HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
Don't your two cop witnesses work for the Government?
The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
Don't your two cop witnesses work for the Government?
They used planes as diversions while the actual destruction of the towers was completed with pre-planted explosives.
Same MO in Arlington.
Perhaps they didn't want the plane to hit the pentagon because they wanted more control over the damage since no catastrophic destruction of the entire building was planned.
A W Smith
Philosopher
If we did find them. And they confirmed what was reported they said. On location. Would you or would you not conclude that your witnesses were mistaken? And that the assumptions of your flyover theory are grossly incorrect?
Thank you. Stundied.
Yeah so?
Clearly they exist.
Clearly they were willing to talk.
The fact that they are govt employees not pushing a conspiracy theory gives them credibility.
They were honestly relaying what they saw.
They all saw the plane in the same place and the notion that it was on the opposite side of the station is ABSURD to them.
"0% chance" "Less than zero!"
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Most likely they are contract security working for the government.
Impossible to tell from the photos. I notice Sergeants chevron pins on the collar of one of the cops, but it could be a rank within his company rather than within the military.
Where I work, the military cops wear military uniform. Contract cops wear a different uniform.
Edited to add: If you want to get in touch with the SGT's. DoD emails are usually in the form of: first name (dot) last name (at) location (dot) gov.
e.g. Sargeant.Lagasse (at) pentagon.gov (this is not meant to be a link, though it's showing up that way)
Last edited:
"0% chance" "Less than zero!"
would they not also say the same about a flyover? Again, we need to know EXACTLY waht they saw of impact. You left this hanging in the film and it was a huge oversight on your part. Sadly, I have to wonder if you left it hanging because you knew they would swear they saw inevitable impact or actual impact and then you'd have a mess of conflicting accounts. Seeing impact trumps seeing path.
would they not also say the same about a flyover? Again, we need to know EXACTLY waht they saw of impact. You left this hanging in the film and it was a huge oversight on your part. Sadly, I have to wonder if you left it hanging because you knew they would swear they saw inevitable impact or actual impact and then you'd have a mess of conflicting accounts. Seeing impact trumps seeing path.
I did not leave it hanging in the least.
I was very clear and asked them direct.
They were all quite certain the plane hit but all were honest enough to admit that the fireball concealed the actual impact.
Bottom line the plane can not be what caused the physical damage.
It is ludicrous to suggest the all simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
The DoD wouldn't even take credit for that video for years.
Frames were removed.
The "smoke trail" produces no shadow while everything else does.
It was altered.
Here are their stories back in 2001, more information on both.
Interview with Brooks and Lagasse, here: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html
Lagasse Interview
Books iterview ,
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
I wonder why lyte and merc haven't contacted anyone in avaiation to get their opinion on a fly over in a 767 and what kind of pull up needs to be done, exactly when it needed to be done, so that no one would notice.
a plane is hardly an object that one would forget to see, even in a fly over.
Shall I post pics of Maho beach and how low the planes come in for landing. Its basically at the height of what A77 flew at that day, even though they are going at approach speed; it gives you an idea of how low that plane would be.
and seeing how low it was will also determine when and where, and how much power it would need to do a sudden pull up
and why would they want to fly a plane over the pentagon? Where did AA77 go ? Why not just fly the plane into the building? Why "fake" all of this, when it would have been simpler to just fly the plane into the pentagon?
Again, lyte and merc presents something too complex, when it would have just been easier to fly the damn plane into the building. Already two buildings were hit that day; no one would have been surprised if a third were hit the same way.
Just to give you an idea on how low the plane would have been:
a plane is hardly an object that one would forget to see, even in a fly over.
Shall I post pics of Maho beach and how low the planes come in for landing. Its basically at the height of what A77 flew at that day, even though they are going at approach speed; it gives you an idea of how low that plane would be.
and seeing how low it was will also determine when and where, and how much power it would need to do a sudden pull up
and why would they want to fly a plane over the pentagon? Where did AA77 go ? Why not just fly the plane into the building? Why "fake" all of this, when it would have been simpler to just fly the plane into the pentagon?
Again, lyte and merc presents something too complex, when it would have just been easier to fly the damn plane into the building. Already two buildings were hit that day; no one would have been surprised if a third were hit the same way.
Just to give you an idea on how low the plane would have been:
You just keep getting more and more deluded, don't you?
"They" had no problem rigging both towers to explode and collapse killing, perhaps, tens of thousands of civilians.
But, they didn't want a catastrophic destruction of the Pentagon.
I really think you're gonna wind up in a rubber room soon.
That's irrelevant if it is equally ludicrous that they are wrong about impact! What you didn't clarify was how INEVITABLE impact was. I could say I saw the impact and under cross I'd have to back off it what I actually saw was plane and building nose to face but just missed impact detail. In my mind nothing less than their personal clarification on this point will do.
Look, I'm giving you something. Their path testimony is really something. I am a bit mystified by it. But it's not as airtight as you are hoping. Odder things have happened.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
false
100% false. As explained to you numerous times, the security footage was filmed at 1 frame per second.
false
100% false.
how many errors are you going to make in just one post?
Many people saw what they believed to be other planes including one that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off over the pentagon as soon as there was an explosion.
There may have been hundreds that saw the plane fly away.
They were simply told it was a different plane.
I'm sorry but we understand that you think the movement revolves around the LC board but it does not.
That board has just as many of you guys there then it does "twoofers" and the Pentagon section is run by RP who has a personal stake in his 757 impact conspiracy theory coupled with unlimited ego and pride.
The "movement" has embraced this data.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Probably for the same reason they haven't contacted any authorities with their "evidence", they are afraid of the response. I know your question was probably rhetorical, but I couldn't help myself
False.
Lagasse was quite certain of the simple claim of where the poles and the cab were. And his description of this very simple detail is corroborated by the physical evidence.
There are two possibilities: 1)Their claim about the flightpath was wrong, and the plane took a different path (planes can do this). 2) Their claim about the flightpath was right, and the lightpoles and cab quickly ran from where Lagasse saw them to where they were found by investigators (lightpoles can...wait, no they can't do this).
Perhaps I know a bit more about human perception and memory than you do. Or perhaps you know how Lagasse can be so certain that the picture is wrong about the posts and the cab.
Wait--he disagrees with the photo that YOU SHOW HIM! Did you doctor the photos? Did you move the location of the posts and the cab? Either he is mistaken, or you are!
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
doesn't mean there was a fly over
1) there is and was confirmed a c130 who was in the area before the crash. As he was interviewed, he mentioned even seeing the plane (AA77) in the area and expressed that he thought it was odd
2) the other plane in the area has been unconfirmed by any credible site or news source.
Wrong. They reported seeing A plane . Not "the" plane. As stated again, what they could have seen was the c130 plane that was ALREADY IN THE Area at the time of the crash.
False. And that is conjecture on your part. You can't deduced from any testimony that it was different plane since many eyewitnesses who were interviewed soon after the event stated they saw the plane hit the pentagon.
false. the movement revolved around the inane statements by individuals who think they know everything.
false. there are far more woo people there than there are any jrefers there.
false. they haven't.