The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by tide88What makes you so sure he also didnt get the flightpath of the plane wrong.

Because if the plane was where it should have been, he wouldn't have been able to see it, period. It would have been blocked by the citgo awning. And his location is confirmed on the citgo security tapes.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Saidin]

Originally posted by Pawnhaus
Based on CIT’s newly presented witness testimony, I am willing to consider the possibility that two passenger jets attacked the Pentagon on 911.

Are you?

No. Where did the other supposed jet go, and why did only 1 person see it. Also even if there were two planes( 1 along CIT path and 1 along the official flight path) people would have see two planes. THere is no way there was two planes, unless you count the C-130 which people saw.

So there we have it.

CIT has completely failed, a victim of its own contradictions, fully illustrated by Reheat, Tide8888, and a bevy of other rational thinkers devoted to the truth.

The CIT groupies, long ago abandoned by their leaders, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, have retreated to reflect on the lies their "leaders" told them.

Originally posted by Saidin

Originally posted by tide88What makes you so sure he also didnt get the flightpath of the plane wrong.

Because if the plane was where it should have been, he wouldn't have been able to see it, period. It would have been blocked by the citgo awning. And his location is confirmed on the citgo security tapes.

Your assertion is incorrect.

Lagasse was standing at the north-western most side of the gas station, effectively under the corner of the awning, facing to the south, as the Citgo security tape confirms.

There is no logical reason as to why Lagasse, from his position, could not have witnessed this:



Period.

Originally posted by jthomas
So there we have it.

CIT has completely failed, a victim of its own contradictions, fully illustrated by Reheat, Tide8888, and a bevy of other rational thinkers devoted to the truth.

The CIT groupies, long ago abandoned by their leaders, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, have retreated to reflect on the lies their "leaders" told them.

To be fair, Craig did say that he would be gone for 10 days.

He'll respond.

Originally posted by Pawnhaus
Based on CIT’s newly presented witness testimony, I am willing to consider the possibility that two passenger jets attacked the Pentagon on 911.

Are you?

Witness Group A claim to have seen Passenger Jet A impact with the Pentagon.

Witness Group B claim to have seen Passenger Jet B impact with the Pentagon.

Both groups report seeing their respective jet at the same time.

Both groups report seeing their respective jet impact with the Pentagon at the same location.

The recorded testimony gathered from both groups puts Passenger Jet A and Passenger Jet B in the same airspace simultaneously.

Neither group reported seeing a second jet matching the description of the opposing group.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Your assertion is incorrect.

Lagasse was standing at the north-western most side of the gas station, effectively under the corner of the awning, facing to the south, as the Citgo security tape confirms.

There is no logical reason as to why Lagasse, from his position, could not have witnessed this: Period.

Facing the south? How did you come to that conclusion? If he's at the NW side of the gas station, then he's facing NE, toward the pentagon. Let's pretend he WAS facing south, he said he saw the plane out his driver side window as it flew by. Either way it doesn't fit the official path.

Originally posted by Saidin

Originally posted by discombobulator
Your assertion is incorrect.

Lagasse was standing at the north-western most side of the gas station, effectively under the corner of the awning, facing to the south, as the Citgo security tape confirms.

There is no logical reason as to why Lagasse, from his position, could not have witnessed this: Period.

Facing the south? How did you come to that conclusion? If he's at the NW side of the gas station, then he's facing NE, toward the pentagon. Let's pretend he WAS facing south, he said he saw the plane out his driver side window as it flew by. Either way it doesn't fit the official path.

I came to the conclusion from watching the Citgo security video.

You referenced it in your post, but did you watch it?

If you watched it and matched it with his testimony you would realise that there is no doubt whatsoever that Sgt. William Lagasse was facing towards the south. To be exact I would say S-S-E. The visual clues are obvious. He is standing on the northern or driver's side of his car (which is parked facing towards the Pentagon, or E-N-E).

Lagasse said that he had the door to his car open and was talking to his dog at the time which was inside the car. He further explains that he saw the plane in his peripheral vision before he heard it.

In my haste to respond to your post, I actually missed your last sentence which explains your confusion and to me indicates that you have not even looked at Lagasse's testimony.

He doesn't say he saw the plane through his driver side window because Lagasse said that he was not inside his car when he saw the incoming jet!

Yet another person supporting CIT that does not even understand the most basic facts!

[edit on 15-8-2008 by discombobulator]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by discombobulator]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by discombobulator]

But one thing that Lagasse did in fact say was that he saw a silver, American Airlines commercial passenger jet impact with the Pentagon.

And due to the fantastic investigative work from CIT, we have this photo demonstrating not only the pump he was standing at and it's position under the north-west corner of the canopy (Pump 2) but also the view he had of the impact site.




Craig Ranke: Did you see the plane hit the building?

Sgt. William Lagasse: Yes.

reply to post by discombobulator


I was wrong about where Lagasse was. I still don't see him outside his car in the security video, but I suppose the quality is just too low to see him correctly. I've never talked to anyone at CIT, and I've never before discussed anything in their threads. I don't consider myself a supporter, just someone who found the research interesting. You can go reread any of my.. what 3 posts, and see that I'm not defending CIT, just pointing out contradictions in testimony. Such as someone saying Lagasse saw the poles being hit.

You use the testimony to show that he saw the colors of the plane and that it hit the building, but then ignore that he places the plane over Arlington Cemetery(or at least between it and the navy annex).

If you can give me a reasonable answer as to why Lagasse would "bet his life" that the plane was on the north side, I'd gladly accept it.

Originally posted by Saidin
reply to post by discombobulator

 

You use the testimony to show that he saw the colors of the plane and that it hit the building, but then ignore that he places the plane over Arlington Cemetery(or at least between it and the navy annex).

If you can give me a reasonable answer as to why Lagasse would "bet his life" that the plane was on the north side, I'd gladly accept it.

If you listen closely to what Lagasse says, he actually says that he is certain of two things - the first was that he saw a silver American Airlines passenger jet fly north of the Citgo gas station, and the second was that he saw the same plane impact with the Pentagon.

Lagasse is apparently certain that he witnessed two events that are, from what we are led to believe from the documented evidence supporting the "official story", two mutually exclusive events.

Without giving preferential treatment to one or the other, it would be a safe bet that Sgt. William Lagasse is somewhat confused, or has a faulty recollection of events.

Given that...

1) Lagasse has provided additional information supporting the "official story" (with regard to the colour, size and type of the jet in addition to witnessing the impact and aftermath including wreckage in and around the impact site) and that he himself is convinced of the impact through directly witnessing the events

2) Lagasse provides no other testimony or evidence in any form that at all supports a flyover

When presented with these two mutually exclusive events in a witness statement, which would you say is best supported?

Originally posted by discombobulator
If you listen closely to what Lagasse says, he actually says that he is certain of two things - the first was that he saw a silver American Airlines passenger jet fly north of the Citgo gas station, and the second was that he saw the same plane impact with the Pentagon.

Did he not also say he would bet his life it was on the north side? Does that not sounds pretty certain? Why is him seeing the plane fly over/near the cemetery not acceptable? I'd have an easier time believing he just made his story up after getting scared by the noise of the jet, then him confusing left from right.

When presented with these two mutually exclusive events in a witness statement, which would you say is best supported?

I can't answer this because he obviously provided testimony to the plane being somewhere else. Why, if he was looking south, would he see the plane in the corner of his vision; and then why place it behind him by bringing up Arlington Cemetery? If he was able to see the plane come into view and hit the building so fluidly, why didn't he see it hit the one pole that was within his line of sight? (The one they pan over too in the pentacon interview.)

Originally posted by Saidin

Originally posted by discombobulator
If you listen closely to what Lagasse says, he actually says that he is certain of two things - the first was that he saw a silver American Airlines passenger jet fly north of the Citgo gas station, and the second was that he saw the same plane impact with the Pentagon.

Did he not also say he would bet his life it was on the north side? Does that not sounds pretty certain?

Yes he did, however you are ignoring what I just told you. Lagasse said that he is certain the BOTH events occurred. I don't have the inclination to jump into the video right now to find the exact quote, but Lagasse says something along the lines of "two things aren't debatable.. the plan was where I said it was and it hit the building."

The reason he said that he would bet his life on it was because Craig repeatedly pressed him on how certain he was that the plane was north of the Citgo station.

Craig failed to ask Lagasse how certain he was that he witnessed the plane impact with the Pentagon. I'm sure that if he did Lagasse would have given the exact same response.

I can't answer this because he obviously provided testimony to the plane being somewhere else. Why, if he was looking south, would he see the plane in the corner of his vision; and then why place it behind him by bringing up Arlington Cemetery? If he was able to see the plane come into view and hit the building so fluidly, why didn't he see it hit the one pole that was within his line of sight? (The one they pan over too in the pentacon interview.)

We can only speculate on the answer, but it might have something to do with the fact that the plane was generating a significant amount of noise and was in his vision for less than two seconds before he witnessed it impact with the Pentagon.

But on the point of the light poles, are you aware the Sgt. Chadwick Brooks said in late 2001 that he would never forget seeing the plane "literally just hitting the lamp poles"?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Saidin
reply to post by discombobulator

 

If you listen closely to what Lagasse says, he actually says that he is certain of two things - the first was that he saw a silver American Airlines passenger jet fly north of the Citgo gas station, and the second was that he saw the same plane impact with the Pentagon.

Lagasse is apparently certain that he witnessed two events that are, from what we are led to believe from the documented evidence supporting the "official story", two mutually exclusive events.

Without giving preferential treatment to one or the other, it would be a safe bet that Sgt. William Lagasse is somewhat confused, or has a faulty recollection of events.

Bobulator-You realize you sound exactly like your arch nemesis Craig Ranke. You accept the testimony you want and disgard the rest!

Careful you may become what you despise!!

The difference between the 2 statements from Lagasse is that his position was confirmed in the Citgo videotape. Given his position it would be much more difficult to for him to have been mistaken about the NofC flight path.

I find it fairly ironic that the folks clinging to this theory are more than ready to believe anything they interviewed at face value, as being the undisputable truth, yet the longer list of witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon are "dubious" in their opinion. Nothing like good ol' double satndards.

So the people in this small list of witnesses that saw the plane supposedly flying a different direction are all correct, and it proves without a doubt that this entire thing is a conspiracy, and yet, the much longer list of witnesses that saw it actually the Pentagon proves nothing?

You folks have a good thing going! Selective investigation. Use what you need, discard what you don't. I bet there are several who did see it hit, that are mistaken or confused. But not all of them. How many of these listed witnesses perhaps could be wrong? None of them I bet, according to these theorists.

Can't one of you look at this with a bit more nuetrality? Put aside your automatic assumption that our government is evil, and that this could be nothing but a coverup, and consider all the facts. If you can, WITHOUT BIAS, find explantions to all the other issues surrounding the conpiracy (explain away the wreckage, bodies, explain away all eyewitnesses that saw it hit, etc), then maybe you have a case.

Originally posted by fleabit
With all this, I'm puzzled why people are wasting time over the flight path.

Fantastic question!

Here is the answer: all CTs (and in particular 9-11 CTs) exist within voids. The "hey, were just asking questions" nature of 9-11 CT'ers lives within voids in the evidence, and purposefully excludes the massive amount of evidence that does exist. That's why the 'theory' is ever evolving, ever changing in focus. CIT's own theory has gone through many evolutionary inflations and blatant omissions to counter questions they simply can't answer. For the better half of a decade 9-11 CTers have been "asking questions" and ignoring the answers. Skeptics have confronted 9-11 CT'ers in a way never seen before.

The internet is a double edged sword that cuts both ways. On the one hand the internet makes it very easy to produce a very slick You Tube video and present your ideas in a thoroughly convincing way. On the other hand, in addition to the internet making it very easy to promote ideas, it also makes the source material exceptionally easy to obtain, and review independently.

In the past, CT'ers were the only ones (frankly) who cared enough to file the FOIA requests, pour over those documents and spin their version of "truth" - with little challenge. Why? Because the rest of us were too busy with our every day lives to care.

The internet has created an environment where information available to one, is freely available to all. There is nothing "new" with 9-11 CT'ers. The same fear pimps who drone on about the "NWO", "them", the "illuminati" and other nonsense are the exact same fear pimps who promote this kind of garbage. What is new is the ease by which 9-11 CT claims can be examined.

So, we have the same fear pimps doing what they have always done: make grossly inaccurate claims about the nature of the facts and evidence in the public domain. CT’ers have failed to realize the same old tricks just wont work anymore. Anyone with an internet connection can look at the evidence in question for themselves. And they have.

In response to legitimate questions and strong criticisms 9-11 CT’ers make the only charge they can: "disinfo!!", paid "government agents", and other full on nuttery. Why? Because the evidence just isn’t there to support their claims and as such, that’s all they have left.

Interesting story by an ex truther that gives some real insight to the “movement” can be read here.


P.S. – Truther’s response to his comments? He’s not real! He’s made up! He’s a disinfo agent planted by JREF’ers!


[edit on 15-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by fleabit


So, which witnesses that CIT dismissed as "dubious", do you think is a real eye witness that is not mistaken or didn't deduce impact? Which ones have you contacted to verify that they really said what the media reported?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by fleabit

 

So, which witnesses that CIT dismissed as "dubious", do you think is a real eye witness that is not mistaken or didn't deduce impact? Which ones have you contacted to verify that they really said what the media reported?

The point is that CIT contacted them and didnt include them in their investigation. Why is that? Why can we not decide for ourselves whether their accounts seem dubious, or if we think they are lying? You know what I think. I think Rosevelt Jr. account is dubious and he is a liar. As well as many of CIT's other witnesses. Also, what about the witnesses that CIT apparently contacted that say they saw the plane impact the pentagon. Some of those say, contacted and confirmed, by CIT. However, as you see, that is not even mentioned in their so called investigation.

reply to post by tide88


You are welcome to do your own investigation. CIT is just normal citizens spending their own money to do their own independent investigation. Instead of complaining about how they do their investigations, why don't you get up and go start your own?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by tide88

 

You are welcome to do your own investigation. CIT is just normal citizens spending their own money to do their own independent investigation. Instead of complaining about how they do their investigations, why don't you get up and go start your own?

What about the witnesses that CIT apparently contacted that say they saw the plane impact the pentagon. Some of those say, contacted and confirmed, by CIT. However, as you see, that is not even mentioned in their so called investigation. Why is that? Also why would I investigate something when all the physical evidence and most witness testimony agrees with the official story. If they have such great evidence why not take it to court instead of posting it on conspiracy boards. Also,l if I make a dvd with people agreeing with the official flight path, no one is going to buy my CD's.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 15-8-2008 by tide88]