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

Pardalis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that the flightpath is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

Story begins.
 
Lyte, I asked earlier but I'll try again. Any chance you can get Lagasse to clarify what he saw at impact. I'd like to give him a model plane and a rough model of the Pgon wall and get him to show you what he saw at impact. I thought you dropped that issue with him too quickly in the film. His answer about seeing the impact was ambiguous. If he saw the plane and building coming together but simply missed impact detail due to the speed and the fireball than there would be no room for a flyover. Or he may confirm your idea of it.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Except that the flightpath is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

Story begins.
Click to expand...

So...are you asking me to choose which part of their testimony I should believe? Either (a) The plane flew north of the station or (b) the plane crashed into the Pentagon. This, of course, based on their testimony. I must choose one only...since both cannot be true...correct?
 
Mercutio said:
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.
Click to expand...

All are quite certain of the simple claim of what side of the station the plane flew.

And their descriptions of this very general and simple detail independently corroborate each other.

The notion that they all simultaneously made the exact same ludicrous mistake about such a simple claim during an event of this magnitude goes beyond the realm of reason.

You are not thinking objectively.
 
Hyperviolet said:
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.
Click to expand...

All citgo witnesses specifically state that what they really saw was a "fireball" and that the impact was concealed by it and therefore deduced.

Yes you should watch it again.
 
as asked of lyte numerous times in the three other threads about his film and on myspace


please explain the light poles
please explain the dna evidence
please explain the physical evidence
please explain why no one saw the fly over who were not near or at the citgo station, who would have a better view of such fly over
please explain why no one testified to seeing a 2nd plane nearby that would take the path of a fly over
please explain
 
HyJinX said:
So...are you asking me to choose which part of their testimony I should believe? Either (a) The plane flew north of the station or (b) the plane crashed into the Pentagon. This, of course, based on their testimony. I must choose one only...since both cannot be true...correct?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I know which you choose but you aren't thinking objectively.

They all had a much better view of the plane passing by the station than the alleged impact.

The fact that they corroborate each other about the placement of the plane and the fact that Lagasse couldn't have really seen the plane much at all through the building are important points to seriously consider.
 
Lyte Trip said:
All citgo witnesses specifically state that what they really saw was a "fireball" and that the impact was concealed by it and therefore deduced.
Click to expand...

correction: you "deduced" it was a flyover. However, no one supports that claim. NOT ONE single eyewitness including your own that you interviewed

and in REALITY< the fireball would have been AFFECTED by the fly over of a plane as demonstrated in this video;

 
Lyte Trip said:
All citgo witnesses specifically state that what they really saw was a "fireball" and that the impact was concealed by it and therefore deduced.

Yes you should watch it again.
Click to expand...

This needs clarification. As I said earlier they may have seen the building and the plane nose to face but simply missed detail of impact due to the fireball. You seemed to jump to the conclusion there was room for a pull up without clarifying this with them - particularly Lagasse.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

then you are creating a false dilemma

I know which you choose but you aren't thinking objectively.
Click to expand...

it isn't "we" who aren't thinking objectively

They all had a much better view of the plane passing by the station than the alleged impact.
Click to expand...

false they didn't. The witnesses on the freeway fronting the pentagon and the people who were directly in front of the pentagon had a better view. Even the couple traveling on the South side of the pentagon had a better view, and they reported no fly over.

The fact that they corroborate each other about the placement of the plane and the fact that Lagasse couldn't have really seen the plane much at all through the building are important points to seriously consider.
Click to expand...

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TRUMPS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY; No matter how much witness testmiony sounds alike, they will never beat physical evidence.
 
alexg said:
Lyte, I asked earlier but I'll try again. Any chance you can get Lagasse to clarify what he saw at impact. I'd like to give him a model plane and a rough model of the Pgon wall and get him to show you what he saw at impact. I thought you dropped that issue with him too quickly in the film. His answer about seeing the impact was ambiguous. If he saw the plane and building coming together but simply missed impact detail due to the speed and the fireball than there would be no room for a flyover. Or he may confirm your idea of it.
Click to expand...

The most notable fact is that he admitted that he "flinched" when he saw the plane and jumped in his car.

Clearly he deduced the plane being hit and embellished these details.

It's impossible for the plane where they all saw it to have caused the physical damage.

I don't believe I will be able to get another interview with Lagasse or Brooks.

I doubt anyone else will either.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I know which you choose but you aren't thinking objectively.
Click to expand...


The problem is that you're not thinking at all.

Do you realize how absurd your theory is?

They had a plane flying straight for the Pentagon, why didn't they just crash it like they did for the two towers?

Why the subterfuge?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

I know which you choose but you aren't thinking objectively.

They all had a much better view of the plane passing by the station than the alleged impact.

The fact that they corroborate each other about the placement of the plane and the fact that Lagasse couldn't have really seen the plane much at all through the building are important points to seriously consider.
Click to expand...

But what about the witnesses who saw the plane actually hit the light poles and then actually hit the pentagon? There's more of them then a few at the station...right?
 
Lyte Trip said:
The most notable fact is that he admitted that he "flinched" when he saw the plane and jumped in his car.

Clearly he deduced the plane being hit and embellished these details.

It's impossible for the plane where they all saw it to have caused the physical damage.

I don't believe I will be able to get another interview with Lagasse or Brooks.

I doubt anyone else will either.
Click to expand...

It's impossible for the plane where they all saw it to have caused the physical damage.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if they saw the impact then we have a conflict and seeing the impact will trump seeing the path. I am NOT convinced you got to the bottom of this with Lagasse who seemed adamant about seeing the imact and then backed off a bit. I want to know how close the plane and building were before he lost track of it.

What COULD be seen from his position at that time? Was the building wall visible?
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

You say that over and over again, but I still dont get what the "high level" consists of. Their testimonies doesnt agree with what they said back in 2001 (lightpoles struck, plane hitting Pentagon etc), nor with any of the rest of the evidence (dna, debris, FDR, other witnesses, etc).

Frankly Im a bit surprised not more witnesses placed the plane all over the place.

/S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom