He said the same thing in our film so therefore there are no "differences".
But the fact is that if his placement of the plane was remotely correct then it can not be what caused the physical damage.
The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
He said the same thing in our film so therefore there are no "differences".
But the fact is that if his placement of the plane was remotely correct then it can not be what caused the physical damage.
Now hang on a minute here.
Let's think about this for a sec.
You go out, gay and carefree, to the big city and you interview a few of the locals.
And from these interviews you develop your theory regarding what did, or didn't, hit the petagon.
And from these hours upon hours of interviews and charts and maps and sketches on the back of napkins, you distill down a user friendly, concise version of the events of that day.
Only, the longer, more detailed, all bollocks to the wall version........isn't ready?
Alarm bells are ringing here lyte ol' buddy.
One might almost conclude that you started out from a position and edited the 'evidence' to fit that supposition. Now I know that you and your team..... well, you and merc would never do such a thing, but one has to wonder..... surely the RE, bells and whistles, dogs bollocks version would have been in place before you released the condensed, user friendly, don't upset grandma version?
I mean, what if you found something in the RE stuff which you hadn't included in the SG stuff?
You might have missed the chance to ejumicate the poplation of the worlditude with the factimications of the plotification.
Could you really live with merc after that?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Lyte, you said that your video would provide indisputable proof of a Pentagon flyover. Now it's been about a month since it was released and who has it convinced? No one here at JREF accepts your claims but more importantly, about 90% of posters at the Loose Change forum think your theory is crap too.
You and Merc started dozens of posts over there, most of which were closed by the mods because everyone was sick of you both still beating the same dead horse. Same story on MySpace.
Where's the new investigation? Where's the subpoenas and grand jury?
If your video was "a smoking gun" why are you here now trying to re-explain it?
You and Merc started dozens of posts over there, most of which were closed by the mods because everyone was sick of you both still beating the same dead horse. Same story on MySpace.
Where's the new investigation? Where's the subpoenas and grand jury?
If your video was "a smoking gun" why are you here now trying to re-explain it?
Same could be said for you.
You can not simultaneously believe both assertions.
Either they were wildly incorrect in their placement of the plane or the fireball fooled them into believing the plane hit the building.
The big difference is that they literally SAW the plane on the north side.
All of them.
But they also admit that they did not see the "impact" because of the fireball.
It is clear which assertion is likely the most accurate.
This is called logic. Not woo.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
It isn't us who isn't thinking logically.
what he witnessed would have lasted only a couple of seconds; if that even. at the speed the plane was traveling.
What did i saw about memory being fallible? That when the mind has no way of understand what yoru eyes has seen, it starts immediately fill in the "gaps" with "fake" memory to help you understand what it is you saw?
Shall I repeat my experience when a light pole hit my friends car, and how I got three things wrong about the guy who hit the light pole and sped off? The only thing I got right was the color and make of his car.
Its easily the most "memorable" thing in my life, as that is the only car accident I've been in (knock on wood), but in the quickness of the eVENT, I couldn't even get his description correct.
though others who WEREN"T at the citgo station had perfect views for any "fly over".
John Blonn
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 390
So then what's the solution?
How do you propose to get "justice" if the authorities won't listen to you?
Violent revolution?
How do you propose to get "justice" if the authorities won't listen to you?
Violent revolution?
You are falsely assuming that details surrounding or involved in the memorable event are always remembered in exactness, they are not.
I am sure the image of huge plane flying over his head, then the impact into the pentagon will be stuck in his mind forever. I do not agree that the minutia of where he was located in terms of landmarks etc...are etched there in the same degree of detail.
If you are robbed at gun point, you will remember the EVENT, no question, you may even remember a scattered item or detail vividly, such as the emblem on his baseball cap, or the color of the gun, but the rest of the details, the majority of details about the event...a blur at best in most cases.
TAM
I am sure the image of huge plane flying over his head, then the impact into the pentagon will be stuck in his mind forever. I do not agree that the minutia of where he was located in terms of landmarks etc...are etched there in the same degree of detail.
If you are robbed at gun point, you will remember the EVENT, no question, you may even remember a scattered item or detail vividly, such as the emblem on his baseball cap, or the color of the gun, but the rest of the details, the majority of details about the event...a blur at best in most cases.
TAM
Incorrect.
We said it was indisputable proof that the plane flew on the north of the gas station.
The movement has embraced this data.
Only Russell Pickering and your kin over at LC have had major issues.
You are falsely assuming that details surrounding or involved in the memorable event are always remembered in exactness, they are not.
I am sure the image of huge plane flying over his head, then the impact into the pentagon will be stuck in his mind forever. I do not agree that the minutia of where he was located in terms of landmarks etc...are etched there in the same degree of detail.
If you are robbed at gun point, you will remember the EVENT, no question, you may even remember a scattered item or detail vividly, such as the emblem on his baseball cap, or the color of the gun, but the rest of the details, the majority of details about the event...a blur at best in most cases.
TAM
But their placement of the plane has been independently corroborated.
For the official story to be true the EXACT OPPOSITE of reality would have to be what really happened.
That means that ALL the witnesses would have had to make the same ridiculous mistake of remembering the opposite of reality.
Not only that but it would have been impossible to see the plane on the other side.
Did you watch the 8 minute clip yet?
It hasn't been 8 minutes since your last post.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
which we proved that it was disputable, on the fact that physical evidence always trumps eye witness testimony
funny, the "movement" has embraced it so much that there hasn't been on statement from anyone else but your "fanboys/girls" on LCF And myspace; everyone else still questions what the heck your film was supposed to state.
Shall we count off the numerous other people who find your film a joke on myspace? other forums? etc etc
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Your problem is the FDR data. It is wrong. And yet you
still believe in it. I say it again: The Data is wrong.
You believe in !!!!!!FDR!!!!!! data:
FDR = FlightDataRecorder
FlightDataRecorder = REAL PLANE!
Now THAT is a study in delusion.
Remember the poll that asked if you should intrview the ATC?
2 against...... how many?
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
by other eyewitnesses with also unreliable memory. Your claims have not been corroborated by evidence.
no, for the official story to be ture, you have to examine the physical evidence; something you refuse to acknowledge exists.
stop with the logical fallacies
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Pentagon Police Officer, who saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nose dive into the Pentagon. There was a loud bump and then chaos. He drove towards the crash site in his police cruiser. He didn't know which way to turn; it was like a movie. He was on duty until late that evening. He talks about how the plane hit the Pentagon, the ensuing chaos, ringing in his ears, heroes, passengers on the flight, and returning to work. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib
field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))
Interview with William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer.
Summary: William Lagasse was refueling his police car when a jet flew past him so fast that its wind blasts knocked him into the vehicle. He then drove to the west side of the Pentagon, south of the impact. He describes the secondary explosions and smoke. Mr. Lagasse also discusses the search for and recovery of evidence, injured people, chaos, anxiety, Pentagon security, shock, and the disorientation of the survivors. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?afc911bib:184:./temp/~ammem_xQPr::
Sgt Lagasse wrote to Apfn web site in june 2003, criticizing Dick Eastman's plane plus missile theory which had been published on the site. Here is this first mail.
Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William" <...@...>
To: "'apfn@apfn.org'"
"Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker."
"...The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon.
The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike, and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground.
There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,
Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...
again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building.
I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.
There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended.
How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.
you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive.
There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.
no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't there claim.
I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions"
field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))Interview with William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer.
Summary: William Lagasse was refueling his police car when a jet flew past him so fast that its wind blasts knocked him into the vehicle. He then drove to the west side of the Pentagon, south of the impact. He describes the secondary explosions and smoke. Mr. Lagasse also discusses the search for and recovery of evidence, injured people, chaos, anxiety, Pentagon security, shock, and the disorientation of the survivors. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?afc911bib:184:./temp/~ammem_xQPr::
Sgt Lagasse wrote to Apfn web site in june 2003, criticizing Dick Eastman's plane plus missile theory which had been published on the site. Here is this first mail.
Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William" <...@...>
To: "'apfn@apfn.org'"
"Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker."
"...The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon.
The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike, and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground.
There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,
Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...
again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building.
I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.
There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended.
How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.
you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive.
There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.
no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't there claim.
I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions"
Did I agree to watch it?
The only thing I want to see is the full, unedited, untouched, full length data, video and written, from all the witnesses.
TAM
Garb
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
If they were able to witness the fireball, why wouldn't they be able to witness the plane fly over the Pentagon?
Did you ask them where the plane went after it passed the Citgo Station? If it flew over, then they must have been able to see it. If they were unable to see it, then it must have hit the Pentagon in which case it couldn't have flown on the north side making his testimony in that regard invalid.
Did you ask them where the plane went after it passed the Citgo Station? If it flew over, then they must have been able to see it. If they were unable to see it, then it must have hit the Pentagon in which case it couldn't have flown on the north side making his testimony in that regard invalid.