of "how it should have gone" does not match your OP.

Try to keep up. The ORIGINAL lawsuit was her claims that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and Bush, Cheney were at fault. The APPEAL she made was questioning the legality of the dismissal. She lost and got hit with a 15K court charge.

Now, will you be disclosing how much you will be donating to her legal fund, or are you working on 50% less salary like the poster above?

The most most recent one was quite ridiculous as she was claiming that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.The lower court judge decided that the case was "frivolous".

Asking if I am giving April gallop money is the epitome of trolling.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by budaruskie

Who said anything about a "bunker buster"? You seem to think that a missile would presumably do more damage than a 757? What about planes exploding with such force they knock down buildings they don't even hit, i.e. WTC 7? I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I expect her to be, I don't know, burned or have some sort of major trauma considering a friggin' huge airplane "supposedly" crashed through the side wall of her office. Talk about a ridiculous comment.

Yeah, you're right. Missiles don't hurt people that much. It's not like they're designed to kill is it?

You expect her to have been badly hurt by the plane, but not by a missile. Given that the latter is designed to penetrate and destroy as much as possible I think it's arguable which would be more destructive - but that's not
really the point. Is it really futile to have to explain that when something blows up people near it are usually
killed, and then as you move further away the chance of death and injury diminishes? Unless you can show that
nobody was hurt this is kind of a stupid point.

Frankly, I have no idea who you are arguing with. Again, I never said anything at all about a missile yet you carry on rambling as if I did. If you must know yes, if a missile struck the office she was in, I would indeed expect her to be hurt by it...but for the last time I never said a missile struck her office so this has no bearing on the conversation at hand. What YOU are implying is that a massive airplane exploding in her office would not be reason enough to expect her to be severely injured or burned...which I think is ridiculous. That is to say that you wouldn't expect the people who worked in the WTC offices that were struck by similar planes to be injured.

reply to post by budaruskie


If you want burn victims they are in the video.

reply to post by waypastvne


Wow...hold the phone!! I watched that whole video and couldn't believe what I saw! In 45 minutes of footage I never once saw the plane!! What the hell happened? Here I was all set to to witness the horror, the spectacle, the entire event...to gain a better understanding of the sacrifice those families have to endure, but I couldn't tell what the hell happened! I saw boom...but there was never a plane!! Somebody please tell me how this happened!

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Wow...hold the phone!! I watched that whole video and couldn't believe what I saw! In 45 minutes of footage I never once saw the plane!! What the hell happened? Here I was all set to to witness the horror, the spectacle, the entire event...to gain a better understanding of the sacrifice those families have to endure, but I couldn't tell what the hell happened! I saw boom...but there was never a plane!! Somebody please tell me how this happened!

So what? there were many eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen an airplane both in the pentagon, and on the surrounding highway and at nearby businesses. There was wreckage from an airliner, and a missing airliner. There's even some crappy video that is consistent with the airplane theory. Most Americans have put 2+2 together, and concluded that indeed, an airplane crashed into the pentagon.

Those who doubt that version of events need to have a better theory, one that explains the missing airplane the wreckage, and the eyewitnesses.

anyway, this thread is supposed to be about April Gallop. Why isn't there a way for truth enthusiasts to donate some cash to her legal fund? I wouldn't hold my breath if I were her.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Asking if I am giving April gallop money is the epitome of trolling.

So, a fellow truther, in her attempts to uncover the truth is in financial trouble and you will turn your back on her?

Thanks for not responding to the rest of my post and calling me a troll.

Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing. Here it is and it's hilarious.



sites.google.com...

Originally posted by waypastvne
Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing. Here it is and it's hilarious.



sites.google.com...

OMFG!!! I spit out my lunch reading this! This is comedy gold! Can they fine her ANOTHER 15K for this one too?

Originally posted by waypastvne
Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing. Here it is and it's hilarious.
sites.google.com...

Okay, I have read this in detail. Truthers Unite! She is going to need a lot more than the 15K. The courts are going to slap her around like a red headed step child.

I would like the truthers to PLEASE explain to me......

......defendants had timely knowledge of the approach of the rogue aircraft to our nation‟s capital, after the second tower was hit in New York and there was no doubt the Country was under attack; but, from deliberate indifference, at best, they failed to take any action to protect the people in the Pentagon and other likely targets by warning and evacuation. Where, as discussed, there is much evidence showing that no airliner hit, it seems clear that one approached, in circumstances holding great danger for people at important locations in the capital, as well as that the authorities (including defendants) insist that this was Flight 77, and that it was crashed into the Pentagon.

So, April's attorney's are upset that April was not warned of the plane that they claim didn't hit?

Originally posted by budaruskie
What YOU are implying is that a massive airplane exploding in her office would not be reason enough to expect her to be severely injured or burned...which I think is ridiculous. That is to say that you wouldn't expect the people who worked in the WTC offices that were struck by similar planes to be injured.

Yes, because the Pentagon and the WTC were very similar buildings.

I can't beleive it's necessary to actually explain this, but when a crash occurs, or a missile hits, or a bomb drops, there is a field wherein the damage happens, and the likelihood of being killed or injured reduces as you move away from that epicentre, or if you are behind obstacles to the blast.

People were killed and badly injured at the Pentagon. Gallop was not. This is because she was further away from the impact than they were, or there were obstacles between her and the explosion that impeded its progress. It's unbeleivably simple.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by budaruskie
What YOU are implying is that a massive airplane exploding in her office would not be reason enough to expect her to be severely injured or burned...which I think is ridiculous. That is to say that you wouldn't expect the people who worked in the WTC offices that were struck by similar planes to be injured.

Yes, because the Pentagon and the WTC were very similar buildings.

I can't beleive it's necessary to actually explain this, but when a crash occurs, or a missile hits, or a bomb drops, there is a field wherein the damage happens, and the likelihood of being killed or injured reduces as you move away from that epicentre, or if you are behind obstacles to the blast.

People were killed and badly injured at the Pentagon. Gallop was not. This is because she was further away from the impact than they were, or there were obstacles between her and the explosion that impeded its progress. It's unbeleivably simple.

OK....I do understand that. So, what are you arguing about. She was in the office that was "struck" by whatever caused the explosion. As far as I know, that's pretty close.

Originally posted by budaruskie

OK....I do understand that. So, what are you arguing about. She was in the office that was "struck" by whatever caused the explosion. As far as I know, that's pretty close.

April's office was located 150 feet from the impact point. Sector 3 - E Ring. Please though, keep this on topic as we are discussing her lawsuit and the money it is costing her.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420

Asking if I am giving April gallop money is the epitome of trolling.

So, a fellow truther, in her attempts to uncover the truth is in financial trouble and you will turn your back on her?

Thanks for not responding to the rest of my post and calling me a troll.

I am sorry but this is ATS buddy, your lack of content is typical, but easily dissected by anybody paying attention. You do not mention that April Gallop is in financial trouble in your OP. If we were to take you seriously EVERYONE who owned a car, house, or student loan for over $15,000 would be "in financial trouble". Listing ONE liability and NO assets in making a determination of someones financial status is pathetic.

When you post things like that it becomes easy for people to see that you are not serious about research or facts. This is a good thing IMHO, because while this thread holds no merit whatsoever, it decreases the merit of your serious posts.

Literary karma fo' dat ass thun. (sic)

This is probably one of those fake 911 lawsuits for propaganda purposes. You're dealing with a staged justice system (whatever is left of the justice system, that is), so by all means step right up and donate your money to these scam artists. It's not like they haven't already stolen enough of it.

So this woman is in financial trouble after getting an undisclosed settlement from American Airlines on December 6, 2007? One can only surmise her "settlement" (cough, cough) was worth a lot more than a lousy 15 grand.

Also, that photo of Gallop on the Pentagon lawn is quite odd. Is that how a U.S. Army executive administrative assistant dresses for work? Or let me guess, it was dress down Tuesday? What a complete crock.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
This is probably one of those fake 911 lawsuits for propaganda purposes. You're dealing with a staged justice system (whatever is left of the justice system, that is), so by all means step right up and donate your money to these scam artists. It's not like they haven't already stolen enough of it.

So this woman is in financial trouble after getting an undisclosed settlement from American Airlines on December 6, 2007? One can only surmise her "settlement" (cough, cough) was worth a lot more than a lousy 15 grand.

Also, that photo of Gallop on the Pentagon lawn is quite odd. Is that how a U.S. Army executive administrative assistant dresses for work? Or let me guess, it was dress down Tuesday? What a complete crock.

Where are you getting your information from? Just wondering, its not in this thread. Thanks. See the above post.