No, not at all. In fact, it's not only not impossible, but it is highly probable that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon if you believe Lagasse's account.
Hypothetically maybe but not in regards to the physical damage. This makes it impossible.
If you'll remember from your interview with Lagasse he stated that the plane was only about 100 to 150 feet above ground level when the plane was at the Citgo station. [This, BTW, contradicts the claim by PFT that the plane was 300 feet over the street light poles by the time it got anywhere close to them, but that's a separate issue.]
PFT does not make any claims as to the altitude of the plane. They merely report what the FDR says. So it's the FDR that conflicts with Lagasse and the physical damage....not PFT.
Given the altitude which Lagasse attributes to the plane and given the angle of descent of the plane it is much more likely that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon than it is that the plane would have suddenly pulled up to fly over the Pentagon with that rather dramatic maneuver going unnoticed.
This makes it very likely that the plane hit the Pentagon just as Lagasse told you it did.
How can you know the true angle of descent? Plus again it is impossible for a plane on that side of the station to have caused the physical damage so you are incorrect.
Therefore, since we've established that the plane hit the Pentagon, now the only anomalies we have to account for are the damage pattern reported inside the Pentagon and the location of the downed light poles. Since the flight path given by the NTSB for flight 77 perfectly coincides with these events, the most likely explanation for them is that the plane came in on that flight path, which in turn means that either the location of the plane that Lagasse gave you can be reconciled with this flight path or that Lagasse is simply mistaken.
Lagasse isn't the only one who saw the plane on the north side. His placement of the plane is corroborated by all the citgo witnesses and contradicted by none. You are using circular logic.
Might Lagasse be mistaken in regard to the location at which he first places the plane?
In your interview with Lagasse, he mentions something about the plane being almost past him before he spotted it. I think he mentioned something about the Doppler effect to account for this. Do you think that it's possible that he never actually saw the plane until it was fully past him and that he unconsciously mentally reconstructed the location from which, in his mind, the plane had to be coming? Remember, this all took place in two seconds or less.
Watch the interview again because you are wrong. The "doppler effect" is in regards to when he "heard" the plane but he was very explicit in the fact that he SAW the plane BEFORE he heard it. He even points out electrical transformers on a pole as the place where he first saw it. The fact that all the other witnesses place the plane in the same general area indicates that he is accurate in his approximate placement of the plane on the north side of the station.
I'm not saying this IS what happened. I'm offering this only as one of many possibilities which might explain the discrepancy.
This is a drastic mistake. What are the odds that they would all make the exact same drastic mistake? Slim to none.
To digress for a second, one of the things I don't like about any of the conspiracy theories that I've heard, including yours (no offense), is the 'certainty' with which most of these theories claim that certain events had to transpire. Well, there is no certainty when we are dealing with human perception. It's perfectly feasible that any of our perceptions might be mistaken at any time. It is the whole body of evidence which must be accounted for, not particular remembrances.
There becomes a period when a claim is so simple and so general that when corroborated it becomes virtually undeniable.
Consider this analogy:
3 pedestrians in the same general area that they all frequent on a daily basis
all witness a fatal car accident on an intersection a 1/2 a block north of them. If each were questioned
about the incident on location some time after the fact it would stand
to reason that they may have different stories about specific details
like what type of cars were involved, the color, exactly how the
accident happened etc. But if they all place the accident on the same
intersection that was 1/2 block north of them rather than south of them
couldn't the interviewer be fairly certain that the probability that
this very general yet 100% corroborated claim was correct?
Do you understand how perfect this analogy is?
Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity and they all frequent that gas station/area daily. Does it really seem feasible to you that they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple claim? You see they all would have had to simultaneously remember the complete opposite of reality. The physical damage flight path is drastically different from what they all saw. Lagasse's vantage point was such that he wouldn't have seen it at all through the building on the south side. All of their senses would have been drawn to the other side of the station.
True, but ALL the facts have to be taken into consideration.
So what are the facts in our case here?
A) We have five light poles knocked from their pedestals with the tops severed which just happen to perfectly coincide with the flight path attributed to a plane by the world's finest airliner crash investigators.
Hyperbole and circular logic. If the citgo witnesses are correct the poles had to have been staged.
B) We have several witnesses who state unambiguously that they saw the plane hit the light poles.
Very incorrect. You have about 20 that mention the poles but only 1 specifically states that she "saw" the poles get clipped. Wanda Ramey. We have spoken with 3 published so called "light pole witnesses" (sucherman, mcgraw, and brooks) who ALL admitted they merely deduced the poles after the fact. Wanda Ramey either deduced it just like them or is embellishing her account.
C) We have a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers in which the damage pattern found inside the Pentagon accurately matches the damage pattern that should be expected from a 757's impacting the Pentagon on the flight path given by the NTSB.
NTSB flight path conflicts with the physical damage AND they eyewitnesses. The ASCE report conflicts with the eyewitnesses. You are using the same circular logic to discredit the eyewitnesses.
D) And we have your interviews in which witnesses state, in perfect harmony with the above, that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.
Yes but since they all saw the plane on the north side we know the impact could not have happened.
The only wildcard here, unless the location attributed to the plane by your witnesses can be reconciled with the NTSB-determined flight path, is why your interviewees would place the plane in a different location than the location in which it almost certainly was.
There are, however, explanations even for this as I outlined above.
No need to review them, I remember them perfectly; but I find them to be more convenient than persuasive.
You have not brought anything new to the table that convincingly demonstrates how all witnesses at the citgo would simultaneously hallucinate the exact opposite of reality.
Using the conflicting physical evidence as a means to prove them wrong is merely circular logic.
