April Gallop Sues In New York

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

April Gallop Sues In New York; Does she stand a chance of winning?
Topic Started: Dec 17 2008, 09:38 PM (1,812 Views)
JFK	Dec 19 2008, 02:02 PM Post #26
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Dec 19 2008, 01:55 PM Every situation is different depending on the evidence in question and the circumstances. Whatever Dom is doing now with what he has uncovered has no bearing on what we supposedly should or shouldn't have done in the past. The fact is there are many dynamics involved with each piece of info, the current situation with whatever the movement, the infiltrators, or the government, may be doing at the time etc. and obviously we never know what we will end up uncovering in the future. There is a lot of careful consideration that goes into when and how we release everything. It's not done recklessly. We risk our lives to do this and we strongly believe that being vocal and open is what helps protect us. This has been an educational process as well and certainly we are learning as we go and as we uncover new info. Which is whay I added the "IMO" at the end of that statement.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 02:17 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Dec 19 2008, 02:02 PM Which is whay I added the "IMO" at the end of that statement. U-huh. And we all know what opinions are like!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


JFK	Dec 19 2008, 02:22 PM Post #28
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Dec 19 2008, 02:17 PM JFK Dec 19 2008, 02:02 PM Which is whay I added the "IMO" at the end of that statement. U-huh. And we all know what opinions are like! < shakes head >
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 02:31 PM Post #29
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Dec 19 2008, 02:22 PM < shakes head > <shrugs>
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


JFK	Dec 19 2008, 02:47 PM Post #30
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Dec 19 2008, 02:31 PM JFK Dec 19 2008, 02:22 PM < shakes head > <shrugs> This is why I hate saying anything to CIT Craig. No matter what I ( or anyone else has to ) say, or try to say, you guys take it the wrong way and become confrontational. Like I've said a hundred times in the past, It is not your research, It's your attitude.... Or maybe something in the water out there as you and Aldo are Bobert inverted attitudewise. Sometimes I wonder if the jreffians are correct in referring to your "CIT clubhouse"... especially when exchanges like the one in this thread happens. I'll put you on ignore now as I truly don't want to ban you... Only because of your work.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 03:01 PM Post #31
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	We appreciate evidence and are totally open to valid or constructive input or suggestions via intellectual dialog. You leveled an unjustified, unsupported, and completely generalized criticism. I don't find that to be very conducive to productive discussion. I politely asked you to be specific and was willing to accept any valid points that you had but you made none. This to me meant your criticism was invalid. If you have a point, make it. If you don't there is no reason to publicly level empty criticism. Now you have chosen to go after us peronally and make this about our "attitudes". <shrugs again>
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 19 2008, 03:30 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Dec 19 2008, 02:47 PM This is why I hate saying anything to CIT Craig. No matter what I ( or anyone else has to ) say, or try to say, you guys take it the wrong way and become confrontational. Like I've said a hundred times in the past, It is not your research, It's your attitude.... Or maybe something in the water out there as you and Aldo are Bobert inverted attitudewise. Sometimes I wonder if the jreffians are correct in referring to your "CIT clubhouse"... especially when exchanges like the one in this thread happens. I'll put you on ignore now as I truly don't want to ban you... Only because of your work. Please. Keep my name out of it. Do not lump us in with that slob. Don't you think these types of discussions and "suggestions" should be handled privately? I am not sure why you are providing fodder for the scumbags. You haven't given a reason why we should hold back information and frankly it doesn't matter, because the result is the same in the end. But as Craig said, being open about the info is also for our personal protection and peace of mind, which you may not understand since you and your name are not publicly vulnerable. I am sure if you were in our position, you may think about it differently. But let it be known, that there is a method to our madness and strategy and purpose behind it. I am not going to get into a back and forth with you on this JFK. I, like Craig, simply don't appreciate the stirring of the pot. Your posts are quite frequently veiled forms of antagonism with the seemingly "light hearted" winks and shrugs. I see it a lot. But I don't comment as long as it isn't directed at me. Yes we are confrontational, when we are being confronted...publicly. What else would you expect? Not only that, we are attacked on a daily basis. We have lies spread about us. We have our findings ignored, marginalized and misunderstood. It is a long arduous road for us and we are doing what we feel is right. If you have some brainstorming or opinions of how things could be done differently then PM us about it-we are open to suggestions. But your public comments giving away this strategy of yours while at the same time putting us on blast is far from strategic. Just my 2 cents for what its worth.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Michal	Dec 20 2008, 03:21 AM Post #33
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 19 2008, 03:30 PM ... But let it be known, that there is a method to our madness and strategy and purpose behind it ... you are edgy fellows, but just the same like all the rest I respect you for your work you have done ... the world belongs to rebellions, from time to time … and I think this is your time now ... Now, struggling to get back to the topic ... people like CIT, Loose Change or Pilots for 9/11 truth should look around for another Deep Throat as this would be a good brake off point.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Dec 22 2008, 05:59 AM Post #34
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Dec 19 2008, 12:36 PM Like I said, speak with Dominick in private. trust me i've kept everyone necessary totally in the loop and they are well aware of what i have been up to. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Dec 22 2008, 06:00 AM.
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


illeagalhunter	Dec 22 2008, 06:57 AM Post #35
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08	This will be throw out of court , due to national security
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08


streetcar304	Dec 22 2008, 09:17 AM Post #36
Posts: 21 Group: BANNED! Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08	illeagalhunter Dec 22 2008, 06:57 AM This will be throw out of court , due to national security It'll be thrown out because the case has no merit.
Posts: 21 Group: BANNED! Member #788 Joined: 08/06/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Dec 22 2008, 09:28 PM Post #37
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	streetcar304 Dec 22 2008, 09:17 AM illeagalhunter Dec 22 2008, 06:57 AM This will be throw out of court , due to national security It'll be thrown out because the case has no merit. which duh-bunkers sock are you? pinch?
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 23 2008, 10:11 AM Post #38
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: (9:22 a.m.) September 11, 2001: White House Begins Slowly Evacuating In a 9:52 a.m. report, CNN White House correspondent John King will state that, “about 30 minutes ago,” the White House had begun slowly evacuating. This evacuation proceeds in an orderly fashion. But later on, around 9:45 a.m., those evacuating will be ordered to run (see (9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001] So the white house started evacuating at around 9:22, and yet April and Elisha were left sitting unprotected and unaware waiting to be hit by an explosion...I mean, "plane" at 9:38? Yeah, it sounds like she has a case. BTW Dom, it is Pinch the Grinch. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 23 2008, 12:23 PM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Michal	Jan 2 2009, 09:18 AM Post #39
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	I suggest supporting April by doing following: - creating a Minority Report, a scope of undutiful proves that 9/11 was an inside job - search for another Deep Throat and use it when the time comes. (Lloyd England is not the one in my opinion, it has got to be someone having substantial inside knowledge of the whole event look for some mainstream media contact, willing to broadcast the whole thing (the lawsuit and the report and the insider's testimony) Edited by Michal, Jan 2 2009, 09:20 AM.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Marksman	Jan 2 2009, 04:06 PM Post #40
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #989 Joined: 01/02/09	April Gallop: "I have been misquoted on numerous occasions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record". "From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb." "And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building." There are many people who say they did see 757debris. She says "From my inside perspective" I thought it was a bomb"..Well no shit. If you were inside, what else would you expect an explosion to sound like? Everyone thought it was a bomb untill they saw the plane parts. It's hard to recognize parts after being in a 500 mph crash & burn. So, Just because she Didn't or Couldn't "Recognize" any 757 debris where she was at, doesn't mean it wasn't there She was looking for her 2 mo. old son in the rubble, not for plane parts. Maybe in shock? ..."I was injured along with my son—my hip, my head, as well as chronic migraines, backaches and spasms. Because you cannot see my injuries, or those of my son, we are considered okay."... Part of a 630 Billion Dollar Lawsuit.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #989 Joined: 01/02/09


French St	Jan 2 2009, 06:54 PM Post #41
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	I was personally convinced that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 757 by reading a study of a French military expert named "The Pentagon Magic Plane." Below is an English translation: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2473 This study explains notably that the principal fire at pentagon is not a fire of hydrocarbons. It the result of explosives detonation. Ralph W. Omholt – Commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10" Says ""Just try to imagine the "Prohibited Airspace" of Washington, D.C. area not being protected to the maximum, by the most sophisticated military radar; or monitored by satellite imagery! IMPOSSIBLE!" http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm The paragraph 26 of the April Gallop complaint specifies : "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." Even if the official history is true, how that could be possible without disastrous errors? The persons having committed these errors that provoked the death of many other persons would have to be punished. That was not the case. And of course there is the testimony of Nomam Mineta mentioned by the complaint of April Gallop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Edited by French St, Jan 2 2009, 06:56 PM.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


Michal	Jan 3 2009, 04:40 AM Post #42
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Marksman Jan 2 2009, 04:06 PM It's hard to recognize parts after being in a 500 mph crash & burn. So, Just because she Didn't or Couldn't "Recognize" any 757 debris where she was at, doesn't mean it wasn't there I guess you are one of those few who still think that these were B757 parts. Be informed that this was explained by a number of top professionals, so there is no doubt about it.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


French St	Aug 2 2009, 07:50 AM Post #43
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	The latest news on the complaint of April Gallop can be read here: http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/index.html
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


French St	Aug 3 2009, 04:15 AM Post #44
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	Defendants Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers (collectively, the “defendants”), by their attorney Lev L. Dassin, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, ask that the complaint be dismissed and that is probably what will be done. See: http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/defendants=20motion=20to=20dismiss.pdf http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/defendants=20reply=20memo.pdf However WILLIAM W, VEALE, who defends the complaint of April Gallop, writes notably: http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20WWV=20Aff=20Part=201.pdf « I spoke with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in person on May 22, 2009, in an effort to learn about his memory of the events of 9/11, and his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He said he preferred to let the legal process run its course rather than be interviewed further then and there, but he did ask questions about this lawsuit, and we had a short colloquy about the purpose of my visit. Before the end, I asked if there was anything in what he was reported to have said about the events that he now thought he had gotten wrong, or was mistaken about; and he said “no.” Some persons think that Norman Mineta had made a mistake, see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html In his complaint, April Gallop writes: « 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.” If the testimony of Norman Mineta is the truth, it is not possible to understand why the order to evacuate the Pentagon was not given, if it was not possible to intercept and shoot down the airplane. Of course, even if the testimony of Norman Mineta was wrong, the means of detection of NORAD would detect a Boeing 757 approaching the Pentagon. http://www.norad.mil/about/index.html http://911exposed.org/P56.htm A Boeing 757 is not a stealth aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft Does the American justice, which will investigate the complaint of April Gallop will examine in details the question of the failure of the U.S. air defense on 11 September 2001? For example, for flight 77, see: http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense Quote: « Commissioner Richard ben-Veniste asked tough questions about the 30 minute gap between when the FAA determined Flight 77 had been hijacked and when it formally told this to NORAD.” “This huge time gap was a contentious point in the May 2003 Independent Commission hearings. Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator on 9/11, claimed that the FAA notified NORAD well before 9:24. In a statement released after her testimony, the FAA claimed, “NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges [between the FAA, NORAD, the Secret Service, and other agencies] before the formal notification.” Edited by French St, Aug 3 2009, 04:17 AM.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2