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

[CHF]

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.

Yeah...the C-130. We all know that already. The pilot was interviewed by the BBC.

He also says the plane hit the Pentagon. Just like your witnesses did.

The "movement" has embraced this data.

Let's hope so!

 

[Arus808]

False.

claiming something that is false, that is shown to be false, doesn't make it true.

like how you repeat over and over again that a plane flew over the pentagon doesn't mean its true.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Yes it is heavily corroborated.

What constitutes, according to you, "heavily corroborated" as opposed to just plain "corroborated"?
Wouldnt testimony that aligns with physical evidence be even more corroborated?

And am I correct to understand that nothing else corroborates the, apparently, neccessary conlusions of your theory, eg the plane flew over the Pentagon, or a missile hit the Pentagon?

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.

Ok, but neither of those points really address the reliability of testimonies (given several years after the event) itself. Filming it appears only to make it easier for the viewer.
It only adds credability to the interpretation of the testimony, not the testimony in itself.

Which imho is a huge difference.

Cheers,
S

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

Lagasse in particular has felt a strong need to counter the conspiracy theories.

I don't blame him. I would feel the same way if I saw a big ass passenger plane and heard a bunch of kooks talk about missiles and global hawks.

So it makes sense that he would embellish a little to support the official story.

But clearly he had no clue of the implications of where he saw the plane.

They all thought they were literally defending the official story.

This is why it blows the case wide open.

You are a bigger man then your cohorts for AT LEAST admitting that you are mystified by their placement of the plane.

 

[Lyte Trip]

What constitutes, according to you, "heavily corroborated" as opposed to just plain "corroborated"?
Wouldnt testimony that aligns with physical evidence be even more corroborated?

And am I correct to understand that nothing else corroborates the, apparently, neccessary conlusions of your theory, eg the plane flew over the Pentagon, or a missile hit the Pentagon?

Discrepancies in the physical evidence support it. These are numerous and require their own thread. We can get into that in detail another time.

Ok, but neither of those really address the reliability of testimonies (given several years after the event) itself. I would say that the only thing that filming on location does for a testimony, is it makes understanding it more "safe". It doesnt really affect the reliability of the testimony itself.
In short it only adds credability to the interpretation of the testimony, not the testimony in itself.
Which imho is a huge difference.

Cheers,
S

I don't agree. The witness is more inclined to be more accurate and honest about what they saw if there is a camera filming their point of view as they give their testimony.

It helps their memory AND keeps them from embellishing their view etc.

 

[Babbylonian]

Just as an illustration of how easy it is to get something wrong as a witness:

When I was a youngster, I used to spend a lot of time at the commercial greenhouse of my aunt and uncle. It was on a large tract of mostly empty land, on which I'd often play. One day, I was walking from the house toward the greenhouse, across this empty field of dirt and gravel when behind and above me I heard the sound of a plane. I turned around, looked up and this plane, a small civilian prop job, was coming down right at me. I hit the ground, felt the wind and loud noise as it passed over me, and it took several minutes before I was calmed down enough to stand up and look around. When I did, of course, the plane was long gone.

Now, I could have (would have and DID) sworn that this plane was descending fast and passed just a few feet over my head. The thing is, had that been true, it would have most assuredly hit the greenhouse which was not more than 100 feet beyond me in the direction the plane was going. In retrospect, the plane was probably at least 50-100 feet higher than I thought it was, but when I consult my memory I can still see the thing coming right at me, North by Northwest style (and, no, I hadn't seen that movie yet when this happened ).

Part of this is clearly attributable to my youth (I was about 9), but a larger part is likely due to the rush of adrenaline and fear I felt at the time it happened. Because of this rush, the memory is a lot different than it would have been had I been calm. I certainly can't imagine being calm - even as a more jaded adult - if the same thing happened with a commercial airliner flying at high speed 100 feet above me...

 

[Garb]

I don't agree. The witness is more inclined to be more accurate and honest about what they saw if there is a camera filming their point of view as they give their testimony.

It helps their memory AND keeps them from embellishing their view etc.

So you mean your camera had magic powers that kept them from lying?


I'm smelling a sequel to "Liar Liar" here.

 

[beachnut]

Lagasse in particular has felt a strong need to counter the conspiracy theories.

I don't blame him. I would feel the same way if I saw a big ass passenger plane and heard a bunch of kooks talk about missiles and global hawks.

So it makes sense that he would embellish a little to support the official story.

But clearly he had no clue of the implications of where he saw the plane.

They all thought they were literally defending the official story.

This is why it blows the case wide open.

You are a bigger man then your cohorts for AT LEAST admitting that you are mystified by their placement of the plane.

No you cherry picked them making mistakes. You need to add their interviews from this source. It has them tell the truth, and no false information added, just real stuff. http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Darn they do not sound coached as in your video. 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.

After listening over and over to the complete information, I have to say you have edited out what they really meant, and said. You are not presenting the whole story.

 

[alexg]

Lagasse in particular has felt a strong need to counter the conspiracy theories.

I don't blame him. I would feel the same way if I saw a big ass passenger plane and heard a bunch of kooks talk about missiles and global hawks.

So it makes sense that he would embellish a little to support the official story.

But clearly he had no clue of the implications of where he saw the plane.

They all thought they were literally defending the official story.

This is why it blows the case wide open.

You are a bigger man then your cohorts for AT LEAST admitting that you are mystified by their placement of the plane.

My point is very simple; we need to hear EXACTLY what they saw of impact. period.

1. If they didn't see the actual collision due to the fireball then just how close to the building was the plane before their view was obscurred? If the fireball was all that blocked their view then this implies they saw everything up to impact, meaing a few feet or inches away, and thus no chance of a flyover. They should demonstrate this with models.

2. Did they continue watching after impact? Did they see a flyover or any other plane in view?

It sounds like you are pretty sure this line of questioning would not go well for your theory but it is not up to you to decide if that informantion should be heard. Others can make up their own mind. Fearing that they will embellish to promote the OS is not a good reason to avoid this.

If these guys are as honest as you say I think they would give a straight answer, then again it is possible they might not, but we need to hear it anyway. They might be very convincing about the impact. Less than zero, comvincing, incredulous, they might even convince you.

 

[Lyte Trip]

All the stories of how eyewitness testimony is unreliable are logical fallacies in relation to the highly corroborated extremely simple north side claim.

Remember Brooks......."Something of this magnitude......."

100% certain.

The plane was HUGE. It was an incredible sight for all of them. To think that they ALL remembered the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of reality is ludicrous.

 

[Arus808]

No you cherry picked them making mistakes. You need to add their interviews from this source. It has them tell the truth, and no false information added, just real stuff. http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Darn they do not sound coached as in your video. 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.

After listening over and over to the complete information, I have to say you have edited out what they really meant, and said. You are not presenting the whole story.

beach, no matter how many times you post the study about Memory and recollection and the previous interviews of Lagaasse and Brooks, he'll ignore them as he's ignored everything else that goes against his pre=conceived conclusions and beliefs.

Notice how he ignores answering questions that are pertinent to understanding his "claims"?

LIke why he can't address the physical evidence
Or the reports by other witnesses who saw the plane hit the telephone poles who weren't at the CITGO station.
LIke how he wont interview anyone that wasn't at the CITGO station
Like how can't explain the DNA evidence found at the pentagon?
Like how he can't explain the DEBRIS found?
Like how he can't explain the testimony of the clean up crew and rescue workers who had to work in collecting the body parts and victims?


Like how he wont address that there were employees of the pentagon who were working in tath section that day, who were killed.

Anything that contradicts his belief is wrong, planted or a lie to him.

 

[Lyte Trip]

My point is very simple; we need to hear EXACTLY what they saw of impact. period.

It was asked and presented. Watch again.

1. If they didn't see the actual collision due to the fireball then just how close to the building was the plane before their view was obscurred? If the fireball was all that blocked their view then this implies they saw everything up to impact, meaing a few feet or inches away, and thus no chance of a flyover. They should demonstrate this with models.

Watch their testimony. It shows their POV. They were not in a position to judge inches or feet. They saw a fireball and the plane 'disappeared'.

2. Did they continue watching after impact? Did they see a flyover or any other plane in view?

You can see in the security video that Lagasse pulled back and peeled off within seconds. They were concentrating on getting to the crime scene. They were clear that they did not see any other planes. I asked all of these things.

It sounds like you are pretty sure this line of questioning would not go well for your theory but it is not up to you to decide if that informantion should be heard. Others can make up their own mind. Fearing that they will embellish to promote the OS is not a good reason to avoid this.

I didn't avoid ANY of this. I was very thorough and detailed about this information. You really need to watch again.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Discrepancies in the physical evidence support it. These are numerous and require their own thread. We can get into that in detail another time.

But you have four witnesses that on just one single point, the flight path, show a huge discrepancy relative other evidence. But the rest of their testimony however fits with that evidence (presence of passenger DNA, airplane debris, FDR etc). Doesn't that make you wonder?

I don't agree. The witness is more inclined to be more accurate and honest about what they saw if there is a camera filming their point of view as they give their testimony.

But when asked, you chose to only post things that had bearing on the interpretation of testimony, not the testimony itself.

It helps their memory AND keeps them from embellishing their view etc.

Or both camera-presence, especially for people not used to being on camera, and location could help guide their four year old recollections to fit in whatever state of mind they are in.

Do you have any research to support your idea of what exactly makes a witness more credible?

 

[Arus808]

All the stories of how eyewitness testimony is unreliable are logical fallacies in relation to the highly corroborated extremely simple north side claim.

false. all eyewitness testmiony MUST be corroborated by PHYSICAL evidence.

A rape victim can swear up and down, and to whatever $deity that the person she claims raped her was the one that did it, but through DNA evidence he is cleared.

If we went by your logic, then that man would have simply convicted on only what she stated; even though she was completely 100% wrong.



Someone who witnesses a murder who had a quick glance of the perp can swear up and down and to whatever $deity that the man he identifies as the criminal was the one that did it, but through PHYSICAL evidence found on the victim, and found on the suspected person, actually proves that he wasn't the one that did it.


YOU MUST have corroborating EVIDENCE in the form of physical evidence. NOT the testimony from other eyewitnesses.

 

[alexg]

They were not in a position to judge inches or feet. They saw a fireball and the plane 'disappeared'.

This is where you are simply wrong. "Seeing" impact is tricky, you may actually 'see' something but not register it consciously due to the incredible speed. Plane building plane building plane building explosion. They may very well have been in position to see the two things touching or so darn close they may as well have been touching and only their clarification will resolve this. I find it hard to believe you do not see this point.

 

[Lyte Trip]

beach, no matter how many times you post the study about Memory and recollection and the previous interviews of Lagaasse and Brooks, he'll ignore them as he's ignored everything else that goes against his pre=conceived conclusions and beliefs.

Nothing in the previous interviews contradicts the north side claim. Brooks admitted that he did NOT see the light poles get clipped.

Notice how he ignores answering questions that are pertinent to understanding his "claims"?

All questions have been answered.

LIke why he can't address the physical evidence

Needs it's own thread. I promise to eventually start one for you guys.

Or the reports by other witnesses who saw the plane hit the telephone poles who weren't at the CITGO station.

Wanda Ramey is the only one. We couldn't find her. We DID interview McGraw and Sucherman and we will present their testimony in the Researcher's Edition.

LIke how he wont interview anyone that wasn't at the CITGO station

Yes we did. Lots of them. They will be presented in RE.

Like how can't explain the DNA evidence found at the pentagon?

You have no proof it exists. What was the chain of command of the evidence? How do you know it really came from the Pentagon?

Like how he can't explain the DEBRIS found?

Barely any at all was found. That is physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit.

Like how he can't explain the testimony of the clean up crew and rescue workers who had to work in collecting the body parts and victims?

We know that people in the Pentagon were killed. Can you prove the body parts were actually from passengers and not pentagon workers?

Like how he wont address that there were employees of the pentagon who were working in tath section that day, who were killed.

Huh? How does that contradict anything we have claimed. We know this already and agree.

Anything that contradicts his belief is wrong, planted or a lie to him.

Yes there are a lot of contradictions and anomalies and some are certainly the result of lies and/or a cover-up.

 

[Lyte Trip]

This is where you are simply wrong. "Seeing" impact is tricky, you may actually 'see' something but not register it consciously due to the incredible speed. Plane building plane building plane building explosion. They may very well have been in position to see the two things touching or so darn close they may as well have been touching and only their clarification will resolve this. I find it hard to believe you do not see this point.

They were clear that the fireball concealed the impact.



Lagassse: "did I see what happened after that (yaw movement)? No. Because there was a big FIREBALL."

Brooks: "And then what I saw was a big fireball go poof and rise up into the air"

Robert (who had the best view from up on the mound in front of the station): "I could not see what happened after that....the view was obstructed still.....all I could see was a big fireball".

 

[alexg]

another example os seeing impact but not actually seeing it: two cars collide, there is a tree blocking my view of the impact point, just a foot or two of detail is missing, but I still have visual proof of a collision to a VERY high degree of certanty.

Another: If I am standing behind a car when it strikes another broadside. Impact view/detail is missing but I still saw it.

And then there is just pure speed: details of incredibly high speed events don't register, this is why slow mo replays are so revealing.

 

[Arus808]

Nothing in the previous interviews contradicts the north side claim. Brooks admitted that he did NOT see the light poles get clipped.

this is where you're wrong
Especially Lagasse.
He stated he saw the plane hit the telephone poles; made mention of the taxi cab.


[quoteAll questions have been answered.[/quote]

false. YOU haven't answered the pertinent questions asked of you numerous times.

Needs it's own thread. I promise to eventually start one for you guys.

No, there are already three threads on your sham film and these questions appeared there as well, and you've never attempted to answer them. YOUR film doesn't efven answer them. so why are you going to make a new thread when they've been asked in existing threads? Making new threads to address the questions asked of you numerous times isn't going to help you.

Wanda Ramey is the only one. We couldn't find her.

Oh really? that means you didn't try hard enough. as stated, IF it took you t10 years to track down the witnesses to get their testimony, then you should wait that ten years before you release anything.

You have no proof it exists. What was the chain of command of the evidence? How do you know it really came from the Pentagon?

Why dont you call the police department, FBI, clean up crews and the rescue workers who were there? They'd follow all protocoal to collecting evidene. Why haven't you done so? They can easily establish chain of evidence. The fact that you haven't shows your dishonesty.

Barely any at all was found. That is physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit.

100% false. Repeating this lie over and over again doesn't make it true

We know that people in the Pentagon were killed. Can you prove the body parts were actually from passengers and not pentagon workers?

Yes, you can get that evidence that was presented i teh MOsSAOUI trial. you know the one where they CONVICTED him in his role in 9/11? The evidence that was used to convict him had to follow the same protocols and chain of evidence procedures as any criminal proceedings. The Defense Attorney for MOSSAOUI would have fought every evidence admitted tooth and nail if he saw that the evidence wasn't supported by the chain of evidence presented (exactly who handled what, when, how it was collected and who did the testing).

That evidence has been available to you since that trial ended. Yet you ignored it.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me sum it up for you Lyte. You believe that witnesses cannot be 100% accurate other than the couple that back your claim that being a plane flew over the Pentagon in broad daylight light. This was disguised by a fire ball caused by explosives that were only there to cause minimal damage.

Any videos of the event have been altered, to cover up the fly over.

Everybody who may have seen the fly over have since been contacted by the authorities and told they didn't see it but actually saw another plane that was in the area at the time and they simply accept this.

Everything else, the DNA, The plane parts, the body parts, the black boxes and the lampposts were faked.

Did I miss anything?