Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[alienentity]

Yes, but the theory that best fits ALL the evidence is the preferred one, especially of there are no other theories that fit ANY of the physical For the Pentagon, the best theory is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We have DNA for all passengers and crew. We have 100+ tons of airplane parts and surviving luggage scraps and personal effects and jewelry and dental records.

We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.
...

What I wanna know is, did they find any Plymouth Wheel-Covers in the Pentagon wreckage?

 

[Myriad]

Economics writer, Jim Willie, gives a 20% chance to the unraveling of the 9/11 coverup occurring during 2010. I'd say that is about right, as far as predictive ability is concerned.

JREF Forum polymath, Myriad, gives a .03% chance that Economics writer, Jim Willie's, assessment of the chance of the unraveling of the 9/11 coverup during 2010 is realistic, accurate, or based on anything other than wishful thinking.

(However, this will not stop anyone from claiming, when nothing happens in 2010, that Economics Writer, Jim Willie, made a correct prediction because he said it was 80% likely nothing would happen.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TruthersLie]

What I wanna know is, did they find any Plymouth Wheel-Covers in the Pentagon wreckage?

Or were any of the parked cars missing theirs.

 

[Hokulele]

Economics writer, Jim Willie, gives a 20% chance to the unraveling of the 9/11 coverup occurring during 2010. I'd say that is about right, as far as predictive ability is concerned.

Care to back up this claim? If so, I will put 100 USD on the line to your favorite charity that no cover up will unravel this year and you will donate the same amount to the JREF, should you be wrong. We can pick a neutral third party to hold the funds in escrow until January 1, 2011.

Should you agree to this challenge, the first step will be to explicitly define what is meant by a cover up, and how exactly you expect it to unravel.

 

[DGM]

Permit me to suggest we allow the dialogue to speak for itself, without the embellishment.

This is the first smart thing I've seen you post.

Those who might like to review the thread can decide for themselves which posts they agree with and which they disagree with. Chances are those posts that fit the former category for whosoever is reviewing them will find such posts to be convincing and persuasive; and, vice versa. You agree?

Then you post this.

So your suggesting an uninformed opinion is better then one backed by education? Nice.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Alternative claims and throries are an everyday, commonplace occurrence and the fact that Gallop may have relied on alternative claims is neither unique nor surprising. Let me illustrate this further and ask whether you are aware of what position was taken by the airlines she sued?

Did they admit or deny liability?

If they denied it, to what extent did they do so? Did the denial extend to the issue of whether or not a jetliner crashed?

If you did not know the answers to those queries before posting what you posted, why did you imply that her pleading was improper?

You need to be reminded that the crux of the decision was that Gallop did not prove her claim about the airliner. Recall what the judge did:

First, I consider the factual content of the complaint, keeping in mind that I am obliged to assume the veracity only of well-pleaded factual allegations, and that mere conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Second, I consider whether the well-pleaded facts, assumed to be true, give rise not just to a possible claim but to a plausible claim. In these analyses, I am required to draw on my judicial experience and to apply my common sense.

He presumed the facts she presented to the court are true just for the sake of argument. He needed to in order to analyze her claims. Guess what? She still came up short:

The complaint pleads little in terms of factual content beyond what Gallop saw and experienced herself at the Pentagon on September 11th. She did not see any signs of a plane, but this is hardly compelling evidence that no plane was there, given her description of the chaos around her...

... Under these circumstances, the fact that she did not see any sign of a plane, assuming that to be true, does not mean no plane hit the Pentagon.

So even when he takes her at her word, she still didn't provide enough proof for her claim.

And what about claims above and beyond what she witnessed personally?

The allegations that highranking officials of the United States knew that the attacks were coming and that they facilitated the attacks and let them happen, knowing that thousands of civilians would die, to create an atmosphere of fear that would permit the administration to seize extraordinary power and start a pretextual global war on terror are not factual in nature. Rather, they are mere conclusions, unsupported by any specific factual assertion. Accordingly, the Court is not required, under Iqbal, to assume their truth.

Those claims were specious conclusions, not facts, nor were they ever supported by any facts given in the suit. That was the courts finding, and because of that prior case - Iqbal - the court wasn't obligated to presume their veracity for the sake of the case. Therefore, all that other conspiratorial stuff was completely irrelevant as arguments in Gallop's case. The only thing that mattered were the facts she presents based on her experience, and those facts based on her experience were completely insufficient to support her claim that no plane crashed in the Pentagon.

On top of that, the court decided that everything above and beyond that in the suit was just hooey. Or to put it in the judge's words, "speculation and conjecture".

That's why her claim was improper. As LashL said:

... as a matter of law, it was improper as it did not plead sufficient material facts to support the relief sought.

You were already told why Gallop's claim was wrong. And like LashL, i'm not implying anything at all, I am stating forcefully that by law the claim was improper. That is not an implication, that is now fact due to the court's conclusion. Next time, read responses for comprehension. LashL already told you this. Why you had to go ask somebody else is beyond me, but it clearly establishes your desire to run from what's established and try to argue points you think haven't already been addressed. Gallop's claim did not have enough facts to support it. That's why the suit failed.

Learn, Jam. You need to start learning.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Permit me to suggest we allow the dialogue to speak for itself, without the embellishment. Those who might like to review the thread can decide for themselves which posts they agree with and which they disagree with. Chances are those posts that fit the former category for whosoever is reviewing them will find such posts to be convincing and persuasive; and, vice versa. You agree?

All right. Here is is with zero embellishment:

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.

A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," that is, "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional." Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy."

 

[jammonius]

All right. Here is is with zero embellishment:

​

Well elmondo,

If you'll take a look at post #68, you'll see you've done nothing more, or less, than requote, for the most part, a portion of the judge's decision that I have both quoted and commented upon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5732911&postcount=68

You have quoted the part that contains an unresolved contradiction tht might be ripe for a challenge upon appeal.

regards

 

[DGM]

You have quoted the part that contains an unresolved contradiction tht might be ripe for a challenge upon appeal.

regards

No he has not. He quoted an opinion of the judge. She would still have to provide evidence for her allegations, which she has not (although the "with prejudice" kind of puts a bind on that).

 

[beachnut]

There you are.

When jet engines are seen as wheel-covers, can't expect much knowledge to leak into the darkness of stupidity which 911 truth is.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well elmondo,

If you'll take a look at post #68, you'll see you've done nothing more, or less, than requote, for the most part, a portion of the judge's decision that I have both quoted and commented upon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5732911&postcount=68

You have quoted the part that contains an unresolved contradiction tht might be ripe for a challenge upon appeal.

regards

You are incorrect about there being any contradiction, unresolved or otherwise. Your misinterpretation shines through in your statement:

Gallop lost her case based on a judge's use of legal ju jit su that required, on the one hand, that the judge accept all well-pleaded (that is to say, well said) claims in the complaint as true; but, the judge then concluded, ipso facto, that which had to be accepted as true was not plausible, on the other.

You continuously fail to comprehend the judgement properly. There is no contradiction. What the judge was saying was that the elements of the case that were true did not support what Gallop claimed. It's that simple. You have to go out of your way to fail to comprehend this.

Look at what was written. First, understand what is accepted as fact:

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. '" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007». The -7- Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC Document 25 Filed 03/15/2010 Page 8 of 14 Supreme Court in Iqbal set out a "two-pronged" approach for courts considering a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 1950. First, the court accepts plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. See id. The court considers only the factual allegations in the complaint and "any documents that are either incorporated into the complaint by reference or attached to the complaint as exhibits."

Next, understand the facts. Or rather, that there were very few presented:

The complaint pleads little in terms of factual content beyond what Gallop saw and experienced herself at the Pentagon on September 11th.

What she saw and personally experienced are accepted as facts.

She did not see any signs of a plane, but this is hardly compelling evidence that no plane was there, given her description of the chaos around her -- a "huge explosion," followed by more explosions, walls collapsing, ceilings falling, flames shooting out of her computer, debris falling on her and her baby, smoke and dust all about, and the front of the building being blown open. (CompI. ~~ 6,7,33,34). Indeed, she alleges that she collapsed outside and did not wake up until some time later when she found herself in a hospital.

The only factual allegations were Gallop's own observations. That's it. And they did not support what she was claiming.

Under these circumstances, the fact that she did not see any sign of a plane, assuming that to be true, does not mean no plane hit the Pentagon.

What she saw was completely insufficient to support what she claimed. The judge clearly stated that even if you take what few facts Gallop presented as being true - and recall, the only facts that were presented were here own observations - then the claims that extend from the facts are still unsupportable. The claims are not supported by the facts in the lawsuit. Ergo the claims are implausible. That's why he said the following:

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.

A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," that is, "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional." Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy."

How hard is that to understand? Everyone else here seems to comprehend it? Why not you, Jam?

------

You need to go read. I didn't go through the trouble of creating the post prior to that so you could ignore it. And LashL didn't compose her's either so you can blithely whistle while you walk by without acknowledgement. Go read both of them. That's where we explain how the judge lays down his reasoning, and that's where we show how the argument was constructed. Quit ignoring the points that refute your argument, Jam. That's a child's tactic, and presumably you're no child.

 

[tfk]

TFK opined to LashL 'But you're likely going down to defeat in this discussion. '

Jammonious hasn't made a single argument worthy of an intelligent 8th grader, much less the Merry Pason that he envisions himself.

It appears that sarcasm, even the thick, gooey, dripping kind, isn't necessarily self-evident in this medium. I guess I'll have to drench my offerings in my own special Sarcasm Sauce from now on...

Tom

 

[dafydd]

Yes, but the theory that best fits ALL the evidence is the preferred one, especially of there are no other theories that fit ANY of the physical For the Pentagon, the best theory is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We have DNA for all passengers and crew. We have 100+ tons of airplane parts and surviving luggage scraps and personal effects and jewelry and dental records.

We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.

We have black box data, cockpit speech via the flight voice recorder,
Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger Air-phone calls,
passenger cell phone calls, phone company data identifying the
location where the plane was when the calls were made, radar track
data that identifies the entire path the plane took, and operations
records at Dulles airport.

We have boarding manifests. We have credit card records and parked
cars that show that the people on the manifest paid for their tickets
and went to the airport, checked in and never returned.

We have multiple pieces of evidence identifying Khalid Almihdhar Majed, Moqed Nawaf, Alhazmi Salem Alhazmi, and Hani Hanjour as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example of evidence of many, is the martyrdom videos left by some of the 19 hijackers that captured 4 jets on 9/11.

You have all that and the truthers have fake videos on YouTube.Which side of the fence should I choose?.....mmmmmm.....

 

[alienentity]

Jammonious hasn't made a single argument worthy of an intelligent 8th grader, much less the Merry Pason that he envisions himself.

It appears that sarcasm, even the thick, gooey, dripping kind, isn't necessarily self-evident in this medium. I guess I'll have to drench my offerings in my own special Sarcasm Sauce from now on...

Tom

Hehe. I thought you meant 'In his mind' or as in making a dent in his beliefs...
He's defeated all of us in that way I guess.

 

[A W Smith]

Jammonious hasn't made a single argument worthy of an intelligent 8th grader, much less the Merry Pason that he envisions himself.

It appears that sarcasm, even the thick, gooey, dripping kind, isn't necessarily self-evident in this medium. I guess I'll have to drench my offerings in my own special Sarcasm Sauce from now on...

Tom

not Merry Pason, More like Vulturo from Harvey Birdman

http://video.adultswim.com/harvey-birdman-attorney-at-law/mmmmlitigation.html

 

[drkitten]

You have quoted the part that contains an unresolved contradiction tht might be ripe for a challenge upon appeal.

Not in the slightest. Perhaps I can make it clearer (although I doubt it). Anything that Gallop personally claims to have seen, heard, felt, or experienced in her pleadings must (in the context of a motion to dismiss) be accepted as true, no matter how implausible it is. For example, she heard the explosion. She personally experienced unconsciousness and waking up in a hospital.

On the other hand, anything she did not personally experience need not be accepted unless it's plausible and well-supported by the facts that she personally experienced. So the claim that government officials knew that the attacks were coming is not something she personally experienced (she never saw, for example, Bush getting briefed on a planned attack) and as such need not be accepted as true.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings drkitten,

Not in the slightest. Perhaps I can make it clearer (although I doubt it). Anything that Gallop personally claims to have seen, heard, felt, or experienced in her pleadings must (in the context of a motion to dismiss) be accepted as true, no matter how implausible it is. For example, she heard the explosion. She personally experienced unconsciousness and waking up in a hospital.

That is clear enough.

On the other hand, anything she did not personally experience need not be accepted unless it's plausible and well-supported by the facts that she personally experienced.

I do not think the above is an accurate statement of the plausibility requirement. I think, in fact, that your statement is wrong both generally and as to its particulars. I consider the following to be a correct statement of the plausibility requirement:

"[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

The pleading standard ... does not require either "detailed factual allegations," or matters that have been experienced personally, as you claim, but does require more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. … Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion" devoid of "further factual enhancement."

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, and to:

"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

So the claim that government officials knew that the attacks were coming is not something she personally experienced (she never saw, for example, Bush getting briefed on a planned attack) and as such need not be accepted as true.

I don't think you properly state her claim, at all. In fact, I think you misstate it.

Gallop challenged the assertion a plane hit the Pentagon.

The plausibility of that claim is established on the basis of known visual evidence:

There is no way on earth anyone can in their right mind say the video segment, from which the above is taken, shows a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. Furthermore, and to put it affirmatively, a plausible claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon can be derived from the, at best, inconclusive video of the event that does not positively show a jetliner. Thus, April Gallop's claim is plausible.

Furthermore, as neither Bush nor Cheney have ever said in a recorded transcript WHAT they did on 9/11, let alone do so under oath, no inferences that all they did was true and good and beautiful can be drawn in their favor. Their actions have been concealed and withheld from the 9/11 Commission and while one cannot say what they did, one cannot draw inferences in their favor, as Judge Chin did, when, in fact, it is simply not known what they did.

April Gallop has a legal rationale for a successful appeal.

 

[TSR]

Gallop challenged the assertion a plane hit the Pentagon.

.
... after she had already gotten money based on a claim that one did.

Is she going to give that money back, do you feel?
.

... it is simply not known what they did.

.
So, you agree that Gallop had no factual basis for her accusations in the suit, just like the Judge said. So apparently your only problem is a willful ignorance that this lack means she has no case which can *legally* be made.

Just like the judge said.
.

 

[beachnut]

April's case was judged delusional. Which part of delusional is not getting past your fuselages are horse-trailer mentality? lol

Gallop challenged the assertion a plane hit the Pentagon.

LOL, she sued for a aircraft hitting her office are at the Pentagon. You can't be this bad at supporting delusions; Wait; you are the wheel-cover jet engine part failed expert. Never-mind.

The plausibility of that claim is established on the basis of known visual evidence:

Wow, you posted a photo of a jet fuel fireball made by Flight 77 as proved by RADAR and the FDR. The fireball is the exact size of the jet fuel at 483 KIAS impact for a 757. Darn you make a lie and debunk yourself! Good job debunker.

There is no way on earth anyone can in their right mind say the video segment, from which the above is taken, shows a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. Furthermore, and to put it affirmatively, a plausible claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon can be derived from the, at best, inconclusive video of the event that does not positively show a jetliner. Thus, April Gallop's claim is plausible.

Wow, you show what is the exact fireball for the fuel on board Flight 77 and then say it is not a jet fuel fireball. You fail at making up lies.

Furthermore, as neither Bush nor Cheney have ever said in a recorded transcript WHAT they did on 9/11, let alone do so under oath, no inferences that all they did was true and good and beautiful can be drawn in their favor. Their actions have been concealed and withheld from the 9/11 Commission and while one cannot say what they did, one cannot draw inferences in their favor, as Judge Chin did, when, in fact, it is simply not known what they did.

Bush and Cheney? LOL, you are off topic and lost in your own delusion. OFF TOPIC

April Gallop has a legal rationale for a successful appeal.

No she has delusions like you do. You think jet engine parts are wheel-covers from a Plymouth, April sued for an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon, and then she tries to sue for an aircraft not impacting the Pentagon. A delusion like you have on jet engine parts. And the judge said so. Did you fail to comprehend the judgment?

 

[alienentity]

'There is no way on earth anyone can in their right mind say the video segment, from which the above is taken, shows a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. Furthermore, and to put it affirmatively, a plausible claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon can be derived from the, at best, inconclusive video of the event that does not positively show a jetliner. Thus, April Gallop's claim is plausible.'

What utter drivel. By that standard, no plane crash happens if it isn't caught on video.