bileduct

Jan 20 2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

 

Well it don't mention poles, but the trajectory and altitude outlined therein do mandate pole clippage on the way...

This is not in dispute.

At 5:55 in the video Highlights of testimony from eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks, the interviewer asserts that light poles underneath the south side approach were knocked over by Flight 77. Furthermore, at 7:05 the interviewer claims that the "official story" makes this assertion.

When William refutes these claims a brief shot of the Pentagon Building Performance Report is shown in an attempt to support the assertion made by the interviewer that the "official story" (with the implication being that the Pentagon Building Performance Report *is* the official story) states that light poles had been knocked down underneath the south side approach flight path. William adamently states that the interviewer has placed the light poles and taxi in the wrong location, and that they were further to the north in line with the north side approach.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report very briefly mentions light poles as anecdotal evidence on page 13, which is again referred to in a summary on page 18. At no point in the Pentagon Building Peformance Report is the placement of the light poles described in any exact detail, including the locations of the light poles that were struck. Yet the image of the report is used to imply otherwise. Why?

Furthermore, the Pentagon Building Performance Report describes Flight 77, on page 12, as having a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon.

Pull out your protractors, because guess what... The "official story" (or at least the Pentagon Building Performance Report) puts the path of Flight 77 right over the Citgo gas station which co-incedentally fits the testimony of Robert Turcios, Edward Paik, and the dozens of witnesses that reported seeing Flight 77 appear over the Navy Annex.

My original post was an attempt to determine where the evidence detailing the exact location of the light poles had been obtained from. I have now been told, by members of CIT, that despite the interviewers claim in the video mentioned above there is no "official story" on the location of the light poles. Huh.

This is fairly critical to the argument, especially when the "flyover theory" exists purely based on the assumption that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage purported in the south side approach when there are eyewitnesses that place Flight 77 either over or to the north of the Citgo station, wouldn't you agree?

So back to my original post - Who exactly is suggesting that light poles were knocked down in a manner consistent with a south side approach?

Quote:

 

Also Lagasse's 'only official source' fails to mention the poles I believe and in fact shows an approach south of the Citgo and along the light pole path. I guess Lagasse never read that...

The Arlington County after action report makes no such claim. Did you read it?