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

[apathoid]

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

Either you are lying or you don't know any better. The FDRs last track was 61.2 degrees true. Without spewing out a bunch of aviation jargon as JohnD'oh might do, I'll simply say that the track angle true is parameter that shows the direction the aircraft was travelling in respect to true north. I rotated a GoogleEarth screencap 61.2 degrees and drew a straight line over the impact point. I placed the light poles for reference. If either the light pole or the impact positions are wrong, feel free to correct me.

I don't want to catch you say "the FDR doesn't line up with the physical damage path" again because I will call you on it every time until you prove your statement or admit that you are a liar.

 

[Arus808]

Either you are lying or you don't know any better. The FDRs last track was 61.2 degrees true. Without spewing out a bunch of aviation jargon as JohnD'oh might do, I'll simply say that the track angle true is parameter that shows the direction the aircraft was travelling in respect to true north. I rotated a GoogleEarth screencap 61.2 degrees and drew a straight line over the impact point. I placed the light poles for reference. If either the light pole or the impact positions are wrong, feel free to correct me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/990245f935ef1f7bb.jpg

I don't want to catch you say "the FDR doesn't line up with the physical damage path" again because I will call you on it every time until you prove your statement or admit that you are a liar.

apathoid, I repeatedly pointed this out to him and merc on the myspace forums; even others there have pointed this out to them, and they ignored it. like lyte will ignore this posting again


just take all three version of the flight path they came up with, and you will see that each one contradicts each other...can see that none of them made it past basic algebra.

 

[apathoid]

apathoid, I repeatedly pointed this out to him and merc on the myspace forums; even others there have pointed this out to them, and they ignored it. like lyte will ignore this posting again

Thats a surprise.
/sarcasm

My guess would have been Lyte moving the goalposts in the direction of the FDR being faked, therefore the "independently corroborated" PentaCon witnesses trump the fake FDR and fake light poles.

just take all three version of the flight path they came up with, and you will see that each one contradicts each other...can see that none of them made it past basic algebra.

Yeah and the graphic he just posted has the plane initially on course before performing a 7g S-turn causing it to miss the light poles, yet still hit the wall exactly on target, with the pyrotechnics going off with extreme precision. Why would the plane suddenly go off course at the very last moment, Lyte? Kinda defeats the idea of staging a very specific flight path, doesn't it.

 

[beachnut]

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.

You are not paying attention. The curved flight path you have is impossible at 463KIAS to make the turns, unless the plane banks to over 70 degrees and pulls over 5gs. No body saw flight 77 bank to 70 degrees. Everyone said small banks. The FDR backs them up with less that 10 degree banks, and at 463KIAS the plane will not turn like you have it turning.

Wake up. You have drawn an impossible path. You have ignored your own witnesses in your own presentation. Did you ever finish high school? It seems you and JDX have the same problem; you both are professional producers of lies and fantasy fiction. Does your mother know you are saying really dumb stuff like this?

 

[VespaGuy]

Lyte - To repeat a question I asked from a few pages back. You may have missed it:

I'm always late to the party.

Neither.

They ALL saw a plane on the north side of the station and then witnessed a big fireball that concealed the impact/flyover.

Like this:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Flyover.gif[/qimg]

Lyte, why did you stop there? Why not show the next 10 seconds? You have claimed that it's impossible to beleive that both the plane flew in the flight path that your witnesses claim AND that the plane hit the Pentagon. So please show us the rest of your 'video' of what happens next here.

Also, what would this same sequence look like from other angles?

 

[e^n]

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

Why thank you, however I have some serious problems with the flight path you have presented.

Firstly, your first witness states that the plane was coming 'up the street' and that he could only see one engine. If the plane was approaching at the 30-45 degree angle you list, he would clearly have seen both engines and the flight path would be a little different than he described.

Your second witness mentions the plane came directly over two trees located immediately north of the Citgo gas station, yet on your flight plan you have the path north of those trees.

Your third witness is the only one who really does match up here, everything other than he claims he saw the plane hit the pentagon.

Your fourth witness initially indicates a path coming from the extreme north, he points towards the tree filled area immediately north-north-west of the Citgo, his path slowly changes until it is essentially a west-east line on the image you have provided us.

There are also other problems, such as the plane travelling at 400+mph would have under 8 seconds to make a radical 46 degree right hand bank, I don't know if this is beyond the 757's limitations but i'm suspecting so.

Secondary to this we have the problem of the explosion, an obvious incendiary device, your animation describes the plane passing straight through the explosive fireball. Do you have any evidence that a plane can survive this? The thin aluminium sheeting of the hull is vulnerable to simple bird strikes, nevermind massive overpressure explosions.

There is also the problem of the engines, do you have any evidence that the engines would continue to function after sucking in large quantities of superheated gas? Temperature regulation is already an important part of keeping a jet engine running and I have difficulty believing the plane would survive to be able to fly away.

In summary I think your theory is unlikely, unsupported and frankly contradicted by a significant majority of the data we have. Your flight path would be marginally more believable if you concluded that the plane hit the pentagon, but what purpose would these radical turns serve if the plane was being flown by a professional pilot who was preparing to perform an extremely precise maneuver? They would simply serve to increase the chances of a catastrophic failure. You really need to sit down and look at all the evidence available. The only support you have for a 'north of the citgo' path are two police officers who's statements contradict their previous claims, and who both agree on a flight path contrary to you and the other two witnesses. The physical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence in this case contradicts anything you have provided and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Bobert]

Test

 

[Lyte Trip]

Why thank you, however I have some serious problems with the flight path you have presented.

Firstly, your first witness states that the plane was coming 'up the street' and that he could only see one engine. If the plane was approaching at the 30-45 degree angle you list, he would clearly have seen both engines and the flight path would be a little different than he described.

His english is far from perfect. Clearly he meant one engine on each wing as opposed to more than one.

Your second witness mentions the plane came directly over two trees located immediately north of the Citgo gas station, yet on your flight plan you have the path north of those trees.

He was on the opposite side of the station than the other witnesses (south side) so he perceived the plane as closer to the station. This is understandable but what is NOT understandable is why he would place the plane anywhere near that side when it was supposed to be on the COMPLETE OPPOSITE side all together. We have never suggested that they are all 100% accurate. But they all place the plane in the same direction/general vicinity which is OPPOSITE what it needs to be for the official story. The animation and our flight path was simply meant to be an estimation of all their claims.

Your third witness is the only one who really does match up here, everything other than he claims he saw the plane hit the pentagon.

Once again all of the witnesses are estimating and we are using all of their accounts to make our own estimation. Bottom line it's FAR off course from the physical damage flight path no matter how you look at it.

Your fourth witness initially indicates a path coming from the extreme north, he points towards the tree filled area immediately north-north-west of the Citgo, his path slowly changes until it is essentially a west-east line on the image you have provided us.

Yeah so? Once again all of the witnesses are estimating. Lagasse would not have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station from his location. If the plane was anywhere remotely near where ALL of these witnesses place it there is no way it caused the physical damage. They would have all been required to remember the complete opposite of reality for the plane to hit the light poles etc. It's not logical to suggest that they were all so ridiculously incorrect.

There are also other problems, such as the plane travelling at 400+mph would have under 8 seconds to make a radical 46 degree right hand bank, I don't know if this is beyond the 757's limitations but i'm suspecting so.

How do you know how fast it was going? We have other witness accounts of a slow and "graceful" bank. Just ask Mike Walter. As well as reports of the plane "gunning it" in the final moments. We believe it was going much slower than officially reported and picked up speed after the bank.

Secondary to this we have the problem of the explosion, an obvious incendiary device, your animation describes the plane passing straight through the explosive fireball. Do you have any evidence that a plane can survive this? The thin aluminium sheeting of the hull is vulnerable to simple bird strikes, nevermind massive overpressure explosions.

Why is it "obviously" an incendiary device? It could have been a variety of things simply for the purpose of creating a hollywood style fireball. The nose of the plane could have been just past the face of the pentagon as the fireball rose and it would all still seem simultaneous and the fireball may have never or else barely touched the plane at all.

There is also the problem of the engines, do you have any evidence that the engines would continue to function after sucking in large quantities of superheated gas? Temperature regulation is already an important part of keeping a jet engine running and I have difficulty believing the plane would survive to be able to fly away.

Again you don't know what created the "fireball" and you don't know exactly where the plane was. We have consulted with pilots who said that flying through a fireball would not be a major issue. But again if the plane was at the face of the pentagon as the fireball rose it would have barely touched the plane if at all.

In summary I think your theory is unlikely, unsupported and frankly contradicted by a significant majority of the data we have. Your flight path would be marginally more believable if you concluded that the plane hit the pentagon, but what purpose would these radical turns serve if the plane was being flown by a professional pilot who was preparing to perform an extremely precise maneuver? They would simply serve to increase the chances of a catastrophic failure. You really need to sit down and look at all the evidence available. The only support you have for a 'north of the citgo' path are two police officers who's statements contradict their previous claims, and who both agree on a flight path contrary to you and the other two witnesses. The physical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence in this case contradicts anything you have provided and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You are merely poking holes while ignoring the entire context of the testimony. The independent eyewitness accounts are definitive and irrefutable. The plane could not have been remotely off course from the light poles and still cause the physical damage that was reported. It is impossible for a plane anywhere near the north side of the station to still cause the physical damage and clearly it WAS near the north side of the station.

Do you really think it's feasible for all witnesses to be so ridiculously off track in the exact same way? Of course their accounts will vary slightly as they do......but the complete opposite had to have been the case for the official story to be true.

It's simply not logical to suggest that ALL witnesses were so ridiculously wrong about such a simple right or left claim during an event of this magnitude.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte - To repeat a question I asked from a few pages back. You may have missed it:

There will be more animations in the Researcher's Edition.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Either you are lying or you don't know any better. The FDRs last track was 61.2 degrees true. Without spewing out a bunch of aviation jargon as JohnD'oh might do, I'll simply say that the track angle true is parameter that shows the direction the aircraft was travelling in respect to true north. I rotated a GoogleEarth screencap 61.2 degrees and drew a straight line over the impact point. I placed the light poles for reference. If either the light pole or the impact positions are wrong, feel free to correct me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/990245f935ef1f7bb.jpg

I don't want to catch you say "the FDR doesn't line up with the physical damage path" again because I will call you on it every time until you prove your statement or admit that you are a liar.

You are incorrect.

If you follow that heading all the way back to the beginning of the flight path the plane would have had to have taken off from a farm in field 100's of feet away.

The NTSB animation is accurate as to what the FDR shows.

 

[Arus808]

His english is far from perfect. Clearly he meant one engine on each wing as opposed to more than one.

you can't make that inference from his testimony. You should have asked him to clarify his claim. If not then you have to take his testimony at face value, and what he stated, and cannot infer anything more from it.

YOU are saying he clearly meant something; of which we can't confirm. Now you are speaking for the witness, which is hearsay.

 

[Arus808]

You are incorrect.

If you follow that heading all the way back to the beginning of the flight path the plane would have had to have taken off from a farm in field 100's of feet away.

The NTSB animation is accurate as to what the FDR shows.

How many times that you must be told that the NTSB animation was based on "true" north and not magnetic north? A mistake on the animators' part.

 

[Bobert]

Lyte,
When did you come to believe that no plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[apathoid]

You are incorrect.

If you follow that heading all the way back to the beginning of the flight path the plane would have had to have taken off from a farm in field 100's of feet away.

It's really simple Lyte, the last true track was 61.2 degrees. Rotating a true north oriented overhead map of the area exactly 61.2 degrees and drawing a line over the impact point - shows the aircrafts track over the ground during the final moments. That track lines up perfectly with the light poles and mechanical damage. Forgetting your magical animation for a moment, do you agree with this statement:

That final FDR track of 61.2 degrees lines up perfectly with the light poles and mechanical damage path?

If not, explain and show your work.

The NTSB animation is accurate as to what the FDR shows.

No, it isn't. The animation heading is not backed up by anything from the FDR. If you think it is, show your evidence. Its approximately 20 degrees off from:

• The CSV
• The NTSB plots
• PfTs conversion of the raw FDR file.

The animation shows an 80 true track. It was a mistake. When rotating the ground image to account for magnetic variation(10.5 degrees in that area), the person rotated the ground map in the wrong direction. Please stop clinging to the animation. It's really pathetic.

 

[e^n]

His english is far from perfect. Clearly he meant one engine on each wing as opposed to more than one.

Well I won't debate this point

He was on the opposite side of the station than the other witnesses (south side) so he perceived the plane as closer to the station.

What? Throughout the period in which he is on video, he changes the angle at which he is pointing by at least 15 degrees, even the first line he draws on the image you provided him is parallel with the road which directly contradicts your drawn flight path. He indicates that the flight path is only marginally northwards from the road in every situation and as I showed on my previous image, the plane could not have possibly hit the building without the maneuvers you claim it is capable of.

This is understandable but what is NOT understandable is why he would place the plane anywhere near that side when it was supposed to be on the COMPLETE OPPOSITE side all together. We have never suggested that they are all 100% accurate. But they all place the plane in the same direction/general vicinity which is OPPOSITE what it needs to be for the official story. The animation and our flight path was simply meant to be an estimation of all their claims.

This is not true, he places the plane maybe 50m northwards of where the official story would put it (I believe) and his direction is again, nearly parallel with the road.

Once again all of the witnesses are estimating and we are using all of their accounts to make our own estimation. Bottom line it's FAR off course from the physical damage flight path no matter how you look at it.

Actually no, if you do not believe any of these witnesses could be fallible then you can claim it's far off the physical damage course but I am not willing to make that jump yet.

Yeah so? Once again all of the witnesses are estimating. Lagasse would not have been able to see the plane on the south side of the station from his location.

What do you base this on? The station may have obscured his view for a while, but he was on the far western edge of the station, he would have had a reasonably clear view of the plane until it passed over the station.

If the plane was anywhere remotely near where ALL of these witnesses place it there is no way it caused the physical damage. They would have all been required to remember the complete opposite of reality for the plane to hit the light poles etc. It's not logical to suggest that they were all so ridiculously incorrect.

"Complete opposite of reality" is ludicrous, they would (only 3 of them) had to have been mistaken about the location, you seem to think it is reasonable to assume that the two police officers were mistaken about the impact, despite them giving statements to the extent that they were 100% sure an airplane impacted. You claim their testimony is infallible on one point, but fallible on another?

How do you know how fast it was going? We have other witness accounts of a slow and "graceful" bank. Just ask Mike Walter. As well as reports of the plane "gunning it" in the final moments. We believe it was going much slower than officially reported and picked up speed after the bank.

Yet in your video you claim it was going "Over 500 mph", I am basing my speed estimation off the reports from NTSB / 'official reports'.

Why is it "obviously" an incendiary device? It could have been a variety of things simply for the purpose of creating a hollywood style fireball. The nose of the plane could have been just past the face of the pentagon as the fireball rose and it would all still seem simultaneous and the fireball may have never or else barely touched the plane at all.

Because only an incendiary device would create a fireball as shown on the video? What else could it be? it was obviously not high explosive as this is again confirmed by one of your witnesses, he mentions it was a conflagration, not a detonation.

Again you don't know what created the "fireball" and you don't know exactly where the plane was. We have consulted with pilots who said that flying through a fireball would not be a major issue. But again if the plane was at the face of the pentagon as the fireball rose it would have barely touched the plane if at all.

Can you please give me the details of the pilots who have told you a plane can fly through a fireball with no problems? Not only is that not their area of expertise but I find this claim ludicrous and highly suspect. Also do you understand just how fast the fireball at the pentagon exploded? If the plane was at the face of the pentagon as the explosive was initiated i'm fairly confident it would have been totally destroyed.

You are merely poking holes while ignoring the entire context of the testimony. The independent eyewitness accounts are definitive and irrefutable.

No they are not, this is complete rubbish. You yourself are refuting part of the testimony (were they sworn in?) they have given on the basis you believe they are confused. You don't think they could have been confused about the location of the plane?

The plane could not have been remotely off course from the light poles and still cause the physical damage that was reported. It is impossible for a plane anywhere near the north side of the station to still cause the physical damage and clearly it WAS near the north side of the station.

You have only 3 witnesses, all of which give distinctly different stories and two of which have changed their stories to an extent in the period of time since the event.

Do you really think it's feasible for all witnesses to be so ridiculously off track in the exact same way? Of course their accounts will vary slightly as they do......but the complete opposite had to have been the case for the official story to be true.

Yes, yes I do think it is feasible! In fact I think it's the most likely thing to have happened.

It's simply not logical to suggest that ALL witnesses were so ridiculously wrong about such a simple right or left claim during an event of this magnitude.

You are also suggesting that ALL witnesses were so ridiculously wrong about such a simple 'hit or no hit' claim during an event of this magnitude.

You disregard your own witness's accounts, every other witness's account, the physical evidence and you also see fit to claim the light poles were staged without any evidence of when this work was carried out, did you ask any of your witnesses whether they saw light poles being tampered with? How did the taxi get to the road with the damage without being noticed?

There are so many questions, bits of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts which refute your claim. Yes I cannot explain why these 3 people would get it so wrong, but also I cannot explain why you would think their accounts are infallible after a very large period of time.

I am not ignoring the 'entire context' of the 'testimony', I am simply stating that while your evidence is intriguing, there are significant amounts of facts to contradict the story you tell.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Well I won't debate this point


What? Throughout the period in which he is on video, he changes the angle at which he is pointing by at least 15 degrees, even the first line he draws on the image you provided him is parallel with the road which directly contradicts your drawn flight path. He indicates that the flight path is only marginally northwards from the road in every situation and as I showed on my previous image, the plane could not have possibly hit the building without the maneuvers you claim it is capable of.

What do you think he is a computer? All him or ANY of the citgo witnesses need to do is indicate the general location the plane was (i.e. what SIDE of the station it flew). What does the "road" have to do with anything? It is not "marginally northwards" from the physical damage flight path it is FATALLY northwards. You seem to not realize.....there is ZERO room for error in the physical damage flight path at this point due to the downed light poles.

This is not true, he places the plane maybe 50m northwards of where the official story would put it (I believe) and his direction is again, nearly parallel with the road.

50 meters is FATAL to the physical damage path. If ANY of the other witnesses saw it remotely further south PERHAPS you may have a little bit of a point but they ALL saw it even further north! The plane was clearly WAY off course from the physical damage flight path.

Actually no, if you do not believe any of these witnesses could be fallible then you can claim it's far off the physical damage course but I am not willing to make that jump yet.

Of course witnesses are fallible but the corroboration of what side the plane flew is extremely strong with zero ambiguity or uncertainty. The simplicity of the claim is incredible. The magnitude of the event immense. They only have to be somewhat correct for the official story to be toast.

What do you base this on? The station may have obscured his view for a while, but he was on the far western edge of the station, he would have had a reasonably clear view of the plane until it passed over the station.

I base it on his own claim while we were standing on the station's property with his own POV! He laughed at the notion on camera and exclaimed how ludicrous it was. None of them were the least bit sketchy about the general direction the plane was. The angle is irrelevant (and Lagasse actually said this) because if the plane was anywhere near the north end of the station the official story is toast.

"Complete opposite of reality" is ludicrous, they would (only 3 of them) had to have been mistaken about the location, you seem to think it is reasonable to assume that the two police officers were mistaken about the impact, despite them giving statements to the extent that they were 100% sure an airplane impacted. You claim their testimony is infallible on one point, but fallible on another?

Of course! Because it has to be! The claims can not simultaneously exist. Clearly it makes infinitely more sense to suggest that they got the general vicinity of the plane as it passed by the station correct since they were ON THE STATION'S PROPERTY. This consistent comparison from you supposed "critical thinkers" is circular logic wrapped up in a logical fallacy. Totally illogical beyond belief.

Yet in your video you claim it was going "Over 500 mph", I am basing my speed estimation off the reports from NTSB / 'official reports'.

In what context? We only say that when referring to the official story. We know the official reports say that but this testimony proves they are incorrect in ALL regards so of course we don't accept their reported speed.

Because only an incendiary device would create a fireball as shown on the video? What else could it be? it was obviously not high explosive as this is again confirmed by one of your witnesses, he mentions it was a conflagration, not a detonation.

Is that what they use in hollywood? I won't pretend I am a pyrotechnic effect expert (and clearly you are not one either) but bottom line....the plane was on the north side of the station and splitting hairs about how they timed it with the simulated fireball as it rose is pointless. As I said; if timed right with some sort of onboard trigger there is no reason the fireball had to touch the plane at all. If the nose of the plane had already passed the face of the pentagon the rest of the plane could have completely passed the fireball by the time it rose. This removes any "vortices" issue with the smoke plume as well. The plane was long gone.

If the plane was at the face of the pentagon as the explosive was initiated i'm fairly confident it would have been totally destroyed.

Even if it was merely a pyrotechnic effect? You already said it was a conflagration and not a detonation. Why are you changing your claim?

No they are not, this is complete rubbish. You yourself are refuting part of the testimony (were they sworn in?) they have given on the basis you believe they are confused. You don't think they could have been confused about the location of the plane?

Same old circular logic wrapped in a logical fallacy. The fact that they are incorrect or "confused" about the impact has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on their placement of the plane. This is absurd and it's disgrace that you would dare call yourself a "critical thinker" and make such an assertion. ESPECIALLY since it's impossible for both claims to be simultaneously true.

You have only 3 witnesses, all of which give distinctly different stories and two of which have changed their stories to an extent in the period of time since the event.

This is a straight up lie. Deceptive spin at it's worst. The ONLY relevant point and the ONLY thing we are claiming is a "smoking gun" is the fact that they ALL definitively, certainly, and unambiguously place the plane FATALLY off the physical damage flight path which has ZERO room for error. Their vantage point was such that to suggest the plane was on the complete opposite side of the station on a complete opposite trajectory is virtually impossible. You are reaching as hard and far as you can to refute this and you know it.

Yes, yes I do think it is feasible! In fact I think it's the most likely thing to have happened.


You are also suggesting that ALL witnesses were so ridiculously wrong about such a simple 'hit or no hit' claim during an event of this magnitude.

You are in denial because the implications destroy everything you believe and think you understand. Your circular logical fallacy of referring to them all being fooled into believing the impact proves this.

You disregard your own witness's accounts, every other witness's account, the physical evidence and you also see fit to claim the light poles were staged without any evidence of when this work was carried out, did you ask any of your witnesses whether they saw light poles being tampered with? How did the taxi get to the road with the damage without being noticed?

How the physical damage was staged is irrelevant to the true placement of the plane and therefore yet another logical fallacy. I have not disregarded a single eyewitness or anything that these witnesses claim. We have and continue to analyze every single detail with a fine toothed comb.

There are so many questions, bits of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts which refute your claim. Yes I cannot explain why these 3 people would get it so wrong, but also I cannot explain why you would think their accounts are infallible after a very large period of time.

There are ZERO eyewitnesses that directly contradict them and there are almost none that indirectly contradict them. We know that MUCH of their accounts are fallible and we left those parts in to stay honest. It's the simple, irrefutable, and perfectly corroborated fact that they all place the plane FATALLY off the physical damage flight path that we tout as the smoking gun.

I am not ignoring the 'entire context' of the 'testimony', I am simply stating that while your evidence is intriguing, there are significant amounts of facts to contradict the story you tell.

Glad you could at least admit that it is "intriguing". That is much better than virtually all of our colleagues and shows at least a smidgen of integrity and honesty on your part. You are clearly on a higher intelligence level then most of them.

OF COURSE there are what you call "facts" to contradict the "story". But if the north side of the station claim is even REMOTELY true........it PROVES this was a world wide operation of deception and that all the physical damage was staged so obviously there are contradictions.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

There is also the problem of the engines, do you have any evidence that the engines would continue to function after sucking in large quantities of superheated gas? Temperature regulation is already an important part of keeping a jet engine running and I have difficulty believing the plane would survive to be able to fly away.

You make a point well worth considering, e^n.

Made me recall the fact that the USAF lost an A-10 Warthog back in the '70's when the engines ingested gun gases from firing the GAU-8 nose gun.

 

[John Blonn]

Lyte Trip.

From your video:

Lyte Trip: And so when you were standing here did you see it pass over the station at that point?

Sgt. Brooks: Correct. During this point right here we were able to see everything. [Brooks motions behind the camera man.] When that plane came descending across here... [Points behind the camera man towards the trees and traces the flight path toward the Citgo]

LT: OK, so it came from up over here. [Camera man looks behind himself, towards the trees and those three tall things that look like a fork]

SB: Correct. See where the trees are at? See where the trees are at? [? bad audio] [inaudible]

LT: And it was descending.

SB: Correct. It was descending. By then it had already been descending. So it was basically doing a straight line, a straight line toward the Pentagon. By then it was actually [evened out? Bad audio. I'm assuming he meant not banking], and it was a straight line. [As he describes this, Brooks draws a straight line from behind the camera towards the Pentagon with his finger.]

Brooks also comments on how the trees were swaying due to the proximity of the plane (altitude and velocity).

A few questions:

1) Your picture of your flight path in post #389 depicts the plane never crossing the trees that were behind Sgt. Brooks, the trees that you make a point to capture in the video. How come Brooks reported tree movement if the plane would never have come near the trees as depicted in your flight path?

2) Brooks's actions clearly show that he saw the plane come from behind him. You see him point behind you and emphasize twice that it was a "straight line" from where the trees are straight into the Pentagon. However, your picture in #389 does not reconcile with this because the plane would never have come from behind him. Thus, how come Brooks didn't see the plane at a distance to his left (facing the Pentagon) instead of where he claimed to see it: coming from behind him? The point is that in fact Lagasse's and Brooks's paths DO NOT match at all.

3) How come you had Brooks draw his flight path standing in the location he was NOT AT on 9/11? He should have drawn it from the parking lot but he did not.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why are you people giving this fool the time of day?

He provided us with that load of bollocks Pentacon.

The film debunked him, and he made the film.

This guy isn't worth the time you are giving him.

Your responding to him is called by psychologists "enabling behavior."

Way to disappoint me.

DR

 

[Myriad]

Why are you people giving this fool the time of day?

He provided us with that load of bollocks Pentacon.

The film debunked him, and he made the film.

This guy isn't worth the time you are giving him.

Your responding to him is called by psychologists "enabling behavior."

Way to disappoint me.

DR

You mean, I shouldn't bother to mention that if the plane passed ahead of the expanding fireball and overflew the building then the plane would have been visible pulling up and clearing the roof before the fireball could have concealed it?

Or that, even if the fireball were 100 meters in diameter and the plane flew straight through its center, the plane would pass fully from one side of the fireball to the other in 3/4 of a second, and would be completely concealed within the fireball for only 1/4 of a second?

Aw shucks.

Respectfully,
Myriad