The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.

[jsfisher]

Did anyone ever derive and post the track of the shadow the plane on the "official path" would have cast?

Lagasse was confused what about where he was and what he actually did upon hearing the plane pass overhead. What does the security video show him doing? Why wasn't that part included in the Smoking Gun Video, or SGV?

 

[Arus808]

Obviously this can be the only explanation if the witnesses are remotely correct.

]
or it was damaged by flight 77. again, you are ignoring physical evidence and testimony that contradicts your witnesses

If not please provide an alternative explanation.

already have; numerous times, you choose to ignore them.

 

[CHF]

If not please provide an alternative explanation.

Ummm...your two witnesses are wrong and the rest are right?

It all comes down to this: did you witnesseses see the plane fly OVER or INTO the Pentagon?

 

[stateofgrace]

Obviously this can be the only explanation if the witnesses are remotely correct.

No?

If not please provide an alternative explanation.

I don't need to explain anything you do.

Who staged the lamp posts? When did they do it ?

have you got a witness who saw them being staged ?

 

[Lyte Trip]

demonstration that you do not understand what you just posited. YOu gave only two choices for explaining what your witnesses are claiming, despite numerous other reasons why things are the way there that day, and that your witnesses can simply be mistaken.

that is a false dilemma

Perhaps you didn't understand the point.

The witnesses make 2 claims that can not exist simultaneously.

Therefore the viewer must choose which to believe.....OR they can choose to not believe either.

So the choices are:

1. You believe that they were correct in their belief that the plane made impact.

2. You believe that they were remotely correct in their independent placement of the plane.

3. You refuse to believe both assertions.


Please fill in any other alternative choices that you can think of but if you don't provide any it is clear this is not a false dilemma.

 

[Arus808]

You'd figure after 5 years; lyte and merc would have found a govt employee that would have snitched by now, that they "staged" the light poles.

 

[Pardalis]

Perhaps you didn't understand the point.

The witnesses make 2 claims that can not exist simultaneously.

Therefore the viewer must choose which to believe.....OR they can choose to not believe either.

So the choices are:

1. You believe that they were correct in their belief that the plane made impact.

2. You believe that they were remotely correct in their independent placement of the plane.

3. You refuse to believe both assertions.


Please fill in any other alternative choices that you can think of but if you don't provide any it is clear this is not a false dilemma.

 

[CHF]

Let's add up LT's story....

- Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
- a crash was faked
- someone then ran around the highway knocking down lightpoles

Brilliant.

I mean who wouldn't do it that way?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Ummm...your two witnesses are wrong and the rest are right?

What "rest"?

There is not a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence that specifically places the plane on the south of the gas station.

 

[uk_dave]

Hey lyte, I do have a question...no seriously I do, and it's a serious one, seriously....

now you and merc...I mean, the citizen investigation team of you and merc, you released a video recently didn't you? Now come on, don't deny it, you did, didn't you?

See, from what I've read, you released a 'smoking gun' version recently...and this 'smoking gun' version, well obviously it was a condensed version of the full monty, wasn't it? You know, all the cute soundbites and reverse tracking shots and all that.

But the thing is, apparently .... and I have to say, I find this hard to believe, but apparently, you're GOING to release the full version...the 'researchers' edition real soon..... only.....only.... it's not done yet.

Now my question is...and ...and please don't take this the wrong way, but my question is....WHY? Why isn't the full version ready already?

I mean, how do you distil all this footage down from something which doesn't exist? See what I'm saying here?

I mean....and I haven't used the word 'dude' (yet) but I'm trying very hard to relate to you in terms you might understand, but, like.... isn't it a bit whack to have the condensed, concise version released weeks before the meaty, full of 'truther goodness' researchers version is even anywhere close to being completed.

One might almost suspect that you will be editing the RE version according to what ****...I mean, what constructive criticism you receive from the 'bells and whistles' version.

But apart from that, I think you've done a great job of whatever it is you do. And merc too. Props.

 

[Pardalis]

Seemless

 

[Arus808]

Perhaps you didn't understand the point.

we do understand your point

The witnesses make 2 claims that can not exist simultaneously.

which happens. its a funny thing about memory. over time, it gets severely unreliable, and when our mind cant comprehend things, its fills in the "gaps" to help us understand. When we witness something that we have trouble understanding, or miss out on key elements, the mind can play tricks on you.

Like how a rape victim can mis-identify her attacker, and the man she accuses, is exonerated by DNA evidence.

Therefore the viewer must choose which to believe.....OR they can choose to not believe either.

So the choices are:

1. You believe that they were correct in their belief that the plane made impact.

2. You believe that they were remotely correct in their independent placement of the plane.



3. You refuse to believe both assertions.

again false dilemma; other choices are:
4) they are simply mistaken about where they thought they saw the plane
5) they actually saw the shadow of the LOW flying plane instead of the plane itself
6) their memory after 5 years has become unreliable, and can't remember specifically where things were

 

[Lyte Trip]

I don't need to explain anything you do.

Who staged the lamp posts? When did they do it ?

have you got a witness who saw them being staged ?

SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks place the plane on the north of the station and did not see the light poles get hit.

Their testimony has nothing to do with seeing anyone stage the poles.

 

[CHF]

What "rest"?

There is not a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence that specifically places the plane on the south of the gas station.

What about the drivers who had lightpoles crash around them?

What do they claim knocked them down?

 

[WildCat]

How many of your witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?

 

[CHF]

I repeat: did you witnesseses see the plane fly OVER or INTO the Pentagon?

Answer the question.

 

[Lyte Trip]

we do understand your point



which happens. its a funny thing about memory. over time, it gets severely unreliable, and when our mind cant comprehend things, its fills in the "gaps" to help us understand. When we witness something that we have trouble understanding, or miss out on key elements, the mind can play tricks on you.

Like how a rape victim can mis-identify her attacker, and the man she accuses, is exonerated by DNA evidence.




again false dilemma; other choices are:
4) they are simply mistaken about where they thought they saw the plane
5) they actually saw the shadow of the LOW flying plane instead of the plane itself
6) their memory after 5 years has become unreliable, and can't remember specifically where things were

4, 5, & 6 all still fall under 1 of my choices no?

All of those choices indicate that you believe their account of the impact over their account of the placement of the plane.

 

[Arus808]

SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks place the plane on the north of the station and did not see the light poles get hit.

that's what they 'believe' they saw. doesnt mean that it happened that way.
they could have saw the planes shadow.

at the speed the plane was traveling, they only had less than a few seconds to ascertain what was going on.

in that time, their mind is already filling in "gaps" of what they didn't see

Their testimony has nothing to do with seeing anyone stage the poles.

You need to provide proof , since if they saw the plane, then they would have seen the staging of the poles as well.

 

[uk_dave]

welcome to the boilerhouse, lyte

muhahahahahahaha

 

[apathoid]

What "rest"?

There is not a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence our widdle troof flick that specifically places the plane on the south of the gas station.

Fixed it. The statement is now accurate.