Screw Loose Change: Maybe April Gallop is a Fire-Walker!

My favorite thread at Truth Action continues to provide amusement. After the momentary diversion into "I've got Pat Curley's home address", we learn the suspicious thing that chek NI has figured out:

I'm adding a pic of two images we are probably all reasonably familiar with - one of the famous gatehouse frames, and another found on Jim Hoffman's 911 Research, known to be taken before any fire suppression measures had begun after the strike.

My purpose in starting this thread was and is not to cause disruption/insult anyone's intelligence/stamp on anybody's bunions, but rather to reconcile in my own mind the yawning chasm of mystery between these images and April Gallop's now very topical testimony.

Which to remind everybody, included exiting barefoot and carrying her infant son from her exploded office less than 50ft from the alleged impact out through the hole and onto the lawn. Without being burned or seeing any fire or aircraft wreckage.

Here's are the photos he points to:

Given that an awful lot of people have admitted not taking much interest in the Pentagon issue, then they just might have found some slight incongruity between those photos of the alleged actual strike and those infernos that they've "all seen 5000 times before" and the testimony of a living, law-suit bringing witness who walked out of that exact location with a different story.

I would hope that it rocks some cognitively dissonant little socks off.

Yes! They have proven the "official story" can't be true! The fires weren't there! It was secretly just a tiny, oxygen-starved fire. All the eyewitnesses work for the government and won't get their pensions if they admit it! So when one of the other morons over there says "What's your point? Is April lying or were the fires faked?", the response is:

For some strange reason, you left out out the most obvious:

Yet another of the many occasions when the sophisticated 911 Cover Up Myth aka the OCT fails to match up with what actually happened.

Translation: I'm just asking questions! But Stefan the British troofer has a scenario:

What if there was more than one device used inside the Pentagon, and that these did not go off in synchrony, but over a period of time? Perhaps they were meant to and it didn’t go to plan, perhaps that was the way it was planned, who knows? And perhaps the fires were not started by the first explosion, but by the second or even the third?

That would of course explain how April was able to leave the building without being burned to a crisp, but is there any evidence for a second explosion, after the first yet before the larger collapse of the outer face?

And the new guy Daniel is thrilled:

Excellent piece of detective work, Stefan. Seems very reasonable to me. This is exactly the kind of invaluable collaborative work that can result from the efforts of many hardworking and reasonable open-minded citizen investigators working together to collectively seek the truth that I like to see this network being used for.

Yes indeed, it is a much better explanation than that she did not go out through the main part of the fire, but in the confusion and shock she remembers things inexactly.

Maybe our commenter anonymous is right and we're wasting our time covering the chess match at the Special Olympics. Not without its amusement value, but we really don't need to add the laugh track.

Update: Truthmover is suspicious: