Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[dafydd]

Greetings elmondo,



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?

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

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.

I understand LasVegas casinos allow people to bet on almost anything. I wonder if there's a line on when the 9/11 coverup will unravel?

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/tko-boxing-boxer-athlete-smiley-emo.gif[/qimg]

Are we having fun yet?

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?

No,anyone reading your guff will believe that you are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.You make me ashamed to be British.

 

[grandmastershek]

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.

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.

with this sort of reasoning we can conclude based on an explosion from a bomb that a bomb did not indeed exist since the photo of the blast does not include the bomb itself.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

sorry

I kind of feel sorry for her. She needs therapy and filing one frivolous lawsuit after another isn't helping...

 

[Loss Leader]

I here assert that as a matter of law, that piece of evidence should have been sufficient, standing alone, to defeat a motion to dismiss.

"I declare BANKRUPTCY!!!!!

Seriously, Jam, a picture that doesn't have a plane in it is evidence that no plane existed? Here's a picture of [ulr=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0508/m46m47_hetlage_f.jpg]stars[/url] without the space shuttle in it. Is that evidence that the Challenger disaster never happened? For that matter, here's a picture of the Challenger disaster. I don't see a space shuttle in it. Is that, standing alone, sufficient evidence that there was no space shuttle on that day?

In any case, it wasn't incredulity over the no-plane allegation that led to the dismissal. It was the fact that the accusations about the actions of the Vice President and others were merely conclusary that led to the dismissal. Gallop had no proof of any sort that the VP had anything whatsoever to do with the events of that day. Even if there had been no plane, it would not support a declaration that the Vice President was the reason there was no plane; just like the lack of a plane wouldn't support a declaration that Jon Bon Jovi was the reason.

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.

Trust me when I say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

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?

I don't know the answers, but I'm going to guess. They initially denied liability. They took the position that the actions of the terrorists on 9/11 were unforseeable. To the extent that a hijacking of some sort was forseeable, their safety measures on that day were reasonably designed to protect people from harm. They never contested the issue of the identity of the aircraft, let alone whether the planes actually crashed.

Now I'll go look it up ...

In the omnibus Answer to the consolidated 9/11 airline cases, American Airlines admitted its planes crashed.

 

[jammonius]

posters,

A fair number of you, alienentity, beachnut, dafydd, among others, have all commented in one way or another that misses the point. The point is "plausibility" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "truth" or even "scientifically derived" assertion or reliance on "radar" or any other kind of data.

If you look at the Pentagon video, it is inconclusive in the sense that try as one might, one cannot say with certainty that there's a Boeing 757 in it. The best one can say is that "of course" there's a Boeing 757 in there somewhere, otherwise the authorities in whom we trust are not telling us the truth and goodness knows they wouldn't do that. Or some such. Whatever.

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

 

[DGM]

posters,

A fair number of you, alienentity, beachnut, dafydd, among others, have all commented in one way or another that misses the point. The point is "plausibility" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "truth" or even "scientifically derived" assertion or reliance on "radar" or any other kind of data.

If you look at the Pentagon video, it is inconclusive in the sense that try as one might, one cannot say with certainty that there's a Boeing 757 in it. The best one can say is that "of course" there's a Boeing 757 in there somewhere, otherwise the authorities in whom we trust are not telling us the truth and goodness knows they wouldn't do that. Or some such. Whatever.

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

In using the video only you are ignoring the whole body of evidence.

Why don't you go to the "penticon" site (yes the CIT) and honestly review what all their witnesses say. A plane hit the building. They saw it.

Don't ignore evidence just because it's inconvenient.

 

[beachnut]

posters,

A fair number of you, alienentity, beachnut, dafydd, among others, have all commented in one way or another that misses the point. The point is "plausibility" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "truth" or even "scientifically derived" assertion or reliance on "radar" or any other kind of data.

If you look at the Pentagon video, it is inconclusive in the sense that try as one might, one cannot say with certainty that there's a Boeing 757 in it. The best one can say is that "of course" there's a Boeing 757 in there somewhere, otherwise the authorities in whom we trust are not telling us the truth and goodness knows they wouldn't do that. Or some such. Whatever.

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

Sorry, Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon, April has a delusion. Like your delusions of fuselage parts being horse-trailers, April is delusional if she thinks Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon. Please stop posting the jet fuel fireball, it is proof 77 did hit the Pentagon.

Since you don't understand RADAR, multiple independent RADAR sites, tracked 77 to the Pentagon on 911, you can't clear the delusions you have adopted as you support terrorists, murderers.

What is cool the Judge identifies delusions.

 

[Loss Leader]

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

Thanks for ignoring my post, Jam, and, with it, a careful explanation of the exact type of fail embodied in your assertion above.

 

[twinstead]

posters,

A fair number of you, alienentity, beachnut, dafydd, among others, have all commented in one way or another that misses the point. The point is "plausibility" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "truth" or even "scientifically derived" assertion or reliance on "radar" or any other kind of data.

If you look at the Pentagon video, it is inconclusive in the sense that try as one might, one cannot say with certainty that there's a Boeing 757 in it. The best one can say is that "of course" there's a Boeing 757 in there somewhere, otherwise the authorities in whom we trust are not telling us the truth and goodness knows they wouldn't do that. Or some such. Whatever.

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

Uh, you're the one who misses the point. The entire body of evidence, when taken as a whole (which real investigators do) is completely conclusive and would be accepted in any court of law as true beyond a reasonable doubt. You are just playing rhetorical games (like some sleazy lawyer, wink wink).

You are trying simply to cast doubt, not prove your case. You appear to think that "the authorities" just told us there was a plane in the Pentagon, for example, or just told us what the radar said, and we simply believed them.

Using your debate technique, no event in the whole history of the world, no crime, no disaster, nothing, can be proven to have happened. EVER. You're just taking advantage of the fact this is an internet forum instead of a court of law and doing all the things that if a defense lawyer did in a courtroom would get his case thrown out of court.

Dude. WE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

 

[tsig]

Greetings drkitten,



That is clear enough.



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."




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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/pnt77.jpg?t=1269312101[/qimg]

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.

Bush and Cheney planted the bombs then flew the planes?

 

[LashL]

A fair number of you, alienentity, beachnut, dafydd, among others, have all commented in one way or another that misses the point. The point is "plausibility" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "truth" or even "scientifically derived" assertion or reliance on "radar" or any other kind of data.

While it is correct to say that the threshold on a motion to dismiss is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc., it is you who misses the point, jammonius.

The point is that Gallop's complaint was factually baseless and that is why it was dismissed. Even assuming the very few factual contentions made in her complaint to be true (as required on a motion to dismiss under the relevant rule), those few factual allegations were wholly insufficient to support her complaint or to entitle her to the relief sought. Her claim was dismissed because it was factually baseless.

The rest of her non-factual allegations (i.e. reams of speculation and conjecture not supported by material facts) were not required to be assumed to be true, and were not so assumed by the court. That they also amounted to nothing more than delusional fantasy was simply icing on the cake.

"Because Gallop's claims are factually baseless --indeed because they are fanciful, fantastic and delusional -- they are dismissed."

What part of that, and what part of my previous posts explaining the court's judgment to you, do you not understand?

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

My bolding. If I show you a photograph of my front yard in which you cannot clearly see my daughter, you could make a plausible claim that my daughter is not clearly shown in the photograph, but you could not make a plausible claim that my daughter does not exist. Hear this (to use one of your favourite meaningless phrases): what you are trying to "here assert" (to use another of your favourite meaningless phrases) in relation to Gallop's claim is the latter, and it is quite ridiculous to assert that it is a plausible claim at all, and quite ridiculous to assert that such would be a sufficient basis to ground a lawsuit alleging that my daughter does not exist.

Face it. Gallop's claims were unsupported by material facts sufficient to survive even the very low threshold required on a motion to dismiss, and that is why her complaint was dismissed. (Her unsupported claims were very nearly - although perhaps not quite - as delusional as the claims made by that whackjob, Judy Wood). Gallop's complaint (like Wood's) was quite correctly dismissed. You may wish it were otherwise, but you know what they say about wishes, and in the real world, the law does not bend to your delusions, or to what you wish or to what you "here assert" or to what you preface with "Hear this:" or to any other uninformed, uneducated, illogical, and unsupported nonsense.

 

[TSR]

Thanks for ignoring my post, Jam, and, with it, a careful explanation of the exact type of fail embodied in your assertion above.

.
Shall we get tshirts made for the club?
.

 

[TSR]

.
Is Gallop going to give the money she got by asserting that a plane *did* hit the Pentagon back, do you feel?

You appear to 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, right?
.

 

[Orphia Nay]

If a video is uncertain because it does not clearly show the thing claimed to be in it, then, in that event, the assertion there is no Boeing 757 in it, is a plausible claim, imho.

Let me guess: You don't apply that same "logic" to the fact that the video does not show a missile.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Ohhh, BURN...

Let me guess: You don't apply that same "logic" to the fact that the video does not show a missile.

Logic? Truthers? Those two mix together like oil and vinegar, Otto Fuel and seawater, paint thinner and tap water, Code Pink and Marines, The Duggars and Planned Parenthood, gin and root beer shnapps (don't ask), evolution and creationism, McDonalds and PETA, Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, garlic and a first date, Tylenol and Everclear, dogs and cats living together in sin, Germans attacking Pearl Harbor, maple syrup and salmon, pianos and bagpipes, mustard and ice cream... need I go on?

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

... hmmmm .... mustard and ice cream ....... you've got a winner there Sam.I.am!

 

[twinstead]

mmmmmmm....mustard ice cream.....

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Bush and Cheney planted the bombs then flew the planes?

Well, robot Bush and Cheney.

But then, I've said too mu

 

[alienentity]

Sorry, Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon, April has a delusion. Like your delusions of fuselage parts being horse-trailers, April is delusional if she thinks Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon.

I dunno Beach....rumor has it that this plane and horse trailer were seen flying low over DC moments before the crash.....same with Shanksville. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Audible Click]

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.

Jammonius, you've yet to reply to Hokulele she's asking you to put your money where your mouth is. Any comment?