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

Why?

You want to help?

Go ahead and make calls.

Doubling up isn't an issue. These guys need a lot of follow up.

C'mon Lyte...when you start saying things like this...you have to understand that you're being dishonest or that your previous statement was a lie. Don't lie. This thread, thus far, has been civil and interesting...don't ruin it with this kind of junk....seriously.
 
Sorry for being blunt, but I want to know because I don't trust you. You can ignore this request or you could provide a flip response, but the best thing you could do is provide a list of the media and authorities you contacted about your video.

I would like to contact them and find out how they plan on responding to you. We all want the truth right? So let's be truthful.
 
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?

Good question.

No there is not.

You have about 20 total that merely mention the poles in their accounts. (they saw them after the fact)

Only 2 specifically state that they "saw" the light poles get clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an anonymous military man.

They either deduced it and embellished their accounts or they are lying.

If they are willing to go on record and be filmed in order to clarify this like Brooks did their accounts would hold more weight.

As it stands their accounts are insufficient to discount the infinitely more solid and heavily corroborated north of the citgo testimony that was filmed on location.

If the north of the station claim is correct it stands to reason that some witnesses would be plants.
 
Why?

You want to help?

Go ahead and make calls.

Doubling up isn't an issue. These guys need a lot of follow up.
I'd like to be able to confirm your claim that you, in fact, sent anyone anything.

I'd also be interested in what the "various authorities and media" had to say regarding the material you sent them.
 
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.

I can get you another interview with Brooks and Lagasse, you can add it to your film. Done right here: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Lagasse Interview for you to add

Books iterview on what happen on 9/11, you can add this,

Do you have thesse interviews yet? If not, why not include them as evidence?
 
Last edited:
I have not lied. We have contacted authorities and media and we will continue to do so.

The list of contacts that we made is irrelevant to this thread or the north side claim and I have no inclination to share that information with you.
 
I have not lied. We have contacted authorities and media and we will continue to do so.

The list of contacts that we made is irrelevant to this thread or the north side claim and I have no inclination to share that information with you.
Evasion noted.
 
Good question.

No there is not.

You have about 20 total that merely mention the poles in their accounts. (they saw them after the fact)

Only 2 specifically state that they "saw" the light poles get clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an anonymous military man.

They either deduced it and embellished their accounts or they are lying.

If they are willing to go on record and be filmed in order to clarify this like Brooks did their accounts would hold more weight.

As it stands their accounts are insufficient to discount the infinitely more solid and heavily corroborated north of the citgo testimony that was filmed on location.

If the north of the station claim is correct it stands to reason that some witnesses would be plants.

I think you missed a few....

Here's a computer programmer:

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Here's a priest:

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said.



Unknown woman:

We live in Arlington, VA just outside of Washington, DC in a high-rise building on the eight floor. Our balcony faces the city, with a panoramic view of the Pentagon, National Airport, and the entire downtown area of Washington, DC. We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle.
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke.
BBC News, Sep. 11, 2001
 
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.
So you are cherry picking his testimony to support your belief of a flyover that no one witnessed?
It's impossible for the plane where they all saw it to have caused the physical damage.
Wrong!! It was impossible for them to see a north of citgo flyover BECAUSE of the physical evidence.
I don't believe I will be able to get another interview with Lagasse or Brooks. I doubt anyone else will either.

Why? Don't they accept your theory? Or have they now been 'Compromised' as reliable witnesses?
 
(...)the infinitely more solid and heavily corroborated north of the citgo testimony that was filmed on location.

You seem to be saying that because four witnesses all say the plane flew north of Citgo, this makes it "heavily corroborated" and you seem to imply that because it was filmed on location, this makes it even more valid.

Am I correct?

/S
 
I think you missed a few....

Here's a computer programmer:

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Does not claim he literally "saw" them get clipped.

Here's a priest:

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said.

We personally interviewed him. He specifically told us that he did NOT see the light poles get clipped and merely saw them on the ground after the fact. Notice how he, like Afework Hagos, does not claim that he literally "saw" them get clipped.

Unknown woman:
We live in Arlington, VA just outside of Washington, DC in a high-rise building on the eight floor. Our balcony faces the city, with a panoramic view of the Pentagon, National Airport, and the entire downtown area of Washington, DC. We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle.
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke.
BBC News, Sep. 11, 2001

This is DS Khavkin. She was in the apartments that were even further west than the sheraton. It would have been impossible for her to see the light poles from that location. "Small commercial aircraft"?
 
I have not lied. We have contacted authorities and media and we will continue to do so.

The list of contacts that we made is irrelevant to this thread or the north side claim and I have no inclination to share that information with you.
That's your choice, but I don't understand why. It would seem to be in your best interest to proudly proclaim what people, groups, organizations, authorities you are reaching out to trying to gain justice. I can only think of a couple of reasons why you wouldn't want to share;

1. You are not telling the truth and are afraid we will find out.
2. You are telling the truth but are afraid we will find out the results.

Even with #2, the upside for you is you get to say you tried but were thwarted.
 
Only 2 specifically state that they "saw" the light poles get clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an anonymous military man.

Then I say

It's the high level of corroboration of the extremely general and simple claim that the light poles got hit. Is all that matters here


sound familiar?
 
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.

I'd be interested in hearing Lagasse's account of this rather than your opinions. If he says he saw the plane and the building at a point of inevitable collision this must go in as his tetimony. Seeing the impact trumps seeing the path and if he saw the impact you'll have to live with the consequences. You infer from the 'flinching' comment that he did not see impact. Sorry, we ned to hear him say it. If I see a plane scream by me toward the Pentagon I'm going to spend the extra second to watch it all the way in and I find it hard to believe he would not either. Again, only waht he has to say about this has any bearing. You cannot deduce that he is wrong about impact because of the impossibility of his path and impact being both true. He could simply be wrong about the path.
 
Does not claim he literally "saw" them get clipped.



We personally interviewed him. He specifically told us that he did NOT see the light poles get clipped and merely saw them on the ground after the fact. Notice how he, like Afework Hagos, does not claim that he literally "saw" them get clipped.



This is DS Khavkin. She was in the apartments that were even further west than the sheraton. It would have been impossible for her to see the light poles from that location. "Small commercial aircraft"?

Why didn't you interview these people on camera to support your claims? As it stands now...I'll need to take your word for it...and given that you haven't really earned much credibility thus far...I'm inclined to believe them and not you. That can change...but you'll need to conduct better research to cover all angles to support yours...not just throw your angle out there, throw a few witnesses at me (all who saw the plane hit), tell me not to believe all they say...but those parts that you tell me to believe and then tell me I'm not being a critical thinker because you make it impossible to trust you. Sorry man...I commend you on all the effort to put this together...but it just doesn't hold water against the physical evidence and the many other eye-witnesses that just don't corroborate your few.
 
You seem to be saying that because four witnesses all say the plane flew north of Citgo, this makes it "heavily corroborated" and you seem to imply that because it was filmed on location, this makes it even more valid.

Am I correct?

/S
'

Yes it is heavily corroborated.

The fact that it was filmed on location makes it stronger testimony then the previous accounts from them or others because.....

a. There is no room for misinterpretation by the reader and/or reporter.

b. It gives them additional credibility because they were WILLING to go on record on video on location.

c. Being videotaped testimony it captures the certainty they have in their claims and gives the viewer the opportunity to analyze body language, inflections etc.

d. It allows the user to literally SEE the same point of view as the witnesses!

There is a MASSIVE difference and degree of accuracy in this testimony as compared to reading 2nd hand published accounts on the internet without having a clue as to what the witness could really see or where they really were.
 
Lyte....NO ONE SAW A FLYOVER.

You are an embarrassment to your own movement.

Have you any idea how retarded you must be in order for that to happen?
 
Lyte, i ask you again. The conspirators went to all this trouble to not crash the plane into the Pentagon, yet they crashed two other planes in the WTC towers.

Why?
 
Then I say

It's the high level of corroboration of the extremely general and simple claim that the light poles got hit. Is all that matters here


sound familiar?

Find them and get them to confirm or deny their initial claims on video on location and you might have something here.

As it stands we have no way of knowing if these accounts are legitimate at all.

Wanda Ramey is allegedly a cop (we couldn't find her). I would LOVE to see if she would directly contradict Lagasse and Brooks. (if she exists)
 

Back
Top Bottom