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

[Pardalis]

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.......

Terrific post, Hyperviolet. I really want to see Lyte's answer to that...

 

[Pardalis]

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.

So... Let's see the day of 9/11 through Lyte's distorted reality:


The two towers were rigged with explosives, and so that the controlled demolition goes unnoticed, they decide to ram two planes in them as a decoy, even though the towers fell an hour later...

Meanwhile in Washington D.C., a plane is seen ramming into the Pentagon. Now, they didn't really crash a plane in the building, 'cause other wise they would have had to demolish the building in a controlled demolition (see above). But since they needed a plane to be seen flying towards the structure, they decided to use a plane but staged a different flight path and damage to the Pentagon, just to mess with our heads.

A little later that day, they demolished another building, WTC 7, but since all flights were grounded, the conspirators couldn't use that old plane diversion technique so they decided to implode the building anyways, they would later say it was because it was damaged.

Is it pretty much it Lyte?

That make perfect sense to you?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Gravy, this is what happens when you stub your toe while walking your cat near the pond, and blurt out

"F*** a duck!"

Little kitties have big ears. ​

DR

Do not use alternative spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Darth Rotor]

Gravy, this is what happens when you stub your toe while walking your cat near the pond, and blurt out

"F*** a duck!"

Little kitties have big ears. ​

DR

Do not use alternative spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Right, Lisa. Next time, instead of using the well worn phrase to make with a joke, I'll just substitute in "goat fist a duck" to avoid offending the children. 'Scuse the hell out of me for trying to make a joke. Lies and slander abound on this forum, frequently caught by posters and challenged, but a joke is worthy of a mod's frown.

OK, I have vented, all done. I am not going to go all Luke T. on this.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast of skepticism.

DR

 

[JimBenArm]

Ever hear of the "big lie" syndrome?

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

Think you're demonstrating it here!
Man, do you think if you say something stupid enough times, we might believe it?
Nope, it's still stupid!

 

[beachnut]

Lyte your story is not very good and has too many people involved. Who blew up the Pentagon?

Questions Lyte has not clue.

Who blew up the Pentagon?
Who faked the DNA?
Who knocked down the lamp posts?
How did they drop the bomb?
Who scattered the evidence out of the big explosion?
You know how did they get aircraft parts to rain all over?
Who, What, Where?

Dumb, the pain of dumb; Do real dumb people need morphine during major operations, or are they too dumb to feel the pain?

 

[Babbylonian]

Dumb, the pain of dumb; Do real dumb people need morphine during major operations, or are they too dumb to feel the pain?

Nobody needs morphine during a major operation . That's what anesthesia/sedation is for. Conscious people need morphine [or an equivalent] for pain relief...I won't say it.

 

[Mince]

Nasty conspirator 1. “Ok guys here is the plan we are going to stage a fake plane crash into the Pentagon"

Nasty Conspirator 2 " No problem I will set up the fake black boxes and the fake plane parts"

Nasty Conspirator 3 " I'll set about rigging five lamp post, just to fool everybody"

nasty Conspirator 4 " I've got a few guys that I can plant around the place to give false testimony"

Nasty Conspirator 1 “Ok any volunteer to go to the Pentagon and rig it with explosives?

Nasty conspirator 5 " I'll do that "

nasty Conspirator 6 " when do we go, at night right?"

Nasty Conspirator 1 " No way we do it broad day light in front of potentially hundreds of witnesses "

Nasty Conspirator 2 " What about the actual flight ?"

Nasty Conspirator 1 “How don't worry about that we'll figure that out later"

Joint chorus” Brilliant plan”

Little squeaky voice from the back “Why? “

Carrying this a bit further:

Squeeky voice: "Since we are using actual aircraft to hit WTC 1 and 2, and we are going to hijack flight 77, why don't we just crash flight 77 into the Pentagon and avoid all of the elaborate stage work?"

Chorus: "Shut up noob."

 

[Lyte Trip]

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)

I love it when you guys ask intelligent/relevant questions like adults.

You have given a somewhat accurate assessment of the 4 separate flight paths reported.

Note how ALL are north of Columbia Pike and the citgo station and how ALL are fatally off course to hit the poles or create the physical damage.

None of them saw the plane anywhere near where it needed to be and they all saw it in the same general vicinity.

We believe the plane banked. (some witnesses on route 27 like Mike Walter reported this.)

We have witnesses going as far back as the Army Navy country club.

The plane had to have pulled off what is called a lazy S turn.

Perhaps similar to this:

The animation in the Smoking Gun version was only meant to demonstrate the north of the citgo path without representing anything west of the navy annex.

We'll have a complete flight path animation for the Researcher's Edition.

 

[Mince]

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that he is incorrect about his placement of the plane because he was incorrect about his placement of the cab especially since this is a minor detail in comparison.

But it is not a logical fallacy to suggest he could be incorrect about his placement of the plane because he was incorrect about his placement of the cab.

 

[beachnut]

I love it when you guys ask intelligent/relevant questions like adults.

You have given a somewhat accurate assessment of the 4 separate flight paths reported.

Note how ALL are north of Columbia Pike and the citgo station and how ALL are fatally off course to hit the poles or create the physical damage.

None of them saw the plane anywhere near where it needed to be and they all saw it in the same general vicinity.

We believe the plane banked. (some witnesses on route 27 like Mike Walter reported this.)

We have witnesses going as far back as the Army Navy country club.

The plane had to have pulled off what is called a lazy S turn.

Perhaps similar to this:

The animation in the Smoking Gun version was only meant to demonstrate the north of the citgo path without representing anything west of the navy annex.

We'll have a complete flight path animation for the Researcher's Edition.

You know the plane on the FDR did not make any turns like that.

Plus those turns are not possible for a plane doing 463 mph. The bank angle would be over 70 degrees and the G-force would be greater then 5gs. You need a pilot, a real pilot on your team. And you need witnesses who did not go on record in 2001 and contradict your stuff.

The plane did not cross over the Navy Annex, it was between the Navy Annex and the road. Are you able to get anything right? The FDR makes your whole path wrong, as do witnesses; even your witnesses.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

And you will be posting the video or audio of this recording for us? Surely you don't expect us to take your word for it uncorroberated?


Also, I'll bite as it seems noone else has:

You say the explosion concealed the flyover, which is why nobody saw the plane fly away from the Pentagon. You have not found anyone who actually saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon.

In other words, the people you have witnessed have all stated that they saw a plane flying on a collision course with the Pentagon, an explosion, and then no more plane after the explosion.

Whether the plane flew on the north or south of a gas station, and what caused the damage to the lightpoles is irrelevant to the question I am about to ask - it concerns ONLY the damage to the Pentagon and the eyewitness accounts of the plane.

My question is this: What would you have expected to happen differently if a plane really did fly into the Pentagon? What about the eyewitness reports would have been different?

 

[Lyte Trip]

The FDR doesn't line up with the witnesses OR the physical damage path.

We have enough witnesses to back up this entire flight path.

 

[Lyte Trip]

And you will be posting the video or audio of this recording for us? Surely you don't expect us to take your word for it uncorroberated?

A full video interview will be presented.

Also, I'll bite as it seems noone else has:

You say the explosion concealed the flyover, which is why nobody saw the plane fly away from the Pentagon. You have not found anyone who actually saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon.

In other words, the people you have witnessed have all stated that they saw a plane flying on a collision course with the Pentagon, an explosion, and then no more plane after the explosion.

Whether the plane flew on the north or south of a gas station, and what caused the damage to the lightpoles is irrelevant to the question I am about to ask - it concerns ONLY the damage to the Pentagon and the eyewitness accounts of the plane.

My question is this: What would you have expected to happen differently if a plane really did fly into the Pentagon? What about the eyewitness reports would have been different?

There WERE in fact reports of a plane that veered away and flew over the pentagon seconds after the explosion so they probably wouldn't have bothered with those stories.

 

[Mobyseven]

A full video interview will be presented.

I look forward to it.

There WERE in fact reports of a plane that veered away and flew over the pentagon seconds after the explosion so they probably wouldn't have bothered with those stories.

Right, was unaware of that. Could you provide a link or a reference to one of these reports, just so I can check it out for myself?

Another question:

Why does it matter whether or not witnesses on the road where the lightpoles were knocked over actually saw the lightpoles being knocked over when they are also giving eyewitness accounts of the plane flying 20 feet directly above them?

Wouldn't the fact that they saw the plane pass directly above them trump whether or not they saw the lightpoles get hit?

 

[LashL]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2473558&postcount=319

All are quite certain of the simple claim of what side of the station the plane flew.

And their descriptions of this very general and simple detail independently corroborate each other.

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.

The notion that they all simultaneously made the exact same ludicrous mistake about such a simple claim during an event of this magnitude goes beyond the realm of reason.

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).

You are not thinking objectively.

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!

You seem to be avoiding Mercutio's post in response to yours, Lyte Trip. Why is that?

 

[Mince]

Lyte Trip;


Why do you think they knocked down the light poles when they knew the aircraft didn't take that path? Why do you think they committed themselves to a very specific flight path when it was wholly unnecessary?

 

[Mince]

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.

But the "north side" claim leaves many gaps in logic that must be answered. Was not your investigation comprehensive? All you have proven with this video is that four individuals believe the aircraft passed on the north side of the NEX, nothing more. It does not prove that the aircraft actually passed on the north side of the NEX. When you have proof of that, wake me up.

 

[CptColumbo]

Over 800 posts, and still no objective evidence from Lyte Tripe.

 

[Arus808]

ify ou study all three images of the flight path that lYTE has claimed, on the three different images of the citgo station and the pentagon, you'll notice that all of them do not match in the path itself and the angle.

someone needs to teach lyte basic geometry.