89.5% Germans doubt OCT. Army Spc. April Gallop sues Bush Administration on April 5th
Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice.
Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doubts-about.html#ixzz1HahISY7Q
On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.
The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world's understanding of history, not to mention American citizens' relationship with their government.
UPDATE: From an email from April Gallop's attorney William Veale.
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 1:51 PM
Subject: April Gallop's case on April 5th
The hearing on April 5th is the oral argument on the appeal that we filed when our case was dismissed by Judge Chin. We are a long way from trial. I haven't had time to write a thorough explanation for the web site. I appreciate your interest.
Bill Veale
http://CenterFor911Justice.org
- TruthMakesPeace's blog
- Login to post comments
This is great... but...
Just watch the judge dismiss the case on the basis of some manufactured, contrived, obscure "legal" technicality. It's too predictable.. the terminally corrupt powers-that-be always close ranks when anyone in their number is threatened. However, I still hold the hope that I will be proved 100% wrong....
When the shadow government clicks its heels together, the justice system snaps to attention.
Of course
Is this referring to the explosive residue found in the WTC dust? Probably will say cause its from the WTC its irrelevant to her experience in DC. I wish her all the best in this endeavor.
dtg
Found some links
http://vealetruth.com/
http://l911t.com/
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060812134100869
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Book=20List-Personal=20E...
Gallop v. Cheney, et al
many of the original documents in the suit Gallop v Cheney, et al are available online. http://www.google.com/search?q=gallop+v+cheney+et+al
here is the original lawsuit: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9234568/911-Career-Army-Veteran-v-Cheney-Et-Al-Law-Suit
April Gallop
seems unaware of the peer-reviewed research on the Pentagon:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-08/new-paper-journal-911-studies
whats that got to do with it?
The article doesn't say her suit is based on CD residue at the pentagon ... just the 3 WTCs.
Bloggulator may be wrong about his assertion that the case will go nowhere but I'd be willing to bet the family nest-egg on it
Here's the point:
We gift a strawman to our detractors if we are not aware of the peer reviewed information.
In the article it says:
"an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.
Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft"
The implication is that there was no 757 crash at the Pentagon.
Easy win for debunkers who claim we are nuts.
comments following the article are ridiculous
I just read many of the comments following the article, and they are mostly idiotic, pro-neocon, pro-official conspiracy. I think some of us need to give them a bit of truth?
http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doubts-about.html#disqus_thread
Analysis of an element of the lawsuit:
Below is an element of the lawsuit:
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/complaint.htm
« And, shockingly, when the towers in New York had already been hit, and Flight 77 (or a substitute, see below) was out of radio contact and headed back towards the capital; and even when the plane approached, and then doubled back and headed toward the building in a long dive, no alarm was sounded. »
Normally before dismissing the lawsuit of April Gallop, it would be necessary to demonstrate that this remark, for example, has no basis:
See: « Context of 'Before 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Pentagon Not Evacuated Prior to Being Hit »
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a937nopentagonevacuation#...
Facts :
« Before the Pentagon is hit, no steps are taken to alert or evacuate the building’s 20,000 employees. »
The order to evacuate will only go out over the Pentagon’s public address system shortly after the building is hit. The Defense Protective Service, which guards the Pentagon, does not order that the building’s threat level be raised until the time when it is hit ».
« Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood will later try to explain why the Pentagon is not evacuated at this time, saying: “To call for a general evacuation, at that point, it would have been just guessing. We evacuate when we know something is a real threat to us.” He says that an evacuation could have put employees at risk by moving them outside the protection provided by the building’s walls »
The official story of Flight 77 states that: « In all, there were 189 deaths at the Pentagon site, including 125 in the Pentagon building and 64 on board Flight 77 ».
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
So 125 people were killed despite « the protection provided by the building’s walls ».
Historycommons Signals:
« 9:35 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Contractors Evacuate Pentagon Just before It Is Hit
A contract crew has been installing furniture in the southwest perimeter of the Pentagon. Construction workers are currently doing the final touching up, after more than three years of renovation work on this area of the building, and some Defense Department employees are already moving into their new office spaces. But the wife of one crew member phones her husband after seeing footage of the attacks in New York on CNN and says she feels he is in danger at the Pentagon. Hearing of the attacks, the crew leader instructs his 23 workers to abandon what they are doing and evacuate. Moments later, as they are crossing the parking lot, they see the airliner crash into the exact area of the Pentagon they had just left. There is no evidence that anyone else in the Pentagon evacuates the building before it is struck . Another report, which appears to be describing the same incident, says the construction crew evacuates for a different reason: to discuss security with a customer in the parking lot. »
So these workers have saved their lives by evacuating the Pentagon shortly before the alleged impact of Flight 77.
Another Pentagon spokesman, Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, will add, “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.”
But there is the testimony of Norman Mineta (During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out,” then “The plane is 30 miles out,” and when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
And other facts. For example, partial quote from this link:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-t...
« The Pentagon-White House Corridor Is Highly-Monitored : Even if AWACS pilots were not instructed to monitor the area, the Pentagon and White House are two of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world. They are only 2 miles apart, and the entire area is protected air space (because the area is home to the seat of power of the commander in chief and the military) and - because there have been numerous incidents of planes approaching the White House - it is entirely certain that the whole area is covered by very sophisticated military radar. »
Therefore the claims of the two spokespersons of the pentagon that I quoted are not credible.
Editing etiquette
tit2 and everyone else; if you edit a comment after it's posted, do something to make it clear what changes you made to the comment, if you're making changes more than, say, 5" later at the most.
If i correct something in the text, I'll type [EDIT: whatever, etc.]. If I'm adding new text, I introduce it w/ EDIT: blah, blah, blah, etc...
Do not simply click the edit tab and make no substantive change- such as pressing the space bar - in order to make the comment appear to be a new comment and bump it up in the tracker. This would constitute abuse of commenting privileges, and be a disservice to the regular users here.
Same old nonsense
"The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious."
"Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck at 9:38 a.m."
"In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim."
http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doub...
DRG has his affidavit that will back her up on this of course.....
"I showed, among other things, that PM's' defense of the official account of the attack on the Pentagon failed on every point. For example:
PM simply ignored the reports of many people at the site, including Army officer April Gallop and reporters Jamie McIntyre and John Mcwethy (of CNN. and. ABC, respectively) "that; "the debris at the Pentagon did not support the idea that it had been struck by a Boeing 757."
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Griffin=20Affidavit.pdf
Gee...I wonder how this will turn out? Let me give you a hint.....
"she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains."
http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doub...
"They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats." Page 149
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/089141905...
"luggage, metal, or human remains."
http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doub...
"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris. Virtually every worker came to know the jarring sensation of sifting throughh the gray, indistinct scraps of metal and concrete and discovering something small and personal like a ring or a photograph." Page 426
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/089141905...
or human remains."
http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/23/2932008/amidst-growing-world-doub...
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm
"PM simply ignored the reports of many people at the site, including Army officer April Gallop and reporters Jamie McIntyre and John Mcwethy (of CNN. and. ABC, respectively) "that; "the debris at the Pentagon did not support the idea that it had been struck by a Boeing 757." --affidavit of DRG
http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Griffin=20Affidavit.pdf
First - John Mcwethy...
As can be seen here......
According to DRG:
"ABC’s John McWethy reported: “I got in very close, got a look early on at the bad stuff. I could not, however, see any plane wreckage.” McWethy added that the plane “had been, basically, vaporized.” [10]
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/09/15/02611.html
sourced from this footnote:
"10. Quoted in Allison Gilbert et al., Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11 (New York: Bonus Books, 2002), 187."
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/09/15/02611.html
DRG uses page 187 of a book called "Covering Catastrophe" to make the claim that John Mcwethy does not support the idea that the pentagon was struck by a boeing 757.
But here is the quote from page 187.....
"I could not, however, see any plane wreckage-it was well inside and had been, basically, vaporized."
http://www.amazon.com/Covering-Catastrophe-Allison-Gilbert/dp/156625180X...
Most was well inside, and he said "basically" not "completely" vaporized. Because it wasn't. Besides, that was merely his inference or what he had been told.
"that was merely his inference or what he had been told" --DRG page 270
http://books.google.com/books?id=CMZ12AxBOh8C&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22J...
Not vaporized:
"FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile" page 426
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/B002NPCSX...
Jamie McIntyre:
"MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed SHORT of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site NEAR the pentagon only AT the Pentagon"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/
Yea, he's telling you the truth as the following UNedited clip proves--question asked at 2:33 mark edit starts at 2:50 mark for deciet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1iQu1JuKJI
"MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/
At what point will it be obvious that no plane...ooops...I mean "Pentagon plane crash skeptics" are a complete waste of time?
"Straped Into Their Seats..."
It is odd that charred corpses could still be "strapped into their seats" with seat belts after a fire. How could the seat belt material survive the fire. While the belts and seats may have been constructed with a large component of silica thread, to what extent would they have survived?.
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
"pentagon plane crash skeptic"=waste of time
EyeOnTheBall said..."...as apparently I am daft. You found some good but not entirely convincing quotes from people. But some things just scream for clarification:
"FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded"
Where exactly did this engine enter? Did it got sucked in through the 20-foot central fuselage-sized hole (the only one)?"
You make things up because you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic". It wasn't a 20 foot hole.
EyeOnTheBall said..."Or did the engine vaporize outside against the unscathed wall where the wings and engine should have impacted, only to reappear inside somehow?"
You make things up because you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic"
EyeOnTheBall said..."Were the wings engineered in a way that would neatly fold them into the central fuselage hole in the millionth of a second before they should have impacted the walls, as has been seriously put forward in the past?"
You are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic" who is constantly duped.
EyeOnTheBall said..."Also not understood:
"If most of the plane was BASICALLY, but "not completely" vaporized in the crash, how is it again that there was a punch out in C-ring, where the nose of the plane was supposed to have penetrated at furthest?"
By "nose of the plane" you mean heavy landing gear?
EyeOnTheBall said..."Unless I missed a ton of information in my years of trying to pay attention to new evidence as well as fighting the obfuscations of perpetrators and OCT defenders, these things and many others still make zero sense on the proffered evidence."
I would lean toward "missed a ton of information" but that isn't surprising since you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic"
EyeOnTheBall said..."If someone can clarify rationally and irrefutably why these basic irreconcilable anomalies exist, I think you will have perhaps hundreds of thousands more converts to the idea that a plane simply slammed into the Pentagon."
I already do. Ask one of your neighbors what happened at the pentagon on 9-11. Or anyone that was there that day that saw what impacted.
EyeOnTheBall said...."I know of Hoffman's analysis, but for instance, some of these stories and quotes above, faced with photographs of the building, still scream out to be addressed more directly, succinctly, and not conflicting with visual (and yes, reported) evidence."
Because you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic"
EyeOnTheBall said..."Soooo easy if we had clear video footage...."
Then we would have "video fakery" because you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic"
EyeOnTheBall said...."And no, I am not a dupe or a shill for the anti-anti-OCT folks or whatever paranoid delicacy you wish."
Yes, I am a very paranoid OCT folk or anti OCT folk or what ever it is you imply. I could be an undercover secret agent. You have to admit it is possible right?
EyeOnTheBall said..."I - and countless others! - would just like to know the truth, despite shouting down from those who will not accept the questions."
You are not being censored nor "shouted down" but claim to be because you are a "pentagon plane crash skeptic" who will not accept answers to your decade old questions. Some would use the term "Pentagon No planer-the original no planers" but that of course would accurate, and might offend you so "pentagon plane crash skeptic" is used to make you look less goofy. But in any case after 8 years of this it's pretty obvious at this point you are a waste of my time.
Shame.
Uggh. You miss the point completely, of course. Instead you flew immediately to congratulate yourself on your superior knowledge (never explicated) and gave no hint of a germane answer to what you perceive a simpleton's question. I.e., you basically reduced your position to name-calling. I hope it was good for you.
I have been reading this site since 2006 practically daily whenever I could. Until recently. It seems all of a sudden name-calling went shrill, questions were no longer allowed, intimidation the order of the day. But perhaps it was always that way, and it wasn't until I found something skimmed-over (ignored) on some accounts here, that I was struck by this shouting-down behavior as cliquish, counter-productive and "old", so incredibly old.
OK. Start over. Just to clear from your mind the main Factoid which has driven you madly away from the Point of my question, the Dupe (that is I) asks, "Gosh, so how many feet high WAS that hole in the Pentagon anyway?" Fill in your answer here: ____________ feet.
Yes, you were right, I didn't look up the number of feet and simply estimated. My bad. That error does not eradicate or even touch the gist of the point though, which was that in the first photos there was only ONE HOLE (or is that wrong too?) accommodating roughly the diameter of the fuselage; no engine holes, no effect from the wings visible whatsoever. I want to vigorously point out now to you that HERE IS THE QUESTION IN THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE TERMS: Where did the engine referred to in your FEMA quote enter the Pentagon?
If you show me that all the photos were faked or an illusion of some grand proportion, I would then agree that that is the only plausible explanation for an engine being later pried out of an interior column, while no entry hole in the outer wall is apparent. I would concede the point. Happily. I welcome education.
True education has it that there are no stupid questions, just bad answers. There are perhaps insanely simple questions as you imply mine is, but if that is the case you neglected to even attempt an insanely simple answer to prove it and reduced your own argument to a rubble of self gratification and name calling. That is your shame, not mine, and certainly no vindication. Your claimed superiority didn't show up and you lost.
Thanks for sending me away in disgust, along with others, no doubt, who have honest questions.
You're welcome
"Thanks for sending me away in disgust, along with others, no doubt, who have honest questions."
No need to thank me. If you still haven't figured out that planes flew into buildings on 9-11, I'm not going to be of any help to you. Perhaps snowcrash or loose nuke, or someone less disgusting than myself will waste their time on you. Frankly I'm just not interested in the opinions of "pentagon plane crash skeptics" anymore. I discovered years ago what a waste of time "pentagon plane crash skeptics" are.
I guess I am a horrible person. However the possibility that I am an undercover secret agent certainly shouldn't be ruled out either....right?
Yup. Same old nonsense, like you said originally.
Does anyone else think this is weird? I don't particularly care anymore about what happened to civility here, but am thoroughly annoyed at the way its absence hinders and reverses the more important mission of shedding light, and not heat as JMD seems to prefer.
He lost again. Simple question answered with nothing but an insult and a slamming door.
Can there be any doubt that JMD prefer sto divide the movement into true believers and idiots (yes, now that you begged the question twice, you do act more like an agent provocateur than a truth seeker) than shed light on a very basic and immensely pertinent question.
If as you imply the question is so ridiculous, where is your easy, substantive answer that would shine the irrefutable beam of truth on it, placing my question forever in the dustbin? Sigh. I can only conclude you don't know how an engine could get inside the Pentagon without visible damage to the exterior in the expected places. You could simply admit your lack of knowledge, or its impossibility, but you seem to fear that would melt your brain.
Please stop bragging about being so smart and simply (if you can at all) show why your position is correct. Otherwise, you lose again.
Could 9/11 have happened on 9/12?
EyeOnTheBall said..."you do act more like an agent provocateur than a truth seeker"
Have you considered the merits of the Fly Under theory?
Have you considered the smoking gun evidence in this picture?....
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Pentagon-Crash18may06d.jpg
Something to think about no?
Jimd3100Stein CON
Eyes and Jim
Eyes: "I know of Hoffman's analysis, but for instance, some of these stories and quotes above, faced with photographs of the building, still scream out to be addressed more directly, succinctly, and not conflicting with visual (and yes, reported) evidence."
Eyes, you've indicated you've been visiting 911blogger since 2006, and are aware the 'AAL 77 didn't hit claims are very controversial. You say you "know of Hoffman's analysis" http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html [EDIT: fixed broken link] are you aware of any errors with it?
The hole/gash in the first floor is approx 96' wide; the fuselage-sized hole is in the middle of it. There's space in the gash for the engines to pass thru, though the one on the right may have caused the damage to the right of the hole in the second floor.
Main Pentagon errors page: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
There's no evidence AAL 77 didn't hit, or that a 757 could not have caused the observed damage. The responsible thing to do for those who are unsatisfied is to work to get the remaining records disclosed, and to work for a legit investigation; not to make claims based on speculation and misinformation, which is what the 'AAL 77 didn't hit' claims are based on.
As this 'didn't hit' claim is a major element of Gallop's case, largely based on her claim that she doesn't believe she saw any plane parts or bodies as she was trying to exit the building - a claim that is contradicted by a large number of witnesses to plane parts and passenger bodies, as well as the autopsy reports - and photos of bodies and plane parts - this appeal will likely fail as quickly as her original lawsuit.
Jim: for someone who doesn't have time to waste on the crash skeptics, you sure are wasting a bunch of time.
Keep it civil.
Ye honorable pentagon plane crash skeptics
"Jim: for someone who doesn't have time to waste on the crash skeptics, you sure are wasting a bunch of time."
No actually it takes about 20 seconds to type a response to a "pentagon plane crash skeptic", when I am not referencing sources or quoting articles. Like I said, it's a waste of time, I've only done it about a thousand times. I wasted my time on the first post, and a "pentagon plane crash skeptic" came in to try and keep the 10 year old merry go round going.
"Keep it civil."
Uh....I've given two leads to a "pentagon plane crash skeptic" (Fly Under-and 9-11 happened on 9-12) and even went along with the possibility that I am a secret under cover agent, agreed that I am a disgusting and horrible person, used the term "pentagon plane crash skeptic", and I'm still not being civil enough? Maybe I can set a new precedent and be the first to be banned for accusing and not being nice enough to myself. Or I could use the term "Ye honorable pentagon plane crash skeptic".
On 9-11 planes flew into buildings. (with all apologies to ye honorable plane crash skeptics)
Appreciated.
loose nuke: I appreciate your response.
I have bookmarked your references and will check much further into this when I have time to do so in the next few days. I will not post on this thread again, so I will simply say, I appreciate your overtures toward education, given in good spirit. I apologize to everyone including JMD for being party to this ruckus. I hope your link can provide crucial information it seems I may have missed that would clear up the vexing (to me anyway) visual record. Perhaps others in the "no plane at the Pentagon" camp will learn something as well, if there is anyone of that mind following this article. Thanks for posting.
Gotta keep my eye on that ball. Hence the reminder name for me. Perhaps ironic for those who disagree with me. :-)
Perhaps, the truth is.........................
April Gallop did not see the plane parts, and yet a 757 did hit the pentagon. The hole and parts did not reflect the typical airline crash site, thus the questions and chance that Gallop was mistaken. Without a new investigation we may never know. The validity of her lawsuit should not depend on her observations at the pentagon, I for one find her very credible, brave and feel there is much to learn from her testimony. Chances of finding justice in these matters is slim to none in our vanishing republic.
Still frivolous
jimd3100 said...."Gee...I wonder how this will turn out? Let me give you a hint....."
Well now we know.........gosh what a shocker!
"After a de novo review, we have no hesitation in concluding that the District Court correctly determined that the few conceivably “well-pleaded” facts in Gallop’s complaint are
frivolous. While, as a general matter, Gallop or any other plaintiff certainly may allege that the most senior members of the United States government conspired to commit acts of
terrorism against the Untied States, the courts have no obligation to entertain pure speculation and conjecture. Indeed, in attempting to marshal a series of unsubstantiated and
inconsistent allegations in order to explain why American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, the complaint utterly fails to set forth a consistent, much less plausible,
theory for what actually happened that morning in Arlington, Virginia. See, e.g., Complaint & 3 (alleging that defendants may have caused “high explosive charges to be detonated inside
the Pentagon”); & 21 (alleging that defendants “may have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or . . . may have used Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies”); id.
(alleging that “four planes” were in fact hijacked on the morning of September 11); & 33 (alleging that “[i]f Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the [Pentagon], to create the
false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed somewhere else”); & 40(d)(3) (alleging that apart from Flight 77 “a
different, additional, flying object . . . hit the Pentagon”); & 43 (alleging that there “may have been a missile strike, perhaps penetrating through to the back wall, which helped collapse the
section that fell in, possibly augmented by explosives placed inside”).
Furthermore and notwithstanding the unsupported assumptions regarding the fate of American Airlines Flight 77, the complaint also fails to plausibly allege the existence of a
conspiracy among the defendants. For example, Gallop offers not a single fact to corroborate her allegation of a “meeting of the minds” among the conspirators. Complaint
& 55. It is well settled that claims of conspiracy “containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand motion to dismiss.”
Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted). We therefore agree with the District Court that Gallop’s allegations of conspiracy
are baseless and spun entirely of “cynical delusion and fantasy.” Gallop, 2010 WL 909203, at *5. The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Although, like the District Court, we do not reach the question of whether judicial estoppel bars Gallop’s complaint, we note that the complaint is facially irreconcilable with
factual allegations made by Gallop in other actions. See Gallop v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 1016, Order of Final Judgment at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2007) (dismissing with prejudice
Gallop’s complaint against various defendants alleging that American Airlines Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001);
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fba96003-e46d-46f1-9cf3-...
Not to mention.....
As in United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1982), this appeal was an unnecessary imposition “on the government which is forced to defend against the
appeal and on the taxpayers who must pay for that defense.” Id. at 382. Accordingly, Gallop and her counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from
the date of entry of this order why they should not pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they would be jointly and severally liable, under Rule 38, 28
U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fba96003-e46d-46f1-9cf3-...
Nice going "ye honorable pentagon plane crash skeptics"
Jim D - You CALLED it!!!!
Court sanctions lawyers behind 9/11 case
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/02_-_February/Court_sanctions_lawyers_behind_9/11_case/
April Gallop is a courageous heroine in my book
Despite all types of pressures over the years, April stands firm (and sometimes alone) in trying to bring forth justice and accountability. She and her baby escaped death against incredible odds. And now, she confronts the system against an overwhelming wall of government obfuscation.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Interview with April Gallop
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S BLOG
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop...
April Gallop:
...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...
...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....
Stated again for emphasis
April Gallop:
"......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?"
Evidence of anti aircraft defense?
"The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense......"
This leads me to believe there is no anti-aircraft defense system at the pentagon:
"WASHINGTON – Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview."
"What's more, the airspace over the Pentagon, which is next to Reagan National Airport, is heavy with flight traffic, making engagement of threatening commercial aircraft too risky, the official says."
"Unlike the White House, the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft batteries to defend against attacks from the air."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426
This also leads me to believe the Pentagon did not have an anti-aircraft system:
"The Pentagon did not have an anti-aircraft system on the roof of the building or on the grounds. Even if DPS had received word of an inbound plane, it had no plan to counter a suicide air attack. Had a warning been issued in time, DPS’s only effective response would have been evacuation and dispersal of the building’s occupants.” page 152
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0160783283/centerforcoop-20
"If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the president's home."
"The Pentagon is not similarly defended. "We are an open society," said a military official. "We don't have soldiers positioned on the White House lawn and we don't have the Pentagon ringed with bunkers and tanks."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israe...
If Stinger missiles were at the white house, they in theory could have been used:
"How Stinger Missiles Work
Distance Range - Approximately 5 miles (8 km)"
http://science.howstuffworks.com/stinger3.htm
Distance from white house to pentagon:
http://classic.mapquest.com/maps?1a=1600+Pennsylvania+Ave+Nw&1z=20500&2c...
If anyone has documented proof the Pentagon has an anti-aircraft missile system I'd like to see it as it would contradict the book put out by Pentagon historians. However so far after nearly 10 years I still have never seen anyone show actual evidence of this anti aircraft system. That would also lead me to believe there was no anti-aircraft defense system at the pentagon.
It is hard to believe...
That America's military headquarters was completely undefended. Especially when you take into account how it was considered "Ground Zero" throughout the Cold-War. However, I agree with you. No definitive proof of any kind of weapon has ever been made available.
“Do the orders still stand?”
“Do the orders still stand?”
What was the question? What were the orders of Dick Cheney?
If It was impossible to shoot down Flight 77, why there was no order to evacuate the Pentagon?
counter productive
tit2 said...“Do the orders still stand?”
That is what D Cochrane asked Cheney.
tit2 said..."What was the question?"
The question was Do the orders still stand?
tit2 said.."What were the orders of Dick Cheney?"
I don't know what the orders were. It seems extremely unlikely they were shoot down orders though.
tit2 said..."If It was impossible to shoot down Flight 77, why there was no order to evacuate the Pentagon?"
I already showed that it was possible to shoot down flight 77, but some might consider that "Monday morning QBing." Why was there no order to evacuate the Pentagon? How would I know? I would assume the answer would be they didn't know the plane was going to hit the pentagon. When he said "the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out etc......" why are you assuming Mr Cochrane had ESP and was referring to the pentagon? It is more likely that 50 miles out---30 miles out was referring to their location...not the pentagon. The difference between the two is less than 5 miles. But since it was supposedly not known where it was going, the pentagon should have been evacuated. That plane should have been shot down. But filing a lawsuit claiming a plane didn't hit the pentagon is preposterous, and counter productive.
That's the question.
If FL 77 was being tracked by Cheney and others as it approached the Pentagon... during a time of not only heightened alert, but actual attack.... then the fact that the plane was allowed to strike the Pentagon with employees inside constitutes criminal negligence or wrongful death.
We need to know what Cheney's orders were and why he lied to the Commission about his actions and whereabouts. But the crux of the legal case by April Gallop is why the Pentagon was not evacuated. Either the plane should have been shot down to protect the 30,000 or so employees of our military headquarters or the building should have been evacuated.
She should not try to 'kitichen sink' this and narrow her lawsuit to this approach. Indeed other Pentagon employees, regarless of their personal testimonies about what they experienced, should sue.
Set-up to fail
>>She should not try to 'kitichen sink' this and narrow her lawsuit to this approach.
Indeed, the kitchen sink approach seems "set-up to fail". It lumps together the strongest evidence with the baseless nonsense as though it is all the same. And as we all know, if someone had a large lawsuit about a complex topic, and inserted within it were the equivalent of (to most Americans) "and aliens landed in the middle of the event and then flew away and no one noticed," any judge would go out of his way to dump it just to keep from discrediting himself with ever even considering it.
Pentagon flyovers, plane swapping, etc are on the level of nutso for most Americans, and when even the movement itself rejects those claims, a judge would look like a total idiot to buy into them.
Set-up to fail.
This has nothing to do with heroic acts, wishes or intentions.
"Pentagon flyovers, plane
"Pentagon flyovers, plane swapping, etc are on the level of nutso for most Americans"
Guess what else deserves a mention as to what is "on the level of nutso for most Americans." I won't dare say it, but it IS the truth.
If the young man had asked
If the young man had asked Cheney if it was necessary to shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon or the White House, it normally means that there was a means to shoot down that plane. The fact is that this aircraft was not shot down. When Norman Mineta presented his testimony in 2003, the official 9/11 commission concluded that the orders of Dick Cheney were to shoot down the aircraft but did not ask the young man (and other persons) why the order has not been executed in the case of the Pentagon attack. Maybe the fighters were too far away from Flight 77 despite the fact that Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon, but in this case why « The Defense Protective Service, which guards the Pentagon, does not order that the building’s threat level be raised until the time when it is hit ».
The performance of U.S. military radars are referred to by this link «Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off »
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-t...
Quote :
"military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across" miles up in space. »
Therefore an airplane having the dimensions of a Boeing 757 and approaching the Pentagon , must necessarily be detected by the sophisticated system of military radar which protects the pentagon. But there was no warning to inform the occupants of the Pentagon of the aircraft approach.
See also :
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210&pid=1079679...
Here my question to you
Why are you concerned about defending against a plane which, according to you, wasn't there?
Are you trying to piggyback no plane theory onto better research? Or is your position genuinely changing?
April Gallop
is a True american Hero.
The more I watch her interviews on YouTube etc, the more I respect her. She is the real deal. We need to support her 100% no matter what you think happened at the Pentagon
Cheney and shoot down orders
It doesn't matter whether Cheney was giving shoot down orders or not. He doesn't have the authorization.
""I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since."
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
Abu Ghraib is an example of "just following orders" doesn't work. They have to be lawful orders....
"In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment)."
"It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful."
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm
You think commanders at NORAD are not aware of this? The fact is, if the Secretary of Agriculture was ordering flight 77 to be shot down, that is not a legal order. Neither is it a legal order for the Vice President. Guess who also agrees with this?
“Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).” - 911 commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
(a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).” - 9-11 commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
The Vice President is not in the military chain of command. He does not have the authority to issue shoot down orders. This Rumsfeld himself admits.....
"Goldberg: What about authorization to shoot down United #93? Did that come from the Vice President?
Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command. The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking. Clearly he was involved in the process.
Cameron: It was reported that the decision came from the Vice President.
Rumsfeld: He might have recommended that.
Cameron: But the rules of engagement came out of your office.
Rumsfeld: Sure." page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Cont...
"Goldberg: What about authorization to shoot down United #93? Did that come from the Vice President?
Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command." page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Cont...
That also applies to flight 77.
Of course Rumsfeld is lying as we know when he states the orders came from his office........
"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Whether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day." page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/r...
Rumsfeld: The President and he were talking and the President and I were talking, and the Vice President and I were talking page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Cont...
Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheny and Bush tend to lie when it comes to the shoot down orders...
"When Flight 77 hit, the defense secretary thought it was a bomb."
"I had no idea," Rumsfeld said on ABC's This Week.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm
“The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was NOT discussed.” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it." page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/r...
Rice also lying....
"DR. RICE: The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly. And it was authority requested through channels by Secretary Rumsfeld"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III...
Why is she lying? Because the VP does not have the authority to issue shoot down orders.....
“Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).” 9-11 commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
They all know this. This is the stand down. Cheney could have been issuing shoot down orders because it doesn't matter. Even if he was, the military commanders wont enforce this order until it is confirmed it came from the President or Secretary of Defense.
That never happened until 10:20 (from President)and the order was relayed then to NEADS at 10:31
Cheney lying.....
“Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, President Bush ordered military jets into the air around Washington with orders to shoot down any airliner that refused to turn away from the city, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday.”
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_a...
“Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004).” – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf
“Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center" - Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday.”
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_a...
Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Crash
flight 93 crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township at 10:03:11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#Crash
“At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told “negative clearance to shoot.” Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
"10:15 Washington Center advises NEADS that Flight 93 has crashed in PA" -- 9-11 Commission report
"The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
“Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority." – 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf
”Shoot down authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31.”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
It doesn't matter if Cheney was giving shoot down orders. He doesn't have the authority.
Mr Rumsfeld,....you were saying?
Rumsfeld: Technically, it couldn't, because the Vice President is not in the chain of command. page 9/13
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51086828/GSA-B115-RDOD03012828-Fdr-Entire-Cont...
Thank you Mr Rumsfeld, you accidentally said something true.
So this
seems like a pretty good angle to take into court. Solid post this, I think you made your point pretty good.
In this upcoming lawsuit, is April Gallop really gonna mention at all that no commercial plane hit the Pentagon? One would hope she won't.
And what about this in Rod Powers' article :
"In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity). "
"A man of ordinary sense and understanding", sounds good, but war itself of course is the problem, not the people in it giving all kinds of orders which we think are lawful or not. A man of ordinary sense and understanding surely would understand that wars don't get us anywhere but further down the drain, closer to the abyss.
A man with ordinary sense and understanding surely would recognize the absolute need for a new investigation, wouldn't he? What is going on then with the definition of "ordinary sense" and "understanding"? What some people would describe as having ordinary sense and understanding apparently could be described completely different by others.
The end goal could justify the means, it all depends on what we want as a people. Staying nonviolent in the face of brutal violence is certainly not an easy thing to accomplish as a human being.
I think it's ironic that Corporal Luczko was acquitted by reason of insanity (how did they get to this conclusion?), that way Bush, Cheney and the rest of them could get off the hook, just claiming they're insane.
After all, ordering the go ahead and execution of a falseflag attack against your own nation, in order to gain on the economic, political and strategic front, is not something lawful (I hope). In theory it isn't. In the real world however, the perps seem to always get away with it. Getting those people tried and convicted, is the real justice we and this world (so desperately I would think, although desperation usually don't pan out that well) need.
This lawsuit is going nowhere
This lawsuit is going nowhere because April Gallop thinks no plane hit the pentagon and there is a ton of evidence that it did. So I agree with the comment of Victronix that the whole thing is set up to fail just like the RICO lawsuit filed years ago. People seem to think that in this movement as long as you "care" anything goes, whether it be unjustified claims, accusations, counter-accusations, and unscientific grandstanding. So please everybody check yourself and check the people you support. It doesn't matter if they appear sincere and really "care" the important thing is "is this person actually helping the movement?" As cool as it is to see a person running around talking about 911 in public it doesn't mean we are really working together. Actual help for the movement implies moving the cause forward, not just saying "something about 911 isn't true". We have to trust that our public voices represent us, and don't help to reinforce the myth that we are all crazy. Or are we all crazy?
Or are we all crazy?
I think not. Lets just get on the same page. Obviously 9/11 was an inside job. Eventually the truth will be made known. I have seen great strides the past few years. If we stick together we will win this thing.
UPDATE: From an email from April Gallop's attorney William Veale
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 1:51 PM
Subject: April Gallop's case on April 5th
The hearing on April 5th is the oral argument on the appeal that we filed when our case was dismissed by Judge Chin. We are a long way from trial. I haven't had time to write a thorough explanation for the web site. I appreciate your interest.
Bill Veale
http://CenterFor911Justice.org