| 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 (3,434 Views) | |
| Miragememories | Mar 25 2009, 04:50 PM Post #176 |
|
Unless you folks, and I mean specifically HeadLikeARock, bryan26 and espresso, intend to bring something new to this thread which actually casts some 'real' doubt on Sgt Lagasse's NofCitgo testimony, I would suggest that your continued repetition of the same lame arguments, is nothing short of a deliberate attempt to "muddy the waters". Myself and others here have put a great deal of time, effort and patience into explaining why Sgt Lagasse's NofCitgo testimony should stand, only to see our responses buried under rhetoric that reveals no sincere interest in a genuine discussion. Your strategy appears to be, always have the last word no matter how empty, and bloat this thread with as much mind numbing irrelevance as possible, in the hope that visitors doing sincere research will give the thread a pass. In short, sabotage the thread with lots of bs. If you can't bring anything new to the table and can't negate the credibility of Sgt Lagasse and the 12 eyewitnesses who have gone on record and corroborated his testimony, then I accuse you of intentionally mocking this thread and the sincere members who have supported it! MM |
 |
 
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 25 2009, 05:25 PM Post #177 |
|
Yes it does. Independent corroboration is the society accepted scientific process used to validate eyewitness accounts. Everyone knows that. Why do you have such disdain for science and evidence with such utter loyalty and FAITH in what you were told by the govt and media?
Huh? When have I said that? Of course they are capable of being wrong. But the one very simple detail of what side of the station the plane flew has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt via the scientific validation process of independent corroboration. Now stop lying about my claims. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 26 2009, 06:19 AM Post #178 |
|
"irony" |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 08:59 AM Post #179 |
|
No it doesn't. Matching means they match. It doesn't tell us whether they are right or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
So anyone who disagrees with you has utter loyalty and faith in the government and the media?
That seems to contradict with this statement:
They are capable of being wrong, whether their statements match or not. |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 26 2009, 09:02 AM Post #180 |
|
troll
|
Is it possible for Lagasse and others to be wrong? YES!!!!!!! Is it possible for the plane to sync with an explosion and fool everyone in the vacinity at all POVs into thinking it hit the building? NO!!!!! ( the plane would have to fly into the first floor to appear to cause that explosion) Is it possible for the plane to hit 5 light poles( one wing hit two, one wing hit thee) knocking them over and still have enough momentum to reach and slam into the pentgon, only a very very short distance away? YES!!!!! Is it possible for a single massive explosion to produce all of the damage in and around the pentagon, appearing as if something, like a large jet, crashed into it? NO!!!!!!!! Those are just a couple, but there are many. You keep talking about Lagasse can't be wrong, but the cab didn't just appear out of thin air, damaged with pole and glass debris surrounding it in the middle of rush hour traffic. The trailor was not damaged by a stationary explosion. The lawn debris was not blown out of some trailor with a planted explosion ( where are the remains of the trailor). The witnesses on the lawn who dove out of the way of the plane, have not been shown to be lying and helping to kill thousands. The three pentagon rings were not damaged by preplaced explosives. The people on rte 27 who watched the plane crash into the pentagon, did not see a plane disappear into the building, unless that is what it did. The witnesses who saw the plane hit the building have not all been shown to be lying, mistaken, asleep, listening to the radio, putting on makeup, closing their eyes in fear, in a trance, blind, reaching into the glove compartment, etc. You cannot discount all of the witness with one generalized statement and give the noc witnesses every benefit of the doubt. What kind of investigator are you? All impact witnesses are soc witnesses, because the plane could not have hit any other way. There is nothing to say that it is impossible for the plane to hit the poles, pole hit the cab, plane hit the pentagon. All physical evidence and most witness testimony conclusively shows that a large jetliner flew into the pentagon. If noc is true there would be other evidence, not just a few people saying what they perceived. |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Mar 26 2009, 09:08 AM Post #181 |
|
Your time here, and opportunity to contribute anything useful, has expired. |
|
|
| pguillory | Mar 26 2009, 10:21 AM Post #182 |
|
The 'truth' does not want the truth, so you ban anyone who shows how completely idiotic your arguments are. That shows that you only want to listen to each other confirm your theories, fuck what is real or what is true. Calling people murderers without any proof is evil. The things that have been said about Lloyd England, Mike Walters, Larry Siverstein, firemen, police, some victims' relatives, et al, is evil. You hide behind a veil of finding the truth, because you love your country, but can't honor one of the basic premises of our freedom. The accussed must be PROVEN guilty. They are not guilty just because they fly in the face of what you believe. You guys need serious help, because the way your brains work is not normal. So enjoy talking to yourselves. Aldo and Craig can rest assured that their butt boys will always be there to help them not have to respond to real arguments. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 26 2009, 10:43 AM Post #183 |
Patriotic American
|
Bryan26 was trolling and so are you. If you have nothing to add towards research; then please leave. The accused must be PROVEN guilty? There is not one person from the so-called US JUSTICE system attempting to do so is there? So we citizens must take it upon ourselves which is also included within OUR Constitution. |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Mar 26 2009, 11:10 AM Post #184 |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Mar 26 2009, 05:51 PM Post #185 |
|
Ok, first of all, I would like to say that I've known very few people to accuse firefighters of being liars. You say we're so evil for accusing people without what you would consider proof, but you don't mind making blanket accusations about us. We don't believe Lloyd's story because it makes no sense. That is why he gets singled out sometimes, but not in this thread. But, sense you don't mind straying off-topic, I'd just like to point out that Mike Walter did describe the plane as banking to the right which does kinda contradict the official story? CIT interviewed some ANC workers who also said it banked right, correct?
Not about whether it was north or south of the CITGO. I know pguillory and bryan26 are banned, so are there any other "skeptics" who would like to demonstrate how all of these witnesses could have seen the plane south of the CITGO, but believed they saw it north of the CITGO? Or just Lagasse, since this thread is about him, anyway. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Mar 27 2009, 08:50 AM Post #186 |
|
Sgt Lagasse said that the only two things that are non-negotiable are the that plane flew NoC, and that it hit the Pentagon. Similarly with Sean Boger. He said it flew NoC, he also said he saw it fly into the Pentagon. Penny Elgas described the plane in some detail as it entered the building. IIRC the details were quite clear. The rest of her statement could be construed as supporting either SoC or NoC, because it isn't clear exactly where she was, or what side of the CITGO she saw the plane. (I don't think CIT managed to interview her for clarification.) The waters are already muddied because some of the major witnesses make self-contradictory statements. Some of them also make statements that conflict with what other witnesses say. This isn't me or anyone else trying to confuse the issue. I'm pointing out that the issue is already confused, unless you choose to rule out every witness statement that supports an impact or SoC approach as being inadmissible. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 09:28 AM Post #187 |
|
-Perhaps the same way mr Lagasse was sure he was at one gas pump on 9/11, only to be told that the security footage places him at a different location. -Perhaps the same way sgt brooks saw a united logo on the jet. (A logo that wasn't even on united jets until 2004) -Perhaps the same way innocent people are convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2009, 10:02 AM Post #188 |
|
It was American Airlines flight 77 which allegedly flew north of the Citgo.  Here is a pic taken in 1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_727-223_of_American_Airlines_Chicago_O%27Hare.jpg  The logo is on the tail. If you are here to argue the official government story you should at least know what it is you are talking about. From the Moussaoui trial http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html  Edited by JFK, Mar 27 2009, 10:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 10:36 AM Post #189 |
|
Except that NONE of these errors have any relevance to the plane being on the north side nor were they corroborated as the north side was by Turcios and 10 other people. Don't you get it yet? Corroboration is a scientific process that can validate eyewitness evidence to the point of being proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a fact no matter how much you deny it. Funny how now you expect citgo witnesses to be 100% accurate about every single little irrelevant detail or else you'll completely dismiss their entire testimony. That's not how it works. No eyewitness is perfect. We know this. That's why corroboration is so important. I feel like I am talking to a 3 year old. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 27 2009, 10:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 10:59 AM Post #190 |
|
I'm aware of that. Sgt Brooks apparently was not, because he stated that it was a United Jet. A united jet that bore a logo that didn't even exist in 2001. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 11:02 AM Post #191 |
|
The question was "how could someone make that mistake", and the answer is that they could make that mistake just like they could make one of the mistakes I illustrated.
Corroboration doesn't make them perfect. If they all said that it was a United jet does that make it true? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 11:25 AM Post #192 |
|
That didn't happen but if it did it would likely be true, yes. Since they did not this detail has not been validated. But that is a VERY specific and difficult to tell detail while whether or not it flew on the left or right of where you are standing is EXTREMELY simple and obvious detail that would be rather difficult for anyone to get wrong. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 11:38 AM Post #193 |
|
Oh and the notion that it was AA wasn't corroborated by any of the independent eyewitnesses either. Lagasse is the only one of the 13 north side approach witnesses who describes an AA jet. So if you consider that sub-set of evidence by itself, Brooks is just as like to be right with his UA claim as Lagasse is with his AA claim. The reality is that "white" is still the detail that has been corroborated by the first-hand independent witness accounts more than anything else. JFK, You should check out this one if you haven't yet: "Flight 77" The White Plane Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 27 2009, 11:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
| darion | Mar 27 2009, 01:59 PM Post #194 |
|
Espresso stop while you are ahead. You have already shown how ignorant you are when you made the comment about the 2004 logo. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 02:12 PM Post #195 |
|
espresso is nicepanties http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/Nicepanties.jpg (click at your own risk) Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 27 2009, 02:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Apr 2 2009, 06:59 AM Post #196 |
|
Much "ta do" as been made of how the physical aircraft evidence contradicts Sgt Lagasse's NofCitgo testimony. Those who disagree with the truthfulness of his memory, point to the aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn as primary evidence of both a SofCitgo flightpath and a AA Boeing 757 crash. In addition they dispute the planting of aircraft debris evidence because they feel that such criminal activity would be too easily observed. I don't know if this possibility has ever been suggested, but it occurred to me that maybe the aircraft debris wasn't planted, or at least not planted by obvious human means. Is it not possible, even likely, that the external debris was originally part of an aircraft parts collection stored inside the Pentagon ruins? That when the explosion(s) occurred, some of these strategically stored parts were intended to be blown outside as a means of adding substantiation to the story of an AA Boeing 757 crash? Food for thought. MM |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Apr 2 2009, 07:28 AM Post #197 |
|
MM ...
sure could. oh....but what about the "clean debris" ?... ...could a bunch of debris be exploded through the pentagon and look like it was relatively unburnt ...just crumpled? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Apr 2 2009, 12:19 PM Post #198 |
|
Or from the trailers parked conveniently directly in front of the alleged impact hole:  
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Apr 9 2009, 02:10 AM Post #199 |
|
are you saying sgt brooks didn't see a plane? |
|
|
|
| espresso | May 5 2009, 10:10 AM Post #200 |
|
No I'm not. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:28 PM Dec 5
