Hi everyone. After a long suspension due to "discrepancies" on my account I have been allowed back after literally proving my real identity to the moderators.
I found this to be an odd request since most discussion boards are anonymous and I had already been posting here for a few months but I am not trying to hide my identity so I complied.
I have read that many of you have watched and quickly dismissed the testimony presented in The PentaCon.
I would eventually like to discuss Edward Paik and Robert Turcios but for the sake of simplicity in this thread please let's focus on Lagasse and Brooks.
As a review I request that everyone who participates in this thread watches this 8 minute clip with highlights in regards to the north side claim from Lagasse and Brooks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE
The entire justification for our "smoking gun" claim is based on the fact that all witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station and/or Columbia Pike and this fact is irreconcilable with the official story.
Most of the arguments against this testimony have been in regards to the fact that the witnesses believe the plane hit the building.
Bottom line though............if they are correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for it to have been what caused the physical damage.
The viewer MUST choose which claim to believe as I'm sure that we can all agree that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.
Here is why Citizen Investigation Team believes it is infinitely more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact:
1. Their point of view of what side of the station the plane flew is much better than their point of view of the alleged impact.
2. They all admit that what they really saw was a big fireball that concealed the actual impact of the plane.
3. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station at all from where he was located.
4. The fact that it would be a DRASTIC mistake for them to place the plane on the complete opposite side of the station and the fact that the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake are beyond remote.
5. They have no motive to lie. In fact it would jeopardize their reputations and likely career to lie about such an historically important/politically charged event.
6. They stick by their claim even after having watched the film.
7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.
Furthermore......they do not have to be perfectly exact in their placement of the plane. If it was anywhere remotely near where they all claim; the plane can not be what caused the physical damage. Due to the light poles there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path. The plane HAD to be far to the south of the station AND traveling in a completely opposite trajectory to what the witnesses report.
I found this to be an odd request since most discussion boards are anonymous and I had already been posting here for a few months but I am not trying to hide my identity so I complied.
I have read that many of you have watched and quickly dismissed the testimony presented in The PentaCon.
I would eventually like to discuss Edward Paik and Robert Turcios but for the sake of simplicity in this thread please let's focus on Lagasse and Brooks.
As a review I request that everyone who participates in this thread watches this 8 minute clip with highlights in regards to the north side claim from Lagasse and Brooks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE
The entire justification for our "smoking gun" claim is based on the fact that all witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station and/or Columbia Pike and this fact is irreconcilable with the official story.
Most of the arguments against this testimony have been in regards to the fact that the witnesses believe the plane hit the building.
Bottom line though............if they are correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for it to have been what caused the physical damage.
The viewer MUST choose which claim to believe as I'm sure that we can all agree that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.
Here is why Citizen Investigation Team believes it is infinitely more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact:
1. Their point of view of what side of the station the plane flew is much better than their point of view of the alleged impact.
2. They all admit that what they really saw was a big fireball that concealed the actual impact of the plane.
3. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station at all from where he was located.
4. The fact that it would be a DRASTIC mistake for them to place the plane on the complete opposite side of the station and the fact that the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake are beyond remote.
5. They have no motive to lie. In fact it would jeopardize their reputations and likely career to lie about such an historically important/politically charged event.
6. They stick by their claim even after having watched the film.
7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.
Furthermore......they do not have to be perfectly exact in their placement of the plane. If it was anywhere remotely near where they all claim; the plane can not be what caused the physical damage. Due to the light poles there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path. The plane HAD to be far to the south of the station AND traveling in a completely opposite trajectory to what the witnesses report.
