Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pentagon Survivor April Gallop Suing Rummy/cheney
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Latest News
Pages: 1, 2
Ricochet
Raw Story
[quote]A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

According to a timeline of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks by not warning those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.

"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.

Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.

The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

"What they don't want is for this to go into discovery," said Gallop's attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. "If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we've got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We've got the law on our side."

The lawsuit's full text follows.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___

APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________

Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded

vs.

DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.

__________________________________________


COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case arises from the infamous Attack on America of Sept 11, 2001, and especially on the Pentagon; and is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. Government officials, beginning with and led from the top by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers, then acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plaintiffs allege that these and other government officials, whose identities will be ascertained from their proven or evident relevant roles and activities, and who are named herein as 'John Doe' defendants, together with other known and unknown operatives and functionaries, official and otherwise, engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, or a set of related, ongoing conspiracies, in which the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done.

2. The defendants' purpose in aiding and facilitating the attack, and the overall object of the conspirac(ies), was to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public, and in Washington. This would generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional government in our country. Much of their intention was spelled out prior to their coming into office, in publications of the so-called Project for the New American Century, of which defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld were major sponsors. There they set forth specific objectives regarding the projection of U.S. military power abroad, particularly in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas. They observed, however, that the American people would not likely support the actions the sponsors believed were necessary, without being shocked into a new outlook by something cataclysmic: “a new Pearl Harbor”. By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military conquest, “full spectrum dominance” and “American primacy” around the world; as they have done.

3. In pursuit of the goals of the conspiracy, the named and unnamed defendants knowingly and by agreement committed a series of acts and omissions which were aimed at and did generally accomplish the following objectives:

+ To permit the men they later identified as the hijackers and any immediate accomplices to enter and remain in the country, and carry out the activities, movements and communications needed in their preparations for the hijacking, free from interference by police or counter-terrorist authorities; and then allow the groups of these men to book passage, all on the same day, and board the flights;

+ To cause normal operation of the regular off-course airline flight interception practice of the US Air Force, in cooperation with civil flight control authorities, to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove its protections, at least on that day, and thus permit three of the four apparently hijacked planes to reach their targets and crash into them (or appear to do so...);1

+ To cause the normal operation of ground and air defenses which guard the Pentagon from external attack to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove or negate the building's normal protections, and thus permit an airliner, believed to be hijacked by possible suicide bombers, and following a forbidden, descending flight path, to reach the Pentagon undeterred;

+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;

+ To arrange, thereafter, and fabricate, propound and defend, as part of the conspiracy, an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated cover-up, centering around the Report of the 9/11 Commission, and continuing to this day. To this end, defendants misappropriated the highest authority of government to block, misdirect and otherwise evade any fair, independent investigation of the evidence, and officially if implausibly explain away the evident wholesale failure of America's defenses with misinformation, omissions and distortions, withheld and destroyed evidence, and outright lies.

4. In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers that the official story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the plaintiff’s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been crashed into the building. This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile. This is supported by the lack of any photographic evidence of a wrecked airliner at the Pentagon, compounded by the record of reported refusal by the U.S. Department of Justice to release some 85 video tapes from surveillance cameras in locations at or near the Pentagon, which it has declared exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

5. Whatever way the bombing of the Pentagon was accomplished, however, and whatever else may or may not have been done by defendants to facilitate the hijackings that day, it is clear the defendant top commanders would have had and did have, at a profound minimum, enough foreknowledge, on that day and in the intelligence information they received beforehand, to have sounded a warning in time for plaintiff and others to evacuate the building, and thereby avoid much if not all the death and injury which occurred. In the end, more than half an hour passed after flight controllers first sounded the alert on Flight 77, while all concerned were fully aware of the suicide crashes in New York; plenty of time for the Pentagon to be evacuated. ‘Top gun’ jet fighter-interceptors under defendants’ command, available with time to spare, were not summoned; and the people in the building, including plaintiff and her infant, were not

warned. This was the result of unlawful conspiracy among these highest-level commanders, and others, who acted knowingly and intentionally to have the Pentagon attacked or to allow it to be attacked, without warning, with deliberate indifference to and in reckless and callous disregard for the fundamental constitutional and human rights of plaintiff and her child, and many other people, dead, injured and bereaved.

6. Plaintiff April Gallop brings this action for herself and as next friend of her son Elisha Gallop now aged 7, who was a two-month-old baby in her arms on that day, her first back from maternity leave. She was a career member of the US Army, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance, who had served six years, two-and-a-half of them in Germany, before being assigned to the Pentagon in 2000. Her desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall. As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.

7. Plaintiff and her baby both suffered substantial head and brain injuries, which seriously affect them still today. Plaintiff charges that, because of the conspiracy alleged herein, she and her child and others were injured by acts of terrorism participated in by defendants. Further, as more fully described within at Pars 57-59, she and her child were and subsequently have been denied fundamental rights — including by acts of retaliation against her for raising painful questions about what occurred — as the cover-up continues.


JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:

a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;

b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;

c. Under the Terrorism Acts, 18 U.S.Code 2333(a), for acts of terrorism brought about by actions wholly outside the scope of defendants’ duties, in perversion of their authority, and beyond the bounds or color of any law; and therefore not exempt or immune under the provisions of Sec. 2337, the application of which to exonerate these defendants would be unconstitutional.

9. Venue for the case is set by the special provisions of the Air Transportation Safety Act of September, 2001, 49 U.S.C. 40101, Subsection 408(B)(3), bringing all claims arising from events of 9/11 to this honorable Court .

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and related matters.

11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States; DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.; Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist) undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as co-defendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become known.

12. Existence of a Class. Plaintiff notes that a number of other persons suffered injury and loss in the Pentagon on September 11 as she did, and are similarly situated to her, plainly within the provisions of Rule 23, F.R.Civ P., so that she represents a Class, the members of which evidently are also entitled to recover judgment as sought herein. She does not now assert the Class interest; but, where it appears there could be action by the Court affecting this question, and a class could emerge, she wishes to and does hereby reserve the right, subject to the Court’s approval, to act as lead plaintiff.

13. Limitations. There is no time bar to the claims in this action. The Statute does not run against plaintiff’s child, as a minor, under Virginia law (Va. Code Ann., §8.01-229). As to the plaintiff herself, defendants and their cohorts and agents, by means of elaborate planned and other ad hoc cover stories, public lying, alteration of records, misappropriation of official authority and other nefarious activities, have concealed and continue to conceal, fraudulently, the truth about the attacks and the way they occurred — and their own participation and complicity in the range of acts and omissions needed, in furtherance of conspiracy, to bring them about. Likewise, the original conspiracy to act secretly in furtherance of terrorism, and lie and dissemble afterwards, in order to foment war and vengeance against the supposed perpetrators, has stayed alive and continued to harm the plaintiff, as she will show.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background: Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attack

14. As the world knows, four large commercial airliners filled with ordinary passengers were reported hijacked in the northeastern United States the morning of September 11, 2001. Two were evidently crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, which later collapsed; a third was said to have hit the Pentagon in Washington DC, and the fourth, supposedly aiming for the White House or the Capitol, was reported crashed in Pennsylvania by its passengers, fighting back against the hijackers.

15. The alleged hijackers were quickly identified by US authorities, supposedly from passenger lists, as 19 men of Middle Eastern descent, fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian and one Lebanese. Their pictures, apparent police mug shots, were shown on TV around the world soon after the attack. It emerged that some if not all of these men were already known to police and intelligence authorities in the US and elsewhere as terrorist suspects. They were said to be associated with Al-Qaeda, a network of radical 'Islamic' militants, led by the renegade Saudi aristocrat Osama bin Laden, and pledged to unremitting ‘holy war’ against the United States and its people. Al Qaeda was blamed for several previous terrorist attacks, including suicide attacks in which hundreds died, in the Middle East and Africa, and against a U.S. Navy warship in the Persian Gulf. An earlier, precursor group of ‘Islamist’ terrorists, based in Brooklyn and New Jersey, carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center, in 1993.

16. At the time the Clinton Administration was succeeded by that of George W. Bush and defendant Dick Cheney, in January, 2001, an extensive, complex U.S. counter-terrorism effort against Al Qaeda was in progress, involving personnel and resources from a number of government agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the U.S. Military, and others, requiring coordination between these agencies at the highest levels. The Chief of Counterterrorism under President Clinton, Richard Clarke, was retained by Bush, but later strongly criticized the Bush Administration for ignoring the Al Qaeda threat, allowing the effort begun under Clinton to lapse, to the point where he felt constrained to apologize to the families of those who died, for the failure he said led directly to the devastation of September 11th. At all events, it is clear from the accounts of Clarke and others that, once Mr. Bush and Defendant Cheney were in office, the effort to combat Al Qaeda was decisively blunted at the top, and at key points down the chain of command.

17. In particular, little or no attention was paid by defendants and others responsible to an increasingly explicit series of warnings, during 2001, that Al Qaeda was hoping and planning to strike inside the US; and that there were concrete plans — which cadres in U.S. agencies were aware of, and were in fact conducting exercises to prepare for, and defeat — which included attempting to crash planes into important buildings. U.S. investigators were well aware that the man they believed was the enemy network’s chief bomb-maker for the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, Ramzi Youssef, had hoped and attempted to bring a tower down in that attack; and that this remained a goal of the group.

18. Responsible intelligence officials were aware that Al Qaeda members were operating inside the U.S., and there were a number of critical investigative leads. Two of the hijackers-to-be lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. The CIA monitored a meeting in Malaysia in 1999, after which two of the participants came to the U.S., where authorities supposedly lost track of them. There were reports from FBI field offices in Arizona and elsewhere that figures on the suspect list were taking or seeking training as pilots — including one who reportedly said he only wanted to learn how to fly an airliner, not how to land or take off — but coordination and follow-up investigation on these and other leads was blocked by John Doe defendant CIA and FBI higher-ups and key players. Notwithstanding such malfeasance, the signs and portents of an imminent attack were very strong in the summer of 2001. As the then CIA chief George Tenet testified, “The system was blinking red.”

19. Despite the flow of ominous information to various sections of the US counterterrorism apparatus, however, and the danger to innocent people — and as a result of conspiracy among defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and other members of the Government in various positions — the many warnings of a coming attack by Al Qaeda forces (as many as forty messages in all, according to the Commission Report, from eleven different countries) were studiously ignored.

20. That is, defendants and others in the highest circles of the Government knew more than enough beforehand about the threat and gathering danger of an imminent possible attack by Al Qaeda in the U.S. to understand that they needed to take strong, thoroughgoing measures to increase the country's protections and alertness. Instead, led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and because defendants were callously indifferent to the rights and safety of innocents — including their own people in the Pentagon, plaintiff among them — the government did not respond. On information and belief, no special meetings of high officials and agency heads were called, to make sure protections systems were on high alert and functioning properly, and that all needed information was being shared. No special warnings were given to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Immigration Service, the Military and other affected agencies. No consultations were had about possible methods of attack, including specifics about possible hijackings, and the use of planes as missiles to hit buildings, despite operational planning and training which had already occurred at lower echelons. The FBI did not step up surveillance of suspected terrorist individuals or “cells”, or immigration checks, or let such people know they were being watched, in order to impede their activities; and it appears that no coordinated, high-level monitoring and analysis of the threats, and planning for counteraction, ever took place. Instead, the threat was dismissed, and ignored.

21. It should be noted that plaintiff cannot and does not know with certainty the outlines of the plot at its initiation. The attacks may have been conceived of as a false-flag operation from the beginning, with the defendants and their operatives as creators, planners, and executors, with the assistance of others as necessary. Or, defendants may have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or they may have used Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies. The roles of the supposed “nineteen” could have been to hijack the airliners, or simply, unwittingly, to be on the planes when they were crashed into buildings by remote control. It is also possible that the defendants learned of a plot originated by Muslim extremists, and co-opted or overrode it with their own plan. Whatever lay in the minds of the defendant conspirators at the outset, it is clear that the nineteen men so quickly identified as the hijackers, some if not all of them known terrorist suspects, traveling under their own names, simply walked onto the four planes that morning, with their “box cutters”, without hindrance or incident.

II. Failure of the Air Defense System.

22. Accounts from the FAA and the National Military Command Center vary widely, suffer from internal contradictions, and are in conflict with each other; but credible reports show that FAA flight controllers were aware of a problem with the first plane as early as 8:14 or 8:15 a.m. the morning of September 11th, and evidently called the military for emergency assistance, pursuant to routine, by 8:21 a.m. or thereabouts. They learned the second plane was off course and not responding a short time later. According to reports, United Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03. The Pentagon was hit at or about 9:32 a.m. — although the official version says 9:38 — and the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania shortly after 10:00 a.m. High performance jet fighter planes stationed at various bases around the northeastern U.S. — tasked to intercept and deal with unidentified or straying aircraft entering or flying in U.S. airspace under NORAD district command, or otherwise at NORAD’s disposal — were available at a moment's notice. None were notified, however, or sent to the right place, until it was too late; at least for the first three planes.

23. No interceptor planes came to stop the supposed hijackers — shoot them down if necessary — even though the Air Force has for many years maintained a practice of immediate response in which the fighters have readily been “scrambled” when aircraft are seen to go too far off course, or lose radio contact with flight controllers. The interceptor program has been an elite assignment in the Air Force, even after the Cold War ended, in which pilots fly regularly, and wait in ‘ready rooms’ near the hangars, and planes are kept in top condition, with engines warm and ready for takeoff. The best jets are used, which can reach speeds of 1600-1800 miles per hour, and the personnel are so well trained and practiced that pilots routinely go from hearing the scramble order to 29,000 feet in less than three minutes. The scramble orders are normally made by local NORAD commanders in cooperation with the FAA. Both the FAA and the affected NORAD North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) military command have radar tracking coverage of the entire airspace, and special telephone hotlines between them and with higher authority. Nor are these forays rare, reportedly occurring once or twice a week at various U.S. locales during the past several years. Published Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records showed that, between September 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001, interceptor jets took to the air 67 times to check on “in-flight emergencies” involving wayward planes.

24. No interceptors came to defend the Pentagon, in particular, and plaintiff and the other occupants, because of actions and failures to act by defendant Rumsfeld, Defendant General Myers and John Doe others in concert with them, even though more than an hour passed between the time the first warning went out to the Military, at or about 8:21a.m., and the attack on the Pentagon at 9:32; even though the first tower was hit in a suicide crash in New York at least 46 minutes before the Pentagon was hit; and even though ‘combat air patrol’ jets from any of several bases in the region could have reached the Pentagon — or the path of Flight 77 — in a fraction of that time.

25. Having pre-arranged a coordinated failure of the Pentagon defenses, and its warning system, the defendants hid and distracted themselves, and otherwise failed to act, just at the time they were needed to ensure defense of the building; and they have dissembled ever since, as part of the conspiracy, in representing where they were and what they did during that time. As with the planes that hit the towers in New York, the Military and the 9/11 Commission, while failing to cast blame, explained away the failure to launch fighter interceptors at the Pentagon as the result of a failure by flight controllers — which FAA personnel deny — to notify the Air Force of the flight emergencies in a timely way. This was cover-up, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

26. Likewise, by the acts of one or more defendants in furtherance of the conspiracy, no defenses at the Pentagon responded either, no missile or anti-aircraft batteries opening from the ground around the building, or the roof; no sharpshooters deployed with hand-held missiles at stations close by; nothing. 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.

27. It is evident, particularly with respect to the attack on the Pentagon in which the plaintiff and her baby were injured, that, if the building was hit by a plane that morning, or if, as appears more likely, a plane flew low over the building at the time the bomb(s) went off inside and/or the missile hit, to give the (false) impression of a crash, some form of order or restriction was in force which suspended normal operation of the building's defenses. In particular, it is indisputable that the expected response of the fighter-interceptors failed completely; and plaintiff avers this resulted from orders or authorization from within the defendant circle of Rumsfeld and Myers and their helpers, restraining normal operation of the protections system and armaments at the Pentagon — including but not limited to jets available at various bases near the capital.

28. Plaintiff alleges further that such “standdown” orders, in whatever manner or form they had been prepared or issued, were maintained and affirmed by defendants up to and through that morning, and that defendant Cheney in particular, operating in the underground command bunker (Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC) beneath the White House, personally affirmed such an order. His word kept the order in force during the period between 9:20 a.m., when he was observed in the Bunker and the moment the Pentagon was hit.

29. In this connection, plaintiff refers the Court to the testimony of then-U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that when he arrived at the White House, he was sent to the PEOC, and arrived at around 9:20 a.m., to find Cheney there, and in charge. He said he sat at a table with Cheney for the next period of time, during which a young man came in the room, three times, and informed the Vice President that an “unidentified plane” was approaching Washington, D.C., first at 50, then 30, and then 10 “miles out”; and that, when he reported the distance as 10 miles, the young man asked the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” Secretary Mineta testified that defendant Cheney responded sharply, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Whereupon the young man left the room; and a few minutes later, the hit on the Pentagon was announced. This testimony by the Secretary has never been contested, discredited or explained away by any U.S. official.

30. Plaintiff alleges that the “orders” were orders not to intercept or shoot down the approaching plane. If the orders had been to attack the approaching plane, it would have been shot down before it reached the Pentagon — or at least some attempt to stop it would have been made; and the world would know of it. Based on some two hundred years of American military history, the failure would have led to a Board of Inquiry or other public official investigation, to determine how and why the defense apparatus had failed. Individuals would have been called to account, and disciplinary procedures followed resulting in findings of responsibility and demotions or formal charges against those found to have failed the Country. All of these bureaucratic events would have become part of the official record, and known to the public; none of which has happened. There has been no publicly recorded disciplinary action against any military or civilian officer of the United States government as a result of the attacks of September 11th. Such proceedings would have created a great risk that the truth would be exposed.

31. The public record also shows that no meaningful follow-up questioning of Sec. Mineta occurred before the 9/11 Commission; that defendant Cheney has never testified under oath or been reasonably questioned about these events; and that he has given contradictory accounts, one of which---the account he gave to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11--- conflicts with The 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission Report adopts an unsworn statement by Cheney that he never reached the bunker until about 10:00 a.m.; and contains no reference to Mineta’s testimony, ignoring completely this contradiction between the two high government officials. The Commission also ignores the fact that Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” supports Mineta’s testimony and hence contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s account.

32. Plaintiff charges that, in point of fact, the “orders” referred to were orders not to shoot the plane down, but to let it proceed, and that such orders were given and/or approved by defendants Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, pursuant to the root conspiracy alleged herein, and transmitted down a chain of command. The normal expected operation of Pentagon defense that day was thus prevented, allowing the attack to succeed, or to “succeed” in creating a false and deceptive scenario of a plane crash.


III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.

34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.

35. Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded. However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of well-established Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn’t she evacuated, with her baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren’t alarms going off, and all the people in the building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants’ actions and flagrant failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff and her child were seriously hurt.

36. Plaintiff alleges further that, pursuant to the conspiracy, the attack on the Pentagon was contrived to “succeed” in only a very limited way. Destruction, death and injuries, in comparison to what would have occurred if the building had been attacked straight on with a large plane, by enemies bent on causing the greatest possible devastation and loss of life, were kept to a minimum; and the conspirators themselves not put at risk. Certainly the official account of what occurred is full of gross anomalies,

which contradict the physical evidence, the scientific and aeronautical evidence, and the laws of physics and aerodynamics. The 9/11 Commission Report is exposed as an artifact of the conspiracy, aimed at covering up the fact that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon, and that it was bombed a different way.

37. The official account established in the 9/11 Commission hearings is that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 jetliner, took off from Dulles International Airport at or about 8:20 a.m., and apparently was hijacked at about 8:55 a.m. some two or three hundred miles west of Washington. Radio contact was lost and the plane’s “transponder” was turned off. At that point, Flight 77 was traversing an apparent radar “dead zone”, located over the southeast Ohio-West Virginia borderland, where another similar plane, fitted with radio control reception equipment, may have been substituted, so as to ensure that the precise maneuvers required by the conspirators’ plan could be carried out. Whichever plane it was soon established a flight path leading back towards Washington at high speed, on a downward trajectory, until it was close to the Pentagon. There it began a two-and-a-half-to-three-minute spiral dive, from an altitude of about 8000 feet and in a 330-degree loop, which supposedly carried it into the northwest wall of the building. Experts agree this dive was an aeronautically fantastic maneuver, nearly impossible for a plane of that size, which would require the most skillful and experienced pilot — or remote control.

38. The returning plane, according to the official version, struck the Pentagon just above ground level. There it disintegrated — even maybe vaporized, according to some accounts, at least in part — but, paradoxically, also plowed inside. Had it simply flown straight into the top of the building rather than making its improbable spiral dive, there would have been far greater damage and loss of life. Had it turned only 150-180 degrees, it could have smashed into the East side of the building, where the office of defendant Rumsfeld was publicly known to be located on the third floor, looking out at the river, with the Joint Chiefs and other high officials all nearby. In contrast, the ground floor area that was blown up held offices like the one plaintiff worked in, many of them empty for a remodeling project, which was said to have included reinforcement to protect against attack. Another part of the destroyed space held financial records.

39. Also in the official version, the nose of the plane supposedly penetrated the distance of the three outer “rings” of the building, leaving a large, nine- or ten-foot-high round hole — shown in official photographs, without any sign of a plane — in the inner wall of the third (“C”) ring. The hole was located some 300 feet from the alleged impact point, through a maze of structural pillars and interior walls. It was also said that the wings of the plane knocked over five lampposts along a nearby road, as it approached the building, which meant the wings were a maximum of 50 feet off the ground as the plane flew past, roughly 300-350 yards away from the near face of the building.

40. This account is at odds with known evidence, and raises substantial questions about the absence of evidence — and official withholding of evidence — including the following:

a. There are no photos of a wrecked airplane at the place where the building was hit and set on fire; or of airplane wreckage at the hole in the inner ring where the nose of the plane was originally said by Rumsfeld to have come to rest, or elsewhere inside the building. Moreover, the nose of such a plane contains radar equipment, and the outer shell is made of a porous, composite material that allows the radar to function. Therefore, the nose was not capable of surviving an impact with the outer wall without being crushed, let alone penetrating all the way inside to the C-Ring wall, 300 feet away.

Although this story was later dropped, defendant Rumsfeld has never been publicly questioned about his statement that this is what occurred.

b. As noted, there is no footage from numerous video surveillance cameras — reportedly 85 different tapes are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations where some or all of the plane and the crash could be expected to have been caught on tape.

c. The official account says the plane knocked over several lampposts with its wings — two on one side of a nearby road, three on the other — which meant the wings were less than fifty feet off the ground as the plane approached, over uneven terrain, and the undercarriage even closer. The earliest photographs, taken before the upper floors fell in, about 30 minutes after the explosion(s), show the front blown off an expanse of the ground floor, no marks on the lawn in front of the impact zone; and several large cable reels standing in front of the building, unscathed.

d. The “black box” flight data recorder identified by the Government as coming from Flight 77, and reportedly recovered from the wreckage at the scene, bears data, according to pilots who have examined printouts provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which contradict various aspects of the official account, — and indeed the very notion that a plane struck the Pentagon — in crucial ways, viz:

1. It is a fundamental premise of airliner manufacture and operation that the black box only stops recording data when a flight is terminated — by the pilot turning off the engines at the gate, or by a crash. According to the pilots who studied the printouts, however, the record showing the path of Flight 77, etched with codes which connect it to that plane that day, cuts off, unaccountably, some 4-500 yards short of the building — a point reached after the pitched, diving loop described above — at an altitude of 273 feet. The Pentagon is roughly 75 feet high. Just as they will confirm the improbability of that dive, expert pilots will attest that for a plane that size to descend from 273 feet, going approximately 500 miles an hour, and then level off inside of a quarter mile without hitting the ground — let alone get down to 50 feet in time to catch the lampposts, 300 yards closer — is an aerodynamic and gravitational impossibility.

2. The Safety Board has released a computer simulation of the flight path of Flight 77, allegedly based on the data from the flight recorder, which contradicts a simulation adopted by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission simulation shows the flight path of the official story, at an angle reflected by the damage inside the building, consistent with the downed light poles, and to the south of two nearby buildings housing the Navy Annex and a Citgo gas station. The NTSB simulation shows the plane headed towards the building on a path north of the two buildings and the line of lampposts.

3. Similarly, in the one fragment of a surveillance tape the Pentagon has released, two of the five frames disclosed appear to show an object, not recognizable as an airliner and apparently trailing a plume of white smoke, moving parallel to and just above the ground towards the Pentagon wall, followed by a bright explosion and a fireball mounting from the front of the building. The NTSB’s black box data shows Flight 77 was roughly 200 feet above the top of the Pentagon as it reached its last known position some 400 to 500 yards (2-3 seconds) away. Thus, it could not have hit the building except by diving into it, and so could not have flown parallel to the ground between there and the point of impact. So it appears that, contrary to the defendants’ false cover story of an airliner suicide crash, there was a different, additional, flying object, which hit the Pentagon, and was part of the terrorist bombing that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

e. Additionally, the FBI identified the hijacker pilot of Flight 77 as “Hani Hanjour”, supposedly a known terrorist suspect, who was reported to have received flight training in various places in the months before the attack. His flight instructors, however, reported that Hanjour was such a poor flight student that he was barely able to fly a small Cessna; and then he was so erratic that instructors refused to go up with him, and, just a few months before 9/11, recommended he be washed out and his license taken away. Thus it seems quite impossible that he could have flown the 757 really at all, let alone in its great uncanny dive. There have also been repeated reports since 9/11 that several of the other men named and pictured by the FBI as the hijackers were still alive after 9/11, and living in various locations in the world — including one, Waleed Al-Shehri, who was said to be a working pilot for Moroccan Air Lines, correctly shown in the FBI photo, whose identity and location have been verified by at least one major press outlet, the BBC. This information has not been pursued by U.S. investigators, or media.

f. Several trained and experienced military personnel at the scene noted the distinctive odor of cordite, a high explosive used in gunpowder, in the aftermath of the attack at the Pentagon. This suggests explosives as the cause for the destruction rather than the impact and fire resulting from burning jet fuel.

g. One investigator has documented the fact that numerous clocks in the damaged area of the building stopped at 9:32 a.m., as the plaintiff’s watch did also, supporting the idea that electrically timed or detonated explosives were used to bring about the intended damage to the building — and that the attack occurred at 9:32, not 9:38.

41. All the matters alleged in paragraph #40 are known and demonstrable, and most would have been immediately evident to the defendants at the time. As Secretary of Defense, defendant Rumsfeld in particular was in a unique position to determine the truth and fix responsibility. He did neither. That he did not is confirmation of his complicity in the attack--and his indifference to and callous disregard for the injuries and loss of rights suffered by plaintiff and others.

42. Further, it should be noted that on September 10, 2001, the day before the attack, Defendant Rumsfeld conducted a press conference at the Pentagon in which he publicly announced that auditors had determined that some 2.3 trillion dollars in Defense Department funds —$2.300,000,000,000 — could not be accounted for. To plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, part of the area of the ground floor of the Pentagon that was destroyed in the bombing is a location where records were kept that would be used to trace those funds, and where people worked who knew about them. On information and belief, there has been to this day no public report concerning the fate of those records, or that money.

43. In any event, the plainly visible pattern of damage on the outside and in other photographic views makes it clear the building was not hit by a plane. 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. Photos taken before the collapse suggest this, showing a single blown-out window section, above the ground floor; and witnesses have reported seeing a helicopter above the building, and disappearing behind it, followed by a big explosion and bright fireball. As noted, a large roundish hole was found in the C-ring wall, some 300 feet inside the building; and there were credible accounts, ignored in the Commission Report, of serious bomb damage in the B-ring, second from the center, and even some reports of dead bodies in the central A-ring, also ignored. As shown on CNN television, a large military aircraft, identified as an E-4B — the so-called “Doomsday Plane”, which carries the most complete and sophisticated military command and control apparatus — was circling above Washington at the time the Pentagon was hit. It was in perfect position to coordinate the detonation and/or missile shot with a fly-over; and guide the airliner in its dive by remote control. It was also in perfect position to spot the oncoming plane on its radar and sound an alarm. Significantly, the Department of Defense has denied any knowledge of this airplane flying in that area on that day.

44. Whatever the cause of the bombing, and the traumatic injuries to plaintiff and others which resulted, the Government, of which the two main defendants were and have been the highest, most powerful officers, pursuant to the conspiracy they led and still lead as alleged herein, has been altogether deceptive in investigating, reporting and explaining the attack and its cause; and defendants, rather than righteously investigate and determine the derelictions which occurred, have done nothing but lie and cover up.

45. Defendant Rumsfeld in particular has been deceptive from the start, as where, on September 13, he reported on Good Morning, America that the plane “...went in through three rings (of the Pentagon). I’m told the nose is — is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away”; a palpably false statement, contradicted by numerous witnesses, a total lack of photographic evidence, and evident impossibility. Rumsfeld has also contradicted himself several times in describing his whereabouts and movements during the first hour or more of the attack. He does not acknowledge his presence in a teleconference which Richard Clarke said he, Rumsfeld, and others were part of, beginning shortly after 9:00 a.m. — after the Flight 77 emergency was reported, at or about the time the second tower was hit in New York, and more than half an hour before the Pentagon was hit — and he contradicts himself about whether and when he went to the Executive Support Center and/or the National Military Command Center, both within the Pentagon, as events transpired that morning. General Myers also (falsely) denied he was at the Pentagon in the early stages of the teleconference, as reported by Clarke. Tellingly, the tape of the videoconference, which obviously would have been part of any good faith investigation, has been kept secret.

46. Defendant Rumsfeld also made a striking prediction of the attack, as if speaking compulsively about his secret knowledge, that very morning, and several days later, he publicly referred to the “missile” that hit the Pentagon. In testifying before the 9/11 Commission, the defendant stonewalled and double-talked egregiously, responding to direct questions (some of them personally submitted by plaintiff herself during a hearing open only to survivors), especially about the Air Force fighter-interceptors not showing up, with irrelevant and sometimes incomprehensible ramblings. Consistent with their part in the cover-up, Commissioners failed to question him closely or confront his non-responsiveness.

IV. The Other Planes.

47. In spite of what the record shows was a regular, timely alert and request to NEADS commanders by FAA flight controllers at Boston for in-flight emergency response regarding United Airlines Flights 11 and 175 out of Boston, as described above in Pars. 22-24, the jets were not scrambled, or properly “vectored”, in time to intercept the planes that hit the Towers in New York — even though there was plenty of time for the interception.

48. With respect to Flight 93, which was thought to be intended for an attack on the White House or the Capitol, but crashed in Pennsylvania, there remains a great deal of mystery. Much of what supposedly happened was a made-in-Hollywood saga, where the passengers, learning of the earlier suicide crashes, gathered themselves and counter-attacked the hijackers, succeeding in heroic, self-sacrificing measure by crashing the plane (or causing the hijacker pilot to crash it) in a remote field, before it could approach its target. This story was supposedly recounted to persons on the ground by passengers with cell phones; but the science is clear that, at least in 2001, cell phones couldn't operate at the high altitude where the struggle supposedly took place. Also, the FBI, in presenting evidence at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, denied that any of the high-altitude calls that had been reported actually took place. The only cell phone calls confirmed by the FBI were two that reportedly occurred when the plane had descended to 5,000 feet. Thus, the mythic account is suspicious, to say the least.

49. Moreover, it appears fairly well established that one or more fighters ultimately did go aloft, and reached Flight 93, although this was also comprehensively denied in the Commission Report. There is also good evidence that supposed presidential authority to “engage”, meaning shoot down the plane, was given by defendant Cheney at or about 9:50 a.m. that morning, wherewith Flight 93 was indeed shot down with an air-to-air missile from a U.S.A.F. fighter jet.

50. Finally, there are multiple reports that debris from the plane was found a mile or more from the crash site, an obvious impossibility if the plane simply fell or dove into the ground. Likewise, there is no debris visible in photographs of the crash site, despite a long photographic history of airliner crashes showing plane parts and debris spread around the point of impact. Instead there was a crater, and no sign of the plane. Implausibly, however, the official report said that a visa, in the name of the alleged hijacker identified as the pilot, was recovered near the crater, along with a red headband of the type the hijackers supposedly wore. Again, available evidence shows the official account promulgated under the defendants’ illicit influence is, and plaintiffs allege that it is, false and fraudulent, in furtherance of the conspirac(ies) alleged herein.

V. The Cover-up.

51. As with the other branches or phases of the conspiracy, wherein a number of John Doe defendants working on different aspects of the organized enablement of the hijacking led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld may not have been aware or fully aware of each other's involvement; so too with the cover-up, a complicated operation which those involved have maintained for these seven years, and must continue to see to, indefinitely, on any number of fronts. That is, the skein of misrepresentations, distortions, omissions, contradictions, withheld evidence and outright lies which comprise the fraudulent “official” version, must be and plaintiffs allege that it has been and is assiduously, and fraudulently, maintained by the original perpetrators and various cohorts, who have kept the original conspiracy alive to this day.

52. In particular, the cover-up — beyond the fact that the simulated plane crash at the Pentagon was itself a cover-up — has been concentrated around the purported investigation and analysis of the attack and its supposed background by the 9/11 Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, and the Report it issued in 2004. There, as extensively shown by a number of critics and commentators, this official organ put forth a supposedly comprehensive account of the attacks, the alleged attackers and their history, and various surrounding events and circumstances, in a version so full of omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods, as to clinch its purpose as a mainstay of the cover-up, in furtherance of the underlying conspiracy alleged herein, and its ongoing success.

53. Thus the Report gives a careful account and description of some of the many warnings the Government received during 2001 about Al Qaeda's intention to attack — in the United States, possibly with hijacked planes. The Report goes on to describe an interview with President Bush, which occurred only after intense negotiations in which the Commissioners acquiesced to White House conditions requiring that defendant Cheney be permitted to accompany the President, and that no record would be kept and no notes taken. There the President earnestly insisted to his Commission interlocutors that no warning of the attack had come. All contradictions were left unexplored, and ignored in the Report.

54. Similarly, defendant Rumsfeld — like the President himself, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defendant Gen. Richard Myers and others — testified and said in public, repeatedly, that no one in the Government security apparatus ever imagined terrorists suicidally crashing planes into buildings. This claim was also absolutely false. In point of fact, the CIA, the NSA, the FAA and NORAD had planned and trained for just such a possibility. Indeed, the record shows training exercises involving such a potential attack had in fact been carried on at the Pentagon in October, 2000 and May, 2001, and that NORAD had begun planning in July, 2001, for a training exercise in which the premise would be that a hijacked airliner was crashed into the World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission, however — with the same studied indifference it showed towards the Mineta testimony — failed even to mention these contradictions in its Report, let alone explain them away.

55. In any event, it is in the nature of the acts alleged that the participants would endeavor from the outset to keep their actions — and the meeting of the minds that unleashed them — the deepest and darkest of secrets, forever. Thus the cover-up, even as it continues today, and will be manifest in the litigation of this complaint, was inherently part of the original unlawful agreement, and thereby part of the cause of the injuries and deprivations plaintiffs suffered on 9/11, and continuing injury since that time.

56. As to the overall plot, with its roots in the command positions and unhinged political fantasies and intentions of the two main defendants, Cheney and Rumsfeld, plaintiff alleges that, necessarily, there were multiple meetings of the minds among the various necessary parties in various implicated locations, positions and phases of the action. Indeed, the narrative reflects an evident form of rolling conspiracy, or multiple successive, interlocking, sub-conspiracies, by which defendants and their cohorts maintain and have maintained the original agreement to cover up the original crime(s) of terrorism, and their part in it, to this day.

VII. Plaintiffs’ Injuries.

57. The injuries, loss and deprivation of rights suffered by Plaintiff April Gallop, her child and others in the bombing of the Pentagon, however it was accomplished, were the result of terrorism, and terrorist acts, and conspiracy to commit terrorism, and to violate constitutional rights, and they include serious head and brain injuries she and her child both sustained when the ceiling caved in on them, as well as the loss and deliberate denial of their rights involved in their being made innocent victims of the attack. Plaintiff’s son, Elisha, has had ongoing problems as he has grown older, associated with injury to his brain, and has required continuing medical care and other special help. Both mother and child have had continuing difficulty, pain and suffering as a result, and sustained need for medical care, and financial and other loss; and they evidently will continue to suffer and to need medical and other assistance for the future.

58. Further, clearly as a result of and in retaliation for her public statement that no airplane wreckage was present in the building after the explosion(s), and for raising other questions, John Doe Department of Defense (DOD) defendants, pursuant to the conspiracy, have wrongfully caused plaintiff to be denied medical care and other benefits she should have received since the attack, and have acted to discourage others from helping her, all to her consequent, actionable loss. Most recently, on being discharged from the Army earlier this year, plaintiff’s financial account was closed out with a zero balance. A short time later, however, she was refused service at the VA medical center, on grounds that she supposedly owed the Defense Department more than $14,000; for which no documentation has been provided.

59. The plaintiff and her child also will experience more general loss, pain and suffering, forever, from what was done to them by high officials of their own government, who, attacking the Country and the Constitution, were willing to see her killed, and did see many others, thousands, killed, simply to further crass political designs. They were and are themselves terrorists, in truth, without whose crucial complicity the Al Qaeda attacks would never have occurred.

PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION

One. Violation of Constitutional Rights – Bivens.

a. Conspiracy. The defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or series of interlocking conspiracies whereby they and various co-conspirators and others took various concrete steps, pursuant to a meeting of the minds around the objective of facilitating and enabling the terrorist attacks, specifically by de-activating and defaulting various normal defense systems and measures, as described and to be shown, so that the Al Qaeda hijackings and bombings of September 11 could succeed. They thereby helped cause the attacks and the resulting injuries to plaintiff, denial of her fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and death and injury loss to so many others; entitling plaintiff to judgment against the defendants under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

b. Deliberate Indifference. The concerted actions of defendants in their efforts to facilitate and enable the terrorist attacks of September 11 in various ways as described hereinabove and to be shown, and the defendants’ deliberate indifference to the likelihood of serious injury and deprivation of rights arising therefrom, resulted in plaintiff and her child being made unknowing, defenseless victims of the attack, and thereby seriously injured and denied fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, entitling her to judgment against the defendants, under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

c. Retaliation. The actions taken against plaintiff in retaliation for her speaking out with questions about the official explanations of what happened violated her rights under the First Amendment, entitling her to a further judgment against those responsible for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

Two. Common Law Conspiracy to Cause Death and Great Bodily Harm. The plaintiff is further entitled to judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the injuries she and her child received which were caused by the acts and omissions of defendants and others pursuant to the conspiracy(ies) alleged herein, and by breach of defendants’ duty of care towards the plaintiff, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may deter
rob balsamo
QUOTE
This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile.


Way to go April!

Full article here...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor...ey_No_1217.html
Leslie Landry
That is so exciting!
richard cranium
Fantastic! Right on April! Let's see if MSM says anything, and just as important, what they think about it.

Dare we dream something will come of this? Not necessarily to the people who already know,but to all the "sheeple" out there that don't have a clue.
(please,please?......one of my Christmas wishes for sure)


rc
rob balsamo
Now posted front page...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

...and sent to my media contact list of over 100 Mainstream and Alternative Media, including other pilot organizations.

Spread this everywhere folks!
KP50
QUOTE (richard cranium @ Dec 18 2008, 01:17 PM) *
Fantastic! Right on April! Let's see if MSM says anything, and just as important, what they think about it.

I'll bet you 5 New Zealand pesos that this story never sees the light of day via any mainstream media outlet.
ogrady
This woman of courage is a true patriot!

Don't expect a word of this from the MSM. Reading the text of the suit might cause people to think and wonder about things. We can't have that, now can we?
dMz
Looks like April is front page center over at 911Blogger

http://www.911blogger.com/
lunk
If it does go to court, and the accused, actually do go to trial,
wouldn't they have to be judged, under law,
by a jury of their own peers?

...and who might these be?

...maybe that's what all these knighthoods and lordships are about,
once risen by decree, royal ascent, above that of joe-six-pack,
their peers, are now lords and ladies, not the commoner.

If they are now considered, part of the "more-equal-others",
a charming minority of ruling elite,
they are no longer peers with "than-others".

imo, lunk

(edit) 2 many "the"
Rickysa
QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 18 2008, 11:27 AM) *
Looks like April is front page center over at 911Blogger

http://www.911blogger.com/


Just curious who "john doraemi" might be and why he would post this comment there:

"Flyover" hoax, a "missile" and no plane theory -- this is going to be tossed out of court immediately. Special thanks to that psyop known as CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth (lies).

or maybe I'm misunderstanding his comment??

Rick
lunk
No, I'm sure that every excuse in the world, will be used to keep it out of court.
It's just that there is a failsafe built into law by the elites for the elites and anyone of their "little helpers", that they want to reward and protect.

How many Americans have gone off to "jolly old," to get knighted or royally pronouned?

Why, for self-esteem!?
lol

All seems a little odd, to me.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Rickysa @ Dec 18 2008, 02:28 PM) *
"Flyover" hoax, a "missile" and no plane theory -- this is going to be tossed out of court immediately. Special thanks to that psyop known as CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth (lies).


The guy also thinks we faked the NTSB data and that it didnt come from the NTSB (but i guess we also 'faked' the return address. intercepted the FOIA NTSB requests on their server, and sent it to numerous independent researchers around the world). He has been told time and time again where to get it (from the NTSB directly via FOIA) and has been given phone numbers and links to the NTSB, but for some reason refuses to verify the data with the NTSB and wants us to "prove" it came from the NTSB. rolleyes.gif

The guy is a total headcase and even his own have disassociated from him... (he was banned from truthaction for his tirades regarding "faked" NTSB data).
Rickysa
Thanks for the info Rob....I really don't visit other sites much, as you guys rule the roost wrt 911 truth, so I wasn't sure if this guy had been a thorn before or needed a good boot in the ass.

thumbsup.gif

Rick
rob balsamo
Many think he is an "agent provocateur" as mostly he just complains about others in the 'movement' trying to split it up, and of course he is anonymous, never putting his name to his claims/accusations. The old divide and conquer routine. Im surprised blogger hasnt banned him yet.

I just think the guy is a total jackass crying for attention. smile.gif
georgie101
QUOTE (KP50 @ Dec 18 2008, 01:22 AM) *
I'll bet you 5 New Zealand pesos that this story never sees the light of day via any mainstream media outlet.


You are most probably right, I have a small bit of hope. Unfortunately, even if it did, people probably wont care, Christmas is coming and all.

Thankyou April, you are a courageous lady
Ricochet
There is a distinct possibility that we have been had. The story first appeared on Above Top Secret. Then picked up by everyone else.The attoney mentioned is William Veale of California. Yes he exists, he is a member of Lawyers for Truth. There is no mention of this on that site, as well as the September 11 section of the Southern District New York Court site either.






I don't think a Lawyer from California can pratice law in New York unless he/she is a member of the NY Bar.

William Wynne Veale
Firm: Contra Costa County Public Defender Alternate Defender Off.

Address: Suite E
1333 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1818
Map & Directions

Phone: (925) 646-1740
AtticusOwl
QUOTE (Ricochet @ Dec 18 2008, 05:51 PM) *
"There is a distinct possibility that we have been had."


Skepticism is always healthy.

In this case, it is unwarranted.

The case was filed by April Gallop on December 15, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case is entitled April Gallop, for Herself and as Mother and Next of Friend of Elisha Gallop, a Minor v. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S.A., Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General Richard Meyers, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does I-X, all in their individual capacities, Case No. 08-CV-10881-DC.

Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman has been assigned to the case.

United States District Court Judge Denny Chin has been assigned to the case.

The complaint was entered on the Court's docket today. The complaint is not available in electronic form on the Court's website (PACER), probably because it was filed in paper form.

The clerk of the Court has issued a summons for the defendants.

QUOTE
"The story first appeared on Above Top Secret. Then picked up by everyone else.The attoney mentioned is William Veale of California. Yes he exists, he is a member of Lawyers for Truth. There is no mention of this on that site, as well as the September 11 section of the Southern District New York Court site either."


April Gallop is shown as representing herself, PRO SE, in the case.

QUOTE
"I don't think a Lawyer from California can pratice law in New York unless he/she is a member of the NY Bar."


This is not true. Attorneys can practice in federal courts by being admitted, pro hac vice, in a particular case.

Pro hac vice means, for this turn, for this one particular occasion. (See Black's Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979).)

QUOTE
William Wynne Veale
Firm: Contra Costa County Public Defender Alternate Defender Off.

Address: Suite E
1333 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1818
Map & Directions

Phone: (925) 646-1740


It is evident that April Gallop did not prepare the complaint herself. It is unclear to me why Mr. Veale is not listed as counsel of record. Perhaps he has been told that he needs to submit an application to appear in the case, pro hac vice.

The complaint, unfortunately, is not complete. It is missing the very end. Does anyone have a complete PDF copy of the complaint in hand?

AtticusOwl
rob balsamo
I emailed April a few times regarding this story, havent heard back yet.

Did anyone email the original author at Raw Story? The aricle states they spoke with the attorney....


Edit to add: I fixed the above quote tags on your post Atticus. Thanks for posting that and welcome to the forum!
amazed!
Thank you Atticus Owl, and welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around.
Ricochet
QUOTE
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________

Elisha is April's middle name according to a CNN interview,
QUOTE
ZAHN: And right now I'm going to turn to the story of one survivor of the attack of the Pentagon where 184 people were killed. 9/11 was my next guest's first day back at work after maternity leave. April Gallop had to make a quick stop at her desk before dropping her two-month-old son Elijah off at day care. That may have ended up saving their lives. When the plane struck, mother and child were separated and amazingly a stranger somehow rescued the baby. Sadly none of the children of the Pentagon's daycare center other than Elijah survived. April Elisha Gallop join me now. Thank you so much for sharing your story with us tonight.


. Elijah is her son's name.





According to US Senate records for lobby groups her consulting firm is AEZ Consulting, it's April D.

GALLOP, APRIL D 9-11 FAMILIES/AEZ CONSULTING FIRM 289818-12
panthercat
It’s odd the way people can say the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon vaporized when the rest of a predominantly wooden structure was left standing. I was a technician in a prescribed fire research unit and find the notion that aluminum disintegrates and wood doesn't do much of anything in the same event utterly unbelievable. I’m no engineer, all I did was keep Naval aircraft flying, but even I know the energy required to vaporize an aircraft the size of a 757 would have left a sizable area barren with hardly anything left standing. The sheeple may believe that much material can vaporize into thin air, but not me. The vaporized angle is one of the flimsiest excuses I’ve ever heard. I’ll see your 5 New Zealand pesos and raise you 1,000,000 Lower Slobbovian lead pazoozas (equal to 1 cent) that this story won't be easy to present to the general public.
p.w.rapp
QUOTE (AtticusOwl @ Dec 19 2008, 01:03 AM) *
Skepticism is always healthy.

In this case, it is unwarranted.

AtticusOwl


Welcome AtticusOwl.

Let's hope so by goodness.


I have asked myself many times: Where the hell are all the freeking US-Lawyers. Over here they are famous for achieving some extraordinary verdicts like Millions of US$ for a spilled cup of hot coffee or a misinterpreted hazard warning label.
But when it comes to 9/11 victims they all seem to be on holiday.

And let's hope, that this civil suit will have some chance.

I've read somewhere that (as ex-military person) April Gallop can't sue because of the clauses of the enlistment contract she's signed???

???
IRIQUOIS227
I believe that the fact that NO boeing 757 passed over or near the pentagon has been settled. No such aircraft is seen in any still photographs or in snippet of film released by the US Government. I am sure that many aviators have concluded this to be a false flag incident as do I. I would hope that one of the first crimes investigated thoroughly by the new President Elect will be what actually happened on September 11th of 2001. I believe that the US CIA, Israeli Mossad, and British intelligence are completely and entirely responsible for this act. I hope others think this way as well. best wishes to all

tedbohne
painter
Welcome to the forum IRIQUOIS227
QUOTE (IRIQUOIS227 @ Dec 20 2008, 08:32 AM) *
I believe that the fact that NO boeing 757 passed over or near the pentagon has been settled.

Really?
http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm
QUOTE
No such aircraft is seen in any still photographs or in snippet of film released by the US Government.

So, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
I am sure that many aviators have concluded this to be a false flag incident as do I. I would hope that one of the first crimes investigated thoroughly by the new President Elect will be what actually happened on September 11th of 2001.

LOL laughing1.gif
QUOTE
I believe that the US CIA, Israeli Mossad, and British intelligence are completely and entirely responsible for this act. I hope others think this way as well. best wishes to all

tedbohne


You forgot the DoD. And, for the cover-up, FBI, NTSB, NIST, and of course MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc.
richard cranium
QUOTE (panthercat @ Dec 18 2008, 05:46 AM) *
It’s odd the way people can say the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon vaporized when the rest of a predominantly wooden structure was left standing. I was a technician in a prescribed fire research unit and find the notion that aluminum disintegrates and wood doesn't do much of anything in the same event utterly unbelievable. I’m no engineer, all I did was keep Naval aircraft flying, but even I know the energy required to vaporize an aircraft the size of a 757 would have left a sizable area barren with hardly anything left standing. The sheeple may believe that much material can vaporize into thin air, but not me. The vaporized angle is one of the flimsiest excuses I’ve ever heard. I’ll see your 5 New Zealand pesos and raise you 1,000,000 Lower Slobbovian lead pazoozas (equal to 1 cent) that this story won't be easy to present to the general public.


Great point Panthercat. I really liked your "technical" point of view. I am continually (and I mean CONTINUALLY!) amazed about how people believe such unbelievable things sometimes. I mean what has happened to common sense,and,just plain knowing when things aren't right? When things "just don't add up". I try to equate it to people (including myself at times) just being so busy with life in general that they don't have time to sit and really evaluate things. Kind of like what Naomi Klein talks about in her book "The Shock Doctrine". The American sheeple are kept so busy with "whatever" they don't see what really is going on. It's like a longterm,lowgrade,chronic-type of "shock".

My 2 cents worth....

rc

oh,by the way,I'll double your bet to 2 cents. Will you take an IOU if Paulson and the thugs..uh, I mean "Feds" don't bail me out?
Ricochet
QUOTE
Skepticism is always healthy.

In this case, it is unwarranted.

The case was filed by April Gallop on December 15, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case is entitled April Gallop, for Herself and as Mother and Next of Friend of Elisha Gallop, a Minor v. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S.A., Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General Richard Meyers, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does I-X, all in their individual capacities, Case No. 08-CV-10881-DC.

Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman has been assigned to the case.

United States District Court Judge Denny Chin has been assigned to the case.


Still skeptical. All cases 9/11 related are under Judge Hellerstein.
QUOTE
September 11th Litigation Cases
Information for Counsel in September 11 Litigation

Unless otherwise noted, all hearings and conferences will be held in Judge Hellerstein’s courtroom, 14D, 500 Pearl Street.

Cases involving claims arising out of, resulting from, or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001 and naming an airline, an airport security company, and/or The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have been consolidated for discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, District Judge, is presiding. Counsel in such cases should familiarize themselves with Judge Hellerstein’s Rules of Practice and Rules for Sept. 11 Consolidated Cases, as well as his rulings relating to the September 11 Litigation


http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases.php?form=sept11

Also she wasn Army Specialist, not a career officer.
G0560
QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jan 7 2009, 06:01 PM) *
Still skeptical. All cases 9/11 related are under Judge Hellerstein.


http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases.php?form=sept11

Also she wasn Army Specialist, not a career officer.


The "cover up" is only possible because of the financial clout of the Israeli lobby and the stranglehold on the media Israeli intereswts have on the media.

Any attempt to enforce accountability must necessarily also include an effort to expose the media participation in the cover up.
painter
QUOTE (G0560 @ Mar 12 2009, 07:15 PM) *
The "cover up" is only possible blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif


Yeah, if it weren't for the Israeli lobby, the UNITED STATES OLIGARCHY couldn't get away with sh*t. rolleyes.gif whistle.gif pilotfly.gif
nanothermite
Its a 'rigged game''......When the facts don't fit the American Mythology, they throw out the facts....
...anyone know the status of the appeal?!



On March 15th, 2010, Judge Denny Chin dismissed with prejudice the case of Gallop v. Cheney, et. al., ruling that the Complaint was frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” The full text is posted under “News” on this site. Anyone who has followed the case and supported the Center’s efforts in this matter deserves a response to Judge Chin’s decision. It follows.

The opening brief on appeal, notice of which has been filed, may well begin with the following paragraph:

When April Gallop sat down at her desk at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, with her two-month old baby son, Elisha, in his basket beside her, she was as far from conceiving of evil at the highest levels of American Government as was Federal District Court Judge Denny Chin when he asked plaintiff’s counsel at the pre-motion conference if this lawsuit was filed in good faith. Unfortunately, in spite of reading 65 pages of affidavits appended to our Response to the Motion to Dismiss, all of which he chose to ignore, he was still no closer to that conception than when the suit began. He granted the motion to dismiss because in his view, the claims made there were frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” When those words were written, the court embraced with energy a manifest historical ignorance, blindness to a fundamental human impulse which concedes the attraction of evil to power, and a supreme denial, vast in scope and scale, fortified and impregnable.

The government raised a number of issues in its Motion to Dismiss, including the statute of limitations, governmental and intra-military immunity, and frivolousness, the claim that the case was without conceivable legal or factual basis. Judge Chin addressed only the last of these grounds, finding the accusations to be driven by delusion.

The decision will be something of a shock to anyone who has spent any time at all studying the evidence in the case, but even more so if one sets the Complaint and the Decision next to each other and then compares the two. In so doing the reader learns how many of our allegations find no mention in Judge Chin’s prose. Worse than the number left out, however, is his choice of excluded factual claims. Premier among them is the one that has to do with Defendant Cheney’s activities on the morning of September 11th, the subject of testimony given by Secretary Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Rather than have to deal with the thorny matter of explaining Cheney’s actions, Judge Chin decided not to mention them at all.

In his decision, Judge Chin could have adopted the finding of the Commission which contradicts Secretary Mineta’s testimony. The 9/11 Commission found that Vice President Cheney was not in the room for Secretary Mineta to hear or observe conversations between Cheney and one of his operatives. By implication it found that Secretary Mineta was delusional when he recounted the remarks of the young man and Cheney’s response to them, which Mineta then enhanced with a visual image of Cheney “whipping his head around.” Mineta clearly told the Commission of the young man’s reporting of the progress of the plane heading for the Pentagon, first 50 miles out, then 30, then 10. When Cheney responded to the aide’s question about the orders still standing, he said, “of course, the orders still stand; have you heard anything to the contrary?” Mineta’s testimony that Cheney changed his body position as he spoke those words, would normally require a further level of explanation, were the entire account to be dismissed as “delusion,” but Judge Chin decided to make no effort to confront the issue, whatsoever.

Had Judge Chin adopted, in his decision, the Commission’s implied finding, his action would have contravened a fundamental premise of law, that in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the judge must assume pleaded facts to be true. A motion to dismiss is not an opportunity to have a trial without having one; it is simply an opportunity for the judge to weed out lawsuits that are based upon allegations that insufficiently establish the theoretical possibility that the defendant may be liable. Had we said only what the judge said we said, his ruling would have been wrong but theoretically supportable, but we said much, much more, and his failure to acknowledge the fact raises questions that are disturbing in the extreme.

As a second example of judicial avoidance, Judge Chin made no mention of the fact that two governmental entities, the National Transportation Safety Administration and the 9/11 Commission, could not agree on the supposed flight path of the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon. Necessarily ignored as well are the unavoidable inferences of governmental complicity, in the cover-up and in the execution of the attack, that arise from the disagreement. The incompetence of governmental entities may be posited as an explanation for the disagreement, but for a judge to make such a finding before a trial, is to invade the province of the jury.

As a third instance, Judge Chin ignored entirely the passages in the Complaint which refer to expert analyses of the contents of the purported “black box,” supposedly belonging to Flight 77 and supposedly found in the Pentagon. Veteran pilots have determined that what is alleged to have come from the flight data recorder is completely inconsistent, not only with the physical ability of a Boeing 757, if it were to have come in contact with the building, not only with the known functions and capabilities of flight data recorders, but also with the videotaped evidence of the flying object which the government claims captures the impact of that object with the wall of the Pentagon. The only possible tactic that a judge could choose in deciding to dismiss this case, given the contents of the Complaint, is to ignore page upon page of printed words.

As a final example, Judge Chin makes no reference to the fundamental importance that must be attached to the physical whereabouts of Defendants Rumsfeld and Myers as the attacks were carried out. Their presence at the heart of the military command structure at the critical moments that morning is established by no less a figure than the then-Chief of Counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, and this for some considerable number of minutes before, and as the explosion at the Pentagon took place. The two highest ranking members of the chain of command, other than the President, were thus at the helm and saddled with the duty of protecting the country and the soldiers at the Pentagon in those moments. Whatever efforts they made to prevent the attack on the Pentagon were unsuccessful even though sufficient time and armaments existed to mount a defense. If they were, as is alleged in the Complaint, in the National Military Command Center, in full view by Richard Clarke, and presumably taped on a video-teleconference screen, they cannot avoid the scrutiny that ordinarily follows failure in the line of duty. Judge Chin was aware, since these facts were set out in the Complaint, of the crucial fact that Rumsfeld and Myers have both denied their presence at the video-teleconference and at the heart of the command structure shortly after the South Tower was hit, and the world knew that a terrorist attack was under way. Judge Chin’s decision makes no allusion to these crucial facts, thereby adopting the simplest manner of avoiding the damning implications.

It must be noted as well that, in addition to the omissions set out above, Judge Chin avoided addressing one other matter raised unmistakably in April Gallop’s allegations. In addition to alleging that the three defendants conspired to commit mass murder, the Complaint also asserts that the defendants were aware of the danger faced by occupants in the Pentagon in sufficient time to evacuate the building and save many lives, but did nothing. Not one paragraph, sentence, phrase or word in Judge Chin’s decision addresses this claim.

The Center’s appeal will seek reversal in the Second Circuit, a process that could take a year or more. For those interested, a line by line, factual allegation by factual allegation analysis and comparison will be posted when it is prepared.
amazed!
Poor old James Madison! He has probably rolled over in his grave quite a few times now, realizing that his noble idea and hope that the federal judiciary would be "the last bastion against tyranny" was utterly in vain.

Judge Chin is as corrupt as the most corrupt elected official. The rule of law in this country is history.
susano
QUOTE (painter @ Dec 20 2008, 01:18 PM) *
Welcome to the forum IRIQUOIS227

Really?
http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

So, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? rolleyes.gif

LOL laughing1.gif


You forgot the DoD. And, for the cover-up, FBI, NTSB, NIST, and of course MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc.



And the American Society of Civil Engineers, who Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth brought to my attention as being complicit. I looked them up and boy are they ever complicit:


Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

TWO FREAKING DAYS??? Why, they may have had it ready to go BEFORE 9/11.
JackD
QUOTE (susano @ Sep 7 2010, 01:32 AM) *
And the American Society of Civil Engineers, who Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth brought to my attention as being complicit. I looked them up and boy are they ever complicit:


Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

TWO FREAKING DAYS??? Why, they may have had it ready to go BEFORE 9/11.


Susano -- Bazant and Zhou perhaps did their best to explain the collapses. However, their analysis suffers from a lack of access to evidence to build their model. I would not lay blame at the ASCE.

-- this thread is about the Pentagon survivor April Gallop. You;'ll find better places to post about the towers in WTC sections.
susano
QUOTE (JackD @ Sep 8 2010, 10:40 PM) *
Susano -- Bazant and Zhou perhaps did their best to explain the collapses. However, their analysis suffers from a lack of access to evidence to build their model. I would not lay blame at the ASCE.

-- this thread is about the Pentagon survivor April Gallop. You;'ll find better places to post about the towers in WTC sections.


I was responding to the other poster who mentioned entities complict. It was not my intention to stray from the subject of the lawsuit but to partcipate in the thread. Maybe you would like to scold everyone for comments not specific to the suit.
amazed!
April Gallop is a brave person.

The sad truth is that her name is just 1 on a very long list of people whose rights have be trampled upon by the government.

And in her particular case, she was a victim of the government's attempts to quash the truth about the events at WTC and elsewhere. The coverup is yet another crime committed by our overlords.
rob balsamo
QUOTE
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

NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --

A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.

The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.

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?

Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.

Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 - the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day - with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.

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.

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.

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

"No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks."

Also, that "it is not acceptable for a constitutional state...to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation," without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. "was under burden of proof" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

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.

Media contact: William Veale centerfor911justice@gmail.com, 292929@msn.com, 510-845-5675, 925-212-3678

SOURCE Center for 9/11 Justice

http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2011/03...or-911-justice/


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html
IslandPilot
I keep wishing for there to be a way to lock Lloyd England into a room with April Gallop, and let her ask him a few questions. I'm sure she could get him to change his story, just by "talking" to him.

Other than that, I sure hope that she gets "her day in Court"; and that the "Legal System" will pay attention to her. She is one BRAVE AMERICAN!

I wish we had a "Witness Protection Program" that would "work" for her; but I realize that's impossible.

I'll keep praying that "nothing happens to her", so she gets her chance to "tell it like it is" (or was).
signalfire
I just read that entire complaint, and her lawyer is an idiot! He gave the judge way too much information to object to, ensuring that it would be dismissed. He was obviously a 9-11 truther, which is fine, but April Gallop should not be attempting to try the whole 9-11 issue in court, only her part in it; that is, that the Pentagon brass were well aware with many minutes warning that a plane or missile was incoming and did nothing to either evacuate the building, nor was a defense of any kind mounted. THAT's the part that doesn't make sense, and is an egregious dereliction of duty. The woman kinda had the right to expect that if she and her baby was safe anywhere, it's in the world's most protected (and expensive!) military headquarters.

The rest of that entire complaint is PR gravy for the law firm. If you want to get to the bottom of that day, you need a different venue than a personal injury lawsuit, which is what this is. You need a grand jury and subpoena power. And a dungeon to keep the principals in during the trial rolleyes.gif
albertchampion
here attorney is an incompetent. so is she.

it almost makes you wonder if they are accomplices so as to forever bury any future litigation.

i have too good a recollection of how this works. sad to say. the strawman offense.
GroundPounder
blurb from WRH:

Judge John Walker, George Walker Bush's cousin, judges April Gallop's suit
04/06/2011
Status: On April 5, 2011 the appeal of the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit at 11 a.m. at New Haven, Connecticut. But one of the 3 judges turned out to be George Walker Bush's cousin, Judge John M. Walker Jr., an obvious conflict of interest.


imagine that...
onesliceshort
QUOTE
it almost makes you wonder if they are accomplices so as to forever bury any future litigation.


I can understand the paranoia given the twists and turns over the last 10 years but to believe that April Gallop is part of some conspiracy to stem any future litigation?

Two words. Elisha Gallop.

If anything comes of this (which has been the case so far), we are going to see just how far we are away from "justice" for the 9/11 victims and how any evidence put forward, no matter how solid, will be treated for decades to come. If we're still around in decades.
onesliceshort
QUOTE
it almost makes you wonder if they are accomplices so as to forever bury any future litigation.


I can understand the paranoia given the twists and turns over the last 10 years but to believe that April Gallop is part of some conspiracy to stem any future litigation?

Two words. Elisha Gallop.

If anything comes of this (which has been the case so far), we are going to see just how far we are away from "justice" for the 9/11 victims and how any evidence put forward, no matter how solid, will be treated for decades to come. If we're still around in decades.
tit2
Latest news:

Press Release  4/6/11 Bush Cousin Judge in Explosive 9/11 Case :

http://www.aneta.org/CenterFor911Justice/2...ressRelease.htm

Extraordinary Conflict of Interest: Bush Cousin Presides Over Federal Court Case Against Former Bush Administration Officials :

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42469680

Quote of the press release :

« Press Release  4/6/11Bush Cousin Judge in Explosive 9/11 Case

 Confounding lawyers and legal scholars all over the world, Judge John Walker, first cousin of former President George W. Bush, was one of three judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to hear argument yesterday in Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers, the lawsuit brought by a soldier injured during the attack on the Pentagon that accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney, former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero.

William Veale, April Gallop’s lawyer from the Center for 9/11 Justice, learning of the assignment the usual 5 days before the argument, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Walker the day before the argument.  When the case was called in the normal course, there had still been no decision made by the court.  When Veale reminded the court of the pending motion, Judge Winter said it is denied.  Veale requested a continuance to seek appellate review of the court’s ruling but that motion was denied as well.

Argument followed but Walker, and fellow judges Cabranes and Winter, seemed more interested in making sure that Veale was properly licensed to practice before the court than the stark legal issues presented by the appeal.  The appeal is from a ruling by then District Court Judge, now 2nd Circuit Court Judge, Denny Chin dismissing Ms. Gallop’s lawsuit with prejudice, writing that the allegations contained there are “implausible” and the product of “cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Gallop’s appeal brief points out that when Judge Chin summarized the factual assertions contained there, he mischaracterized important allegations, but most significantly, left out any mention of vast sections of the 25 page brief.  Giving her lawyers greatest pause was Chin’s failure to mention the words, actions, and locations of the three defendants at the time of the crime, and as Veale managed to point out during the argument despite frequent interruptions by Walker and the other judges, with regard to Cheney, his words and actions had to do with an instrumentality of the crime, the airplane that was heading for the Pentagon.  In Cheney’s case, these matters were the subject of testimony by Norman Mineta, a cabinet secretary, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a man with an airport named after him.

Judge Winter inquired of Veale what airport that was.  It used to be called the San Jose Airport in Santa Clara County, California.

Judge Cabranes asked Veale what had happened to the airplane, if, as the lawsuit suggests, it did not hit the Pentagon?  Veale asked in response, “How would I know?”.  The implied criticism of the irony that a lawyer who has been denied the ability to use the power of subpoena to learn the truth would be chided for not having an answer to the key to the unraveling of the entire conspiracy seemed to be lost on the judge.  And the judge gave no sign that he was familiar with the details of the allegations in the Complaint concerning conflicts between the flight path of American 77 according to the NTSB and that same flight path according to the 9/11 Commission, or the scrubbing of the radar tracks of the area at the time of the attacks, or of the counter-intuitive strategy of the suicidal hijacker who chose NOT to kill 20,000 occupants of the building AND Secretary Rumsfeld, but instead flew into a sparsely occupied and recently reinforced section of the building that resulted in 125 deaths including only one flag officer, if one is to accept the government’s version.

Veale asked what offense to justice could come from allowing the case to go forward, when the possibility of sanctions awaits purveyors of frivolous accusations.  Gallop’s lawyer’s final lament acknowledged the existence of evil in the world, its attraction to power and its disregard for citizenship, but Walker interrupted that sentence before it could be completed as well. »
albertchampion
i make no apologies for my assessment. in my career, i found myself a plaintiff in two interesting bits of anti-trust litigation.

the defendant in each instance was an american corporation that served as a cover overseas for the outfit. and during the second was a major player/facilitator of iran-contra.

suffice it to say, i found the federal judiciary in the southern district of texas and the fifth circuit court of appeals riddled with corruption. and most attorneys who practice routinely in such jurisdictions are aware of the men in black
robes. but even my attorney in the second round of litigation was knocked breathless by the corruption of the reagan/bush appointee who took charge of the case after the death of the original judge.

in my memoirs, which i hope to be able to write someday, the section dealing with the anti-trust division of the doj, the ftc, the federal judiciary, will be entitled PARANOIA VALIDATED.

having put that on the table, it would be nice to know of the bona fides of gallop's attorney. i learned a lot of lessons in my first run at justice at the federal level. one of the lessons i learned is that attorneys can so easily sell out a "little guy/girl" litigant and the litigant will almost never become knowledgeable of the sell out. i became knowledgeable some years after the sell out. from that sell-out, this attorney became a real player in the houston litigation arena.

my opinions are rarely predicated upon speculation. i have been around a long time. been involved in arenas involving the secret state that should have singed me terminally. long ago. someone once asked me, why didn't they kill you. my response was that no one needed to bother swatting a fly. especially if the fly could just be isolated. death by natural causes would eventually intervene.

let's think of the jersey girls for a moment. where are they now? making new lives, i imagine. trying to forget what i think they know about who it was that disrupted their lives, murdered their husbands.

why would they have adopted the vow of silence, you may ask. never forget that glenn beck[sic] on one of his right wing radio broadcasts, exhorted his listeners to write their congresspeople to insist on the enactment of a law to compel the jersey girls to be deported for their unamerican activities.

and there continues to persist to this day, a large percentage of the citizenry of the usa, who thinks that anyone questioning the oct is a potential terrorist.

and i think that janet napolitano is an enforcer of that spirit.

these are the realities of the times we have been living in since the cia finessed its coup, seized the apparati of the state, in the ostensible reign of ronnie raygun, the real reign of former dci, rockefeller courtier, george herbert walker bush.






i don't know of the bon
onesliceshort
QUOTE (albertchampion)
one of the lessons i learned is that attorneys can so easily sell out a "little guy/girl" litigant and the litigant will almost never become knowledgeable of the sell out.


I had thought that you were suggesting that April Gallop may wittingly have some part ot play in some nefarious legal mindgames to trip us up in future cases. Lawyers? 99% have a price, whether monetary or not. So we're in agreement on that score.

I'm not naieve, I know that the case is doomed in a corrupt system. I just see it as a measuring stick to see just how out of touch some people are with reality that we will ever see justice for the 9/11 victims and humanity in general no matter how "strong" the evidence is particularly in this system.

Any legal cases should be seen as a protest. A knock on thier door.

2cents
Tamborine man
QUOTE (albertchampion @ Apr 8 2011, 11:32 PM) *
these are the realities of the times we have been living in since the cia finessed its coup, seized the apparati of the state, in the ostensible reign of ronnie raygun, the real reign of former dci, rockefeller courtier, george herbert walker bush.



i don't know of the bon




I know of the don!

Please fast forward to 1:55:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVAPsn3Fpk

sometimes the "faceless" are not that faceless -
onesliceshort
QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 11 2011, 02:17 AM) *
I know of the don!

Please fast forward to 1:55:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVAPsn3Fpk

sometimes the "faceless" are not that faceless -


"Hurry it up"...
9elevened
I'm just now learning about April Gallops suit (other than she was originally interviewed by Barbara Honegger as a surviving witness, the broken watch etc)

and I think her testimony about the Pentagon actually training for months against an aerial attack provides an important clue against Cheney and Rumsfeld, in other words the Pentagon "stand down" and not just Rumsfeld's June 1, 2001 order that ensured no fighter jets went up in time to even "observe" the planes (and what might or might not they have observed?)

after months of drills the day finally came and none of it was put into motion, including evacuation

so let's take that into account regarding the "coincidence" that the hijackers made a direct pinpoint hit on the offices of the comptrollers, killing most of the original team of comptrollers who had just reported to congress that $2.3 TRILLION was unaccounted for

and taking into account Rumsfeld and Cheney's longstanding relationships with the defense establishment, and their more recent connections with PNAC and JINSA

and taking into account that the head comptroller in 2001 was Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who previously had been CEO of a company that made and sold pilotless flight software.

Might Cheney and crew not want this original team of comptrollers to discover exactly where this money went?

If an evacuation order had gone out, the comptrollers would have been among those evacuated.

So potentially MIGHTY LUCKY for Cheney and crew that the original team was killed in the attack, and Zakheim later informed congress that the money had been accounted for.

in fact this is far too much of a coincidence to be believed. We are supposed to swallow that the hijackers knew where a blind target was, passed all the way over it and instead of circling around back to it made a near suicide dive that tested the limits of the plane and endangered their mission (not that they had any training or capability of making such a manouver in the first place)

or in fact, if they knew where the blind target was, could simply have dumped the plane on top of it in the first place.

What really happened was that bombs went off at just after 9:30 to ensure the destruction of the comptrollers offices, and all the rest is smoke and mirrors to blame it on a terrorist attack.

If you want to know what happened to Flight 77 (assuming such a plane ever even took off, Hani Hanjour is not in the Dulles video, which doesn't contain a time or date stamp which should have made it inadmissible in court, the FBI refuses to release departure lounge security footage that could reveal hijackers or perhaps even more importantly passengers, Chertoff was put in charge of the FBI investigation and refused to release the impounded phone records even to the 911 Commission, instead writing his own "summary" of the calls, and the FBI/FAA refuses to release pre-recorded by law plane part serial numbers)

read Operation Northwoods, and especially take into consideration helpful cohorts within American Airlines itself (see the 911 insider trading)
9elevened
<in fact this is far too much of a coincidence to be believed. We are supposed to swallow that the hijackers knew where a blind target was, passed all the way over it and instead of circling around back to it made a near suicide dive that tested the limits of the plane and endangered their mission (not that they had any training or capability of making such a manouver in the first place)>

(from Barbara Honegger's Pentagon Attack Papers) in fact the high speed turn and dive plane observed by ATC who commented at the time about the "distinctive military manouver" was indeed a US fighter jet, already airborne, that was ordered to turn around by a general and observe the pentagon after the earlier (9:32) reports of explosions INSIDE the Pentagon (that destroyed the comptroller's offices and killed most of the original "$2.3 trillion missing" team that could with further investigation have implicated Cheney/Rumsfeld/Myers/Zakheim in potential misprision of funds)

this pilot arrives at 9:37-9:38 making the high speed turn and dive presumably on instruments, observes the Pentagon and reports back no observable OUTSIDE damage. He immediately leaves the area

witnesses to an OUTSIDE eventreport it as occurring after 9:40 a.m. and NORAD maintained for two years before the 911 Omission that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:45 a.m.

Going just by NORAD that is almost 15 minutes between the original reports of explosions and the outside event.

So you have bombs going off to ensure the destruction of the comptrollers office, and then whatever smoke and mirrors after that to cover for it.

in interests of brevity I'm not going to go into whatever might have hit the Pentagon, but to imagine the sheer coincidence of hijackers ignoring more highly populated parts of the building to strike this one part and helpfully destroy investigators/evidence against the two people in charge of defending the country that day is just too much of a coincidence to endure.

and it should be mentioned there was another plane sent up by Cheney that day, the command and control Boeing E4 that the govt finally had to admit to because of video evidence, that with the blue stripes going down the sides and perhaps the govt lettering obscured could easily have been mistaken by those on the ground as an American Boeing jetliner (such as the retired general on the freeway who refers to Flight 77 "loitering in the air" as opposed to coming in like a bullet) which also might aid the low flyover/bombs theory

photos of the Boeing E4:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4
9elevened
and in fact outside control of the planes is a proven possibility

surely pre-warned Cheney/Rumsfeld/Myers wouldn't have depended on a bunch of ill-trained terrorists to get the job done

Former German secretary of defense Andreas von Buelow, in a January 13, 2002 interview with the newspaper Tagesspiegel noted:

"the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting (the electronic flight system). "

Von Buelow could well have knowledge of this technology (in fact a FedEx plane was landed entirely by remote control just before 911) as several researchers and websites have stated that Lufthansa, Germany's national airline, was aware of the possibility of electronic capture and had quietly stripped the flight control systems out of American-built jetliners in the early 1990s.

ex-CIA Steele on how Pakistan warned Cheney and Cheney re-orchestrated the plot:

David Steele, former 20-year United States Marine Corps and intelligence officer, has gone public before by stating that 9/11 was allowed to happen as a pretext for war. Now he has gone one step further.
Steele is a former CIA clandestine services case officer who has previously written such books as 'On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World' and 'The Smart Nation Act: Public Intelligence in the Public Interest' and other literary pieces describing the pretext to go to war after September 11, 2001 and his analysis of the real reasons of US domestic and foreign policy.
According to WeDemandTransparency, Steele now claims that former United States Vice-President Dick Cheney was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, '9/11 was created by Al Qaeda at the urging and with the financing of the Pakistani ISI (radical half). But they got frightened when it looked like it not only might work, but that Al Qaeda, which has previously promised to bring a nuclear event to the USA, had the brains to suggest putting one of the airplanes into a nuclear power plant.'
Steele went on to say that Pakistan briefed Dick Cheney about the plan and, supposedly, other nations received news of this and they had later warned the CIA.
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks many theorists believe that the United States assisted in the attacks, or at least had prior knowledge. One of their man correlations is that Pakistan's ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad transferred $100,000 into Mohammed Atta's bank account. Cheney, according to Steele, gave ISI and al-Qaeda the go-ahead by ordering a terrorist exercise.
The former intelligence officer wants a new investigation and to find out if the United States trained some of the terrorists involved on 9/11. He also points the finger at Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center complex, of having being warned by Mossad. Steele goes on further to say that Goldman Sachs was involved as with rest of the 'New York City Jewish mafia.'
Concluding his statement, he cites former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as also being involved in the cover-up, 'Giuliani destroyed the crime scene with trucks and GPS prearranged. The Pentagon was hit by a missile and conveniently went into both a construction area while also (it is claimed) destroying all the computers containing all the evidence needed to track down the missing 2.3 trillion Rumsfeld was being grilled about on the Hill on 10 Sept.'
Steele will be delivering a speech at WeDemandTransparency on September 13, 2009.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278636#ixzz1JMKvXFM5


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278636
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.