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

[LashL]

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

No, it is not. Not at all.

As I said above, I believe that you are doing this only to draw attention to your poorly produced little video since it was so poorly received even among your fellow tinhatters. I do not intend to participate in giving it any further unwarranted attention.

 

[John Blonn]

Lagasse also "remembers" the downed poles being in a location DIFFERENT FROM WHERE THEY ACTUALLY WERE.

He SWEARS that "nothing happened" where the poles actually fell. Where there are pictures of poles down on the ground.

How reliable can his testimony be, really?

 

[alexg]

Lyte, here is an idea; interview Lagasse again, if he confirms that he did not actually see the point of impact simply ask him if there was enough room between the plane and the wall for a pull up when he lost sight of it. I gotta say I can almost hear him guffawing but I think that's what you're going to need to do. What he said about missing the impact is simply ambiguous. No way you can take that to the bank for a fly over.

Even better: give him a model plane and a rough model of the wall and get him to demonstrate what he saw, all of this without ANY coaching. Then ask him if there was room in his mind for a flyover.

Simple test. It will resolve a lot. Why not?

 

[Totovader]

I don't exclude ANY testimony.

You cannot continue to claim this and maintain consistency. The vast majority of the witnesses, physical evidence, and flight path damage point to the "south of the Citgo" trajectory.

You have to- and have- excluded witness testimony you simply do not like without any reason other than you have a smaller number of witnesses who cannot corroborate each other, let alone your story.

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.

Everything you have just said here is patently false. Even if it were unanimous, it would not prove that the plane did not hit the building. What part about that do you not get? You cannot simply exclude evidence because you do not like it.

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

"Reason" is being pushed aside, here- this is circular logic: the witnesses are planted because the vast majority of the witnesses who disagree with you do not confirm your "north of Citgo" claim and are therefore fabricated.

You have no basis for your claim, but you pretend as if it's rational.

This is the problem with denying logic at the same time you're trying to use it: you constantly contradict yourself and make blatant errors which you cannot resolve by simply saying "trust me".

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

And I asked you to answer this question, already: Using what criteria?

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

I don't even understand what that means. What is "quite typically" [sic] about the Pentagon attack, Lyte?

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

Holy crap- you just shot yourself in the foot.

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

Pretty much... not. What are they "independently corroborating" Lyte? Their own story? Because not only do they contradict themselves- they contradict each other. That's not corroboration under any definition or bastardization of the concept.

What you do not have is any evidence whatsoever to support your claim- and much evidence to the contrary of your claim- so why you think your case is strong despite the painfully obvious position you're in baffles everyone, including conspiracists.

I must say- that's quite a feat.

 

[Totovader]

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.

Why would they have to be on the property? That seems like a silly requirement (and a clever way for you to immediately dismiss any testimony which does not fit your predetermined theory).

This webpage has a compilation of the Pentagon witness accounts. There are many witnesses which contradict your claims:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

 

[Totovader]

I don't exclude ANY testimony.

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

You can't even maintain consistency in one posting, and you completely avoided the question.

I'll ask it again, just to make sure you understood how important it is:

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.

 

[boloboffin]

You aren't thinking logically.

The plane flying by was likely one of the most memorable and significant events of SGT Lagasse's life.

He could not have seen it at all if it was on the opposite side of the station.

Did you watch the testimony?

Will you please at least view the 8 minute clip linked in the OP?

Lagasse could have easily seen the plane on the south, because he was in the back of the station.

You don't mind if I borrow a photo explaining your laughable "plant the poles and glass and cab" theory, do you?

You see, Lagasse was at the corner closest to us in the picture. He had a view of the plane in either direction.

Judging from the confusion he expressed in your own video (not realizing which pump he was at until you pointed it out), his placement of the cab (recorded above), and his curious initial story about how he ended up in his car (blown there by the vortex? WTF?), I think he's confused about where the plane was.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.



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?

Your example proved that you all perfectly corroborated each other in the general fact that there was an accident and where it took place. This is EXACTLY all the citgo witnesses had to get right. If you guys had thought it was on completely different intersections you would have a point but you all reported an accident on the same intersection. Perfect corroboration just like the citgo witnesses.

Other details such as color and markings of the plane, exactly which light poles were knocked down or exactly where the cab was were remembered differently, as you might expect from eyewitnesses. But they all saw the plane in the same place just like you and your friends saw the accident in the same place.


There are not "hundreds" that saw the light poles OR the alleged impact.

This is a lie that gets repeated over and over while witness lists filled with accounts from people who couldn't even see the pentagon at all are continuously posted.

The fact is there really aren't that many witnesses that were in a position to see the alleged impact at all. The topography of the area is complex and not level with a maze of highways and tall trees.

Not even the citgo witnesses had a great view of the alleged impact.

It is accepted by most that the witnesses on route 27 right in front of the Pentagon had the best view of the impact.

But what did they really see?

First I'd like to point out that according to the official flight path there is only a less than 1/4 mile stretch of route 27 where witnesses stuck in northbound traffic would have been able to see the plane.

Anyone in front of the flight path would have only seen the explosion because the plane would have come from behind them in a very sharp angle.

Call it coincidence if you want but fact is there was quite a slew of USA Today editors and/or reporters that were packed within this critical tiny stretch of hwy.

Here we measured it with the ruler tool and it came to a mere .16 of a mile.

So however many people were packed into this area is hard to say for sure but what did they really see?

I'll show you.

But first take notice to the trees blocking their view.

This satellite image from 9/7/2001 proves that the trees were still there on 9/11.

Of course this is only so convincing when looking at a satellite image.

So here is a nice gift from CIT to JREF in the way of exclusive images from our onsite research featuring the ACTUAL point of view of the famous critical witnesses on this all important stretch of highway......


We start coming out from underneath the overpass (where Joel Sucherman allegedly was) and we will finish after we get in front of the the official flight path (just after where Steven McGraw allegedly was).

This one here would be right under the flight path and about where Stephen McGraw was. Although this would be the best view of the impact so far........clearly it's a REALLY GREAT view of poles 3, 4, and 5.


So I wonder why Stephen McGraw said he didn't see any light poles get hit?

Bottom line the view is pretty much obstructed the ENTIRE stretch until you come out from underneath the highway sign.

And at that point none of them would see the plane fly past them but would only see the back end of the plane for a millisecond before it hit.

Anyone further up would simply see an explosion to their right.

 

[John Blonn]

Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.

ETA: Oh, and the fireball/smoke would be severely affected by a plane passing through it - it would be noticeable on video.

I guess they edited that too, though.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

We attempted to call virtually every published eyewitness there is.

We knocked on doors to find unpublished eyewitnesses.

We will present 13 total after we release the Researcher's Edition.

So far NOBODY has presented ANY eyewitnesses of the plane filmed on location.

We are the first to do this.

We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim.

If you can find one let us know.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.

Yep.

And Joel Sucherman reports another plane flying over the Pentagon "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion.

And other published eyewitnesses like Keith Wheelhouse claim another plane was "shadowing" the AA jet.

There are many reports of other planes immediately in the area.

 

[John Blonn]

So then the conspirators didn't fool everyone, then? Wasn't a perfect synchronization?

ETA: 3 to 5 seconds? The plane was going hundreds of miles per hour. In the event of a fly-over, it would be gone in under a second.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Judging from the confusion he expressed in your own video (not realizing which pump he was at until you pointed it out), his placement of the cab (recorded above), and his curious initial story about how he ended up in his car (blown there by the vortex? WTF?), I think he's confused about where the plane was.

Eyewitness accounts are never perfect.

But guess what?

You don't have to rely on just Lagasse!

All the other witnesses corroborate his claim!

 

[Totovader]

Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.

ETA: Oh, and the fireball/smoke would be severely affected by a plane passing through it - it would be noticeable on video.

I guess they edited that too, though.

Exactly what I was about to say- having this obstructed view only hurts the case of the fireball/flyover claim because it means that the individuals would have only been able to focus on the area above the Pentagon- where this flyover apparently took place.

Any witnesses to this flyover?

That's what I thought.

 

[Totovader]

Yep.

And Joel Sucherman reports another plane flying over the Pentagon "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion.

And other published eyewitnesses like Keith Wheelhouse claim another plane was "shadowing" the AA jet.

There are many reports of other planes immediately in the area.

What a perfect example of quote mining.

These individuals are not referring to the plane going over the Pentagon. That is what is required. These witnesses, in fact, specifically state that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

 

[DavidJames]

Eyewitness accounts are never perfect.

But guess what?

You don't have to rely on just Lagasse!

All the other witnesses corroborate his claim!

So when does this hit the media? When will we read about the lawsuits? When we will read about the subpoena's? When will we read about the police charges?

Better yet, when will we stop hearing people laughing at you for using witnesses who debunk your own theories?

 

[Lyte Trip]

So then the conspirators didn't fool everyone, then? Wasn't a perfect synchronization?

Think.

There are reports of other planes.

There were other planes too.

But was there really one that "shadowed" the AA jet or veered away within a couple seconds??

None of the other witnesses we talked to saw this other plane.

We know from the C-130 pilot himself that he didn't do this.

Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection"

"We were at about 3,500 feet at the time that I first noticed this commercial airliner in our 12 o'clock position in about a 45-degree bank, which is unusual for a large aircraft to be descending and turning at a 45-degree bank turn like that, so that really got our attention."

So what were those other reports of a 2nd plane really talking about?

 

[Lyte Trip]

What a perfect example of quote mining.

These individuals are not referring to the plane going over the Pentagon. That is what is required. These witnesses, in fact, specifically state that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Yes they are claiming that a "second plane" flew over the pentagon.

But did that really happen?

If not why did they say this?

 

[Parsman]

Right so... corroboration... people who say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, lets be generous and say 100+

People who say they saw a fly over... lets be generous and say ZERO

 

[Lyte Trip]

This webpage has a compilation of the Pentagon witness accounts. There are many witnesses which contradict your claims:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

None specifically claim the plane was on the south of the citgo station therefore none directly contradict the citgo witnesses placement of the plane.