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

[alexg]

ETA: sorry, quoted myself, meant to quote Lyte's last post about being intellectually unbiased;


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

If this were the only evidence you would be correct about this. But there is a mountain of other evidence which MUST be resolved. You have at least injected a little doubt into the case but that's all at this point.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

See?

It fooled you too!

Watch the full animation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q24bi_mkOnk

 

[T.A.M.]

ya funny thing about animations not having gravity...thats a Biotch.

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

Ever hear of the "big lie" syndrome?

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

So you would approve the following plan?

"A plane is to be flown at high speed towards the Pentagon on a predetermined path. This predetermined path is going to be have pre rigged damaged lamp posts placed on it. They will be planted sometime during the event and it is hoped that nobody will notice people planting five damaged lamp posts in their predetermined position.

At the last moment before the plane hits the building replanted explosives will go off and produce a massive fireball which will hopefully conceal the fact that the plane did not hit the building but actually flew over it. Which airport this plane is to be landed in is as yet to be determined but it is also hoped that nobody will notice this, including the air traffic controllers and the ground crew staff.

At some point plane parts are to be placed inside the area where the explosion took place, along with the passenger’s personnel effects and body parts, hopefully nobody will notice this happening.

Black boxes from the flight will be planted inside the building and will hopefully be found. These black boxes with have data on them supporting the claim that the plane hit the Pentagon and travelled in along the pre determined path towards it.

This entire plan is to be carried out in broad day light, in front of potentially hundreds of witnesses and it is hoped that not one of them will have a camera or a video recorder and film the entire event.

After the event any witnesses who did see the fly over are to be debriefed by staff and told specifically that they saw no such thing.

All CCTV that may capture the event is not to be disabled but is to film the entire event and it is hoped that they will not capture the fly over. This will hopefully give the impression that the event was not pre planted and further reinforce the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon. This CCTV is to be confiscated immediately and digitally altered to ensure that when and if released to the general public they show no such event took place.

This is to be carried out in the hope of fooling the entire nation into believing that Flight 77 was hijacked and hit the Pentagon. It is hoped it will fool any first responders, all those inside the Pentagon and it is hoped that anybody else who may rush to help will not notice that a plane had not hit the building."

Well,would you?

 

[Hyperviolet]

ya funny thing about animations not having gravity...thats a Biotch.

TAM

.... or any bearing on reality.
Just because Itchy & Scratchy can chop down a skyscraper with a saw doesn't mean it works in reality.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am sure he will come up with something like...

"The animation was based on the FDR data..."

TAM

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

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

So as I understand it they stated that they didn't see the actual impact, since it was concealed by the fireball. To me that rises a few questions:

1. The fireball lasted what, some 8-9 seconds? Was that enough time to conceal a plane flying over the Pentagon and away? (Eg, it could have concealed the impact, but not last enough to account for a flyover. As I see it it would have to conceal not only the plane flying clear of the building, but at least a few seconds afterwards. I imagine any sane pilot would like to get some altitude after such a manoever.)

2. But... how did the fireball come between the witnesses and the airplane? If an explosion would be timed to occur to conceal a plane doing a flyover, it couldnt be set off before the plane passed, since that would give the witnesses a simultaneous look at plane and fireball - and it would risk the plane to be damaged by the explosion. If, on the other hand, the fireball were to come between the witness and the plane clearing the roof of the Pentagon, it would have had to go off after the plane had cleared the building, making the timing to make the illusion real, extremely difficult to achieve. And again dangerous for the plane in question. And we are still talking about a Boeing, right? I imagine the plane had to start gaining altitude to clear the building before the explosion went off, and that again would let the witnesses understand that the plane was flying over. Did any witness state that they saw the plane ascend just prior to the explosion?

3. And even if the timing could be made so that witnesses would be fooled, it would only do so from one angle. The airplane would be visibile from three other sides. Are there any witnesses seeing a Boeing (or any other plane) flying clear over the Pentagon?

4. I would imagine that at that speed the distinction between "hit" and "fireball" is somewhat blurred, almost making the "fireball" the "hit". When the witnesses say they couldn't see the impact because of the fireball, is that distinction really not moot? The fireball is the impact. You wouldnt expect to see a perfectly good plane, fully tanked, just enter the building nice and slow, only to be followed by a fireball. Remember, the plane flew fast.


/S

 

[alexg]

4. I would imagine that at that speed the distinction between "hit" and fireball" is somewhat blurred, almost making the "fireball" the "hit". When the witnesses say they couldn't see the impact because of the fireball, is that distinction really not moot? The fireball is the impact. You wouldnt expect to see a perfectly good plane, fully tanked, just enter the building nice and slow, only to be followed by a fireball. Remember, the plane flew fast.

My point exactly. I say give the officers models and let them show us what they saw of impact. If they saw the building and the plane nose to face then there was no room for a pull up.

 

[Lyte Trip]

My point exactly. I say give the officers models and let them show us what they saw of impact. If they saw the building and the plane nose to face then there was no room for a pull up.

POV POV POV.

These details would be ambiguous and hard for them to determine definitively because of their POV.

They did not have as good of a POV of the alleged impact compared to the plane passing by the station.

The testimony is crystal clear.

They KNOW where that plane was and it wasn't anywhere near where it had to be.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Ok I'm out.

Peace.

 

[CHF]

They KNOW where that plane was and it wasn't anywhere near where it had to be.

So....they did see it flyover?

 

[Mince]

So somebody staged the damaged lamp posts ?

Yes, and apparantly they shot one out of a rocket launcher at a taxi cab.

 

[alexg]

POV POV POV.

These details would be ambiguous and hard for them to determine definitively because of their POV.

Unconvincing. This is for them to clarify.

 

[Mince]

Yes, and apparantly they shot one out of a rocket launcher at a taxi cab.

So, your witnesses claimed to have seen an aircraft hit the Pentagon. And you're using them to prove an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon.

Please, map out the logic for me.

 

[ConspiRaider]

PentaCop II: The Prequel

COP 1
Check out that Citgo station, huh? I like how its back door and men's room point to true equatorial south, you know?

COP 2
Yeah. You wanna pass the donuts?

COP 1
Ever think much about longitudes and latitudes and meridians and degrees and stuff?

COP 2
Oh all the time. Last night when I was with my wife I didn't think of baseball. I thought of true magnetic north instead. She thanked me later. Tonight I'm gonna try subsonic objects moving perpendicular to the angular plane.

COP 1
You too? And I thought it was only me who...HEY! What's that in your eyes?

COP 2
Well it ain't love. That's for my wife tonight...

COP 1
NO!!! In your mirrored shades! What's that thing moving?!? It looks like a subsonic object moving perpendicular to the angular plane!

COP 2
You dolt, it IS a plane! DUCK! Aaaaahhhhh!!!!

COP 1
Man that was close! Hey, what direction were we facing when I looked at you?

COP 2
How the hell would I know? I mean it's not like someone's going to ask us about this five years from now, right?

FADE TO BLACK

THE END

 

[e^n]

See?

It fooled you too!

Watch the full animation here:

I watched this animation, but I am confused, from everything in PentaCon I understand that the locations of the witnesses are:
http: //xs.to/xs.php?h=xs313&d=07135&f=witness-locations.jpeg

Yet plotting flight paths that agree with each witness and agree with the assertion that the fight path goes north of the Citgo station I get this:
http: //xs.to/xs.php?h=xs313&d=07135&f=flightpaths.jpg

Could you please add your theory of the actual flightpath on this image? Your trailer's flight path disagrees with 2 of the 4 witnesses you present. If i have these flight path / locations wrong please let me know.

(I apologise for the split URLs but I haven't hit 15 posts yet)

 

[Mince]

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

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Did you even solicit those who may have seen it on the other side of the NEX? You know, the ones that don't agree that the aircraft passed on the North side.


ETA:

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

You mean you don't know of any witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the South side of the station. There aren't any in your video because you did not interview any.



(Heavy) emphasis added.

 

[Arus808]

Asking "why" they did what they did does not erase the north side claim.

we are not excusing it. as stated to you NUMEROUS TIMES< lyte,

your witnesses were simply mistaken about the path. the "path" isnt the issue here, Lyte, its your witnesses statement that they remember specifically that the plane hit the pentagon. There is no way physically without it being noticed that the plane would do a fly over.

 

[Arus808]

ETA:

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

You mean you don't know of any witnesses that directly contradict them by specifically placing the plane on the South side of the station. There aren't any in your video because you did not interview any.



(Heavy) emphasis added.

mince, he's playing semantics here.
Unless the witnesses who were south of the citgo stated "the plane flew south of CITGO" using CITGO as a reference point, then he'd "use" their testimony

However, since none of the witnesses who were south of citgo used citgo as a reference point, and their testimony only consists of "i saw the plane" "it hit the poles" and "i saw it impact the pentagon" he's dismissing their testimony because it doesn't reference CITGO

You see how they're playing with words here?

 

[Pardalis]

POV POV POV.

These details would be ambiguous and hard for them to determine definitively because of their POV.

But didn't these witnesses found themselves there by chance?

So the POV where they were was preplanned, even though these witnesses could as well not have been there, and maybe somewhere else entirely (different POV)?

Are you saying these witnesses were PLANTED?