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

John Blonn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

The fact that he got that relatively minor detail wrong is completely irrelevant to his placement of the plane.

Especially since everyone else corroborates his placement of the plane and NOBODY contradicts it.
 
I'm not sure why you're trying to convince us, Lyte. We can't give you what you want (whatever that is).

Have you tried sending your information to some university professors/academics? Maybe it's time you stop wasting time on JREF and LCF and start taking ACTION.
 
LMFAO!

Minor detail? You have to be kidding.

He thinks the poles were in a place other than where they are. And he says this with total certainty. How does this not bother you?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes they are claiming that a "second plane" flew over the pentagon.

But did that really happen?

If not why did they say this?
Click to expand...
This is too much. Your own witnesses do not support your conclusions, and that was 5 years ago. Your own witnesses. You have no case.
 
John Blonn said:
LMFAO!

Minor detail? You have to be kidding.

He thinks the poles were in a place other than where they are. And he says this with total certainty. How does this not bother you?
Click to expand...

Why would it?

He did not see the poles get hit.

You heard him say you can't even see the poles very well from there because they are the "same color as the building".

How would the exact placement of the already downed poles be a significant detail to him in all the chaos of the destruction?

But he would NEVER forget where that plane flew.

And since all the other witnesses corroborate this detail it's pretty obvious this is that part they got right.
 
beachnut said:
This is too much. Your own witnesses do not support your conclusions, and that was 5 years ago. Your own witnesses. You have no case.
Click to expand...

Our conclusions are that the plane was on the north side of the station.

They most certainly do support this!

In fact you can not find a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence that contradicts this.
 
It matters because it's a clear example of reconstruction of memory.

1) He puts the plane on a certain flight path.

2) He is presented with a claim (the true location of the downed poles) that is impossible according to his flight path.

3) He reconstructs his memory accordingly - the poles were never where they actually were. In fact, they were along the flight path that he "remembers."

Perfect example of the falliblity of memory.
 
DavidJames said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hello Lyte...
 
And besides, like I said above - what are you doing here?

You have, in your mind, the most groundbreaking news of this century. Of ANY century, really.

And instead of taking action, you are hanging out at freaking JREF, and even worse, at LCF.

Contact someone, write a paper, do something. You have a duty to do this!
 
John Blonn said:
It matters because it's a clear example of reconstruction of memory.

1) He puts the plane on a certain flight path.

2) He is presented with a claim (the true location of the downed poles) that is impossible according to his flight path.

3) He reconstructs his memory accordingly - the poles were never where they actually were. In fact, they were along the flight path that he "remembers."

Perfect example of the falliblity of memory.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I agree.

That is exactly what happened.

All of the witnesses we presented are fallible and made mistakes that didn't match with eachother.

But the one detail that DID match was the simplest detail at all.

What side of the station the plane flew.

This was THE most significant and obvious detail so it makes sense that they would get that easy right or left claim correct.
 
Lyte Trip said:
None specifically claim the plane was on the south of the citgo station therefore none directly contradict the citgo witnesses placement of the plane.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do- because they corroborate the official flight path.

You cannot have it both ways- and you cannot simply claim there is no contradiction.

If there was no contradiction, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A VIDEO.
 
DavidJames said:
Hello Lyte...
Click to expand...

Nobody is laughing at me sir.

We have a lot of people quite nervous though that's for sure.

I have no idea when or if the media and authorities will get their heads out of their asses.

But you better believe if there are any inquiries that these witnesses will be called.
 
Actually, another detail that matched was that they all claim the plane hit the Pentagon. But whatever.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes they are claiming that a "second plane" flew over the pentagon.

But did that really happen?

If not why did they say this?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question- for the 2nd time.

I don't think you're going to answer my question at this point.
 
Totovader said:
Yes, they do- because they corroborate the official flight path.

You cannot have it both ways- and you cannot simply claim there is no contradiction.

If there was no contradiction, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A VIDEO.
Click to expand...

Who?

List them.

Virtually all of them can go either way.

You've got Lloyd and Frank Probst but that's about it.

Obviously if the citgo witnesses are REMOTELY correct in their placement of the plane then at least a few witnesses would have been plants.
 
John Blonn said:
Actually, another detail that matched was that they all claim the plane hit the Pentagon. But whatever.
Click to expand...

Circular logic.

Read the OP.

You have to choose one or other part of their testimony.

Their placement of the plane is logically the most likely choice to be correct.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Nobody is laughing at me sir.

We have a lot of people quite nervous though that's for sure.

I have no idea when or if the media and authorities will get their heads out of their asses.

But you better believe if there are any inquiries that these witnesses will be called.
Click to expand...

Have you been on the Loose Change forums, recently?

And now all the sudden, you're leaving it up to "the media" and "if there are any inquiries". Prior to the release of your straight-to-Internet video, you were claiming that this would cause such things.

It seems as if it's your duty to carry out such proceedings.

Or do you think your responsibility ends with the predetermined conclusion you had prior to interviewing the witnesses?
 
Seriously, contact university professors. Many of them would love to stick it to the United States. They won't be afraid to speak out.

You've got some work cut out for you.
 
John Blonn said:
And besides, like I said above - what are you doing here?

You have, in your mind, the most groundbreaking news of this century. Of ANY century, really.

And instead of taking action, you are hanging out at freaking JREF, and even worse, at LCF.

Contact someone, write a paper, do something. You have a duty to do this!
Click to expand...

You don't know what I do on a daily basis or who I contact or try contacting.

This data is not going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom