| 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! |
| Sgt Lagasse Stands By Placement of the Plane; After Seeing The PentaCon | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 27 2009, 04:38 PM (3,421 Views) | |
| Stundie | Mar 6 2009, 01:29 PM Post #26 |
|
I'm glad you are not going to get the man in trouble but the question is why should he be in trouble or not allowed to talk about what he witnessed? They are being told not to talk to the media and why would you want to ask him if he stand by his claims? How is it impossible for the plane to be NoC when he and his buddy clearly state they saw the plane NoC?  There is no speculation, just pure denial. |
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 6 2009, 02:22 PM Post #27 |
|
Well perhaps you should simply contact him so you can get his e-mail address and permission to e-mail him. I wouldn't doubt that he has a work e-mail as well.
Why the F*CK should I e-mail him, champ? I believe him. I know he witnessed a plane approached on the north side and didn't witness an impact. I had enough e-mail exhanges with him. You are the one doubting him and not seeming to understand the situation. YOU contact him!
Go ahead and ask him. I explained to him why the plane could not approach from the NoC and impact. This is an issue he refused to accept and eventually even address. But he stands by the NoC approach and would testify in court to it. you just don't seem to understand how psychologically and emotionally distressing this was for him.
What speculation? He stands by where he saw the plane. That is all you should be concerned about. It is clear he could not and DID NOT witness an impact, and obvioulsy IF PRESSED he would admit this and more than likely admit the NoC path and the impact are irreconcilable. I know the thread is about Lagasse, but what about Sgt Brooks? Turcios? The ANC boys? Sean Boger? Do duhbunkers focus on the Lagasse because he is white and provides the biggest threat to your case, because his skin color brings more credibility? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 6 2009, 03:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Mar 6 2009, 02:58 PM Post #28 |
|
I applaud all the great work done by CIT. They've done a phenomenal job presenting their findings. As I see it, the deniers of your work are motivated by a desire to undermine the respect you've gained by baiting you into making emotional responses. Visitors who have yet to see the quality and depth of the CIT work can be easily prejudiced if their first exposure to the authors are emotional backlashes. I know it's painful to be disrespected, but if you care about your work, you have to maintain the high ground and not sink to the level of those who wish to bring you down. MM |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 6 2009, 04:16 PM Post #29 |
|
Then you don't believe him because he says he witnessed both. I think YOU should e-mail him because you've already got communication going with him, and it's been made clear that his employer doesn't appreciate him taking these types of calls. "Do duhbunkers focus on the Lagasse because he is white and provides the biggest threat to your case, because his skin color brings more credibility?" YOU created this thread about Lagasse so he is the focus here. Skin color has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 6 2009, 04:54 PM Post #30 |
|
Thanks strawman, but no thanks. He didn't witness both, didn't you watch the interview? Didn't you listen? I know you think this is fun, but this only makes you look like a lunatic. Just contact him. It's not hard. I know you are trying to be a little coward and flip this on me, but I already did my job. I established where he saw the plane, I analyzed the situation, I determined logically what happened, based on the corroboration of other witnesses. I understand that lagasse did not see an impact, but rather believes one. Seriously, go back and watch the doc. He only believes in an impact.
Right and I mentioned that. I am just curious why this guy is always a focus for you duhbunkers. I know it is race, I just wanted to see if you would admit it. Seriously though, you duhbunkers are totally racist. Lagasse is the focus of all their energy whenever they address our witnesses. It's like they is the only that matters, the only one they are concerned about. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 10 2009, 06:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 6 2009, 05:55 PM Post #31 |
|
It's not a strawman. He said he saw it hit the pentagon and even described the fact that the plane "yawed into it". "Just contact him. It's not hard. I know you are trying to be a little coward and flip this on me, but I already did my job. I established where he saw the plane, I analyzed the situation, I determined logically what happened, based on the corroboration of other witnesses. I understand that lagasse did not see an impact, but rather believes one. Seriously, go back and watch the doc. He only believes in an impact. " PM me his e-mail address and I'll be happy to contact him. If you don't want to give his address out then I'll send it to you and you can forward it on to him. I'm not going to harrass the man at work especially after his employer has already stated that they don't want him making further statements. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 6 2009, 06:27 PM Post #32 |
|
yes it is. 100%
No he didn't. He admitted the fireball prevented from seeing what the plane did. He was adding his deduction based on the images that show an angled entry... Like this... http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/delmont.jpg And this... http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg And just to remind you... -Lagasse jumped into his car after seeing the plane to his left and flinching. He later admitted the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane did at the alleged impact point. -Sgt Brooks said that our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible" when it comes to being fooled. -Robert Turcios said the fireball prevented him from seeing the "impact"
I already told you, I am not giving you his e-mail address and I am not e-mailing him for you. You are just going to have become inventive. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 6 2009, 06:32 PM Post #33 |
|
Espresso, you should really watch this. Edited by JFK, Mar 6 2009, 06:32 PM.
|
|
|
| darion | Mar 7 2009, 07:42 PM Post #34 |
|
Why would espresso have to watch anything? He is a 9/11 expert! He knows more than any of the eye witnesses there. No matter what anyone said or what proof you show him he knows better than that. This kind of moronic mindset is beyond me. If I am wrong then I admit I am wrong. But to dance around the subject trying to get someone to slip up is plain retarded. Ack I got so pissed I’m starting to sound like a debunker! |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 9 2009, 04:03 PM Post #35 |
|
I've watched it and I'm just going off of what Mr. Lagasse said. Aldo is claiming that Lagasse didn't actually see the impact. The crux of the issue is that if the fact that Lagasse "stands by his placement of the plane" is important, then likewise whether or not he stands by his claim of seeing the plane hit the pentagon is equally important. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 9 2009, 04:29 PM Post #36 |
|
As far as seeing the impact, that was impossible from Lagasse's viewpoint. Keep in mind that this camera is about 9 feet off the pavement which is higher than the pavement at the Citgo. http://209.85.62.24/190/51/0/p130216/North_of_Citgo.png ( 1.18 Mb ) |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 9 2009, 04:45 PM Post #37 |
|
That sounds like something that needs to be brought up to Mr. Lagasse because he seems to think otherwise. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 9 2009, 11:37 PM Post #38 |
|
espresso, lagasse saw the pentacon. he understands what he saw. he has not recanted his testimony. instead of making a statement to correct himself his employers placed a gag order on him. the logical thing to conclude is that sgt. lagasse isn't going to change his story despite the implications which he is well aware of. now he's not allowed to talk. the only time people aren't allowed to talk is when their owners don't like what they have to say. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 10 2009, 12:50 PM Post #39 |
|
Or when he's not authorized to make statements to the media on behalf of his employer. (this is common in any organization) He doesn't have to recant his testimony, we know that what he claims is impossible which in my mind lessens his credibility. That's why I believed those additional questions to be of importance. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Mar 10 2009, 01:38 PM Post #40 |
|
This exchange reminds me of the kind of argument used over at JREF to discredit Danny Jowenko's insistence that WTC 7 definitely collapsed due to a controlled demolition. The fact that Jowenko accepts the official story's view that the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions, is used to accuse him of having a contradictory viewpoint and which destroys his credibility. A similar attempt is being made here, where expresso is attempting to discredit Sgt Lagasse's solid testimony just because Lagasse also believes the subsequent fireball belonged to the jet he observed. In both cases, you have individuals who do not want to go on record expressing doubt about a 9/11 official story conclusion even though they have made observations that do exactly that. Danny Jowenko was caught off guard when he gave his opinion about WTC 7 (he didn't realize it was part of the 9/11 event) and Sgt Lagasse, I suspect was also caught off guard when he gave his honest recollection about the flightpath while not realizing it to would contradict the official story. MM |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 10 2009, 02:35 PM Post #41 |
|
troll
|
Who owns him? I don't get how you think people will do anything for a job. He can get another job. People have a conscience. They are not going to lie about the deaths of fellow citizens, to keep a job. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Mar 10 2009, 04:09 PM Post #42 |
|
Society owns him. His family owns him. His friends own him. His personal fears own him. Take those away, and he's free to act according to his conscience to the degree that his sense of moral responsibility compels him to. Few people like or want to be at the center of controversy. Especially controversy as sensational as publicly defying the 9/11 official story. It's well an easy for you to act smug bryan26, talking about conscience and the ease of switching jobs. Sgt Lagasse has provided extremely valuable eyewitness testimony which has no doubt already come at much personal price. To expect him to also become a crusader shows your extreme lack of human understanding. MM |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 10 2009, 04:23 PM Post #43 |
|
Ummm, they didn't need their permission before when they gave us their interviews. They only enacted this BECAUSE of us and BECAUSE of these interviews. They are not making statements on behalf of their employer. They are merely reporting the flight path of the plane and their experience on 9/11. Stop making shit up.
We know? What is impossible? Lessens his credibility???? Nice of you to make that call anonymously from behind your monitor while ignoring ALL the other witnesses who support and corroborate him. You are pathetic, you know that? |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 10 2009, 05:10 PM Post #44 |
|
Most companies have policies that prohibit their employees from making statements to the media unless they're an authorized media representative (even if that employee is not specifically intending to make statements on behalf of his/her employer). That's how companies are, that's not me making things up. Even the piddly retail job I had while in college had the same policy. The fact that Lagasse was in uniform would also play into it. "We know? What is impossible? " It is impossible for the plane to fly north of citgo and create the observed damage. Do you agree? "Lessens his credibility???? " He's making claims that we know to be impossible. That reflects negatively on his credibility as an eyewitness. "Nice of you to make that call anonymously from behind your monitor while ignoring ALL the other witnesses who support and corroborate him." I'm not ignoring the other eyewitnesses but this thread isn't about them, it's about Lagasse. Any eyewitness who claims to have witnessed something that we KNOW to be impossible has damaged their credibility. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 10 2009, 05:28 PM Post #45 |
|
So what was their excuse before? How come they didn't need permission before? How come it came after our experience?
I agree with that.
No it does not. It reflects on him as a witness who provides a vital detail, which he was corroborated on multiple times, who was fooled. He was unaware of the official damage path and reports, you fool, so how could you fault him for that? Oh that's right, you are a "critical thinker". Unbelievable. I would absolutely love to record a phone conversation with you. I can't believe you are even a real person.
What did he claim to have witness sweet cheeks? Let's go over it: -seeing a plane on the north side...check. -seeing a huge fireball preventing him from seeing what the plane did...check. -He assumed the plane struck the building, well because, he saw a plane heading toward the building and then a fireball. -He didn't know about the official flight path or damage path. What are you not getting or not trying to get? |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 10 2009, 07:38 PM Post #46 |
|
troll
|
Please don't try to tell me, "Mr. I saw everything, I know exactly how it happened", is afraid to speak his mind. That is a very weak argument. By the way, when did any of you start speaking for him? How do you know what he deduced, if he didn't say it himself? I know what he said, he saw the plane "yaw" into the pentagon. If you claim that he is mistaken, please tell me how he could not see what he said he saw? The towers were struck by planes. The plane goes in and then the explosion appears. Why would he see an explosion before the plane hit the building? If the explosion came first he wouldn't think it was caused by the plane. |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 10 2009, 07:50 PM Post #47 |
|
troll
|
Your saying that, if a plane is heading toward a building and then there is an explosion, people automatically think the plane hit the building, and never see or hear the plane afterwards? Does it matter were the explosion initiated? Does it matter where the plane is in relation to the initiation? How close to the source of the explosion does the plane need to be to appear to cause it? How does the explosion hide the entire plane instantaneously? Wouldn't the plane have to be traveling at warp speed to sync with the explosion and at the same time avoid being blown out of the sky? If the explosion initiates near the first floor, how does the plane appear to cause it, if it is flying above the roof line? How does the plane escape detection in rush hour Washington, at a building sitting between 3 major roadways? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 10 2009, 08:13 PM Post #48 |
|
fucking weak. when did he make any statement on behalf of his employers? he didn't. you're a lowlife bush apologist who supports the 9/11 commission outline despite the commissioners stating it was inaccurate and only a first draft.
whats impossible? a plane flying on the north side of the citgo station or the guys who forced the epa to lie about air quality and conned the media into selling the american public that saddam had both wmd's & ties to al qaeda? is it impossible that all the cit witnesses are telling the truth and the people who are paid to sit in front of a camera and read a teleprompter are incapable of lying? is it impossible that philip zelikow was a compromised bush asset? the only thing that is impossible is to open the mind of a propaganda zombie. thats what you are. |
|
|
|
| darion | Mar 11 2009, 02:28 AM Post #49 |
|
Didn't I say espresso was a expert and knew more than the eye witnesses. And you too can be a expert debunker with these tips. First be a expert! Go to one of the few debunking web pages. Look around for about a hour or two. Congratulations your a 9/11 expert and can debate any professional on any subject. If a person brings up proof or the conversation becomes to complicated ignore said evidence by calling it a conspiracy. Then after ignoring anything he brought up ask him for hard proof. And remember the magic word "coincidence". |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 11 2009, 06:01 AM Post #50 |
|
i just laughed so hard at that.....lol its sooo true though. thats all it takes. i have duhbunkers arguing shanksville witness accounts with me. they link 2 quotes claiming a witness said he saw human remains and i produce 2 seperate videos of the actual witness [rick king] saying there wasn't any evidence of any human remains. they call me names and say i'm cherry picking but they're actually cherry picking 2 sentences written by a writer inventing a quote attributed to the witness but the only evidence that exists is the exact opposite of those quotes. they're experts alright......lol |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
8:40 PM Nov 30
