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

Let's try again: did your witnesseses see the plane fly OVER or INTO the Pentagon?
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...
...except for all the witnesses that did place them there, that you were too lazy to interview, since they disagreed with your fantasy, and would have told you what you didn't want to hear. Your "investigative body" is a 550 pound fatty that hasn't been off the couch in ten years.
You and merc are laughing stocks. I'm glad you're back, because I need some good guffaws, and you never fail to provide them!
 
So when can we expect to see your research in the New York Times, or any major American newspaper, or European newspaper, or...?

Clearly they wouldn't want to miss the story of the century...?
 
Lyte,

While your video puts the official flight path into question, it is completely illogical to assume that the eye witness testimony is valid when it suits your pre- determined point of view and ignore it when they state that, without doubt, they saw the plane strike the building.
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...


"the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake" are only "beyond remote" if these are the only people who have ever testified about this issue. The more people there are, the more likely it is that you'll find four who tell the same, mistaken story.


Lyte Trip said:
7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.
Click to expand...



This would be more correct as "zero witnesses that we aren't dismissing as shills or liars".
 
CHF said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nasty conspirator 1. “Ok guys here is the plan we are going to stage a fake plane crash into the Pentagon"

Nasty Conspirator 2 " No problem I will set up the fake black boxes and the fake plane parts"

Nasty Conspirator 3 " I'll set about rigging five lamp post, just to fool everybody"

nasty Conspirator 4 " I've got a few guys that I can plant around the place to give false testimony"

Nasty Conspirator 1 “Ok any volunteer to go to the Pentagon and rig it with explosives?

Nasty conspirator 5 " I'll do that "

nasty Conspirator 6 " when do we go, at night right?"

Nasty Conspirator 1 " No way we do it broad day light in front of potentially hundreds of witnesses "

Nasty Conspirator 2 " What about the actual flight ?"

Nasty Conspirator 1 “How don't worry about that we'll figure that out later"

Joint chorus” Brilliant plan”

Little squeaky voice from the back “Why? “

:boggled:
 
Brainache said:
Hey Lyte, in the labelled picture, have you placed Sgt Lagasse where he remembered being or where he actually was?

Because he was 100% sure he was at one place, but the station's video showed him somewhere else.

I'm also curious as to why you don't think this is a problem for your theory.
Click to expand...

I know you are being piled on from all sides so I posted this again in case you missed it.

Also why would you place more weight on the part of his testimony about the plane's flight path than the part of his testimony about the plane's explosive impact with the Pentagon? Wouldn't the impact be more memorable than the flight path?

Or the fact that he placed Lloyd's cab in the wrong spot?
 
Hyperviolet said:
Lyte,

While your video puts the official flight path into question, it is completely illogical to assume that the eye witness testimony is valid when it suits your pre- determined point of view and ignore it when they state that, without doubt, they saw the plane strike the building.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is what we call "cherry picking" the evidence to suit. The truth movement is famous for it, so I expect no less from Lyte and Merc.

TAM:)
 
on the myspace forum he had the audacity to say that his testimony didn't differ.
 
uk_dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks.


It's like this.....we have many more witnesses further back in the flight path and much more information to present.

The project turned out to be a comprehensive study on the Pentagon attack in general and grew to enormous proportions.

We decided to break off the most important testimony of the citgo witnesses so people could focus on that specific critical information first.

We decided that it would be difficult for most people to sit through 4 hours of ANY film so we wanted to make sure the citgo witness testimony wasn't lost in all of that.
 
jhunter1163 said:
OK, Lyte.. how do you explain the differences between Lagasse's 2002 testimony and what he told you?
Click to expand...

Lagasse has ALWAYS placed the plane on the north side which is really the only relevant detail to our "smoking gun" claim.

What "differences" are you talking about?
 
It's a simple question Lyte: did your witnesseses see the plane fly OVER or INTO the Pentagon?
 
Brainache said:
I know you are being piled on from all sides so I posted this again in case you missed it.

Also why would you place more weight on the part of his testimony about the plane's flight path than the part of his testimony about the plane's explosive impact with the Pentagon? Wouldn't the impact be more memorable than the flight path?

Or the fact that he placed Lloyd's cab in the wrong spot?
Click to expand...

I explained this in detail in the OP.

There is quite a bit of logic behind that:

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.
Click to expand...


Furthermore to him the exact location of the cab would be an insignificant detail. We know that he was incorrect about this.

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that he is incorrect about his placement of the plane because he was incorrect about his placement of the cab especially since this is a minor detail in comparison.
 
John Blonn said:
So when can we expect to see your research in the New York Times, or any major American newspaper, or European newspaper, or...?

Clearly they wouldn't want to miss the story of the century...?
Click to expand...

They have marginalized and ignored every other report of discrepancies in the official story.

We did not think it would be different this time.
 
i think the location of a static object (a stopped cab) would be easier to remember than that of an object travelling overhead at 500 mph...but thats just my opinion...

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom