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

Lyte, what did the eyewitnesses watching from the other side of the river (Scott P. Cook, Ken Ford) and the people watching from apartments in the Crystal City or Pentagon City area (Steve Storti, Tim Timmerman, Dave Winslow) -- most or all of whom probably would have been in a better position to see a flyover vs. a crash -- have to say about your theory?

Also, the reason there are a bunch of quotes from USA Today and Gannett people is because (1) the road was right on the way to the buildings where they were based then, and (2) they were right down the hall from lots of other reporters and therefore easy to interview and include in stories (rule #1 of the press: reporters are lazy).
 
Lyte Trip said:
Dude I have listened many times.

They NEVER contradict the north side claim.
Click to expand...

Once again you did not listen to the 2001 interviews. They contradict the north flight path.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html

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.

I am sorry but these interviews, which you have not listened to or you are unable to comprehend, contradict your north path.

Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
Eyewitness accounts are never perfect.

But guess what?

You don't have to rely on just Lagasse!

All the other witnesses corroborate his claim!
Click to expand...

What "all the other witnesses"? Two other guys? Get real.

On edit:

Lagasse is just as certain about where the light poles were knocked down and where the taxi cab was as he is about where the plane flew in.

He is wrong about the taxicab. He is wrong about the light poles.

He is wrong about the plane.
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
...
Pentagon police officers for god's sake!

...
Not one but 2 cops!
...
Click to expand...

This is the funny thing about CT thinking. There's an enormous respect for authority. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. But cops! Police officers! Pentagon Police Officers! You have to believe them. Protect and serve, etc.

Then in the next paragraph we'll be accused of believing whatever the government feed us.
 
boloboffin said:
What "all the other witnesses"? Two other guys? Get real.

On edit:

Lagasse is just as certain about where the light poles were knocked down and where the taxi cab was as he is about where the plane flew in.

He is wrong about the taxicab. He is wrong about the light poles.

He is wrong about the plane.
Click to expand...

And there's nothing unusual in this. Any event will elicit a range of witness recollections which deviate from each other and what actually happened. When the event is sudden, unexpected, and brief in duration, and the recollection is long after the event, witness statements are even less reliable.

In the case of the Pentagon, what's significant is the consensus between all the witness statements. No-one saw anything other than a large passenger aircraft which was flying low towards the Pentagon.

Ironically, the one set of people who know how unreliable detailed witness statements are - are cops.
 
westprog said:
And there's nothing unusual in this. Any event will elicit a range of witness recollections which deviate from each other and what actually happened. When the event is sudden, unexpected, and brief in duration, and the recollection is long after the event, witness statements are even less reliable.

In the case of the Pentagon, what's significant is the consensus between all the witness statements. No-one saw anything other than a large passenger aircraft which was flying low towards the Pentagon.

Ironically, the one set of people who know how unreliable detailed witness statements are - are cops.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. But Lagasse is on camera changing reality to fit his perception. He's told where the light poles were knocked down, and he utterly denies this. He says that the poles that were knocked down weren't, and that poles that weren't knocked down were. He also puts the taxicab in exactly the place it needs to be for his perception - not where it actually was.

Lagasse, in Lyte's own video, changes the facts on the ground to meet the requirements of his own perception. He is not a reliable witness, and the PentaCon proves this.
 
boloboffin said:
Yes, this is true. But Lagasse is on camera changing reality to fit his perception. He's told where the light poles were knocked down, and he utterly denies this. He says that the poles that were knocked down weren't, and that poles that weren't knocked down were. He also puts the taxicab in exactly the place it needs to be for his perception - not where it actually was.

Lagasse, in Lyte's own video, changes the facts on the ground to meet the requirements of his own perception. He is not a reliable witness, and the PentaCon proves this.
Click to expand...

As always with any witness statement, it should be matched up with circumstantial evidence to see where the discepancies are. In this case, the discrepancies are obvious. To assume that the witness statement is accurate and that the circumstantial evidence is wrong goes against everything Mr Legasse would have been taught at Police Academy.
 
boloboffin said:
Yes, this is true. But Lagasse is on camera changing reality to fit his perception. He's told where the light poles were knocked down, and he utterly denies this. He says that the poles that were knocked down weren't, and that poles that weren't knocked down were. He also puts the taxicab in exactly the place it needs to be for his perception - not where it actually was.

Lagasse, in Lyte's own video, changes the facts on the ground to meet the requirements of his own perception. He is not a reliable witness, and the PentaCon proves this.
Click to expand...

So in short, back in -01, Lagasse is on record saying he saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and he is on record identifying it as belonging to American Airlines.

Then four years later, in -05 he is again asked to recap his recollection. He then goes on to confirm what he said back in -01, confirming everything but adding a new recollection, the flight path - which he puts "wrong" - at least visavi his prior testimony. He then tries to fit known facts with his 2005 recollection of the flight path.

To sum up, four years after the actual event his statement is correct save for one thing, the flightpath. That on the other hand is a four year old recollection.

If I havent misunderstood something crucial, its pretty obvious which part of his testimony to dismiss.

/S
 
SLOB said:
If I havent misunderstood something crucial, its pretty obvious which part of his testimony to dismiss.

/S
Click to expand...

Clearly we should dismiss the part of his testimony which agrees with all the other witnesses, and accept the part which disagrees with the other witnesses and all the circumstantial evidence.
 
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...
Excuse me, but EVERYBODY is laughing at you. Everyone here, on the LC forums, children in Kindergarten, anyone with a still-functioning brain is LAUGHING AT YOUR RIDICULOUS NONSENSE!
Bug Bunny cartoons make more logical sense. Road Runner cartoons contain better physics. Scooby-Do cartoons have better examples of how to do investigations. You, however, do contain more laughs-per-minute than they do.
Maybe Warner Brothers could use you. Think their animation department could use some good humor writers.
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
Uh yeah sorry I must have only gotten a C in crash science class.
:rolleyes:

Bottom line; the only remotely significant pieces of aircraft that were reported found are limited to these right here:
Click to expand...


...

You completely avoided the question, bottom line. You have no explanation for "the only remotely significant pieces" (interesting choice of words, but it shows a tremendous amount of bias). You have no evidence to support your theory, you have no witnesses which support your version of the events, you have no explanation for the evidence which contradicts your theory...

There's nothing left to do with your claims. The video is a joke- there are threads detailing the many inaccuracies and false claims throughout this forum- observations which you don't respond to.
 
Lyte, if they saw the plane hit that would trump the path discrepancy, yes?

I understand you have something a little ambiguous from Lagassee abou the impact. This simply needs to be cleared up. I made this suggestion in an earlier post but didnot see a response. Long thread, sorry if I just missed it, but here it is again:

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?
Click to expand...

I thought he made it clear there was no doubt about the plane hitting the building. If the impact detail was obscurred by the explosion that is not necessarily room for a flyover, he seemed to see the plane and building nose to face, as it were.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh but apparently the pentagon (military) has instructed the Police (civilian) not to speak with the cits again.

Or something.

I'm sure it was posted on LCF.

Russell will probably know where........:D
 
Lyte Trip said:
You laughed because you are in denial or you don't understand the implications.

No logical unbiased person denies that the plane was on the north side of the citgo after seeing this testimony.

Simply won't happen.

Unfortunately you can't find many of those in this forum.
Click to expand...

:drool:

It takes an amazing amount of delusion to not only ignore all the evidence, but ignore all the laughing and ridicule for ignoring the evidence- and then pretend that you're being rational...

It is not unbiased to exclude eyewitness testimony you don't like.

It is not unbiased to simply ignore evidence you do not like.

It is not unbiased to create a theory against the evidence- and in complete lack of it.

It is not unbiased to have a predetermined conclusion, hand pick your witnesses, and then contradict selected portions of their statements in order to make a video.

Get it through your head: the majority of the witnesses, the flight path damage, the physical evidence, DNA evidence, etc- all place the plane on the official flight path, which is south of the Citgo. To deny that is to contradict all of the evidence and the majority of the eyewitness testimony.

You have no explanation for that contradiction and instead try to weasel your way into some sort of agreeable position.

I repeat- if you were simply confirming the official flight path, you would not have made a video. You can't have a "shocking expose which will bring about a grand jury and indictments" and then pretend you aren't contradicting the official flight path and all the witnesses that confirm it.

It's nuts.
 
Lyte Trip said:
You must not understand English.

Yes I said I believed there will be a Grand Jury this year.

Yes I STAND BY that statement.

No I did not ever say that our film would result in a Grand Jury.

Stop lying about my claims.
Click to expand...

You're trying to change the context of your statements. Anyone involved with that thread- or willing to go and read it can see that you were beating your chest over this video- claiming it would bring about a grand jury and indictments.

And now you're trying to change what you said earlier in this very thread.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Neither.

They ALL saw a plane on the north side of the station and then witnessed a big fireball that concealed the impact/flyover.

Like this:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So, after the fireball had cleared, where do your witnesses place the plane?

Even if the fireball lasted for half a minute (quite a generous time for me to be allowing, the real time wuld be much less), the plane would not be able to fly far enough in this time for it to no longer be visible. With the number of witnesses present, who saw this happen, where do they place the plane once the fireball had cleared?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Why do you guys keep saying this over and over?

We are simply reporting what the witnesses claim they saw.

They ALL saw the plane on the north side of the station.

THAT is the smoking gun.

NOTHING from their previous interviews contradicts this.
Click to expand...


THEN DO SOMETHING.GET OFF THE NET AND DO SOMETHING.

I am fed up with your garbage, your self centred, self pitifully whining on this and other forums.

Take it to the mains stream media, take it the authorities, do something other than post your "smoking gun " on internet forums and making DVD's.

Your evidence is that solid, do something with it, get off your backside and do the right thing, help the families to put some closure on this.

I look forward to seeing in the worlds media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom