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

[chipmunk stew]

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

Exactly right! So will everyone else in the world except you and Merc. You can take your ball and go home now.

 

[Totovader]

Lyte- relatively simple question:

Under what conditions do you feel it is acceptable- and indeed rational- to exclude eyewitness testimony? Logically speaking. You're doing it for certain witnesses to the Pentagon attack, so I would like to know your criteria.

Thank you.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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?

We know that the damage all lines up with the official explanation.

This is what proves that the plane could not have hit the building if it was anywhere remotely near where all of the witnesses place it.

Of course we don't believe that any of the victims were in on it!

April Gallop is one of those victims and she supports our research.

April Gallop's endorsement of The PentaCon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUato7U5JY

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

Incorrect.

You can not provide a single witness who specifically claims that they saw the plane on the south of the citgo station.

Of course they pretty much have to be on the property to have a good enough vantage point to tell but none on the property or anywhere else make this claim.

 

[LashL]

My take: the intrepid "investigators" are sadly disappointed, dejected and deflated by the complete failure of their (very poorly produced) little video to persuade even their fellow troofers, let alone critical thinkers, that they have uncovered even a sputtering dud of a firecracker, let alone the "smoking gun" to end all smoking guns that the intrepid "investigators" conned some of their fellow troofers into believing they had. (Hey, now I know where the "con" in the title came from.)

Their dreams of fame and accolades fizzled, their months and months of self-aggrandizement spent hyping their "Case Closed" "proof" turned to ashes, their fantasies of being lauded by their fellow troofers shattered, their delusions that they had "solved" the Pentagon "mystery" and that their work would be spread far and wide throughout the worldwide media exposed as the delusions they were, their hopes of raking in scads of cash through the sale of their "Researchers Edition" thwarted, the intrepid "investigators" are reduced to trying to salvage whatever remnants of their dignity they can by steadfastly sticking to their BS story, steadfastly ignoring the facts and evidence, while steadfastly shoving their fingers in their ears and chanting "lalalalalala - I can't hear you" and posting their self-debunking crap on as many internet forums as possible, in hopes that someone - anyone - somewhere, might believe it.

That's my take on it, anyway. This thread is yet another attempt to publish their crap in hopes that it will draw attention to their little video.

 

[Arus808]

We know that the damage all lines up with the official explanation.

so that means you yourself know that A77 hit the pentagon. Since that is the only thing that witnesses (even YOUR witnesses) state that hit the pentagon, and PHYSICAL evidence prove that it was A77

This is what proves that the plane could not have hit the building if it was anywhere remotely near where all of the witnesses place it.

again, if you can't explain or prove how the physical evidence happened, how is anyone going to take your theory as being right?

 

[Gravy]

Well, I appreciate all the intelligent questions directed to him, but I've seen enough of Lyte's cowardice, nastiness, and attention-whoring for several lifetimes. Someone let me know if he ever crawls out of his cesspool and wipes the muck from his eyes.

Lyte, I hope you are treated with all the respect you deserve. So long.

 

[Arus808]

Incorrect.

You can not provide a single witness who specifically claims that they saw the plane on the south of the citgo station.

How many times must we post the testimony of witnesses who WEREN:T at the CITGO station (who were on the FREEWAY that heads south of the CITGO station) that claim to have seen teh plane??????

Here's a flip on your standard question that you like to repeat:

YOU can not provide a SINGLE witness who specifically claims they saw the plane FLY OVER the pentagon.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte- relatively simple question:

Under what conditions do you feel it is acceptable- and indeed rational- to exclude eyewitness testimony? Logically speaking. You're doing it for certain witnesses to the Pentagon attack, so I would like to know your criteria.

Thank you.

I don't exclude ANY testimony.

Naturally though.....if indeed the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim is correct.....this proves that the plane did not hit the building which means this was an operation of deception.

Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.

In all investigations it is up to the investigator to determine which accounts are accurate, inaccurate, embellishments, or lies.

Quite typically all exist and this is certainly the case in regards to the Pentagon attack.

Things like independent corroboration usually tend to lend credence to accounts.

And when you have independent corroboration from Police officers......it is pretty much a slam dunk.

 

[Lyte Trip]

How many times must we post the testimony of witnesses who WEREN:T at the CITGO station (who were on the FREEWAY that heads south of the CITGO station) that claim to have seen teh plane??????

Here's a flip on your standard question that you like to repeat:

YOU can not provide a SINGLE witness who specifically claims they saw the plane FLY OVER the pentagon.

'
None of the eyewitnesses on route 27 specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo station so none of them contradict the citgo witnesses.

What's particularly odd is that we interviewed both Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman who BOTH admitted that they did not see the light poles get clipped and only saw them on the ground after the fact.

Joel Sucherman's POV:

Stephen McGraw's POV:

 

[beachnut]

I don't exclude ANY testimony.

Naturally though.....if indeed the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim is correct.....this proves that the plane did not hit the building which means this was an operation of deception.

Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.

In all investigations it is up to the investigator to determine which accounts are accurate, inaccurate, embellishments, or lies.

Quite typically all exist and this is certainly the case in regards to the Pentagon attack.

Things like independent corroboration usually tend to lend credence to accounts.

And when you have independent corroboration from Police officers......it is pretty much a slam dunk.

That is not what they said in 2001. I have to with the fresh stuff from 2001 and not your filtered lies.

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.

They both had interviews in 2001, I have the mp3 copies and they said things that you have not addressed. You should have listened and you could save your time. If you need a copy I can email the MP3 direct.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon as was DNA from the passengers. All your witness statements must be wrong, and you ignore their 2001 interviews. Why do you persist on making up lies about the Pentagon?

 

[Lyte Trip]

again, if you can't explain or prove how the physical evidence happened, how is anyone going to take your theory as being right?

It simply comes down to whether or not they believe the independent testimony of where these witnesses all place the pane.

It's a simple claim.

They are quite believable.

It's pretty difficult to fathom how they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the same way.

 

[Crungy]

their hopes of raking in scads of cash through the sale of their "Researchers Edition"

What I wanna know is, if I plunk down my hard earned cash for this, does it come with some kine bud that will help me see the lyte to their theory?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Anyway.....peace out again.

Be back after dinner.

 

[Arus808]

'
None of the eyewitnesses on route 27 specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo station so none of them contradict the citgo witnesses.

Have you interviewed EVERY one who traveled on route 27 that day? Not just the ones that media got ahold of; im talking about EVERY single person who was on that road that day.

What's particularly odd is that we interviewed both Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman who BOTH admitted that they did not see the light poles get clipped and only saw them on the ground after the fact.

that's 2 people out of hundreds.

What in my example of my personal accident experience did YOU NOT GET About eyewitness testimony and how conflicting they can be on the SAME incident?

 

[alexg]

Lyte, I've seen the whole Pentacon film. I understand your point and I think you are sincere - you have dug up some interesting stuff. The officers memory of the flight path does seem odd. I grant you that. But I think you have big problems which you could still resolve with more work.

As it stands you have witness accounts which are conflicting. Seeing the impact trumps seeing the path. It's that simple.

I know, I know, you say they didn't actually see the impact but that's likely wisfull thinking and a bit of steering to boot. Their first response was 'I saw it hit" (paraphrasing). I remember Lagasse saying something about not seeing the plane contact the building but I got the impression he was referring to difficulty of seeing any detail of impact, since the explosion so quickly obscurred it. I think he made it clear that he saw the plane and the building nose to face, as it were. Did you ask him if there was any room for a flyover? If he saw the two objects a few feet apart but just saw no impact detail then there was no room to pull up the plane. Did you attempt to resolve this with him? The difficulty was the speed at which all of this occured. You can try to twist this to leave room for the flyover but that seems EXTREMELY unlikely to me, MORE unlikely then remembering the wrong path, although I grant you that does seems odd.

Forgetting where the cab and the poles were is no small detail. You dismiss this too quickly by saying that was minor point compared to the path. Less important and less remeberable than the path, yes, but not minor. The point is that their memory is clearly way off about major details of the event. And he was so ADAMANT about where the poles were. That was odd. How could he be so darn sure and be so wrong? Memeroy is a tricky business, this is a fact it takes some years of life experience to grok. I assure you of that.


With so many eye witnesses on record why did you stop here? Why not dig up all the others on record and track their path? I know that is hard work but that's exactly what this investigation needs in order to get off of this impasse.

ETA:
As it stands it is interesting but far, far from conclusive. If you couldn't convince the LC board you won't get much support elsewhere. You do see that I hope. Howver much Russell and his supporters have sway there I feel sure the rest of the group would drop everything and hop on your smoking gun if you had one.

Were you at least surprised to find out that these two officers were not coached to repeat the OS?

 

[A W Smith]

From one of your star witnesses

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR...on_quotes.html

Quote:
Sgt. William Lagasse in an email conversation with Dick Eastman
"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."

Has William Laggase seen your little film? and if he has. Have you spoken to him since?

 

[Arus808]

It simply comes down to whether or not they believe the independent testimony of where these witnesses all place the pane.

what part of PHYSICAL evidence trumps eyewitness testimony do you not understand?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Who left the back door open?

 

[T.A.M.]

Not to mention, beyond PHYSICAL EVIDENCE trumping Eyewitness Testimony, I would say:

EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY TEMPORALLY CLOSER TO THE EVENT trumps RECOLLECTIONS OF THE EVENT 5 to 6 YEARS LATER.

TAM