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

[alexg]

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".

These quotes actually make my point. If all that obscured their view was the fireball this implies they saw the thing up until THAT point.

ETA: you say this leaves room for the pull up, I say this sounds EXTREMELY doubtfull.

I'm going to have to leave it there. I think nothing less than their detailed clarification of this point will let do.

 

[Arus808]

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".

when are you going to interview those who weren't at the CITGO station, who had a better view of the impact? YO7u know those who were standing in front of the pentagon? who would have heard the fly over if anything...Planes make really loud noises when they are in a sudden pull up.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

But you are ignoring the north side claim because you are mystified by it.

If the north side claim is even close to being correct......it has been proven that this was a world wide psychological operation of deception.

Therefore you can not treat the investigation as if it were some normal random accident that happened on the street at random.

 

[Lyte Trip]

when are you going to interview those who weren't at the CITGO station, who had a better view of the impact? YO7u know those who were standing in front of the pentagon? who would have heard the fly over if anything...Planes make really loud noises when they are in a sudden pull up.

For the billionth time.....we did.

They will be presented in the Researcher's Edition.

I even made a post with providing you with POV images for EVERYONE that had a view of the official flight path on route 27.

Did you miss that post?

 

[alexg]

But you are ignoring the north side claim because you are mystified by it.

If the north side claim is even close to being correct......it has been proven that this was a world wide psychological operation of deception.

Therefore you can not treat the investigation as if it were some normal random accident that happened on the street at random.

The northside claim is a seperate piece of data! What they saw of the collision stands on it's own. It is not up to you are me to resolve conflicting data before we even detremine what the data is.

It seems they are wrong about something, the question is which piece are they wrong about. I do find it hard to believe they could be wrong about the north side pass, but I find it at least equally hard to believe they could be wrong about seeing the impact - but this if and only if I can get their clarification about impact. As it stands we are simply at an impasse at this point.

I'm trying to keep their claims seperate from all the other data out there. Nail this down first.

 

[A W Smith]

I asked if you had contacted your congressman or prosecutor with this evidence. Your answer was very vague and evasive. Not naming names but what government positions of authority did you forward your evidence to?

 

[Lyte Trip]

The northside claim is a seperate piece of data! What they saw of the collision stands on it's own. It is not up to you are me to resolve conflicting data before we even detremine what the data is.

It seems they are wrong about something, the question is which piece are they wrong about. I do find it hard to believe they could be wrong about the north side pass, but I find it at least equally hard to believe they could be wrong about seeing the impact - but this if and only if I can get their clarification about impact. As it stands we are simply at an impasse at this point.

I'm trying to keep their claims seperate from all the other data out there. Nail this down first.

Well don't forget that they were all aware of what had just transpired in new york so their brains were ready to accept that a plane would hit a building.

Many people we talked to in Arlington stated that they "instantly knew" what was happening when they saw the plane before it ever reached the pentagon.

It was a sleight of hand illusion. OF COURSE your brain would believe the plane hit if it flew by tree top level and was timed perfectly with the explosion.

Bottom line though............if they are even remotely correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for it to have been what caused the physical damage.

The viewer MUST choose which claim to believe as I'm sure that we can all agree that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.

Here is why Citizen Investigation Team believes it is infinitely more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact:


1. Their point of view of what side of the station the plane flew is much better than their point of view of the alleged impact.

2. They all admit that what they really saw was a big fireball that concealed the actual impact of the plane.

3. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station at all from where he was located.

4. The fact that it would be a DRASTIC mistake for them to place the plane on the complete opposite side of the station and the fact that the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake are beyond remote.

5. They have no motive to lie. In fact it would jeopardize their reputations and likely career to lie about such an historically important/politically charged event.

6. They stick by their claim even after having watched the film.

7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.


Furthermore......they do not have to be perfectly exact in their placement of the plane. If it was anywhere remotely near where they all claim; the plane can not be what caused the physical damage. Due to the light poles there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path. The plane HAD to be far to the south of the station AND traveling in a completely opposite trajectory to what the witnesses report.

 

[stateofgrace]

Well don't forget that they were all aware of what had just transpired in new york so their brains were ready to accept that a plane would hit a building.

Many people we talked to in Arlington stated that they "instantly knew" what was happening when they saw the plane before it ever reached the pentagon.

It was a sleight of hand illusion. OF COURSE your brain would believe the plane hit if it flew by tree top level and was timed perfectly with the explosion.

Bottom line though............if they are even remotely correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for it to have been what caused the physical damage.

The viewer MUST choose which claim to believe as I'm sure that we can all agree that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.

Here is why Citizen Investigation Team believes it is infinitely more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact:


1. Their point of view of what side of the station the plane flew is much better than their point of view of the alleged impact.

2. They all admit that what they really saw was a big fireball that concealed the actual impact of the plane.

3. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station at all from where he was located.

4. The fact that it would be a DRASTIC mistake for them to place the plane on the complete opposite side of the station and the fact that the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake are beyond remote.

5. They have no motive to lie. In fact it would jeopardize their reputations and likely career to lie about such an historically important/politically charged event.

6. They stick by their claim even after having watched the film.

7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.


Furthermore......they do not have to be perfectly exact in their placement of the plane. If it was anywhere remotely near where they all claim; the plane can not be what caused the physical damage. Due to the light poles there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path. The plane HAD to be far to the south of the station AND traveling in a completely opposite trajectory to what the witnesses report.

So the entire plan relies on a sleight of hand carried out in broad day light in front of unknown amount of eye witnesses, who may or may not have had video cameras and captured the entire thing and give the game away immediately?

Sounds like a great plan, would you approve it?

 

[Arus808]

But you are ignoring the north side claim because you are mystified by it.

we aren't ignoring it. we are simply stating that the witnesses thought it was flying to the north.

again you ignore the simplest explanations because your claims would be dismantled by the fact that the "path" of the plane isn't at all that concerns us. Its the fact that you can't explain why the physical evidence supports the testimony of OTHER eyewitnesses to the same event.
Those witnesses you did not interview.

If the north side claim is even close to being correct

There is no "if" here, Lyte. BEcause the plane wasn't on the North side. As supported by the PHYSICAL evidence and OTHER eyewitness testimony

there's those factors again. where eyewitness testimony is corroborated by physical evidence.

your eyewitness testimony : no corroboration.

......it has been proven that this was a world wide psychological operation of deception.

false. this is one claim we've ask you to support. NO SUPPOSTIONS! NO GUESSING! you make this claim, back it up. The only way you can back this up is follow the chain of evidence. SO YOU MUST interview everyone who was there day.


Get to it. You have about 1000 of them to interview.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Sounds like a great plan, would you approve it?

Ever hear of the "big lie" syndrome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

 

[Hyperviolet]

Lyte,

So you believe they had explosives in the building?

My first question.

Why?
Really, why would they wire the building with explosives. I mean, there is a lot of unneccessary problems that come with such a plan. For example

1) Say the explosives set off to early before the plane 'hits'
2) Who set the explosives off? The timing would have to be ridiculously perfect. I mean, a second or 2 too early and the jig is up. People see an explosion before the plane even gets to striking distance. I imagine it would be hard to set those explosives off at the right time when you have such a small margin of error. A plane travelling at 530mph is pretty damn swift.
3) What if the plane does not 'slam' into the exact bit the explosives are places. The jig is up.
4) What benefits do you get by bombing the building than just using, say a remote controlled plane?
5) Why risk people from the other side of the building seeing this big massive unmissable plane fly over the building. Jig is up.

Why even stage a flight path, why stage the lightpoles? Too convince people a plane was there? But by your theory there was already a plane heading towards the Pentagon anyway.

For what benefit are all these risks worth? To save a remote controlled plane?
If the plane was manned then there is even more unnecessary risks to take into account.......

 

[Arus808]

For the billionth time.....we did.

then why didn't you offer this IN YOUR FIRST edition? Why only after the fact?

Where are the 1000's of others interview?
where are the interviews with the rescue workers?
the clean up crews?
the fbi who were htere?
the workers at the pentagon?
the american airlines employees brought into to help identify the parts?

They will be presented in the Researcher's Edition.

the fact that you didn't put this in your first edition shows again, that you are dishonest lyte.

I even made a post with providing you with POV images for EVERYONE that had a view of the official flight path on route 27.

We dont want YOUR interpretation of what witnesses saw. WE want THEIR interpretation. Again, this is 5 years after the fact. Please show us what they saw and where they were IMMEDIATELY after the event; when you should have taken their testimony .

 

[Arus808]

Lyte,

So you believe they had explosives in the building?

My first question.

Why?
Really, why would they wire the building with explosives. I mean, there is a lot of unneccessary problems that come with such a plan. For example

1) Say the explosives set off to early before the plane 'hits'
2) Who set the explosives off? The timing would have to be ridiculously perfect. I mean, a second or 2 too early and the jig is up. People see an explosion before the plane even gets to striking distance. I imagine it would be hard to set those explosives off at the right time when you have such a small margin of error. A plane travelling at 530mph is pretty damn swift.
3) What if the plane does not slam into the exact bit the explosives are places. The jig is up.
4) What benefits do you get by bombing the building than just using, say a remote controlled plane?
5) Why risk people from the other side of the building seeing this big massive unmissable plane fly over the building. Jig is up.

Why even stage a flight path, why stage the lightpoles? Too convince people a plane was there? But by your theory there was already a plane heading towards the Pentagon anyway.

For what benefit are all these risks worth? To save a remote controlled plane?
If the plane was manned then there is even more unnecessary risks to take into account.......

Dont forget that they had already spent millions of dollars to retrofit that side of the pentagon with thicker walls, and blast resistant windows. Why do all of that work just so they could blow it up? And in the shape of a plane hitting it?

 

[Qubit]

Maybe someone could answer this for me (unfortunately I don't have the time). In Lyte's avatar (and in his clip) it shows a plane heading for the Pentagon, and then a fireball. Lyte "deduces" that the plane "flew over" the pentagon. However, the speed of the aircraft and the angle appear to me to make impossible for the plane to pull up in time to cause a flyover. Maybe someone could pose some calculation to look at the g-forces and the amount of time required to pull up to avoid crashing. Secondly, as someone who lives ~5 miles from an air force base which house C-5As and C-130s, I know first hand how loud engines can get when they use full thrust. This would be heard very clearly, yet no one reported hearing anything.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Dont forget that they had already spent millions of dollars to retrofit that side of the pentagon with thicker walls, and blast resistant windows. Why do all of that work just so they could blow it up? And in the shape of a plane hitting it?

Why use explosives to blow a small hole, aswell. The size of the hole has already caused enough controversy. Why not use more charges and make the hole bigger, just so nobody even thought anything of it at all.

 

[alexg]

Well don't forget that they were all aware of what had just transpired in new york so their brains were ready to accept that a plane would hit a building.

Many people we talked to in Arlington stated that they "instantly knew" what was happening when they saw the plane before it ever reached the pentagon.

It was a sleight of hand illusion. OF COURSE your brain would believe the plane hit if it flew by tree top level and was timed perfectly with the explosion.

Bottom line though............if they are even remotely correct in their placement of the plane it is impossible for it to have been what caused the physical damage.

The viewer MUST choose which claim to believe as I'm sure that we can all agree that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.

Here is why Citizen Investigation Team believes it is infinitely more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact:


1. Their point of view of what side of the station the plane flew is much better than their point of view of the alleged impact.

2. They all admit that what they really saw was a big fireball that concealed the actual impact of the plane.

3. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station at all from where he was located.

4. The fact that it would be a DRASTIC mistake for them to place the plane on the complete opposite side of the station and the fact that the chances of them all simultaneously making the exact same drastic mistake are beyond remote.

5. They have no motive to lie. In fact it would jeopardize their reputations and likely career to lie about such an historically important/politically charged event.

6. They stick by their claim even after having watched the film.

7. There are zero witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the south side of the station.


Furthermore......they do not have to be perfectly exact in their placement of the plane. If it was anywhere remotely near where they all claim; the plane can not be what caused the physical damage. Due to the light poles there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path. The plane HAD to be far to the south of the station AND traveling in a completely opposite trajectory to what the witnesses report.

This doesn't become a game of impact vs. path until we clarify impact.

I'm still left wondering if they saw the collision but missed the detail of impact, in the way I outlined above. If they saw it nose to face that will be almost as good as seeing impact.

If this turns out to be what they say then so be it. You then begin to sort out how 2 conflicting pieces of data get resolved. I can't answer this, I remain mystified, but I can tell you this won't be the first time I was mystified by something which later turned out to have an explanation.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Asking "why" they did what they did does not erase the north side claim. No matter how many other people we present it does not erase the north side claim. I know this is hard for everyone here. I know that this testimony from cops that are on your side boggles your mind. At least one of you was man enough to admit it.

But I'm sorry.....it is what it is. The plane was on the north of the station.

There is not a single intellectual unbiased person that would deny the approximate placement of the plane after seeing this testimony.

 

[alexg]

Maybe someone could answer this for me (unfortunately I don't have the time). In Lyte's avatar (and in his clip) it shows a plane heading for the Pentagon, and then a fireball. Lyte "deduces" that the plane "flew over" the pentagon. However, the speed of the aircraft and the angle appear to me to make impossible for the plane to pull up in time to cause a flyover. Maybe someone could pose some calculation to look at the g-forces and the amount of time required to pull up to avoid crashing. Secondly, as someone who lives ~5 miles from an air force base which house C-5As and C-130s, I know first hand how loud engines can get when they use full thrust. This would be heard very clearly, yet no one reported hearing anything.

And for this I think we need to have the officers demonstrate what they saw with models, we then get an expert to calculate the possibility of pulling up at that speed.

 

[Lyte Trip]

This doesn't become a game of impact vs. path until we clarify impact.

I'm still left wondering if they saw the collision but missed the detail of impact, in the way I outlined above. If they saw it nose to face that will be almost as good as seeing impact.

If this turns out to be what they say then so be it. You then begin to sort out how 2 conflicting pieces of data get resolved. I can't answer this, I remain mystified, but I can tell you this won't be the first time I was mystified by something which later turned out to have an explanation.

The testimony is taken. It is done. There will be no more interviews with Brooks and Lagasse. You can try but I doubt you will be successful. I suggest you watch the video a few more times and analyze everything very closely. I was very thorough and clear in my questions about the impact.

They believe the plane impacted but it was concealed by the fireball.

They were fooled into believing the plane hit the building but it could not have.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Asking "why" they did what they did does not erase the north side claim. No matter how many other people we present it does not erase the north side claim. I know this is hard for everyone here. I know that this testimony from cops that are on your side boggles your mind. At least one of you was man enough to admit it.

But I'm sorry.....it is what it is. The plane was on the north of the station.

There is not a single intellectual unbiased person that would deny the approximate placement of the plane after seeing this testimony.

I already said the video puts the official flight path into question. However, the video also gives a resounding thumbs up to the official version that a plane struck the building. Being on what side of the Citgo lends no help to the theory of a flyover. There is not 1 witness to this flyover, there are many citing a plane strike. A flyover is completely unnecessary, it makes no sense.