| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 10 2009, 06:18 PM (8,631 Views) | |
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 1 2009, 05:54 AM Post #451 |
|
This is where the heart of the contradiction lies. If the eye-witness reports of an impact are correct, and the photographic and video evidence of damage to the Pentagon is a true record, then the NoC reports are unreliable. If the NoC witness statements are reliable, then any witnesses to an impact were either fooled or are liars, and the record of physical was concocted. At present, I don't see how it's possible to be certain either way. I have my gut instinct, just as you have yours, but to say a SoC path is impossible based on eye-witness testimony to me is unsatisfactory. |
 |
 
|
| Miragememories | Apr 1 2009, 06:47 AM Post #452 |
|
It all comes down to quality. I suggest you start by reading ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE. The quality of the NofCitgo testimony is exceptionally good. The quality of the Pentagon aircraft impact testimony is marginal. The quality of the visual evidence supporting a SofCitgo flightpath lacks proven continuity to the Pentagon explosion and is therefore unsubstantiated. You are entitled to your gut instinct (incredulity supporting assumptive wishful thinking) as well as your 3rd party opinion that the eyewitness testimony is unsatisfactory. Until you can present an argument of substance that does more than just repeat again your incredulity HeadLikeARock, I suggest you go back to those lunar forums you favor, and continue beating your head against moon rocks. MM Edited by Miragememories, Apr 1 2009, 08:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
| JackD | Apr 1 2009, 07:16 PM Post #453 |
|
here's an interesting issue -- the Lloyd light pole story, which was used in the popular press to show the 'human interest' side, and provided a lot of photo ops, appears to be a complete Fraud. so, if the south side IMPACT (or any impact) story is REAL, why TF would the 'perps' feel obliged to 'enhance' a real impact with such obvious fakery? doesnt make sense. Lloyd's cab story & light pole hijinks were necessary only if there was NO IMPACT. Since light poles -- allegedly downed -- were on south-of-citgo trajectory (which almost no one will defend in light of NOC witnesses canvassed by CIT) -- this is further evidence that a SOC path, and SOC impact, were simply after-the-fact fabrications. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 2 2009, 07:26 AM Post #454 |
|
Suggestion noted, considered and rejected. I'll post where I like, and on whatever subject that interests me, regardless of your attempts to brow-beat me off the forum. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Apr 2 2009, 07:48 AM Post #455 |
|
exactly JackD, Lloyd E ,...to me, is some sort of mindcontrol victim... |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 2 2009, 07:48 AM Post #456 |
|
Why is Sean Boger's graphic description of the impact marginal rather than good? Why is Sgt Lagasse's insistence that the impact is "non-negotiable", marginal rather than good? Why is Father McGraw's eye-witness testimony of the impact marginal rather than good? Why is Penny Elgas graphic recollection of the impact marginal rather than good? Why is Albert Hemphill's view of the impact from the Navy Annex marginal rather than good?
Please explain what proven continuity is necessary, and what would constitute proof.
The eye-witness reports are contradictory. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Take Sgt Lagasse's statement that the only 2 things he saw that are "non-negotiable" are a NoC approach, and the impact itself. 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? |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Apr 2 2009, 08:24 AM Post #457 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 2 2009, 08:25 AM Post #458 |
|
Translation: You have no intention of providing any argument of substance. Your intention is to continue repeating your incredulity based opinion. I am not attempting to brow beat you or anyone. What I am trying to do is have a credible dialogue with members who have a valid interest in discerning the truth. IMHO, you are a member whose sole interest appears to be seeing how many posts you can generate in an attempt to undermine a serious thread by diluting it by endlessly repeating the same unsubstantiated opinion. MM |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 2 2009, 10:42 AM Post #459 |
|
Why is Sean Boger's graphic description of the impact marginal rather than good?[/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. 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. 3. He didn't agree with the surveillance video. 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. 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.
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. 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"?
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. 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. 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.
1. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit. 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. 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.
1. Because 13 witnesses saw the plane approach NoC, which means the plane cannot hit. 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. 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. 3. Due to no 1 and the fact that his position in the military, he could be a suspect witness.
Definitive confirmed and corroborated SoC witnesses describing a corroborated impact
No they are not. Stop lying. Stop using deceptive terminology and phrasing. The witnesses are "corroborated".
No, it's a lie.
Where are you getting "non-negotiable" from? NoC approach negates an impact. THAT is "non-negotiable".
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". Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Apr 2 2009, 12:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Apr 2 2009, 11:34 AM Post #460 |
Patriotic American
|
In other words, it is due time to ignore this troll. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Apr 2 2009, 03:59 PM Post #461 |
|
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.
Or, he is describing what he saw from memory, and his recollection isn't perfect.
What part doesn't he agree with?
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.
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?
The reverse logic may also apply.
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.
Why does he have to remember specific details for his account to have merit?
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.
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.
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?
His memory on exactly where it flew over isn't perfect. His impression is that it came over his right shoulder.
Possible. Do you think it possible that the Pentagon Police Officers could be suspect witnesses?
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.
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.
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.
I'd rather hear that from MM. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 2 2009, 06:06 PM Post #462 |
|
I know it is easier to just say the opposite back to me instead of actually being intellectually honest. I gave you a list of reasons why this isn't the case. I suggest you think about them for a while. Besides being corroborated thoroughly on the very simple detail of north side/south side, it is patently ridiculous to say that he would get the flight path in relation to a gas station and a very noticeable and significant right bank wrong over an impact that is supposed to happen right next to him that is the result of a plane that is coming right at him-an event that would surely make him duck for cover before the plane reaches the wall.
Or did he just not see the alleged impact, mainly because he like everyone else asked saw the plane approach NoC.
Go back and watch it. Here: http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm
No it is an assumption any logical individual would have to include especially in light of the plane being on the north side. Besides the plane coming right him, according to him: true. Him ducking for cover, according to him: true. It's just a question of when, and since the plane can't hit on a NoC approach then it was obviously before.
No that is not possible, especially since he saw the plane approach NoC. What are you not getting?
No it may not. Because it is illogical. The plane can't hit since it approached on the north side of the Citgo.
No, what wasn't up for discussion was the plane being on the north side. Go back and watch it again. Especially since they are mutually exlcusive.
Um because that is the point. Regardless, he is and has been a suspect witness. I understand that you are a "critical thinker" skilled in the art of rational thought, Occams Razor, and all of kinds of logic none of us wild eyed "conspiracy theorists" could ever hope to use, but there are suspect witnesses involved. We are detectives of sorts and he fits our criteria. He was someone we did not believe. That is what detectives do, they follow hunches and suspicions in building their case. He needed to have specific details because they have to jive with what the plane was supposed to have done and was capable of doing. I am not sure if you are familiar with this, but your SoC flight path is IMPOSSIBLE in relation to G forces. Have a looksie: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=346
No sorry. You are assuming McGraw witnessed this event and Mark Faram didn't see anything from inside the Navy Annex. It took him 10 minutes to get down there, McGraw said and then confirmed with me that he allegedly exited his car 45 seconds after the event. Father McGraw fits the bill of complicit operative witness. Sorry.
No sorry it doesn't work that way. You are just going in circles and wasting everyone's time. How are you going to prove he is right? How are you going to tell Lagasse and co that they didn't see the plane on the NoC? See what we have here is a problem, one that doesn't need the assistance of "people" like you. This is something that needs to be resolved with our gov't, not some obtuse, stubborn, illogical "person" with no counter-evidence of his own. This is not a debate, as much as you would like it to be. This is about the fate of our country, not your arrogant posturing over "CT's" as being right. No one is going to concede to your idiocy.
I am giving you my opinion as someone who has personally uncovered a deception at the pentagon. I can't help it if you don't accept it. The fact is the plane flew NoC. This is not up for debate any longer. Since it flew NoC, pulled up, and was seen Are you saying that there is no such things as intelligence assets paid and willing to lie? Isn't it possible that Penny Elgas can be one of those since the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo? Could a semi detailed description of an impact of a plane that did not hit and a photo op for a piece of debris be considered a possible deception thought up by the planners?
Whatever man, you are just blabbering and trying to confuse the reader. JFK, please do something about this. MM even sees through this guys masquerade.
No. Um, because they contradict the gov't's story.
By you, your crew of fellow denialbots, JamesRhandi, whoever.
Yes he was lying.
Um no I didn't. His account has never been corroborated. Like many alleged impact witnesses.
Of course it doesn't, an NoC approach means the plane did not which means he is lying.
Well the plane being on the NoC means ops were involved. He happens to fit the bill. This applies to anyone else who fits the bill.
No. See above.
Right, the statements are, the beliefs are, but the witnesses aren't. Them being deceived about an impact was part of the plan, it doesn't make them "contradictory witnesses".
13 witnesses on recording, confirmed and corroborated Other witnesses aren't even considered for viability or deniability until you speak with them and confirm what's what. "Other witnesses" are boneheads reading accounts online and believing them without confirming what they saw, if they saw, could they see, etc. You don't have other witnesses. Better yet, since the plane approached on the NoC path, this would mean that there are more than definitely planted stories. That is what the CIA does, plant stories. Plant "witnesses". Wouldn't you agree?
No you are liar because you are treating them as they were "contradictory witnesses" rather than first hand confirmation as to what happened. You are going into this assuming there was no deception, no witnesses lying, no staging etc. We went out there and looked for evidence to support our beliefs but were willing set them aside if we were wrong. We weren't. Your repeating of shit you read online is not counter evidence. It is NOT a contradiction to our witnesses. What are you not getting. We have proved a deception, you can't take elements of the deception to prove there was no deception. Especially when you are doing it from behind your computer. Don't you get it? You have faith in those online accounts like little children have faith in Santa Claus.
Right and what is obviously irrefutable is the plane being on the north side of the Citgo because a NoC plane can't hit the building and we have confirmed the NoC path to the point of redundancy.
Let me make this easy on you, because you don't seem too bright. Since the plane appraoched on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up it would not have hit the building right? Since it would not hit the building. This would involve a deception correct? Now, Lagasse seeing the plane NoC and believing it crashed-would this be the intentions of those who flew the plane NoC? Would Lagasse stating that he saw the plane hit be a product of him being fooled or him just being a "contradictory witness"?
Well you heard from me. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Jun 9 2009, 09:23 PM Post #463 |
|
Well I'm still waiting for those South Side eye-witnesses, whenever you're ready. |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 17 2009, 02:30 PM Post #464 |
|
Have only come across this forum today. Have an amateur interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories and have read some, but not all of this thread. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities regarding the light poles. Either they were clipped by AA 77 just before impact or the damaged poles were fabricated. If you prefer the latter explanation you have to envisage that this matter actually came up at a planning meeting and that arrangements were put in hand to effect it. This is what I just cannot get my head around. Having reached the major decisions about how the damage to the Pentagon was to be wrought somebody must have said, and I find this totally incredible, " how about smashing some light poles on the estimated route in ". And the others, instead of saying "what the hell are you on about , let's keep it simple" say, "great, let's get on it " It jusn't ring true. If there was a conspiracy then it was one of the worst and most murderous in human history and you have conspirators adding unecessary twiddly bits which could only serve to reveal it. The other major flaw of course is that no-one has admitted to fabricating or planting damaged poles and no-one witnessed it. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 17 2009, 02:39 PM Post #465 |
|
Welcome aboard and you are correct. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 17 2009, 02:54 PM Post #466 |
|
I find this screen grab very interesting... http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110954-1036 
Edited by JFK, Jul 17 2009, 02:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 17 2009, 03:13 PM Post #467 |
|
What's so interesting about it? I wonder if there is any traffic cam or helicopter traffic shots from 9/11/01, that show any of the 5 poles standing that morning? That would really kill the noc argument once and for all. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 17 2009, 03:23 PM Post #468 |
|
Where is Lloyde England's cab ? Or are you that unfamiliar with the area and are in this thread simply with the intent of trolling ? |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 17 2009, 03:25 PM Post #469 |
|
I am very unfamiliar with the area. I have never been there. How do we know the cab should be in this shot? What time is it? What day? |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 17 2009, 03:28 PM Post #470 |
|
You agree the perps would have to stage some evidence, right? So why not light poles? Turn it around. Of all the trajectories a plane could have flown to allegedly hit the Pentagon, it takes the most improbable trajectory of low to the ground that just happens to hit light poles to give the event more evidence that a plane crashed. Basically a 1% chance when any other trajectory would have hit no obstacles leading up to the building, thus leaving no extra evidence it crash. Then couple the official trajectory with just happened to have hit the 1% area that happens to have construction equipment, thereby leaving behing more evidence of a plane crash. INCREDIBLE odds.
Why would criminals participating in a conspiracy admit to if they weren't caught? |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 17 2009, 03:30 PM Post #471 |
|
Where is the pentagon in this shot? Whare is it suppose to be? Where is the smoke? I'm lost. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jul 17 2009, 03:32 PM Post #472 |
|
I thought Lloyd England confessed? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jul 17 2009, 03:35 PM Post #473 |
|
That is why I included the link as well as left the header in that image... So you can calculate the time down to the minute. As far as being unfamiliar with the area, I suggest you watch CIT's "Eye of the storm" as they drive this route with Lloyde England several times. Edit to add - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/pages/eots/ scroll forward to 1:17:50 Google maps also helps and likely if you go to the beginning of this thread I am sure that maps and pics have already been posted. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.87215,-77.059308&spn=0.000704,0.001443&t=h&z=20 Use street view. Edited by JFK, Jul 17 2009, 03:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Alfie | Jul 17 2009, 03:50 PM Post #474 |
|
I don't see how the light poles add anything at all. If they were a fabrication then it seems to me to be completely superfluous and risky to boot. You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first. So far as people talking who were involved is concerned there are lots of reasons why they may talk over years. They may get religion, be tortured by remorse, become terminally ill or die. In my view it is inconceivable that no-one has talked in nearly 8 years. |
|
|
|
| ToS | Jul 17 2009, 04:07 PM Post #475 |
|
Thanks for answering your skeptic friend's question of "no-one has admitted to fabricating or planting damaged poles." 
Edited by ToS, Jul 17 2009, 04:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
10:52 PM Nov 8
