Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses
HeadLikeARock Apr 2 2009, 03:59 PM

Aldo Marquis CIT
Apr 2 2009, 10:42 AM
1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building.
Or, because he saw the plane crash into the building, this negates a belief in a NoC approach. In other words, the plane cannot fly NoC because it hit the Pentagon.

Quote:
 
2. His description is incompatible with the official story. He claims it hit between the 2nd and 3rd floor. The plane allegedly hits the 1st, tail hitting the 2nd floor. This would support the fact that he is deducing and embellishing.


Or, he is describing what he saw from memory, and his recollection isn't perfect.

Quote:
 
3. He didn't agree with the surveillance video.


What part doesn't he agree with?

Quote:
 
4. He admitted the plane was coming at him and right below him the firefighters we running away from the scene. Logic and common sense would tell you that he ducked before the plane reached the building.


That's a possibility, but it's an assumption you're making that contradicts his actual statement. If I do that, I get accused of all kinds of nonsense.

Quote:
 
5. He claimed the tail hit the overhead sign, this would be the overhead sign Robert Turcios saw it pull up over. The sign was not hit, but this would put it on the NoC path he saw it on.


He is simply describing his recollection of the incident. Is it possible he saw the plane fly very close to an overhead sign, and also saw a lightpole being struck, and his memory of the event is that the overhead sign was struck?

Quote:
 
1. Because he saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, this negates a belief in an impact. In other words, the plane cannot hit the building since it approached from the north side of the building.


The reverse logic may also apply.

Quote:
 
2. He flinched out of fear after seeing the plane on the north side, then jumped into his car to look down and grab his radio.
3. He admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
On a sidenote, where did Sgt Lagasse say the impact is "non-negotiable"?


IIRC it was at the end of your interview with him, where he was saying he didn't know what the exact angle of the plane was, or it could have been closer to him or further away, but only things that weren't up for discussion were the NoC approach and the impact.

Quote:
 
1. Because he did not and could not give an accurate account of how the plane hit. He had to remember what other people had told him to create his description.


Why does he have to remember specific details for his account to have merit?

Quote:
 
2. Because he lied about crossing the guardrail with stole and bible in hand 45 seconds after the event happened when Mark Faram arrived 10 minutes after the event and saw him do it.


All we have here is 2 eye-witnesses with a different recollection of the same account. That doesn't make either of them liars. It's quite plausible that one or both of them are wrong about the time-scale involved. They've just witnessed a very traumatic event. You can't expect any or all witnesses to agree on every detail.

Quote:
 
3. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit-and he couldn't see either SoC or NoC paths. 1 witness saw it pull up into an ascent over the highway. And 1 witness saw the plane flying away banking 50-100 ft over and around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion.


If the NoC witnesses are correct, he's wrong about the plane hitting the building. If he's right about the plane hitting the building, the NoC witnesses recollections are wrong.

Quote:
 
2. Her description much too detailed and is incompatible with the damage shown. She says, At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. The starboard side damage is incompatible with a wing entering the building. Columns are blown up and out and there is nowhere for the plane's wing to enter. This also applies to the tail of the plane. Her account is an attempt at being convincing but when scrutinized it is clear she is not telling the truth.


Why does a fallible recollection memories make someone a liar?

She says she saw the wings disappear inside the building. That doesn't mean they did, it means that's what it looked like to her, and how she remembers it. Is it possible that as the wings smashed into the Pentagon and were basically pulverised by the impact and explosion, that her impression is that the wings disappeared inside the building?

Quote:
 
2. He claims it came over the Navy Annex, this is NoC. But he makes a point to say over his right shoulder and as if it was following Columbia Pike, so this makes it vague and ambiguous and can be usd to try and justify or fit with SoC.


His memory on exactly where it flew over isn't perfect. His impression is that it came over his right shoulder.

Quote:
 
3. Due to no 1 and the fact that his position in the military, he could be a suspect witness.


Possible. Do you think it possible that the Pentagon Police Officers could be suspect witnesses?

Quote:
 
Definitive confirmed and corroborated SoC witnesses describing a corroborated impact


Confimed and corroborated by whom?

You interviewed Father McGraw, he looked you in the eye and told you he saw the plane impact the Pentagon. You corroborated his account, but since it doesn't fit with a NoC approach, used an ad hominem fallacy to discredit him as a witness (former attorney, member of Opus Dei). Similarly with any other accounts that don't fit comfortably with a NoC approach.

Quote:
 
No they are not. Stop lying. Stop using deceptive terminology and phrasing. The witnesses are "corroborated".


Did you "corroborate" Father McGraw?

It's a fact that Sgt Lagasse said he saw the plane fly NoC, and also impact the Pentagon. Those two statements are contradictory.

13 witnesses say they saw the plane on a NoC approach. Other witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This is contradictory.

This isn't a word game, it isn't a numbers game, it isn't me lying. In many respects, the witness statements are contradictory. I don't have a problem with you choosing to believe the NoC witnesses, but calling me a liar just for pointing out these contradictions says more about you than it does about me.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Take Sgt Lagasse's statement that the only 2 things he saw that are "non-negotiable" are a NoC approach, and the impact itself.


Where are you getting "non-negotiable" from? NoC approach negates an impact. THAT is "non-negotiable".


I mis-remembered the quote from the "Smoking Gun" video. He didn't actually say "non-negotiable", he said "irrefutable".

Sgt Lagasse:- "There's one thing that's irrefutable, that isn't me guesstimating. The fact is an American Airlines plane went from here into the building."

That's one of the contradictory statements I've been talking about that you see fit to label me a liar for doing so. Check your own video, 53:29.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
As for incredulity, aren't you basing your dismissal of the lightpole/taxicab incident on incredulity? You don't believe it couldn't have missed the bonnet, so you reject the evidence based on your own disbelief?


No, first he is dismissing it based on the FACT that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo meaning that pole WAS NOT struck. Second he is dismissing it on the severe improbability of 535 mph 757 hitting a pole into a windshield of a car traveling 50 mph that spins out sideways and NOT damaging the hood or "bonnet".


I'd rather hear that from MM.
Offline Profile Quote Post
South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses · Skeptics