Parent Advocates
Search All  
Truth of the "Attack On The Pentagon" September 11, 2001: Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop Says There Was No Plane
And that's not all she says in her lawsuits against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers, U.S.A.F. (Ret.). Gallop, a Pentagon employee injured (along with her baby son) in the 9/11/2001 false-flag bombing, is suing three of the suspected perpetrators - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Meyers. The US courts say that her case is "frivolous" and sanction her lawyers $15,000 for filing it. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John M. Walker, who heard the case, is a cousin of former President George W. Bush and of individuals named Wirt D. Walker III and Marvin Bush. The coverup continues.
   April and Elisha Gallop   
Top military specialist April Gallop and her 2-month old baby Elisha were at her desk in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (it was her first day back on maternity leave) when she heard a loud bang and the ceiling fell on her and her son. (see article posted March, 2011):
"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....(and after the World trade Centers in New York City were attacked-Editor).

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."

What happened in the courts is even as shocking. Gallop and several other plaintiffs sued Riggs National Corporation and Riggs Bank N.A., a subsidiary of Riggs National Corporation, in 2005 for "damages arising from injuries and/or death suffered by the plaintiffs and/or their decedents as a result of the neglegent, reckless and/or intentional acts of the defendants, which are United States financial institutions that utterly failed, despite numerous admonitions, to comply with duties imposed upon them pursuant to United States anti-money laundering (AML") statutes and regulations, other national and international industry standards, and common law."

The complaint continues: "Because of the defendants' failures to meet their applicable duties, the defendants did not alert the appropriate United States authorities to suspicious financial transactions that would have provided the authorities information to identify September 11, 2001 terrorists and their activities in their planning stages.....Financing is key to terrorism, corruption, and other criminal acts. Money launderers, terrorists, and other criminals want to be able to transfer funds across international lines, move quickly, and minimize inquiries into their finances and activities......The aim of AML laws is to enlist United States financial institutions in the fight against money laundering....Here, the defendants' failures impeded the battle against the financing of terrorism, indeed facilitated such financing, and substantially contributed to terrorists being permitted to evade detection and continue their attack plans against the United States and its citizens, including the plaintiffs and their decedents....."
Indeed, "2491. Riggs' constant failure to comply with banking oversight laws resulted in financial support from high risk Saudi Embassy accounts at Riggs Bank being provided to and used by at least two September 11th hijackers - Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar...."

On December 15, 2008 April Gallop filed her Federal case in the US District Court, Southern District, against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and General Richard Meyers, U.S.A.F (Ret.) and John Does 1-X, all in their individual capabilities.. She courageously spoke truth to power, raising serious questions about the covert actions of the Bush Administration. Here is a video appeal of one of her lawyers, William Veale:

Video of William Veale and His Lawsuit For Her Against Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and General Richard Myers
"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 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,, 510-845-5675, 925-212-3678

Veale filed, on June 29 2009, an Affidavit titled "RE: Investigation and Study of 9/11, and evidentiary Support For 'Conspiracy Theories'" in which he wrote, "under penalty of perjury (I) make this Affirmation to demonstrate to the Court the serious and considered support that exists in the scientific, scholarly, and aeronautically experienced communities in the US and elsewhere for the theory and belief that the attacks of 9/11/01 were, at least in crucial part, a 'false flag' operation, or "inside job" based on unlawful conspiracy, led by the named defendant high US officials..." and proceeded to give an extensive list of sources - including the 9/11 Commission Final Report - upon which he based his thoughtful and well-researched conclusions.

Gallop's case in the District Court includes shocking statements by other eyewitnesses such as Robin Horton.
In Horton's Affidavit it says:
"31. In conclusion, I am convinced that the Air Defense System for the United States of America, as historically provided by NORAD and their northeast geographical sector known as NEADS, was deliberately compromised by elements within the U.S. Military by:
a. scheduling War Games Exercises which included “hijacking scenarios”so that, because of confusion, there would be a delay in appropriate reactions, including the usual and expected immediate scrambling protocols associated with “in-flight emergencies”.
b. radio transmissions that sounded like the voices of Arabic sounding people which have not been established as having come from the radios onboard the affected airliners and could have come from another airborne platform flying in the northeast airspace.
c. the failure of NEADS, which served as the communications nexus and SINGLE FACILITY responsible for all air defense activities in the northeast region of the U.S.A. on 9/11/2001, and was responsible for all the airspace in which all the flights, including the interceptors, finally scrambled, to take appropriate, timely and affirmative action to scramble interceptors when they were directly asked to do so by the FAA’s Boston ARTCC."

Veale submitted to the Court several documents on the facts that led him to support a "false flag" and conspiracy theory. He did his homework.

Nonetheless, US District Court Judge Denny Chin ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. He wrote:
"Even assuming the factual allegations of the complaint are true, Gallop's claims are not plausible. It is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy (Chin, p. 11)...because Gallop's claims are factually baseless - indeed, because they are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional - they are dismissed" (Chin, p. 13)

Gallop's Attorney's then appealed to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Preet Bharara,
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Attorney for Defendants-Appellees, wrote in his Reply:

"The District Court properly dismissed Gallop's complaint with prejudice...any amendment to the complaint would have been futile, given that no additional evidence would transform gallop's delusional conspiracy claims into viable ones.....gallop's fanciful claim that the Government conspired to facilitate the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, remains frivolous....(a) plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense."

Bharara also sent to the COA an article published September 9, 2011 by the Washington Post titled "After 9/11, woman who was at Pentagon remains skeptical" that made fun of Gallop's perpective on the alleged missing plane at the Pentagon, as well as her numerous lawsuits against the government and her many lawyers.

Gallop replied:
"The Government, our Government, finds that the sweeping, know-nothing determination by the District Court against the Plaintiffs in this case relieves them of any need to discuss the facts alleged in the Complaint; ...Rather than address the particulars of the awful conspiracy plaintiffs allege, they adopt the highly offended sensibility of the district judge, scorning the very idea of such a great betrayal of the country by its highest officials.
In taking this position, however, defendants have ignored not only the facts alleged but the real legal issues plaintiff has raised on appeal, clearly in hopes that a similar, emotion-based reaction will sweep all before it in this Court....In point of fact, the Court below misappropriated the authority of Ashcroft v Iqbal as cover for its arbitrary, emotion-based Judgment dismissing the plaintiff's well-founded, exceedingly fact-intensive complaint, which this Court is now asked to overturn." (p. 2)

Attorney Earl Staelin's Affidavit and Amicus in support of April Gallop to the Court of Appeals includes Affidavits from Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD., Niels Harrit, PhD, and reports from blogs which cite several prominent and respected authorities who state that the military ordered the media not to raise any serious questions about 9/11. Staelin's conclusions are that the "Appellant and her counsel have compelling evidence that her claims are not frivolous... the complaint contains extensive and detailed factual allegations that are non-conclusory, plausible, and, if proved, show that appellant is entitled to relief... and the potential difficulty of dealing objectively with Plaintiff's allegations should be addressed by the court to ensure a fair decision."

Staelin concludes:
"The entire complaint presents well-pleaded, non-conclusory and plausible factual allegations and summaries thereof, however grave and shocking the allegations, thoroughly backed by credible evidence, and therefore is not frivolous. There is no evidence that Appellant or her counsel acted in bad faith, or in any manner but the respected and honored tradition of lawyers taking on difficult and unpopular but meritorious cases regardless of the risk of criticism or potential defeat." (Staelin, p. 11)

Here is a close look at the oral argument in front of the Court of Appeals:
Statement By April Gallop’s Attorney Bill Veale Regarding 9/11 Trial
Apr 11, 2011

Bill Veale: 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.

The Appeal to the Court of Appeals failed, and the three Judges on the panel, Winter, Walker, and Cabranes, concluded on October 14, 2011, as follows:

(1) The motion of Dennis Cunningham, Gallop’s lead counsel of record, for admission to our Court pro hac vice, is hereby GRANTED.

(2) Gallop is hereby ADMONISHED that the submission of future frivolous filings may result in sanctions.

(3) Dennis Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa, and William Veale are hereby ORDERED to pay the government double costs in addition to damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they are jointly and severally liable, within 60 days of the date of entry of this order.

(4) It is further ORDERED that (i) unless such payment is timely made, attorneys Dennis Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa, and William Veale shall be required to request leave from this Court before filing any papers with the Clerk of our Court or the clerks of any court within this Circuit; (ii) within 24 hours of receipt of the $15,000 penalty imposed on Gallop’s counsel, the government shall submit an affidavit to this Court confirming its receipt of such payment; and (iii) if no payment is made within 60 days of the date of entry of this order, the government shall promptly so certify to this Court, along with a statement regarding additional remedies that may be available under the circumstances.

(5) William Veale is hereby ORDERED, for a period of one year from the date of entry of this order, to provide notice of the sanctions imposed upon him in this case to any court within this Circuit before which he appears, or seeks to appear. Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions.

(6) Dennis Cunningham is hereby ORDERED to show cause in writing within 30 days from the date of entry of this order why he should not be separately sanctioned by being required to provide appropriate notice to any court within this Circuit before which he appears, or seeks to appear, of the sanctions imposed against him in connection with this appeal.

Attorney Veale apologized to the Court and substantiated his motion to Disqualify Judge John Walker (he is a cousin of George W. Bush) but the sanctions stand at this time.

Attorney Mustapha Ndanusa told Editor Betsy Combier on October 29, 2011 that last week a Writ has been filed to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of April Gallop. He feels frustrated with the process and says that April Gallop is concerned with the omission of any effort to answer her questions, such as why is so much evidence missing, where were the bodies, plane parts, why didnt alarms go off at the Pentagon, and why did so many of the protocols that she was trained in, disappear?

VIDEO 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon

9/11 Ten Years After by David Ray Griffin

Pentagon Survivor April Gallop Suing Rummy/cheney

Commentary from Betsy Combier:

I lived in Egypt from 1978 to 1983, and I produced television shows on the rural villages of Egypt and the social and economic development going on there, as well as the Israeli solar energy industry, the Jordanian Royal Family and the Palestinians in Jordan, among other stories. While in the Middle East I met Amiram Nir, who was involved with the CIA And the Iran Contra Affair, so I was able to see a side of international politics that the general public does not always get to see. I too have questions about the missing plane that went into the Pentagon, and therefore I dont buy the Government's argument that there was a plane.

© 2003 The E-Accountability Foundation