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

[Lyte Trip]

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?

But what are the chances of all of their memories having the exact same gap and filling it in with the exact same alternate reality? ESPECIALLY when the alternate reality is completely opposite what they all 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.
[/quote]

Irrelevant analogy. You and your friends remembered something different, The citgo witnesses all saw the same thing. Plus you all placed the accident in the same location. If you all saw it at one intersection when it was actually at a completely different intersection that would be a relevant analogy.

though others who WEREN"T at the citgo station had perfect views for any "fly over".

And we don't doubt that many saw it. They were simply told it was another plane. There were reports of one that "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off into the sky after the explosion.

They had a cover story.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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

Yeah I can tell.

Your posts are uninformed.

I did request that participators in this thread at least watch the 8 minute clip of the testimony that they are insisting on dismissing.

You can't expect me to believe that you are really a critical thinker if you won't at least view the data before criticizing it.

 

[beachnut]

DEBUNKED IN 2001! The interview debunks Lyte 5 years ago

But what are the chances of all of their memories having the exact same gap and filling it in with the exact same alternate reality? ESPECIALLY when the alternate reality is completely opposite what they all 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.

Irrelevant analogy. You and your friends remembered something different, The citgo witnesses all saw the same thing. Plus you all placed the accident in the same location. If you all saw it at one intersection when it was actually at a completely different intersection that would be a relevant analogy.





And we don't doubt that many saw it. They were simply told it was another plane. There were reports of one that "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off into the sky after the explosion.

They had a cover story.[/quote]
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Here are your own witnesses contradicting every single thing you say!

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

You can not even find witnesses to support your lies!

Debunked 5 years ago. This is a classic! Wow.

Anyone having problems down loading the mp3, I have copies and can email them, if you can handle 3 to 7 megs.

Lyte I can email them to you so you can change your lies in the video. Do you want them? Why are you so challenged to find facts, and why do you make up stuff and tell lies?

If you told us about your witnesses we could have saved you from making a mistake and looking stupid.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Ok everyone.....good to be back.

I am leaving work now and will return later.

 

[Pardalis]

And we don't doubt that many saw it. They were simply told it was another plane. There were reports of one that "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off into the sky after the explosion.

They had a cover story.

This is so absurd.

Why not fly the friggin plane into the building while they were at it? Why the deception?

Two planes already had flown into the towers, so why stage all this at the Pentagon? They already had a plane flying in its direction, why not go ahead and ram it into it? Now you're telling us they had another plane flying around as a cover?

Absurd and beyond.

 

[Lyte Trip]

First though.......the only contradiction from the original interviews is Brooks claiming he "saw" the light poles get clipped.

He clarified for everyone that he in fact did NOT see them get clipped.

He has admitted that he deduced this fact after seeing the poles on the ground and merely embellished his original story because of this.

Nobody ever said they weren't human.

But the corroboration of the north side claim and the level of certainty with which they assert this can not be denied.

Please at least watch the 8 minute clip.

 

[stateofgrace]

And we don't doubt that many saw it. They were simply told it was another plane. There were reports of one that "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off into the sky after the explosion.

They had a cover story.

Wait!! You are saying that people actually saw the fly over and were told a cover story and they just believed it?

They just accept that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

So your plan now involves unknown people who just happened to be in area believing a pre arranged cover story, right?

A plan so intricate that it now boils down to anybody that saw Flight 77 flying over the pentagon simply believing a cover story they were told later?

Are you being serious?

 

[T.A.M.]

Yeah I can tell.

Your posts are uninformed.

I did request that participators in this thread at least watch the 8 minute clip of the testimony that they are insisting on dismissing.

You can't expect me to believe that you are really a critical thinker if you won't at least view the data before criticizing it.

Well at least for me, it is merely the posts on this thread that are uninformed...you are uninformed on all things pertaining to 9/11, at least when it comes to the REAL TRUTH.

I watched your Pentacon video, except for the last few minutes, so I am aware of what they all had to say...thank you very much.

You cant expect me to actually be offended by your lame attempt to insult me like that...

Oh and by the way, you requested it yes, but I do not have to honor it. Your history on this forum has given me enough information to determine that you do not, at this point, deserve my respect, so I will not honor your initial request. If you wish, put me on ignore...you seem to do the same with reality anyway...

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

Ok everyone.....good to be back.

I am leaving work now and will return later.

You HAVE a job?

Well, **** me, who'd have thunk it?

 

[T.A.M.]

yah, remember, Bobert is his mysterious work mate...lol

TAM

 

[Arus808]

But what are the chances of all of their memories having the exact same gap and filling it in with the exact same alternate reality? ESPECIALLY when the alternate reality is completely opposite what they all saw?

what you consider a gap, could be that they were so focused on the moment and didn't bother to "see" everything. A witness will not REMEMBER every single detail. that's where memory starts to fill in; what someone thougth was brown was actually blue; what someone thought was a foot away from them was actually 4 feet away; details that are precise gets muddled up.

Irrelevant analogy.

IT is absolutely relevant. It pertains to the trustworthiness of witness testimony. That even AFTER THE EVENT occurred, memory starts to fill in gaps. The fact that I could only REMEMBER the color and make of car after the accident; even though I saw it, and the driver for a lot longer than your four witnesses did of a fast moving airplane; I STILL didn't describe the driver correctly.

You and your friends remembered something different

1) my friend, the driver didn't even see the car or driver
2) the other car that was hit by the same driver couldn't identify the car, but could identify the driver
3) a third car that was hit by the debris of the falling light pole remember the car, but couldn't describe the driver, and got the license plate of the car
4) another car's driver said the car was in the 4th lane from the right side of the road. We were in the fourth lane and he was in the lane to the right of us (making it the third lane).


There were 18 witnesses to this same accident, and only 2 of us (me and another witness) got the same "details" correct. 4 others could identify the driver, not the car. and the rest had conflicting statements that included where the car was, how fast it was going, what the driver was doing prior to the accident, and what not.

However, police didn't need much of our testimony bceause
1) the light pole was damaged
2) he had extensive damage to his car
3) the 2 cars he hit prior to hitting the light pole had damage done by his car, which was apparent on his car; also left behind paint that was matched to his car
4) he was caught no more than a block away from the accident scene.

Police relied heavily on PHYSICAL evidence than our testimony. OUr testimony just made the case more solid against him.

 

[Gravy]

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?

Yes! Your friend won't like it, but it may be the only thing you've left undone in your intrepid search for the "truth" Be sure to post the video, okay, Dinky?

 

[apathoid]

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.

They didn't all make the same mistake since all of them drew different paths. You should have taken that as a hint that at least 3 of them were wrong. Ed's testimony is mutually exclusive with the other 3 as well(unless 77 was pulling a 7g turn with an 80 degree bank angle).

And since you wont release your unedited video, I'll just assume that there were a few who saw the plane to the south and needless to say, their testimony didn't make it onto your film...

Not only that but it would have been impossible to see the plane on the other side.

Why?

It would be impossible for the mound to be in Robert's way if the plane came from the north. Yet the mound was in the way.

 

[Arus808]

Yes! Your friend won't like it, but it may be the only thing you've left undone in your intrepid search for the "truth" Be sure to post the video, okay, Dinky?

gravy, that is what I posted; lyte malformed his "quote" of my 'quote'.

 

[Pardalis]

I just had a thought (yes it happens), if all this fake attack was planned to make us believe that the plane hit from the South, but something somehow screwed up and the plane flew from the North, how come they have been able to synchronize the fireball with the plane flying over so perfectly?

If the flight path didn't fit with the fake flight path anymore, shouldn't there have been a time discrepancy? Shouldn't it have set off a chain reaction that would have completely screwed up the illusion?

 

[Arus808]

Lyte and merc stil have to explain how the damage path through the pentagon matches the official explanation; the flight path they claim wouldn't have caused the damage path trhough the pentagon.


ETA: also, there were people working in that section of the pentagon during that time as well (as stated by the testimony of rescue workers and clean up crew; as well as what was presented at the Mossoaui trial). Do they blieve that the "workers" who were there that day were willing to get themselves killed to "setup" a fake plane impact?

 

[Totovader]

It was addressed in detail in the OP.

None of them saw the impact.....they saw the fireball.

ALL of them saw the plane on the north side.

It is impossible for the plane to have caused the physical damage if it was on the north side.

Which is exactly why their testimony makes no sense, and is excluded.

Who's up for ice cream?

 

[Arus808]

Which is exactly why their testimony makes no sense, and is excluded.

Who's up for ice cream?

I am! Pint of Cherry Garcia for me!!!

 

[Totovader]

But the corroboration of the north side claim and the level of certainty with which they assert this can not be denied.

The corroboration is only within the individual claim- not amongst each other- the "corroboration" you speak of is your predetermined "corroboration", not the corroboration of the majority of the witnesses. That monumentally important difference seems to escape you.

Furthermore, the certainty with which witnesses make their claims has absolutely nothing to do with their truth value.

Some people are willing to bet their lives that 72 virgins await them in the afterlife- they are so certain of this fact that they will kill themselves in the process of murdering others without a thought. Are they right simply because they're certain?

No.

The vast majority of the scientific community is certain that the planes crashed into the towers- ultimately causing the collapse of the towers. Are they right because they're certain? No. They're right because they have the evidence to corroborate their claims- and in fact derived their claims from scientifically examining that evidence, and testing it.

This is what you really don't get- and why you have to continually avoid questions as to what the witnesses are saying and why anecdotal evidence should be so important- despite logic.

 

[beachnut]

First though.......the only contradiction from the original interviews is Brooks claiming he "saw" the light poles get clipped.

He clarified for everyone that he in fact did NOT see them get clipped.

He has admitted that he deduced this fact after seeing the poles on the ground and merely embellished his original story because of this.

Nobody ever said they weren't human.

But the corroboration of the north side claim and the level of certainty with which they assert this can not be denied.

Please at least watch the 8 minute clip.

No he said he saw the wing tip hit a post. And he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I am sorry it is what he said in 2001.

Wrong. Try again. You failed to listen to what he said in 2001. Sorry you are unable to spend enough time to listen to his interview in 2001. It would have saved you all the trouple of making up lies.