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

[twinstead]

I would be interested to see how this 'smoking-gun evidence' would stand up in a court of law in the face of all the overwhelming contrary evidence, but I don't know if I'm willing to waste my tax money on it.

 

[chipmunk stew]

It's time to promote Lyte Trip to my elite list.

He joins the illustrious ranks of:
Christopher "Concrete Core" a
Davidjay "Jesus Invented Sex" jordan
MaG "Missiles at Ground Zero" Z
and
TruthSeeker "Destructo-Beam" 1234

Lyte "Pentagon Flyover" Trip, welcome to Ignore!

 

[DavidJames]

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.

I'm laughing at you, most everyone this forum is laughing at you. People in your own forum are laughing at you.

The fact that you ignored my other questions shows your "rock out world" video is a joke.

 

[VespaGuy]

I'm always late to the party.

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]

Lyte, why did you stop there? Why not show the next 10 seconds? You have claimed that it's impossible to beleive that the plane flew in the flight path that your witnesses claim AND that the plane hit the Pentagon. So please show us the rest of your 'video' of what happens next here.

Also, what would this same sequence look like from other angles?

 

[Mercutio]

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.

There is another way of looking at this: Yes, he is as certain about the poles and the cab as he is about the direction the plane flew from. So certain he has to move the poles and the cab so that his two certainties do not contradict one another.

So... Lagasse actually says 2 things he is certain of.

1) the plane flew north of the station.
2) the plane's path took it over (and through, to some extent) the poles and the cab.

Lyte is hanging his hopes on #1, of course. Lagasse accepts both, choosing to move the evidence in #2 to fit #1. (Note: He could have chosen to abandon #2 because it did not fit #1; the fact that he is adamantly sticking to #2 as well means that it is important and he believes it to be 100% true, as he does with #1.) The physical evidence tells us that #1 and #2 cannot both be true. Lagasse chooses to challenge the physical evidence. As does Lyte. Those of us with a bit of experience with eyewitness testimony are more likely to challenge #1. Is it possible for an eyewitness to be so wrong about such an important detail? Oh, hell, yes. There are well-known, systematic perceptual and memory biases that distort eyewitness testimony. (I myself was ready to swear that a particular individual had mugged me--I was certain! Minutes later, they brought out the real guy...and I learned a valuable lesson.)

Lagasse's testimony in the 8-minute video is every bit as compatible with the official story as it is with a northerly-flyby version. He is certain of details that are incompatible with the official version, but he is equally certain of details that are incompatible with Lyte's version. And we know, again from the 8-minute video, that he is not an infallible witness. Neither man is. Both, in the video, admit being unsure of where they were, where their cars were, and have to refresh their memories.

Sorry, Lyte; I watched your video and I am utterly unconvinced of your theory.

 

[jhunter1163]

Lyte:

Let me propose a hypothetical example.

On May 18, 1980, I witnessed the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. I saw the landslide, the explosion, and the beginning of the ash plume (I didn't see much of the ash part because I was getting the hell out of there). I saw the landslide start on the north slope of the mountain. However, the seismic and photographic evidence shows that the landslide actually began on the northeast slope of the mountain.

Whose statement carries more weight? Mine or the scientists'?

 

[Hyperviolet]

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.

Lyte, my memory may be a bit fuzzy as i watched the PentaCon a few weeks back now.

I remember Sgt Lagasse (i believe that is his name unless i am getting the names mixed up), the officer at the gas pump, actually describe visually with his hands how the plane actually impacted on the building. He did not state that a fireball appeared and he lost sight of the plane. He motioned the exact angle of impact. This cannot be disregarded as confusion and the other parts of his testimony cited as gospel. If fact, should you believe that parts of his testimony are unreliable you should refrain from using him as a "key witness"

Moreover, your image of the fireball is misleading. As it suggests the plane skimmed the roof, and disappeared behind a fireball.
This is not what your own witnesses stated.

 

[Pardalis]

When you think about it, all you got there is a plane heading straight to the Pentagon, and disappearing in a fireball... so the most logical conclusion would be that it crashed there.

End of story.

 

[Cuddles]

Here's a little story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time there were some researchers who were interested in perception and memory. One fine, sunny day they decided to see just how good people are at remembering. In order to do this they recruited some volunteers and told them that they would be given a task counting the number of times two groups of people passed a basketball between them. What the unfortunate volunteers didn't know was that the researchers were actually lying to them and the real task was entirely different. Some time into the video they were watching, a person in a gorilla suit walked into the picture, stood in the middle beating its chest and then walked off again, spending about 10 seconds in view. The poor, innocent volunteers did not expect this cruel joke, and so half of them didn't even notice the gorilla was there. Fortunately the researchers were not as evil as they might have seemed and everyone had cookies and lived happily ever after.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/blindness.html

Now, given that people who are concentrating on a screen can fail to either notice or remember a large gorilla, does it maybe seem a little more plausible that someone experiencing an unexpected, traumatic event might have a slightly less than perfect memory of exactly what happened, 5 years after the event?

 

[Cuddles]

Some other interesting links about memory :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn5089-memory-fails-you-after-severe-stress.html

People simply don't remember stressful events correctly.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...memories-suspect--and-open-tosuggestion-.html

Even if they did remember them, it is very easy for them to be persuaded to remember them differently, by themselves or others.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a link for another famous experiment, similar to the first link in this post. In essence, a group of people were in the audience at a mock trial. At some point during the trial a person burst in, ran up the front and shot someone. Questioned by the police soon afterwards, many, if not most, could not even remember the gender or colour of the person correctly.

 

[westprog]

...Lagasse's testimony in the 8-minute video is every bit as compatible with the official story as it is with a northerly-flyby version. He is certain of details that are incompatible with the official version, but he is equally certain of details that are incompatible with Lyte's version. And we know, again from the 8-minute video, that he is not an infallible witness. Neither man is. Both, in the video, admit being unsure of where they were, where their cars were, and have to refresh their memories.

But... but... they're cops! Surely one must accept that police officers are always 100% reliable witnesses?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a link for another famous experiment, similar to the first link in this post. In essence, a group of people were in the audience at a mock trial. At some point during the trial a person burst in, ran up the front and shot someone. Questioned by the police soon afterwards, many, if not most, could not even remember the gender or colour of the person correctly.

There was a demonstration like this that aired on 48 hours:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/h&l1.htm#_ednref9

 

[Yaters]

I don't post a whole lot here, and usually lurk. I do have a few thoughts on this:

First, if the 8 minute clip is put together as badly as the preview, I won't be able to watch it.

Second, I worked in News broadcastand studied video production in college. Ah, the wonders of editing. Tell you what, Lyte, I will watch your video, but I want the unedited footage to watch. If your integrity is in tact and you have nothing to hide(the questions you asked, possibly leading your witnesses, etc), then you would have no problem providing the unedited footage.

Thirdly, and I could be wrong, and I never went to law school, but I feel like their ENTIRE testimony has to be right, not just one part of it. You claim that only that one part has to be corroborated, no, I think their entire testimonies have to be inline for us to say, "well, actually, maybe they're on to something" Unfortunately, what you have, is a few testimonies, with problems, but with only one fact in line with the others. That's no good.

Lastly, Lyte, none of us know what you do or who you try to contact, so TELL US! Let us know that you're actually trying to get this to authorities. Right now, it just feels like you're grasping at straws, trying to get as many people as you can to view your video.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thirdly, and I could be wrong, and I never went to law school, but I feel like their ENTIRE testimony has to be right, not just one part of it. You claim that only that one part has to be corroborated, no, I think their entire testimonies have to be inline for us to say, "well, actually, maybe they're on to something" Unfortunately, what you have, is a few testimonies, with problems, but with only one fact in line with the others. That's no good.

I've spent many hours studying under Prof. Jack McCoy at the Dick Wolf School of Armchair Lawyering and I concur with your opinion.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

There's been a few references to Lagasses first testimony, made in december 2001, but since its an audio-file I thought it best making a transcribed version.

There are a few passages were I didn't catch the exact word, they are marked in bold, and I would be very thankful if someone could help me out. Same goes for spelling errors...

Audio can be found here, and was made december, 4, 2001.

Q: Go ahead and say your name, introduce yourself and your title and...


L: My name is Sergeant William Lagasse ... of the (****) defence protective service police at the Pentagon. On september 11, the morning of the terrorist attack, I was refuelling my police cruiser at the Barracks K gasstation approxemately one eight of a mile from the heliport side of the Pentagon. While I was refilling my tank, I was standing outside the vehicle, it was a really nice day, it was beautiful blue sky, I...American Airlines 757 flew approxemately 100 feet above the ground level, maybe, um, 60 feet in front of me. And that was probably.... Im trying to think here... give some estimate of speed was at the time I though was probably 400 miles an hour, which was about right. The windblast from the wing (****) nocked me into my vehicle. First thing I did was call our communications and I merely stated an aircraft has just flown into the side of the building. I arrived on the scene probably 15 to 20 seconds after impact and went into the renovation- construction area where they have a series of trailers and thats also on the west side of the Pentagon just south of where the aircraft hit the building, maybe 100 yards, and began helping people out of that area. There were secondary explosions from compressed natural gas and welding equippment that forced me to leave the area, as well as the smoke from the plane impact. You just couldn't breathe and you couldn't see anything, it was too dark. At that point I exited the area, linked up with my supervisor and just began, umm, kind of a methodical search and recovery of evidence from the aircraft. And that is pretty much how my day went. Did not see many injured people, other than, you know, minor injuries. It seems to me that either you, from what I saw, maybe 15 to 16 people were taken away in ambulances, the rest of the people were treated for minor scrapes, and unfortunately the rest of the injured were fatalities. I made contact with a couple of people that I had known, made sure they were ok, and that was pretty much it. Other than that, it was just like chaos, complete and utter chaos. At least until the remainder of that day,. When I left, I stayed there, probably 17 hours that day. I have an explosive detection canine with me so, we were kind of busy searching luggage that people, when they were running out of the building just dropped their bags and things like that. We'd get to search all of them before we could declare an area safe. Think that's about it, you have any specific questions you want me to answer?


Q: Umm...maybe just in general you know having to go to work everyday (****) after that, how thats coming to effect, dealing with september 11 probably all over again everytime you go to work, what is the kind of feeling at the Pentagon?


L: Its funny you say that umm... we had an aircraft last nigh, a ATA737, ATA is the airline called Airtrain Airways, that had a missed approach going into National, the pilot, it was a new pilot, and flew about 200 feet above the Pentagon, completely out of the normal final approach. I witnessed this whole thing, we called National Airport and asked them what was going on, they told us nothing regular was happening...so we police officers that was watching this immediately thought we were being attacked again. So, the anxiety level is still here..it probably has not left me. The image of the airplane flying into the building has not ever left me. Its...uh. Its almost surreal. I have... (****) it feel like it has been keeping me up at night, but its nothing I go...you know I've never gone a day since without seeing it in my head. But other than that, I mean, you know, its just, we got a job to do, we need to do it. Thats pretty much the way things' been going.


Q: And overall, has that effected your whole sense of security even?


L: Ummm... to be honest with you, it hasn't really changed anything as far as the way I thought...umm...we always knew the possibility for something like this existed. I dont think anyone outwardly stated they were prepared for it, but we all kind of knew something like that was going to happen eventually. I dont think we knew, you know, who, what, when and why, but we knew that there was a potential for an aircraft to hit the building. If not from an accident, to National, you know I think most people thought of it that way, if a plane ever hit the building it was because it was, it had a problem either at take off or landing. So as far as my percieved safety of... I've never felt really safe at the building, because its such a target, it is a public building and... access to the Pentagon reservation itself is pretty open. Access into the building is very restricted.


(CUT)


L: There were people that were running, just crazy, and there's people who were just standing still, just unable to move. The people I ran into that were disoriented or unable to move, I escorted them out of the hazardous area, maybe 10-15 people I escorted out of that construction area, but there's a, you know, I wont even pretend to being a hero. I think there are too many other people that did work. Mark Brade (****), John Waymond, guys that really did some heroic things and are getting zippy credits for it. Which is kind of unfortunate. We have one officer that's been recognized, perhaps too much, and we have several officers that haven't been recognized at all. And thats...Its disheartening.


(CUT)


L: Its an absolutely surreal thing to see. Its not something I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime. And the unusal thing is I can play it back in my head and when I was talking with the FBI investigators, maybe half an hour to forty five minutes after the attack, I was able to recall details about the plane that were, you know, I knew the landing gears were up, I knew that the flaps were retracted. I could see the windows had had their shades pulled down, so thta people couldn't see out. Things like that just kind of stick in my head. I remember being on the scene and seeing a chunk of a plane that just said ”Amera” on it. It didn't say ”American” it said ”Amera”, cause that was the biggest piece that I saw of the aircraft. I remember seeing the light poles that the plane hit, that nocked it down. Its, just, Its absolutely surreal, I mean, Im almost glad there is no videotape of it. So we didn't have to see it over and over and over and over again. I'd just...Im thankful that no more people were killed, than we had lost. I mean we could have lost a lot more. Im just thankful for that. The old building held up pretty good. So it saved a lot of lives

In my book that does seem to contradic the "one flew over the Pentagon" - theory.

/S

 

[Arus808]

Because they didn't see the plane.

1) many on the freeway did; many who were standing in front of the pentagon did. when arey ou going to interview them
2) the rescue/firefighters/clean up crew's testimony is all relevant to your investigation as they would confirm or deny what you are claiming (in your case , deny) since they were the ones who were picking up body parts, and plane debris from across the lawn and within the pentagaon


when are you going to schedule an interview with them?

 

[Scientologist]

ok ban lyte again please.
k thx

 

[A W Smith]

Lyte have you forwarded all your research to your congressman? yes or no?

have you done so with any prosecutor? Yes of no?

has Lagasse seen your video? Yes or no?

Given his quote below. Have you talked to lagasse after he has seen your video? Yes or no?

Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Pentagon Police Officer, who saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nose dive into the Pentagon. There was a loud bump and then chaos. He drove towards the crash site in his police cruiser. He didn't know which way to turn; it was like a movie. He was on duty until late that evening. He talks about how the plane hit the Pentagon, the ensuing chaos, ringing in his ears, heroes, passengers on the flight, and returning to work. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bibfield(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))


Interview with William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer.
Summary: William Lagasse was refueling his police car when a jet flew past him so fast that its wind blasts knocked him into the vehicle. He then drove to the west side of the Pentagon, south of the impact. He describes the secondary explosions and smoke. Mr. Lagasse also discusses the search for and recovery of evidence, injured people, chaos, anxiety, Pentagon security, shock, and the disorientation of the survivors. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?afc911bib:184:./temp/~ammem_xQPr::

Sgt Lagasse wrote to Apfn web site in june 2003, criticizing Dick Eastman's plane plus missile theory which had been published on the site. Here is this first mail.
Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William" <...@...>
To: "'apfn@apfn.org'"

"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."

"...The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon.

The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike, and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground.

There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,

Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...

again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building.

I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.

There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended.

How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.

you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive.

There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.

no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't there claim.

I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions"

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte have you forwarded all your research to your congressman? yes or no?

have you done so with any prosecutor? Yes of no?

has Lagasse seen your video? Yes or no?

Given his quote below. Have you talked to lagasse after he has seen your video? Yes or no?

We have forwarded it to various authorities and media and will continue to do so.

We have had a dialog with both Lagasse and Brooks since the release of the film and they both watched it.

Both have said that we presented their testimony accurately and fairly and they stand by their accounts 100%.

Brooks called it an "eye opener".

Lagasse refuses to accept the implications of what he saw and even went so far as to say the ASCE report was inaccurate and written by a bunch of "scientists that weren't there".

 

[Lyte Trip]

Thirdly, and I could be wrong, and I never went to law school, but I feel like their ENTIRE testimony has to be right, not just one part of it. You claim that only that one part has to be corroborated, no, I think their entire testimonies have to be inline for us to say, "well, actually, maybe they're on to something" Unfortunately, what you have, is a few testimonies, with problems, but with only one fact in line with the others. That's no good.

No eyewitness testimony is perfect.

It's the high level of corroboration of the extremely general and simple claim of what side of the station the plane flew that is so relevant here.