Sunday, March 27, 2011

April Gallop Back in Court?

I was a bit surprised to see this recent article, since I had thought that her previous suit was dismissed, with prejudice, but I am not a lawyer, so I suppose she could still appeal it. They get practically nothing right, including referring to a Specialist (E-4) as a career Army officer, while she is neither.

Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care.

Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.

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.

The 9/11 Commission reported that "by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center."

Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?


In addition to such bizarre statements, such as how her infant child received a security clearance (at least the background check would be short) they claim they will present an abundant amount of evidence, but appeals courts decide matters of law, not of fact.

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.


Perhaps someone more familiar with this legal process could weigh in?

Labels:

15 Comments:

At 27 March, 2011 10:30, Blogger Garry said...

'Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival'.

I find this absolutely astounding. After all, the Mossad, SVR and SIS in particular are renowned for recruiting and training babies shortly after they are born.

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:04, Blogger Triterope said...

The article was written by April Gallop's lawyer.

Notice that there is no author, but rather a by-line "Center for 9-11 Justice." Google that and see what you find.

This is just another case of an incompetent newspaper editor being fooled into running a "press release" from a Twoof organization as news.

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:09, Blogger Triterope said...

The article says:

the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

If that's really true, the decision will be posted here:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/opinions.htm

There's nothing there yet, of course, but there will be when and if the appeal is heard. No doubt it will bring much laughter to this blog.

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Usually a defective case will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning "come back when you can allege sufficient facts" or "when you can articulate a legally recognizable cause of action." Gallop's was dismissed with prejudice, which means "you're so full of crap, don't file this again". That's not the end of it though -- she can appeal to the next higher court, the federal Circuit Court in this case, if she thinks the district court made a mistake in dismissing. That's all this is.

Typically a Circuit Court will just dismiss appeals by nutbags without published opinions, so we probably won't hear anymore about. Yes, I'm a goddamned lawyer.

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:10, Blogger Ian said...

This is just another case of an incompetent newspaper editor being fooled into running a "press release" from a Twoof organization as news.

Seriously. I read the press release and wondered if this was the online edition of a newspaper from Russia or Venezuela or something. Nope, it's from small-town South Carolina. Also, what's with the 89.5% of Germans stat? 1) that sounds suspiciously close to the 84% of Americans, and 2) who cares?

 
At 28 March, 2011 04:29, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh, it's another vaguely worded, poorly sourced, and dishonestly presented poll result:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198364

Comment #39 wins the thread.

 
At 28 March, 2011 20:03, Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 March, 2011 20:06, Blogger Len said...

It IS just a press release. It seems that in a lame attempt to steer traffic to their site the Herald posts all the feed from PR/Newswire.

While it might get them more traffic and click revenue they end up paying more for bandwidth and storage. Worst of all they hurt their own credibility by posting PR as news.

 
At 29 March, 2011 04:28, Blogger Triterope said...

You're right, it doesn't look like it ran in the print edition. A search through the paper's archives at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/heraldonline/search.html doesn't seem to turn up the article.

But in the age of online editions, it is still a blow to their credibility to have such garbage posted under their banner.

 
At 29 March, 2011 08:46, Blogger Garry said...

Am I right in thinking that the segment of the Pentagon which got hit by AA77 was the US Navy Command Center?

If so, what the hell was an Army E4 doing so close to the crash site?

 
At 29 March, 2011 08:51, Blogger Garry said...

From Alfred Goldberg et al, 'Pentagon 9/11', (Washington D.C: USGPO 2007):

'"In this area ... it's so hot that the debris is melting and dripping off the ceiling onto your skin and it would sear your skin and melt your uniform. We went a little farther, turned a corner and came into this bombed out office space that was a roaring inferno of destruction and smoke and flames and intense heat you could feel searing your face."

Lieutenant Commander David Tarantino describing the scene near the Navy Command Center on the first floor, shortly after AA77 crashed into it.'

So April Gallop makes her escape through the crash site shortly after the Pentagon gets hit, and she doesn't notice all those fires ...

Hmm, why has my bullshitometer suddenly gone haywire?

 
At 29 March, 2011 09:13, Blogger James B. said...

The Pentagon is joint. People from different commands are mixed all ovet the place.

 
At 29 March, 2011 14:18, Blogger Garry said...

'The Pentagon is joint. People from different commands are mixed all ovet the place'.

Yes James, I accept that. The British MOD works on the same principle but I've got three further questions:

(1) Can anyone prove that Gallop was anywhere near the crash site (she should - after all - be prepared to state what her job was in DOD, and where in the Pentagon her office was)?

(2) If she's trying to make her escape from a building rocked by a sudden explosion, does she make her way away from the site of the blast, or towards it? Common sense suggests that you do the latter.

(3) How come, when by her own account she made her exit through 'the hole reportedly made by Flight 77', she was able to make a detailed examination as to whether there was any wreckage or body parts on the site, but didn't notice the fact that there was a fucking fire?

 
At 29 March, 2011 14:20, Blogger Garry said...

I should have added a fourth question. Her workplace has (as would appear at first hand) been bombed, and her infant son is in the building. Why is her first priority not to find out where young Elisha is?

 
At 29 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger Triterope said...

LashL at JREF forum made a great point when April Gallop's lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in the first place. From the footnotes (page 10):

It should be noted that in a prior lawsuit, Gallop took the position that a passenger airliner did crash into the Pentagon.

And now she's filing a lawsuit on the basis that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. She says "explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile."

Really. She said that.

Here's the entire thing, for your reading pleasure:

http://sites.google.com/site/resipsa2006/gallop

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home