April Gallop's case on 9/11-Pentagon thrown out!

I just got this from William Veale, the attorney representing April Gallop.

"Judge Chin has just dismissed the Gallop case. He said that the allegations are frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion. I will attach the decision."

I will update more on this at Flyby News.

"fantasy and delusion"

Edit: Why is this blog entry not on the front page? It is most certainly "news."

(Edited again to add: THANK YOU.)

For those not familiar with April Gallop and her testimony which contradicts the official story, here is a primer:

Bob Pugh

His video and oral testimony also corroborates the lack of wreckage; Pugh is quite mystified as to why there there was virtually no wreckage and the hole so small, and the grass so pristine. An excellent viewing for those who haven't seen it.

Edit: Wow, folks. Just go ahead and vote down a video of a first hand eyewitness.

Some people need to really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they've become.

Judge Chin has no balls.

He has opted to play along with the mass charade. I guess he feels fortunate to be a judge.

Parts may indeed be fantasy, unfortunately

I'm not at all surprised a judge would respond this way. Frankly, I'm relieved.

Why? Because the arguments that I saw included things like this:

18. Two investigators referring to themselves as the Citizen‟s Investigation Team interviewed a number of witnesses to the supposed flight of American Flight 77. They took statements from four such individuals, two of whom were Pentagon police officers, Sgts Lagassie and Brooks, both of whom exhibited a pronounced interest in refuting any conspiracy theories that suggested that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Each of the four witnesses asserted that the flight path of the aircraft they believed to be Flight 77 was north of the Navy Annex and the Citgo station. Subsequent interviews by the Citizen‟s Investigation Team of other percipient witnesses have corroborated, in large measure, the flight path described by the first four witnesses.

I don't have a link, but apparently a copy of the case pleadings can be bought through PACER at a cost of about $20.



April Gallop

This is the first I've heard of the case. I watched the youtube clip, and it seems her grievance is based on a simple lack of understanding of the aftermath of the plane crash.
How would she know what such an event would look like? How could anybody?

Since she is basing the case on her observations, they have to be compared to the evidence - unfortunately, considering the identification of human tissues, etc etc it does seem that her case is frivolous. Such cases are dismissed regularly throughout the world for similar reasons, why should this be an exception?



ps thanks for activating my account.

Welcome, Mr. "debunker!"

I thought the name looked vaguely familiar, and since his above post just screamed "debunker," I took a kwik peek over at JREF using their search function and... what do you know!

Look at all these truth-hostile threads started by "alienentity!"

Here is the AlienEntity's OP to the "Sad Case of Neils Harrit" thread:

And finally, here is a shot from his "dedication" at the beginning of one of his "debunking" videos:

So, "Alien Entity," what made you decide to just now join 911blogger, a few hours ago? What all of a sudden inspired you to join the no. 1 9/11 truth blog on the web when you've clearly already indicated your hostility to the 9/11 truth cause? It's rather telling that your very first post attempts to discredit a first hand eyewitness. An eyewitness who was in the part of the Pentagon that got attacked and lived to tell about it. An eyewitness whose testimony is fatal to the official story. Did you get bored/frustrated with trying to "debunk" Gage, Chandler and controlled demolition?

Wow. Is all I have to say.

PS My intuition tells me this ain't the first time you've heard of the April Gallop case.

Adam -

AlienEntity1 has just joined us and has not broken any rules. I think the thing to do is just counter his arguments in a civil manner.

AlienEntity1 - Would you care to clarify the situation? Are you AlienEntity over at JREF?

Also, if you aren't familiar with April Gallop's story, you owe it to yourself to take a thorough and objective look at it.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

LeftWright - you are generous in spirit - but -----

The phrase: "the identification of human tissues," is a giveaway that this person is not interested in truth. Had he/she said, "the ALLEGED identification of human tissues," or the "REPORTED identification of human tissues," that would be one thing. But by saying, "the identification of human tissues," we know that he/she is simply repeating the Official Conspiracy Theory which all of us here KNOW is completely unreliable, and riddled with lies, distortions, and omissions.

I don't care if you ban him/her or not. If he/she wants to waste his/her time peddling nonesense here that no one will pay any attention to - then God bless him/her and his/her typewritter. I will not read any more of his/her posts. It just means a little more scrolling to do --- but that is the price of bending over backwards to be tolerant to the ignorant. Sooner or later he/she will embrace the truth --- he/she will have to.


there were Pentagon employees - mostly renovation workers - who were killed in the attack, so AlienEntity's argument regarding "human tissue" is a non sequitur.

I love critical thinkers!

You make excellent points, now let's see if there is a credible response, this kind of give and take is the heart of critical thinking.

I think that it is important to understand that there are many people who read this site, some of whom are very new to the information and who have not yet been exposed to the counter arguments (both valid and fallacious). Thus, it is a worthwhile exercise to occasionally have some of these dialogues that test the logic and factual accuracy of various positions, as long as they remain civil and don't begin to dominate the comment threads.

Please know that if anyone engages in nothing but specious arguments which continually use faulty logic and/or the selective use of facts, then their time here will be extremely short.

We have nothing to fear from having our facts and logic tested from time to time, it keeps us from taking anything for granted and ultimately only strengthens our case.

I realize that many people do not agree with this approach (hence the down votes), and I may be overruled by my fellow moderators on this.

Finally, it certainly would be nice if the FBI released all the evidence from the Pentagon crime scene, or at least enough to prove conclusively what took place there, like some plane parts with verifiable ID numbers on them and credible documentation to go along with them.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Can you clarify what your

Can you clarify what your position is regarding the human tissues, whether it is alleged, from the plane or from Pentagon workers themselves?
I'm interested to know at what point something becomes an established fact, or whether it can ever reach that point.

The relevance to Ms. Gallop seems to be whether her observation that she didn't see an airplane or airplane parts negates all the other evidence that there was an airplane and airplane parts, as well as (allegedly) tissues from passengers, crew and Pentagon workers.

That wouldn't seem logical to me.



I think you're reading too

I think you're reading too much into my phrasing. I made a very quick reference to forensic evidence, it wasn't meant to be comprehensive (hence the etc etc). I would caution you about over-generalizing. I see the term 'Official Conspiracy Theory' bandied about a lot, yet I think the term is not very meaningful if you refer to forensics and engineering. For example, I think it is a reasonably established fact that Flt 77 crashed into the Pentagon - this fact is independent of the origins of the hijackers or who was flying the plane, so it's not a conspiracy theory to state that it crashed there.
Similarly, it's not a conspiracy theory at all to observe forensic evidence which identifies the victims of the Pentagon crash.

To my mind, these are not conspiracy issues. If you discuss the hijackers, the planning, etc... then you are talking about a conspiracy theory, yes.

So I respectfully disagree with your characterization.

Hi Adam, Sorry to disappoint

Hi Adam,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I just learned of this case in the last day or so.

Why don't we stick to the subject of Ms. Gallop? I don't think Richard Gage or David Chandler are relevant to the question of the Pentagon attack.

Besides, don't a lot of truthers think that the 'no-planes' stuff is bogus?


Haha, nice. :)

Haha, nice. :)


Welcome to the blog!

I like April Gallop

Her detailed story of the event is amazing.

I view her

as the William Rodriguez of the Pentagon attack.

Questions without response

First, excuse me for my poor English that is not my language.

Even if the question "What hit the Pentagon" was not easy to examine, there were other aspects of the complaint of April Gallop who would have however had to make the object of an Investigation.

First question:

Why NORAD lied to the official commission of investigation into the events of September 11, 2001? See the following links:

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon:


Senator Mark Dayton on 9-11 Commission NORAD LIED:


Second question:

Why no fighter of the US AIR forces was not able to intercept flight 77 before it hits the pentagon.? See the following links:

1) Confirmed: 9/11 Planes Were Tracked even With Transponders Turned Off:


2) The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11 by Paul Thompson:

Third question:

A military aircraft E-4B flying over Washington on the morning of September 11, 2001. Why the Department of Defense had lied in claiming that this was not the case. See the following links:

1) Mystery 9/11 aircraft was military 'doomsday planemsday plane”


2) The 911 Mystery Plane by Mark H. Gaffney


Fourth question:

The testimony of Norman Mineta.


What were the orders of Dick Cheney? To date, nobody knows the answer to this question. If Dick Cheney's orders were to shoot down the aircraft, Why there was no an evacuation order of the Pentagon if it was not possible to shoot down this aircraft?

Therefore why the judge considered that there was no necessity to answer these questions?

Yes, of course I'm the same AlienEntity1

Yes, I'm the same debunker, I deliberately use the same ID.

I'm a skeptic of 9/11 truth claims, that's correct. I had not heard of this case until it was brought to my attention a day or so ago, and a link was provided to this blog.

If you read my comments on the case, I think my position is justified and clear. I appreciate being able to post on the blog, and am frankly amazed at the reaction my presence has produced. Who knew?
Anyway, here's the JREF thread which piqued my curiosity

Feel free to sound off about the court case on JREF as well.

You may note that a couple of JREF members have posted the court documents. For your convenience here is a link where you can read the whole complaint.

Also, someone at JREF posted a link to this exploration of Ms. Gallop's other legal actions. I haven't looked into it yet, but there is an allegation that she has made contradictory statements about the Pentagon. May be worth checking out.



I'm curious about something, AlienEntity1

Are you only a skeptic of "9/11 truth claims" or are you also a skeptic regarding the government's story regarding the events of the 9/11/01?

Do you find the Zelikow narrative credible? If not, what parts of it are you skeptical of?

Do you accept the NIST reports on the Twin Towers and WTC 7 as credible and based on valid science? If not, what parts of them are you skeptical of?

Also, what is it about how a few people have reacted to your presence here that amazes you?

I look forward to reading your carefully considered responses.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Great questions, but kind of

Great questions, but kind of off -topic to the Gallop case, dontcha think?

And a huge subject in its own right.

Yes, I'm skeptical of official pronouncements, of course. In a nutshell, I thought GW Bush and co were dishonest, manipulative and generally untrustworthy, and did a great deal of harm to their country. IMHO. However, I do not subscribe to the MIHOP theory nor LIHOP, for various reasons.
Was 9/11 exploited as a pretext for 2 wars? Absolutely. Did they lie about WMD's in Iraq? They exaggerated evidence to the point where it did not represent truth, and repeated false information to the public. You could easily describe that as a lie.
Does it surprise me that people suspect Bush and co of engineering 9/11? No. But a careful investigation of the issues convinces me, so far, that there isn't enough credible evidence to support that allegation or suspicion.

I'll stay away from the NIST stuff today. It's an exhaustive subject, as I mentioned. To have a meaningful discussion would take ages.



>>I do not subscribe to the

>>I do not subscribe to the MIHOP theory nor LIHOP, for various reasons.

The relevance and validity of DNA, body parts, and any other physical evidence at the scene do not depend on whether one is a debunker or a skeptic. Debunker's presenting poor arguments usually are easily exposed.

In this case, it's not so easy because the evidence is differentially interpreted depending on the bias. The typical skeptic claims amount to this: "It was all faked!" The suggestion -- with zero evidence -- is that all the DNA was fake because the fires should have destroyed it. The assumption is that fires destroy everything homogenously. Steven Jones uses the opposite case for the B7 -- fires are not homogenous, which is why a building on fire cannot fall straight down.

The point should be to strengthen the work -- regardless of the outcome -- by eliminating evidence that is weak and contradictory. There happens to be a lot of that at the Pentagon. Frank Legge does a great job of describing that in his recent paper --

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Dr. Frank Legge

If a debunker makes extremist claims -- i.e., nanothermite must actually be paint -- and continues to post that over and over, then I would support banning them. But some who do not support MIHOP or LIHOP may just be asking reasonable questions that any average American might.

"Debunker honesty test"

I tend to think that if an individual finds nothing strange about the case of WTC 7 (and that is just one example), they are likely either dishonest or in denial. This is how I'd summarize it:

The 47-storey WTC 7 was destroyed in a way that rivals a highly skilled controlled demolition. Could office fires (=the final official explanation) replace the time-consuming and expensive practice of controlled demolition? Just light a few fires and expect a highrise to come symmetrically to its foundations into a neat pile of rubble a few hours later? Sounds quite economical to me!

The investigation of WTC 7's destruction was preceded by a rapid destruction of all the research material (NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"). Years of various theories and speculation followed, with the following statement in 2006 by NIST's lead WTC investigator: "... we don't really know. We have had trouble getting a handle on building 7".

However, in 2008, they come up with the precise cause of the collapse: a "critical" column failing as a result of thermal expansion (hardly a feature missing in all the other skyscraper fires), and somehow causing all the remaining 80 columns to fail in seconds, and then somehow producing a very symmetrical, almost resistanceless collapse. According to NIST, thus, WTC 7 had ultimately been dependent on one column - the "critical column" - only!

Who can take such "investigations" seriously?

Three months before the final report, NIST said that WTC 7 could not have freefalled, as there was at all stages material that had to be broken during the collapse, which would take time and slow down the collapse; yet in their final report, due to pressure from David Chandler and others, they had to acknowledge a period of 2.25 seconds of complete freefall during the collapse. This means that *all* the resistance of the 80 support columns and other building material had to have been externally removed - as in controlled demolitions, where some floors are removed by explosives, allowing buildings to freefall during part of the collapses.

Humanity has little hope as long as people don't see a problem with the way in which WTC 7 was destroyed and in which the destruction has been officially "investigated".

Yes, I agree. But it's not

Yes, I agree.

But it's not clear this person has seen Building 7 or considered it. I was amazed at how many people -- architects and building professionals approaching AE911's booth at the conventions -- had never seen Building 7 come down. In any case, the point is not whether he is an honest "skeptic" of the work, or a dishonest debunker, if the claims he's making have validity in their own right.

If he adds in a bunch of nonsense, that's a different story. I don't see that here.

Some people will reach debunker sites first, or have friends who are debunkers, or other situations that cause them to approach the whole topic from the debunker perspective.

But that doesn't necessarily make all of their questions and statements unreasonable.

"But it's not..

..clear this person has seen Building 7 or considered it."

If you mean AlienEntity1 he must have seen it (assuming he's not blind) as he's the same alienentity in the "Welcome, Mr debunker!" comment above. Those threads will demand and contain little, if any, serious consideration though.

debunker test

Assuming that post was intended for me, the topic of this thread is Flight 77, the Pentagon and April Gallop.

WTC7 is not relevant to what she saw. It's another interesting topic altogether, and one that I've studied fairly extensively.
On another thread perhaps....



I have also studied WTC 7 fairly extensively:


You're right, WTC 7 is not the topic of this blog. I used it just as an example. It would, however, be interesting to read your comments on my points above.

I think the debunker treatment of WTC 7 best exemplifies "dissociative thinking". That WTC 7 matches a skilled controlled demolition is explained as an unprecedented coincidence or laboriously denied (although it cannot). That its debris was recycled without investigation is explained as an "error" if commented on at all. That the investigation was after that based on speculation - about alleged south-side damage, diesel fuel etc - no problem seen with that. That NIST acknowledged in 2008, before the final report, that fires were short-lived at any individual location but in its final report described fires lasting for hours in the "key" locations - no problem! And so on and on. In no other area would investigations like that be taken seriously.

Ground Effect


Frank Legge's paper covers the G forces the craft probably experienced as it descended towards the Pentagon. Fine. However, why do you think he (and others like him) forget about ground effect? With ground effect, no 757 can fly into the Pentagon at 530 mph just feet above the ground. It won't happen in this universe.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

A post. I just sent

Leftwright. I just sent a post to alienentity1 and pushed the wrong thing perhaps. Maybe preview not save. Do you have it??
Thanks lillyann

game over jref

I'm sorry AlienEntity1 but there is zero doubt that 911 was an inside job, it's 100%scientifically proven.

FACT 1: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.

FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!


FACT3: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.

The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section's toppling proves the removal of the lower section's resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.

An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.

Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

FACT 5: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object's gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.

This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.

FACT 6: Office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). "Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers."

The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!

The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it's weakest point. Why should it fail?

No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.

FACT 7. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.

GAME OVER in terms of proving it, now we have to overcome the corrupt government and their scumbag paid blog army over at Jref who could never ever refute the absolute proof I submitted above.

Here goes again

Alienentity1 I don't agree that "it is a reasonably established fact that flt.77 crashed into the Pentagon". I am very interested in the work of CIT ( flt. 77 flying north of the Citgo gasstation and flying over the Pentagon). And I would be very, very surprised to ever see photos released by the government of the plane crashing into the pentagon, or of plane parts identified. Until we have these photos we keep digging and questioning everything!!
The mere fact that the oct says something happened, is a good reason to look further. I am surprised at how quickly many in this movement are to trust the government here and to distrust continued discussions and investigating of everything to do with the Pentagon.
April Gallop has my respect and support in her courage to tell her story!

Flight 77

I question whether everything that the 'establishment' does or says can be lumped into the 'oct' as you put it.
I think it's tempting to label everything 'oct' and dismiss it out of hand, but I also think that's a fundamental error in judgment.

Why would the conduct of the NTSB be part of a 'conspiracy theory'? It's just a technical body, it doesn't investigate plots and motivations.

NTSB has been doing crash investigations before 9/11 and since 9/11. There's nothing to suggest that the FDR and CVR's, which were recovered (although the CVR was fried to the point of no return) do not belong to Flight 77, you can view the report online if you wish.

That sort of analysis is standard procedure, there are literally dozens of examples produced by the NTSB. I see no good reason to presume that the NTSB's data plotting was faulty in this case, or in the case of Flight 93 - in fact you can access the raw data yourself (it's been released under FOIA) and you can run software to plot it yourself.

IMHO the best info we have to date is that the flight crashed at high speed into the Pentagon. There isn't any good data to suggest an alternative to this, based on the FDR, DNA and other forensic evidence, and so on. If somebody wants to argue an alternative they need to come up with some plausible scenario and quality evidence to support it. Otherwise it's really just hot air and opinion, not grounded in verifiable facts.

As you can gather, I don't endorse the reflexive use of the 'oct' term. A forensic investigation is not a conspiracy theory, it can only tell you what was at the scene, the physical information.


Most people here are questioning everything about what happened on 911. It's not about calling anybody a liar, it's intelligent people who simply don't buy what the official narrative says.
You would do well to read David Griffin's latest book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

Show "DRG Books" by AlienEntity1

Remember too

that even those who are convinced that a plane did, or probably did, hit the Pentagon are not necessarily convinced that it could only have been Flight 77.

I have yet to really be convinced of anything one way or the other where the Pentagon is concerned; except that 'it' (whatever it was) shouldn't have happened, and everything about it has stunk to high heaven from day one.

What's Good For The Goose...


can you explain to me why physics is okay for the WTC, but must not be discussed when it involves the Pentagon? How does a 757 fly feet above the ground at 530 mph and avoid ground effect? A 757 would have cart wheeled into the Pentagon, which is what one phony eyewitness said at the scene:

"It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building." -- David Marra

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean jackson

You may have meant your comment for Victronix, who defends Frank Legge's paper. I don't beieve a 757 flew into the Pentagon just above the ground, cartwheel and all! I know that you feel a missile was used, I respect all of your work although I am inclined to go with the flyover. Thanks for your post.



the comment was meant for you. I had also left a comment for Victronix.

By the way, I'm with you and CIT on flyover! I always go where the evidence goes no matter where it may lead. I don't play politics with the truth as many Truthers do when it comes to the Pentagon. Never have, never will.

As for the missile, yes, but launched by the commuter jet that at least four eyewitnesses saw fly into the Pentagon. Now those four eyewitnesses didn't make any outrageous comments about the aircraft they saw cart wheeling or slam into a helicopter on the helipad!

Commuter Aircraft Eyewitnesses:

Steven Gerard
Don Wright
Steve Patterson
D. S. Khavkin

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean Jackson

It sounds very interesting! Do you have a paper on this aspect, I would like to read it.

Something Else


if you want to read something that is ground breaking (CIT are the ground breakers when it comes to the Pentagon), then take a look at my current article on NORAD posted at www.DNotice.org. In that article I kill two birds with one stone. The good thing about that article is that the truth comes from the 9/11 Commission Report itself, so you can use it with those who are skeptical of 9/11 Truthers. Such person have to believe the 9/11 Commission Report!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Thankyou Dean

Are you saying these four witnesses saw the missile or the plane entering the Pentagon?

Saw Plane hit Pentagon

They saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Variously identified as a twin-engine commuter plane, a silver AA jet, consistent with Flt 77. There was an eyewitness who described it as a 20-seater plane with no markings, but that doesn't jibe with the other reports. It should be noted that in NYC, when Barry Jennings (of the OEM) received his phone call, it was reported that a 'small Cessna' had hit the WTC. Obviously it wasn't a Cessna, but that's how it was described at first by some.
There are bound to be some variations in eyewitness perceptions. that is normal. But most of them saw it as a large jet, and had no doubt it crashing into the Pentagon - some described it as a 737, some a 747, silver on the bottom. That's reasonably close to the description of a 757.





Their stories....


all four said they saw a small commuter jet head towards/crash into the Pentagon.

Don Wright:


Steven Gerard:


Steve Patterson:

'"saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon...He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."' -- http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html

D. S. Khavkin:

"my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon." -- http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

This is a beauty:

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, ..."

They saw it hit the Pentagon. Thanks. But it was only a small plane, so how did it knock down all those poles? Even a 737 is too small to do that.


Personally, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think they happened in tandem.

Flight path.

Mokeyboy, can you explain more on this? What was the flight path that these four witnesses saw?

April Gallop previous lawsuits

I'm wondering how you folks feel regarding the fact that Ms. Gallop has launched several lawsuits, including one listed as 'April D Gallop v American Airlines Inc. et al.'.
Ms. Gallop received an undisclosed amount FROM American Airlines in late 2007.

Doesn't it seem hypocritical to sue the Airline for damages in one case, then sue the government in another couple of cases, arguing that an AA flight didn't hit the Pentagon?

Does this not bother anybody? Nobody sees a problem with this in terms of her credibility?
Where is the skepticism....

American Airlines

American Airlines is participating in the treasonous mass deception against the people. They are helping to cover up the evidence regarding the damage done to April Gallop. They got off easy by settling with her.