Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ProudBird


How does it explain how Police Officer Sgt Lagasse could have gotten it so wrong?

Originally posted by ATH911
This is truly hilarious, on this thread, we have skeptics arguing that the Pentagon NoC witnesses were right in thinking the Pentagon got hit. And on this same thread, we have skeptics arguing that all of the NoC witnesses are wrong....

Can't speak for the others, but I am just pointing out to you what I would have thought was obvious. That witnesses are far more likely to be right about a plane crashing into the Pentagon than about the precise flightpath of that plane flying low at hundreds of feet per second.

reply to post by ATH911


The witnesses saw the impact. There was only one impact. The evidence says that poles were knocked over and a tree was struck. If you'd like to think that the plane came in NOC and then hit after a magic maneuver, how does that make a conspiracy? The reason that CIT wanted the NOC was to say that it had to be a flyover because the plane couldn't have maneuvered to hit the Pentagon where it did with an NOC path. It hit, so the path wasn't NOC. No flyover. No conspiracy.

reply to post by Alfie1


How did Police Officer Sgt Lagasse get it so wrong?

Originally posted by pteridine

If you'd like to think that the plane came in NOC and then hit after a magic maneuver, how does that make a conspiracy?

You can't see how that would make a conspiracy?

It hit, so the path wasn't NOC.

Then how could Police Officer Sgt Lagasse be so wrong???

No flyover.

Where have I argued a flyover?

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How did Police Officer Sgt Lagasse get it so wrong?

(a) When Sgt Lagasse was cornered by CIT, years after the event, he mis-rembered where he had actually been at the Citgo on the day.

(b) He is emphatic the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT claim he is wrong on that.

Originally posted by Alfie1
(a) When Sgt Lagasse was cornered by CIT, years after the event, he mis-rembered where he had actually been at the Citgo on the day.

But he is not the only witness, are they all miss remembering? It wouldn't matter where he was at the gas station.

(b) He is emphatic the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT claim he is wrong on that.

He could not have seen the plane impact the pentagon from the Chitgo gas station....


stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

So yes, he could be wrong on that.

reply to post by ANOK


If Sgt Lagasse couldn't remember where he was at the Citgo on 9/11 ( not surprising years after the event ) why should we take as gospel his memory of the flightpath ?

You seem to be suggesting he was lying about seeing the plane impact the Pentagon or at least flat wrong. Quite a thing to be wrong about !

So what is left of him as a witness ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

(a) When Sgt Lagasse was cornered by CIT

"Cornered." You make yourself look so desperate when you say deluded stuff like that!

years after the event, he mis-rembered where he had actually been at the Citgo on the day.

So he was on the south side facing south in clear view of a SoC flightpath?

reply to post by ATH911


It's a big leap to go from "something about the facts doesn't match up" to "it's a conspiracy." I need proof of a conspiracy, not proof that someone got something wrong. The conflicting witness reports are strange, and my best guess would be changes in perspective and misunderstandings of the plane's size placing it in different places. Then again, that doesn't explain the officer. He was pretty straight-forward.

Still, in my mind, it is a large gap of logic to assume that an incorrect fact in the OS means that the whole thing is bunk. The OS is just the most "widely accepted" version of events. It is in no way infallible, and new information can always change it.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How did Police Officer Sgt Lagasse get it so wrong?

(a) When Sgt Lagasse was cornered by CIT, years after the event, he mis-rembered where he had actually been at the Citgo on the day.

(b) He is emphatic the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT claim he is wrong on that.

A) He wasnt cornered. He gave what he thought was going to be a quick, impromptu interview about his experience and what he saw. He wasn't there to re-create the events. He likely pulled up to the forward pump which is a natural inclination when pulling into a gas station. Since he was there to do an interview he probably figured it would be more convenient and respectful to customers pulling in from Joyce street to allow them access to the pump behind him. When asked specifically which pump he was at he jogged his own memory and realized he was at the other pump. Again, his memory of the plane on the north side was much more indelible than which pump he was at. Do you remember the exact spot you were standing in or the exact couch cushion you were sitting on the morning of 9/11? Does it change the fact that you saw the footage of the plane hitting the south tower on your tv that morning? No. Lagasse said that the fact that he was at the other pump has no bearing on the fact that the plane was on the north side of the gas station. I will repeat this everytime you bring up the "wrong pump" claim.

B) He saw the plane on the north side. That means it could not and did not hit. You can't have it both ways. The two are mutually exclusive. What's ridiculous is he would have seen the plane on the north side or the gas station before he would have seen it impact. Yet the warped mind of someone in denial simply pretends the north path he AND OTHERS witness just doesn't exist.

It's absolute idiocy, if not severe denial. ... or something else entirely.

Originally posted by ATH911
So he was on the south side facing south in clear view of a SoC flightpath?

That's an idea I've toyed with, personally. When I looked up the gas station on Google, both sides of it are identical. The only evidence is that video which showed only a couple seconds of Lagasse's car pulling out. I'm not sure if that video shows more.

Still, watching that video again, it's hard to act like they didn't know. When the officer was looking at the North side and remembering where he saw the plane so he could draw the line, I was a little suspicious about the guy, because I was thinking perhaps he was influencing their memories by talking about north north north. Not sure yet.

Here's the video again for other people to watch. I think it's only some of the interview, but it's still weird:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by pteridine

If you'd like to think that the plane came in NOC and then hit after a magic maneuver, how does that make a conspiracy?

You can't see how that would make a conspiracy?

It hit, so the path wasn't NOC.

Then how could Police Officer Sgt Lagasse be so wrong???

No flyover.

Where have I argued a flyover?

I agree there was no flyover. That means the plane hit. If the plane hit, there can be no NOC path. What conspiracy can there be?

reply to post by Varemia


Ok, he was definitely on the North side. I've been comparing security camera footage with the actual place. The North Side has four pumps while the South Side has two pumps. Lagasse was definitely on the North side.

From the security footage, you can see he was talking to guys he identified as SWAT guys, and then he starts to turn around and walk back to his car and then rushes into it, probably when he saw the plane. It took him about a minute after that before he backed up and peeled out. The SWAT people left first. I'm not sure at what point he saw it. If he saw it right after talking to them and turning around, who knows. He seemed really certain about the plane placement in the interview.

Here's the security footage for reference:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ATH911
So he was on the south side facing south in clear view of a SoC flightpath?

That's an idea I've toyed with, personally. When I looked up the gas station on Google, both sides of it are identical. The only evidence is that video which showed only a couple seconds of Lagasse's car pulling out. I'm not sure if that video shows more.

Still, watching that video again, it's hard to act like they didn't know. When the officer was looking at the North side and remembering where he saw the plane so he could draw the line, I was a little suspicious about the guy, because I was thinking perhaps he was influencing their memories by talking about north north north. Not sure yet.

Here's the video again for other people to watch. I think it's only some of the interview, but it's still weird:

www.youtube.com...

The reason that guy, Craig Ranke, was even there was because the officer he is interviewing, William Lagasse, unknowingly stated he was on the "starboard side" of the plane while refueling in an e-mail to Dick Eastman. Aldo Marquis made note of this detail and on their first field research trip (accompanied and filmed by Dylan Avery and co. for LC Final Cut) they learned about Citgo Employee, Robert Turcios who also confirmed the north side flight path and offered that the plane pulled up into an ascent over the highway. Upon learning that knowledge, they now had enough information to know another trip was required. On that trip they scored on location video interviews with Ed Paik, Robert Turcios, Sgt Brooks and Sgt Lagasse, all of them surprised the researchers by independently placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. On subsequent interviews, they obtained north path corroboration over the phone with witnesses, Levi Stephens, pentagon heliport controller Sean Boger, Band musician Maria De la Cerda and ANC employee George Aman. If that weren't enough they got additional corroboration on video, on location with interviews with 4 other ANC maintenance workers right across the street from the Citgo. If that weren't enough there are more they haven't released. And if that weren't enough, Italian reseacher Pier Murru confirmed the north path with well known Pentagon witness Steve Riskus... z3.invisionfree.com...

There was no leading. There was no influencing.

reply to post by WetBlanky


I'm completely agreed here. I'm just not sure what to make of it.

Just caught this...Snowcrash911 on my spelling...

judgement [sic]

en.wikipedia.org...
www.thefreedictionary.com...

That's how we choose to spell it on my side of the pond. But I understand, any lowblow point you think you can score by making your opponent seem inept or uneducated.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

I'm completely agreed here. I'm just not sure what to make of it.

What you should make of it is that the plane could not and did not hit the light poles, the cab, or the Pentagon in the first floor leading to the c ring hole and instead flew over the pentagon. They all unwittingly let the cat out of the bag and then stood by it even after CIT made them aware of the implications.
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

This is definitive evidence proving an inside job. This why you see so many anonymous online personalities attacking CIT(and PFT) and in turn the witnesses.

Any questions or doubts you have direct them this way or towards the CIT guys. [email protected]

reply to post by WetBlanky


And just as the plane pulled up, the shock and awe explosion caused everyone within a ten mile radius to duck and cover which is why no one saw the plane fly away. It was so shocking that even the radar ducked and closed its eyes until the plane flew away to somewhere else. At the same moment, light poles and plane wreckage was scattered across the lawn while stealthy tree trimmers chopped away at the tree on the fake flight path. There are several explanations for what happened to the passengers and the plane that change regularly but don't worry about those silly details.
As soon as everyone realizes that CIT has figured out this subtle deception, no one will call them dolts and clowns anymore and will regale them as they deserve. The CIT roles will swell with converts and the big screen will get new heroes when the movie comes out. Hollywood dreams will be realized!

You keep ignoring all the additional evidence I brought to the plate, about more NoC witnesses, AND their extensive remarks in the same reports about their positions on Route 27, which positions are solid evidence of a cross-over of the plane at a totally different spot than the SoC "evidence" showed us.
But especially their words about an impact, very vividly described by f.ex. Penny Elgas.

All the professionals in avionics, and you all, could not give any solid evidence that a NoC flying plane at much lower speed than depicted from the FDR data, could NOT impact at much lower speeds.
You only repeat that it can not, without solid calculations, refuting my evidence that it can.

And I gave you a flight path that does cover all known NoC witnesses, and a speed of around 220 to 300 MPH, and a turn radius and a lot more, and you all keep saying that a NoC flying plane could not impact.
Without any solid calculations.
I gave you all the lectures of an American Avionics professor, in my only PfT thread, and you all neglect them.

What kind of stubborn people are you?
Accept that the last part of the AAL77 its recovered FDR is doctored, and that it has been done before, proven by a flight-forensics Swiss research institute, investigating a very early Air Bus crash in France.(I linked to)
So why would they not do it again?

Especially when it is so damn clear that the plane at some moment in time flew north of the CITGO gas station northern canopy.

Which proven fact immediately nullifies any SoC flight path, and proves that all the internal and external damage path evidence for a SoC path is faked.
It did impact, but nearly head on. So all the long northern internal damage must be caused by people, not by a plane.

Go ask yourself WHY that SoC path was so damn important, to get pushed through our throats at such costs for the credibility of the American Government.