April Gallop Sues American Airlines, But Claims There Was No Plane?, April Gallop Set to go to court again, but should she be supported? Options

[BlueSky]

The documents shown on this forum thread: http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread424507/pg1 are quite.... bad if she is going to go to court again.


Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110324050310393

What is the deal with this lady?

[amazed!]

tit2

Yes, I remember reading the statements of several personnel inside the Pentagon reference "sound of a bomb", and thanks, I had not heard those statements before.

Be careful in claiming specific numbers for fuel onboard any given aircraft in these discussions--nobody can know specific numbers for fuel onboard.

And I must amend my previous statement regarding what MIGHT have been heard by persons inside the building. Considering the flyby made by some airliner type, somebody inside MIGHT have heard that event, especially after the aircraft passed and the listener was then BEHIND the jet exhaust.

Robert

We must keep in mind that there were NUMEROUS training exercises being conducted that day, by both civilian and military commands, including FEMA. The training exercises allowed the rank and file personnel to believe that they were participating in some sort of emergency training, and that means they were not particularly observant, and attributed most of what they saw and heard to the training scenario. If you have ever participated in a Field Training Exercise, you know what I mean.

Thus, it is likely that many people knew SOMETHING was going to happen concerning some exercise, but they just did not know what precisely.

Just as people knew enough about the day to buy stock options in advance, others knew enough to expect SOMETHING to happen, however lacking in details they might have been.

We know that 1 civilian helicopter pilot, news ship as I recall, offered his assistance to the locals if they needed help at the Pentagon. Not only "no", but "hell no" he was told, and don't get near here.

We know that the Pentagon has provided something like 5 frames from a parking lot video for public consumption. All the other video cameras on the property, which must amount to dozens of cameras, and including the camera video from the nearby hotel, have NOT been made public. Yes, it's very safe to say that SOMETHING was happening there that day that was the giveaway to exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

OSS

I do not remember having read Craig's comments about witnesses that you linked to there, but the gist of what he said there is exactly what I thought he would have said. That there were other witnesses in other parts of the greater DC area (not just about the Citgo area) is only logical, and rather my point.

I have always respected and admired the work Craig and CIT have done there--they provided a great service to those of us seeking what bit of truth we might find amongst the smoke & mirrors erected by the government.

My only beef with CIT was a particular conclusion they drew, just 1 out of the several. I do not think the conclusion can be drawn that there were POSITIVELY no other aircraft involved. Maybe there were no other aircraft involved, and then maybe there were. It's rather like the old conundrum--if a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody there to hear it, did it really make a sound?

It is entirely possible that while all the witnesses near the Citgo were fixating on a low flying Boeing (or whatever it was), a smaller and faster aircraft went by out of their field of vision. I have no proof that DID happen, I'm just saying it's possible.

As for Steve Gerard, if he worked for the US Justice Department, that makes it a better than 50-50 chance he is making stuff up. Sad to say.

As for the A-3 story, loose ends like that have been known to happen. As an aside, I'm curious if you served in the US military? Point is that I am personally aware of another similar 'loose end' that was observed, completely by accident, by a friend of mine with a career in the USAF. I digress.

Cruise missles have no landing gear, is what I said previously. Thus, assuming that the pictures we saw of landing gear and engine parts inside the Pentagon were genuine, those parts could not have come from a cruise missle. But that does not necessarily mean that a cruise missle was not involved. Weren't there 2 explosions reported there?

As for terrain following flight, clearly the aircraft must have the ability to pitch up and pitch down, for that is what terrain does.