From info provided by Center for 9/11 Justice
Edited by Rady Ananda
A Top Secret Military Specialist, who was injured in the Pentagon explosion on September 11, 2001 and who sued Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force General Richard Myers for conspiracy, terrorism, constitutional violations, and for personal injuries, will have her case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Connecticut) on April 5.
April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media, advises her attorney, William Veale. An independent judicial hearing of that and other evidence will allow review of the official explanation of the events on 9/11, which numerous experts claim to be impossible according to the laws of physics.
On March 15th, 2010, the lower court dismissed with prejudice the case of Gallop v. Cheney, et. al., ruling that the Complaint was frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” Judge Denny Chin refused to consider any other claims, including those backed by testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission about former vice president Dick Cheney’s stand down order. Gallop appealed the decision.
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.
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.
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. 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.”
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.
The case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard on Tuesday, April 5 at 11 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut.
Documents related to the case can be found here.
Click here if you wish to support the legal efforts of this lawsuit.
Also see this 2008 interview: