Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Witnesses List Broken Down; No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses
Topic Started: Jan 15 2008, 03:11 PM (4,664 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Hello all,

Here is a great resource for you all to use. It consists of a breakdown of all witnesses in relation to what they said versus what they actually saw or could have seen. I based this analysis on what was actually printed. Without direct confirmation and srutinizing of witness claims and POV (point of view) locations, they are merely static words floating around left to imply an impact.

Seeing plane + smoke/fireball DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Seeing/descrbing a plane + reporters deduction/sensationalizing about witness account DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Speaking with witnesses and clarifying the details of their account is the ONLY way to get answers.

Some witnesses are genuine and some are not. Some are real people with real lives who were confused and convinced by the attacks in New York while some are deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information to make us chase our tails or delicately dancing between ambigous statements.

Some merely deduced an impact while some either arrived after the event or simply said they were there and outright lied about an impact. The fact that they "saw a plane versus a missile" is what their account was originally touted for by skeptics but when accepted that there was a plane and scrutinized against the north side flight path and the fact that the local topography does not allow a complete view of the event, most of the accounts do not hold water when analyzed.

I am open to debate on this matter and tried to remain as fair and accurate as I possibly could. If I missed anyone, please let me know. If you disagree with any of this witness designations, then please let me know. However, you should be warned that I will ask you for evidence or logic to support your argument ie pictures and other supporting factors.

Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact:
Susan Carroll (on metro platform at Reagan National)
Allen Cleveland (on subway metro train at Reagan National)
Meseidy Rodriguez (metro platform at Reagan National)
Steve Snaman (Ft McNair)
Michael Tinyk (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT US Patent and Trademark office in Crystal City)
Greta van Susteren (on the roof of a parking structure at National Airport)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC, )
Don Chauncey (small commuer plane)
Henry Ticknor (Rt 50, only saw plane for a moment-mad that people misrepresent)
Michael James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Mark Eastman
D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft from back on Columbia Pike in highrise)
Allan Wallace (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)
Mark Skipper (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)
Steve Eiden (out on 395 loop)
Capt Steve McCoy (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Andrea Kaiser (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Ann Krug (Hoffman-Boston Elementary)
Mary Lyman
Oscar Martinez (saw plane, claims he only heard it hit, no confirmation to seeing)
Kirk Milburn (deceased, died in Motorcycle accident-CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, could not see impact or light poles)
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery (watched it disappear behind bridges and concrete barriers)
Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Elizabeth Smiley
Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
Levi Stephens
Greta van Susteren
Phillip Sheuerman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, on 395, only saw plane for brief moment, did not see impact)
Phillip Thompson (does not mention seeing impact, only fireball)
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)
Richard Benedetto (claims he did not see impact from Rt 27)
Terry Morin (up at Navy Annex)
James Ryan (And you saw it hit the Pentagon? No, at that point it went down because I was approaching a hill.)
Darb Ryan (quote only says "when out of the corner of my eye I saw the airplane" , the writer for Aviation Week adds 'a split second before it struck'.)
Mickey Bell (did not know what had happened)
Don Scott (did not and could not see pentagon or impact, confirmed by CIT)
Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about plane roaring into view, not in position to make determination on impact)
Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams (only heard)
Dennis Smith (no direct confirmation of impact, may actually support flyover)
Dawn Vignola (INTERVIEWED by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)
David Battle
Mike Gerson
Cheryl Hammond (saw the big American Airlines plane and started running)
Dan Creed (up on Columbia Pike, no view of Pentagon or impact)
James Keglovich (no indication or CONFIRMATION that he actually saw the impact)
Aydan Kizildrgli (no indication or CONFIRMATION,writers words, his quotes do not allude to ACTUALLY seeing the impact)
Lincoln Liebner (at entrance to building in south parking lot, cannot see impact from there.-also claims plane hit helicopter which it did not)

Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one:
1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
2. Donald Bouchoux (military consultant. CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)
4. Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced we believe)
5. Pam Bradley (unconfirmed account/witness)
6. Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (Dawn Vignola's roomate, unavailable for comment)
7. James R. Cissell
8. Daryl Donley
9. Bobby Eberle (came forward well after the event, Jeff Gannon's boss)
10. Penny Elgas
11. Mary Ann Owens
12. Scott Perry
13. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
14. G. T. Stanley (unconfirmed name/witness)
15. Steve Storti
16. Carla Thompson (unconfirmed name/witness)
17. Dave Winslow, AP Radio reporter (CONTACTED by CIT, did not return call)
18. Terrance Kean (Unreachable)
19. Dave Marra (dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into 20. building)
20. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)
21. Aziz El Hallou (Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex)
22. Robert A Leonard(driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395; Pentagon is on the left. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.")
23. Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col., CBS news correspondent (account is problematic)
24. Mike Dobbs (according to writer, not confirmed, not his own words)
25. Joe Harrington (seems like it made impact before Wedge-in South Parking lot)
26. Rick Renzi (corrupt congressman, listed as law student, has plane "dive bombing", very peculiar account)

"Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT see a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened:
27. Steve Anderson, USA Today Editor (saw impact from USA Today building)
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined )
Don Chauncey (small commuter plane)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
28. Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) (near impossible to see the plane approach from DC)
29. James Robbins (a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication saw silver flash, "diving in an unrecoverable angle")
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
30.Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter

(30 TOTAL WHO COULD HAVE SEEN OR CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN IMPACT)

Claims plane an American Airlines:
Richard Benedetto
James R. Cissell
Dennis Clem
Mike Dobbs, Marine Cmdr.
Penny Elgas
Cheryl Hammond
Joe Harrington
William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Lincoln Leibner, Army Major
Elaine McCusker
Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. CBS news correspondent
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls)
Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Steve Riskus
Mike Walter
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
James Ryan
Steve Storti
Tim Timmerman
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Ian Wyatt
Afework Hagos (according to writer)(CONTACT ATTEMPTED by CIT)

(25 total)







Saw a "silver plane":
Allen Cleveland
Albert Hemphill
James Mosely (silver flash?)
Steve Patterson
James S. Robbins
Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Lt. Col O'Brien(CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT)

(7 total)




Saw "the/a plane", not identified as AA:
Steve Anderson
Deb Anlauf
Sean Boger (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Donald Bouchoux
Pam Bradley
Mark Bright
Omar Campo
Susan Carroll
James R. Cissell
Dan Creed
Daryl Donley
Bob Dubill
Bobby Eberle
Steve Eiden
Bruce Elliott, Colonel
Kim Flyler
Kat Gaines
Fred Gaskins
Steven Gerard
Afework Hagos
Eugenio Hernandez
Fred Hey
Michael James
Andrea Kaiser
Terrance Kean
James Keglovich
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Aydan Kizildrgli
Ann Krug
Robert A. Leonard
Mary Lyman
David Marra
Oscar Martinez
Stephen McGraw (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
William Middleton Sr.
Kirk Milburn
Mary Ann Owens
Zinovy Pak
Scott Perry
Christine Peterson
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery
Rick Renzi
Meseidy Rodriguez
Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Don Scott (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
Elizabeth Smiley
Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
G. T. Stanley
Levi Stephens
Greta van Susteren
Shari Taylor
Carla Thompson
Phillip Thompson
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Rodney Washington



Only heard plane:
Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about wing)
Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams


Heard impact/explosions:
Lisa Burgess
Michael DiPaula
John Thurman, Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff



Saw something else that does NOT support official story:
Stuart Artman (plane over/near Wash. monument)
Joseph Candelario (plane flying towards White House, sharp turn to Pentagon)
Kim Dent(shadow of plane from Navy Annex)
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
Kat Gaines (plane striking telephone poles from 110)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Joe Hurst ( saw it go overhead, Oval Room restaurant at Lafayette Square? DC)
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr.U.S. Navy(Ret.)(saw it descend from office in downtown DC)
D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft)
Elaine McCusker (saw AA over 14th street bridge)
Steve Patterson (small silver 8-12 passenger commuter plane)
Dennis Smith (tail section before impact from Pentagon Courtyard)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC,
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined-strange behavior when questioned about direction )
Omar Campo (saw white with blue on the bottom plane, United plane)
Michael Kelly (plane flying over him while he is on the 14th st bridge, debris falling on the 14th st bridge/395, sounded like small plane)
Harry Gold (saw plane "off the registered course over the Potomac" and believes it made a dive over Rosslyn)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)
Sgt. Chadwick Brooks CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw champagne off white plane on north side of Citgo, admits he could have been fooled and he stands by where he saw the plane)
Levi Stephens (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CITsaw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)

Could see details of plane ie passengers:
Daryl Donley
Steve Eiden
James R. Cissell
Kim Flyler


Claims Saw it clip light pole:
Wanda Ramey (unconfirmed account)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)
Lloyd England (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Afework Hagos (unconfrimed account-deduced? Lying?)
Mike Walter (has since changed story)



Listed or mistaken as witnesses but actually nowhere near the pentagon at the time of the attack nor did they see anything
Don Fortunato
Lee Evey
Tom Hovis
Jack Singleton

Saw plane on north side of Citgo or headed towards north side of Citgo
Sgt William Lagasse
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
Levi Stephens
Sean Boger
Ed Paik
Amy Hart (according to Steve Ross)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Remember, the second plane contained 3 types of witnesses.

1. Those who were genuine who saw a C-130 a minute or more after the attack. I believe Scott Cook and Phillip Thompson are those types of witnesses.
2. Witnesses who may have seen the flyover and just refer to it as a second plane.
3. Complicit operatives who were trying to ambiguously blend and vaguely imply that the there was a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing close behind on the same flight path veering away from or was over or near the pentagon at the time of the impact/explosion/fireball. The wording is key and is actually even accomplished through the author of the articles. When pressed to give details they back off a bit and merely throw O'brien under the bus by making it seem as if he controlled the plane up until the alleged impact while conspiracy theorists lap it up and take the bait, effectively missing the real problems with their account. They want everyone to look like Fetzer did when he was asked about the C-130's role in the BBC 9/11 documentary, 9/11 Conspiracy Files. It is a possibility that there was an effort to lengthen the amount of time after the event that the plane arrived at, ie shadow, 3-5 seconds after, 30 seconds, less than a minute.


Second plane witnesses in chronological order:


Quote:
 
9/12/01 Albert Hemphill:

The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.




Quote:
 
Sep 12, 2001, John O’Keefe,:

John O’Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. “The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head.… Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.” [New York Law Journal, 9/12/2001]




Quote:
 
Sep 13, 2001, Joel Sucherman, USA Today:

USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane but gives few details. [eWeek, 9/13/2001]



Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"



[...]


"Within a minute (he says clarifies within 3-5 seconds) another plane started veering up and to the side. At that
point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to manouver out of the air
space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. (Audio)"

http://play.rbn.com/?url=usat/usat/g2deman...1sucherman.ra&v






Quote:
 
Sep 14, 2001, TERRY SCANLON Daily Press

"Her brother, Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach , spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal," Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west."
Wheelhouse's account of a second plane is unlike everything else that has been reported about the attack. Some initial reports on television said a second airliner might be headed for the Pentagon, but authorities later dismissed that. A Norfolk-based FBI agent interviewed Wheelhouse Wednesday evening.
A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport. But Wheelhouse insists he was not confused by other air traffic.
After the attack on the Pentagon, reporters in Washington saw Air Force planes patrolling the skies over the capital.
Wheelhouse said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet." –




Quote:
 
9/15/2001

Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/15/2001]




Quote:
 
Sep 15, 2001, TERRY SCANLON Daily Press



Another Hampton Roads native says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon as a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress Tuesday.



Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

"Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane," Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason."



"FBI spokesmen say they have not heard about it, although both Knowles and Keith Wheelhouse, the Virginia Beach man, were interviewed by FBI agents. A Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack.



At the same time, Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet.
Wheelhouse said the second plane looked like it may have been a C- 130 transport plane, but the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like." - Daily Press/Newport News (09/15/01)






Quote:
 
Sep 17, 2001 Vin Narayanan , USA Today



“I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies”




Quote:
 
Oct 28th, 2001 Allen Cleveland:


Soon after the crash(Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane(Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield . He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield , VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.





Quote:
 
December 20, 2001:



An unnamed worker at Arlington National Cemetery “said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/2001]


Quote:
 
9/11/02 Phillip Thompson:

Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic. I tried to reassure people that the plane was not a threat.


Quote:
 
9/11/02 Scott Cook, genuine witness to C-130:

"Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail."


2006:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

After viewing The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version) I believe a few names need to be added to this list.

Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one:

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Sgt Chadwick Brooks (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Saw a "silver plane":

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Claims plane an American Airlines:

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)


Lastly, refer to the section -

Saw something else that does NOT support official story:
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CITsaw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)

This statement is untrue. Robert implied in his testimony that the plane was moving too fast for him to discern any markings. He did not at any time state that the plane did not look like an American Airlines jet.

Interviewer: "And did the plane look like an American Airlines jet to you?"

Robert: "All I saw it was a silver coloured airplane.... I could not uh.... it was very quick uhh.... I would say about 2 seconds when I saw it then I lost sigh of it behind the mound that'swhen I ran up to get a look at it."

I would suggest that there is reasonable doubt as to the overall validity of this list when at least three of the people interviewed by CIT, whose testimonies form the basis of the PentaCon video, are not listed in the appropriate categories or are listed in categories that do not reflect the true intent of their statements.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bongo Thud
Member Avatar
Libertarian Atheist
So how many flyover witnesses are there?

A list would be nice, along with quotes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

It would be nice if there were known flyover witnesses. We do have known north side witnesses. If the plane flew north, then it flew over. You do understand that, right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Avenger
Jan 20 2008, 01:23 AM
It would be nice if there were known flyover witnesses. We do have known north side witnesses. If the plane flew north, then it flew over. You do understand that, right?
Lagasse says the plane flew north, and he also describes the impact in detail...so it sounds like your statement isn't correct after all.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 03:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Avenger
Jan 20 2008, 01:23 AM
It would be nice if there were known flyover witnesses. We do have known north side witnesses. If the plane flew north, then it flew over. You do understand that, right?
Uhh, you're going to need to clarify this one.

North side witness = North of Citgo, yes?

At least two of the star witnesses (Lagasse and Brooks) for the north of Citgo flight path categorically state that they saw the plane impact with the Pentagon building. A third witness (Turcios) claims that his vision was obscured by a mound at the last moment, but that the plane was on a trajectory that would have resulted in an impact with the Pentagon building. I am yet to check the testimonies of the remaining north side witnesses, though I have little reason to suspect that say any differently otherwise their devastating testimony would have been included in the PentaCon film.

There are no witnesses whatsoever who claim that Flight 77 (or any drone) pulled up at the last minute and flew through a fireball and smoke in an elaborate, timed to perfection, military executed sleight of hand.

However, there are more than two dozen witnesses who spoke publicly about seeing a plane collide with the Pentagon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

No flyover witnesses, the flyover having been masked by the explosion. Alright... so how many people saw it fly upward to the spot it passed thru? One we hear, Turcios, who's not in the Citgo video where he says he was at, had the mound block his dorect view of impact, but NOT his view of the pull-up, and still seems to think it impacted. No one else - all either low and level or low and slight nose-down.

So if a fireball can hide a momentary passover, what can hide a hundreds-of-feet up upward travel to get there? If it flew north it had to fly over and if it flew over it had to PULL UP. And no one of that big list but this one liar has ever said that.

And to clarify, CIT is right that north side means flyover, or perhaps flyunder, or disappearance at impact (ie hologram, etc), take your pic. This is because there is no impact damage to the building consistent with that path. It can't hit at one angle and plow thru at another.

So these witnesses, to the extent each is clear on the north path point, are either right, or mistaken (and the list is growing), somehow grossly misread. or wrong on purpose. Again, take your pic.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Caustic Logic
Jan 20 2008, 05:41 AM
If it flew north it had to fly over and if it flew over it had to PULL UP. And no one of that big list but this one liar has ever said that.
I think that's where you're losing some of us. Why would the plane "have to fly over" if it's trajectory was altered to bring it north of the Citgo station?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

nicepants
 
Lagasse says the plane flew north, and he also describes the impact in detail...so it sounds like your statement isn't correct after all.

Light pole and building damage line up with southern path only. Can't have it both ways. You watched The Pentacon so you should already know this. Still playing dumb, I see.
bileduct
 
At least two of the star witnesses (Lagasse and Brooks) for the north of Citgo flight path categorically state that they saw the plane impact with the Pentagon building.

The purpose of the flyover was to fool people into believing the plane hit.
bileduct
 
A third witness (Turcios) claims that his vision was obscured by a mound at the last moment, but that the plane was on a trajectory that would have resulted in an impact with the Pentagon building.

That's not what he said.
Caustic Logic
 
No flyover witnesses, the flyover having been masked by the explosion. Alright... so how many people saw it fly upward to the spot it passed thru? One we hear, Turcios, who's not in the Citgo video where he says he was at, had the mound block his dorect view of impact, but NOT his view of the pull-up, and still seems to think it impacted.

There are camera angles removed from that video. Who do you think was responsible for that? And what do you think was the purpose in removing those angles?
Caustic Logic
 
So if a fireball can hide a momentary passover, what can hide a hundreds-of-feet up upward travel to get there? If it flew north it had to fly over and if it flew over it had to PULL UP.

Hundreds of feet?
Caustic Logic
 
And no one of that big list but this one liar has ever said that.

What about the other north side witnesses? Are they also liars?
Caustic Logic
 
So these witnesses, to the extent each is clear on the north path point, are either right, or mistaken (and the list is growing), somehow grossly misread. or wrong on purpose. Again, take your pic.

Do you honestly believe they could've been mistaken? Because it seems to me that your message has morphed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

nicepants
 
Lagasse says the plane flew north, and he also describes the impact in detail...so it sounds like your statement isn't correct after all.

Avenger
 
Light pole and building damage line up with southern path only. Can't have it both ways. You watched The Pentacon so you should already know this. Still playing dumb, I see.


Please provide a credible source that categorically lists the exact location of all light posts that were struck in the south side approach.

bileduct
 
At least two of the star witnesses (Lagasse and Brooks) for the north of Citgo flight path categorically state that they saw the plane impact with the Pentagon building.

Avenger
 
The purpose of the flyover was to fool people into believing the plane hit.


The smoke and fireball (which did not appear until after the plane collided with the Pentagon) could have only conceivably fooled persons who were watching from behind the flight path of Flight 77. Anyone viewing the incident from around 20 degrees or more to the north or south of this position would have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon and upward to the east.

There is not a single witness that observed this flyover.

bileduct
 
A third witness (Turcios) claims that his vision was obscured by a mound at the last moment, but that the plane was on a trajectory that would have resulted in an impact with the Pentagon building.

Avenger
 
That's not what he said.


On the contrary, that is exactly what he said -

Turcious: I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is uhh, all I saw was it headed straight to it. Then uh, then the big uh explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke.

...

Interviewer: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?

Turcious: Fly over the Pentagon?

Interviewer: Yeah.

Turcious: No uh, the only thing I saw was when it was in direct, uh, direct line to go into the Pentagon.

Please provide evidence next time you choose to contradict one of my statements.

Thankyou.

Caustic Logic
 
So these witnesses, to the extent each is clear on the north path point, are either right, or mistaken (and the list is growing), somehow grossly misread. or wrong on purpose. Again, take your pic.

Avenger
 
Do you honestly believe they could've been mistaken?


This is an interesting question, because four of the six north side approach witnesses all testified to witnessing the plane colliding with the Pentagon. Lagasse goes further to state that the plane was an American Airlines 757, that the light poles and taxi were in a position consistent with the north side approach and that the fireball was definately not caused by pre-rigged explosives.

Are you asserting that they were correct about the flight path and incorrect about everything else?
Edited by bileduct, Jan 20 2008, 11:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Please provide a credible source that categorically lists the exact location of all light posts that were struck in the south side approach.

You can tell which poles were down by the pictures taken by photographers like Ingersol. The light pole damage lines up with the building damage and the building damage is described in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Quote:
 
The smoke and fireball (which did not appear until after the plane collided with the Pentagon) could have only conceivably fooled persons who were watching from behind the flight path of Flight 77. Anyone viewing the incident from around 20 degrees or more to the north or south of this position would have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon and upward to the east.

Almost all of the witnesses are to the south and to the west. All they would have to do is block off some roads and send others off on detours. People on Rout 27, north of the Pentagon, would have a line of trees blocking their view.
Quote:
 
On the contrary, that is exactly what he said -

Turcious: I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is uhh, all I saw was it headed straight to it. Then uh, then the big uh explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke.

...

Interviewer: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?

Turcious: Fly over the Pentagon?

Interviewer: Yeah.

Turcious: No uh, the only thing I saw was when it was in direct, uh, direct line to go into the Pentagon.

Please provide evidence next time you choose to contradict one of my statements.

Thankyou.

He didn't say anything about any mound in that quote. Can't you see him standing ON TOP OF THAT MOUND while he's saying that? The mound blocked his view momentarily, until he made it to the top of it.
Edited by Avenger, Jan 20 2008, 12:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:45 AM
Avenger
Jan 20 2008, 01:23 AM
It would be nice if there were known flyover witnesses. We do have known north side witnesses. If the plane flew north, then it flew over. You do understand that, right?
Lagasse says the plane flew north, and he also describes the impact in detail...so it sounds like your statement isn't correct after all.
Do you believe that the plane approached from the north side and hit the building? Is that what you believe?

Lagasse is purely deducing the "detail" of the yaw, based on the images he has seen of the plane "entering at an angle". BECAUSE HE ADMITTED THE FIREBALL PREVENTED HIM FROM SEEING WHAT THE PLANE DID.

He saw it on the north side. Sorry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Hi Bileduct,

We're going to have fun!

Quote:
 
After viewing The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version) I believe a few names need to be added to this list.

Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one:

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Sgt Chadwick Brooks (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)


How could they confirm an impact when they saw it approach from the north side?

And did you forget the part where Sgt Brooks watched our movie and called it an "eye-opener"? Did you know he said he stands by where he saw the plane and what the plane looked like? Did you know that he said that "anything is possible" in regards to the plane not hitting the building?

So how would they be included in that list?


Quote:
 
Saw a "silver plane":

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)


True, Sgt Lagasse claims he did see an AA.

Robert, later added the part about it being silver. His original color was grey and his original statement was "I know what an AA looks like it has the colored stripes running down the side, but I don't know what that was supposed to be"

Quote:
 
Claims plane an American Airlines:

Sgt William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)


Very true.


Lastly, refer to the section -

Quote:
 
Saw something else that does NOT support official story:
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CITsaw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)

This statement is untrue. Robert implied in his testimony that the plane was moving too fast for him to discern any markings. He did not at any time state that the plane did not look like an American Airlines jet.

Interviewer: "And did the plane look like an American Airlines jet to you?"

Robert: "All I saw it was a silver coloured airplane.... I could not uh.... it was very quick uhh.... I would say about 2 seconds when I saw it then I lost sigh of it behind the mound that'swhen I ran up to get a look at it."


No that is true, because Robert originally DID state that the plane did not look like AA. He became nervous about that statement on camera. Wouldn't you?

Quote:
 
I would suggest that there is reasonable doubt as to the overall validity of this list when at least three of the people interviewed by CIT, whose testimonies form the basis of the PentaCon video, are not listed in the appropriate categories or are listed in categories that do not reflect the true intent of their statements.


Oh please, did you not read above where I stated that I would accept any additions? I apologize for not including Lagasse, maybe I forgot him because he is in a class all by himself ;)

That is a weak argument to try and convince people that it is "not valid". You are desperate.

NEXT!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 21 2008, 12:32 PM
nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:45 AM
Avenger
Jan 20 2008, 01:23 AM
It would be nice if there were known flyover witnesses. We do have known north side witnesses. If the plane flew north, then it flew over. You do understand that, right?
Lagasse says the plane flew north, and he also describes the impact in detail...so it sounds like your statement isn't correct after all.
Do you believe that the plane approached from the north side and hit the building? Is that what you believe?

Lagasse is purely deducing the "detail" of the yaw, based on the images he has seen of the plane "entering at an angle". BECAUSE HE ADMITTED THE FIREBALL PREVENTED HIM FROM SEEING WHAT THE PLANE DID.

He saw it on the north side. Sorry.
Where does Lagasse said that he based the detail of the yaw on images rather than what he observed on 9/11?

Does lagasse report that the fireball occurred prior to the plane contacting the building?

He saw it on the north side? Yes, about 300 feet north of your other witness. It would seem that further verification is in order.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Where does Lagasse said that he based the detail of the yaw on images rather than what he observed on 9/11?



He didn't, but if he saw the plane on the north side and he said the firball prevented him from seeing what the plane did exactly when it hit, what other conclusion can one come to?

Quote:
 
Does lagasse report that the fireball occurred prior to the plane contacting the building?


No, what does that have to do with anything?

Quote:
 
He saw it on the north side? Yes, about 300 feet north of your other witness. It would seem that further verification is in order.


He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes


See how easy that was Nicepants?

Nicepants, did Lagasse say while pointing at the image/flight path he drew 'Perhaps it was a little closer, perhaps it was a little further away, but it had to be on THIS SIDE(referring to north side), I've never seen anything that said it was on the south side'[paraphrase]? YES OR NO?

Nicepants, did Robert Turcios state the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane/fuselage was even further north? YES OR NO?

Would you qualify that as "further verification" when Craig pressed for those additional details?
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 21 2008, 12:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
Jan 20 2008, 05:09 AM
A third witness (Turcios) claims that his vision was obscured by a mound at the last moment, but that the plane was on a trajectory that would have resulted in an impact with the Pentagon building.
No he does not.

He NEVER says that a "mound" obscured the view and specifically states that all he saw was the fireball.

Me: Did you see the plane enter the building?

Robert: No, all I saw was the fireball.


His account is a perfect demonstration of why the sleight of hand would be so effective.

He saw the plane "pull up" over the highway on the north side proving it can not hit the building and the event happened so fast that the fireball and smoke diverted his attention from what was really happening.

Textbook sleight of hand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Does lagasse report that the fireball occurred prior to the plane contacting the building?


No, what does that have to do with anything?

If the plane hit before the fireball, then the initial impact could not have been obstructed by the fireball.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Where does Lagasse said that he based the detail of the yaw on images rather than what he observed on 9/11?

He didn't, but if he saw the plane on the north side and he said the firball prevented him from seeing what the plane did exactly when it hit, what other conclusion can one come to?


Prevented him from seeing exactly what the plane did when it hit.
The conclusion I come to is that when the plane hit, there was a fireball that prevented him from seeing, in detail, what the plane did after impact. This still does not refute the claim of impact.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
He saw it on the north side? Yes, about 300 feet north of your other witness. It would seem that further verification is in order.


He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes


See how easy that was Nicepants?


So was his flight path wrong or was Turcios flight path wrong? Because they differ by about 300 feet. (The mere fact that they claim it was on the same side of a gas station does not mean that they are the same path)

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, did Lagasse say while pointing at the image/flight path he drew 'Perhaps it was a little closer, perhaps it was a little further away, but it had to be on THIS SIDE(referring to north side), I've never seen anything that said it was on the south side'[paraphrase]? YES OR NO?


He believes it was on the north side. I'm unable to view the video from this office so I can't speak to his exact words but my presumption is that his flight path is an estimate, which would then require further investigation.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, did Robert Turcios state the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane/fuselage was even further north? YES OR NO?


Turcios stated that the fuselage was "over the tree", which would mean that approximately 10-15 feet of the right wing was "over the canopy", which agrees with his previous statement.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Would you qualify that as "further verification" when Craig pressed for those additional details?

He got a good start. I would continue by showing Lagasse the flight path drawn by Turcios and asking "Is it possible that the plane was here instead of the path that you drew?" That seems like the next logical step.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:06 PM

If the plane hit before the fireball, then the initial impact could not have been obstructed by the fireball.

You are talking about a difference too fast for the human mind or naked eye to comprehend.

The fact that he specifically says the fireball obscured his view is a testament as to how fast it was and why the sleight of hand would be so effective.


Quote:
 

Prevented him from seeing exactly what the plane did when it hit.
The conclusion I come to is that when the plane hit, there was a fireball that prevented him from seeing, in detail, what the plane did after impact. This still does not refute the claim of impact.


The north side refutes his claim of impact.

It doesn't matter what conclusion you "come to". You are ignoring his statements.

He specifically SAYS that the fireball obscured his view.

His POV and the incredible speed that everything would go down supports this perfectly.

Posted Image

Classic sleight of hand.



Quote:
 

So was his flight path wrong or was Turcios flight path wrong? Because they differ by about 300 feet. (The mere fact that they claim it was on the same side of a gas station does not mean that they are the same path)


They are all in the same general vicinity and are all MUCH closer to each other than the officicail path which was 500 to 800 feet away from all of them.

Lagasse admitted it could have been closer.

We know that they are humans and not computers.

You can not expect them to all be pinpoint accurate.

They don't have to be.

The north side in general proves that 9/11 was an inside job and they all prove the north side in general.

Quote:
 

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, did Lagasse say while pointing at the image/flight path he drew 'Perhaps it was a little closer, perhaps it was a little further away, but it had to be on THIS SIDE(referring to north side), I've never seen anything that said it was on the south side'[paraphrase]? YES OR NO?


He believes it was on the north side. I'm unable to view the video from this office so I can't speak to his exact words but my presumption is that his flight path is an estimate, which would then require further investigation.


Exactly it was an estimate. He admits that he may not be perfect (as we should not expect anyway) but he, and all the witnesses are 100% sure of the north side in general which proves 9/11 was an inside job.

You are making unreasonable demands by expecting them all to be pinpoint accurate.

They are all MUCH closer to each other than the official damage path which is drastically different from what they all claim.

Lagasse admitted it could have been closer to the building but emphatically stated that it HAD to have been on the north side.



Quote:
 

Turcios stated that the fuselage was "over the tree", which would mean that approximately 10-15 feet of the right wing was "over the canopy", which agrees with his previous statement.


Proving the north side, corroborating Lagasse perfectly who said it could have been closer, and proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Quote:
 

He got a good start. I would continue by showing Lagasse the flight path drawn by Turcios and asking "Is it possible that the plane was here instead of the path that you drew?" That seems like the next logical step.



Lagasse specifically said that it WAS possible for the plane to be closer to the building.

He admitted that he may not be perfect in this but like all the witnesses, said that it was completely impossible for it to have been on the south side of the station.

Particularly since he wouldn't have been able to see the plane through the building.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

--oops, still writing--
Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 01:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:06 PM

If the plane hit before the fireball, then the initial impact could not have been obstructed by the fireball.

You are talking about a difference too fast for the human mind or naked eye to comprehend.

The fact that he specifically says the fireball obscured his view is a testament as to how fast it was and why the sleight of hand would be so effective.


The point is, he saw it impact PRIOR to any fireball.

But your theory is that during that split second which was so fast that the human mind and naked eye couldn't even comprehend it, that 757 was somehow able to pull up & over the pentagon? No plane can perform like that at those speeds.


Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 

Prevented him from seeing exactly what the plane did when it hit.
The conclusion I come to is that when the plane hit, there was a fireball that prevented him from seeing, in detail, what the plane did after impact. This still does not refute the claim of impact.


The north side refutes his claim of impact.


Special pleading fallacy. If his statements contradict each other, what is your basis for determining which one is correct?

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 

So was his flight path wrong or was Turcios flight path wrong? Because they differ by about 300 feet. (The mere fact that they claim it was on the same side of a gas station does not mean that they are the same path)


They are all in the same general vicinity and are all MUCH closer to each other than the officicail path which was 500 to 800 feet away from all of them. Lagasse admitted it could have been closer.

We know that they are humans and not computers.

You can not expect them to all be pinpoint accurate.


Exactly my point.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
The north side in general proves that 9/11 was an inside job and they all prove the north side in genera


Flight paths differing by such a significant amount require further investigation.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Exactly it was an estimate. He admits that he may not be perfect (as we should not expect anyway) but he, and all the witnesses are 100% sure of the north side in general which proves 9/11 was an inside job.


He is also 100% sure that it impacted the Pentagon.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
You are making unreasonable demands by expecting them all to be pinpoint accurate.

They don't have to be pinpoint accurate, but they do if you're claiming that they all corroborate the same flight path.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Lagasse specifically said that it WAS possible for the plane to be closer to the building.

How much closer? 300 feet?

Craig Ranke CIT
 
He admitted that he may not be perfect in this but like all the witnesses, said that it was completely impossible for it to have been on the south side of the station.

Particularly since he wouldn't have been able to see the plane through the building.


If he was at the rear gas pump, he could have seen it approaching from south of the station depending on where he was standing.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:06 PM




:D
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Does lagasse report that the fireball occurred prior to the plane contacting the building?


No, what does that have to do with anything?

If the plane hit before the fireball, then the initial impact could not have been obstructed by the fireball.


Oh really? But does that mean that he could see details? So tell me, is that what you truly believe? Do you believe that Lagasse, after looking to his left at the plane on the north side, being startled and "flinching", jumping into his car, grabbing his radio, and then looking up that he actually then saw the detailed impact of a plane that took place in 2 seconds?

Did Mike Walter see the wings fold back and the plane crumple like an accordian?

Did Dave Marra see the plane cartwheel into the building?

Did Dawn Vignola, Lincoln Liebner, Tim Timmerman, all see the plane hit the helipad before hitting the wall?

Did Stephen McGraw see the plane hit the grass like it was coming in for a landing before hitting the wall?

You should stop and research these accounts and then think about it before you answer.

Do you honestly believe Lagasse could make out any significant details or did he just see a plane and then an explosion within seconds? What about Robert Turcios, he just saw the plane headed toward the Pentagon and then the explosion. Sgt Brooks, saw the plane "go in front of the building" and then saw a big explosion.

Plane approaching + explosion, that's all they saw.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Where does Lagasse said that he based the detail of the yaw on images rather than what he observed on 9/11?

He didn't, but if he saw the plane on the north side and he said the firball prevented him from seeing what the plane did exactly when it hit, what other conclusion can one come to?


Prevented him from seeing exactly what the plane did when it hit.
The conclusion I come to is that when the plane hit, there was a fireball that prevented him from seeing, in detail, what the plane did after impact. This still does not refute the claim of impact.


Bolding it doesn't change the fact that I was speaking hypothetically.

Your conclusion is based on your denial and omission of the north side. You can't have both dear. Is everybody watching how Nicepants contradicts himself and switched back and forth without even realizing it?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
He saw it on the north side? Yes, about 300 feet north of your other witness. It would seem that further verification is in order.


He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes

He saw it on the north side? Yes


See how easy that was Nicepants?


So was his flight path wrong or was Turcios flight path wrong? Because they differ by about 300 feet. (The mere fact that they claim it was on the same side of a gas station does not mean that they are the same path)


Nope, but it means it was on the NORTH SIDE!!!!

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, did Lagasse say while pointing at the image/flight path he drew 'Perhaps it was a little closer, perhaps it was a little further away, but it had to be on THIS SIDE(referring to north side), I've never seen anything that said it was on the south side'[paraphrase]? YES OR NO?


He believes it was on the north side. I'm unable to view the video from this office so I can't speak to his exact words but my presumption is that his flight path is an estimate, which would then require further investigation.


Exactly, an estimate on where it was ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO! And no, it doesn't "require further investigation." That is you trying to move goal posts and keep everyone distracted. Go talk to him, go "investigate it further". There is nothing more to investigate.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, did Robert Turcios state the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane/fuselage was even further north? YES OR NO?


Turcios stated that the fuselage was "over the tree", which would mean that approximately 10-15 feet of the right wing was "over the canopy", which agrees with his previous statement.


Aaaand, Lagasse said it could have been closer or further.

If you keep reaching, you're going to pull a muscle.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Would you qualify that as "further verification" when Craig pressed for those additional details?

He got a good start. I would continue by showing Lagasse the flight path drawn by Turcios and asking "Is it possible that the plane was here instead of the path that you drew?" That seems like the next logical step.


Why? Robert admitted the plane was further north of his drawing, was 100% sure it was on the north side of the gas station, placed it over the same overhead sign Brooks and Lagasse placed the plane over in their drawings, and Lagasse admits it could have been closer. Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:41 PM


The point is, he saw it impact PRIOR to any fireball.



That is not what he said. He said the complete opposite.

Why are you lying about his claims?

Quote:
 

But your theory is that during that split second which was so fast that the human mind and naked eye couldn't even comprehend it, that 757 was somehow able to pull up & over the pentagon? No plane can perform like that at those speeds.



It is not my theory it is what he said.

He says he saw it pull up.

He says he did not see the alleged impact because it happened so fast and the fireball obscured his view.

Clearly the sleight of hand was successful since we know a plane on the north side that pulled up could not have caused the physical damage.


Quote:
 


Special pleading fallacy. If his statements contradict each other, what is your basis for determining which one is correct?


Corroboration, vantage point, and numerous other fatal flaws in the official story is the basis for us determining which is correct.



Quote:
 


Exactly my point.


Well your point does not debunk the north side claim but it certainly does debunk the south side claim which is infinitely more drastic than small 100 foot margin of error between their paths that are all on the north side.

Quote:
 


Flight paths differing by such a significant amount require further investigation.


There has been further investigation and we not only have more north side witnesses but we can prove that the entire loop reported by the NTSB is fraudulent and that the plane came from east of the potomac.

All of the details from "further investigation" have demonstrated the official story false and the north side claim true.

Quote:
 

He is also 100% sure that it impacted the Pentagon.


And we are 100% sure that if this was true and that the plane really impacted from the north side after pulling up over the highway that 9/11 would still be proven to be an inside job

Quote:
 

They don't have to be pinpoint accurate, but they do if you're claiming that they all corroborate the same flight path.


They did confirm the same flight path.

They only need to confirm/corroborate the general vicinity (north or south side) of the plane for 9/11 to be proven an inside job.

To say it would have to be the exact "same flight path" would mean you require pin point accuracy in order to accept their statements at all. This is not logical. How many feet of margin of error would you consider acceptable from them and why that number?

There is zero room for error in the physical damage path and there is plenty of room for error in the north side path.

If the plane was ANYWHERE on the north side 9/11 is proven to be an inside job even if the plane still hit the building.


Quote:
 


If he was at the rear gas pump, he could have seen it approaching from south of the station depending on where he was standing.


He saw it on the north side like all the other witnesses.

This proves 9/11 was an inside job.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:41 PM


The point is, he saw it impact PRIOR to any fireball.



That is not what he said. He said the complete opposite.

Why are you lying about his claims?


Where did lagasse say that he saw the fireball prior to the plane impact?

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 

But your theory is that during that split second which was so fast that the human mind and naked eye couldn't even comprehend it, that 757 was somehow able to pull up & over the pentagon? No plane can perform like that at those speeds.



It is not my theory it is what he said.

He says he saw it pull up.


Lagasse said that?
Aside from whoever said it....you're asserting that a 757 flying at those speeds could pull up so quickly that no one could see it. No plane has those performance characteristics.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 


Special pleading fallacy. If his statements contradict each other, what is your basis for determining which one is correct?


Corroboration, vantage point, and numerous other fatal flaws in the official story is the basis for us determining which is correct.


There is corroboration of other accounts, and there are other numerous fatal flaws in your theory...so again it comes down to special pleading. Thanks for clarifying.


Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 


Exactly my point.


Well your point does not debunk the north side claim but it certainly does debunk the south side claim which is infinitely more drastic than small 100 foot margin of error between their paths that are all on the north side.


There are 300 feet between Lagasse & Turcio's flight paths. Even AFTER correcting for Turcio's "Fuselage over the tree" statement.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 

He is also 100% sure that it impacted the Pentagon.


And we are 100% sure that if this was true and that the plane really impacted from the north side after pulling up over the highway that 9/11 would still be proven to be an inside job


But it would also prove your theory false, so you do not accept it, even though Lagasse is 100% sure. So unless you're being biased, the fact that Lagasse is "100% sure of something" doesn't mean that he is correct. It only means that he thinks he is correct.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
To say it would have to be the exact "same flight path" would mean you require pin point accuracy in order to accept their statements at all. This is not logical. How many feet of margin of error would you consider acceptable from them and why that number?


300 feet is a significant difference. The difference from one side of the citgo to the other is less than that! At ;east one of your witnesses is wrong, for some reason this doesn't bother you, but it should.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 


If he was at the rear gas pump, he could have seen it approaching from south of the station depending on where he was standing.


He saw it on the north side like all the other witnesses.This proves 9/11 was an inside job.


He also saw it impact the pentagon. This proves your flyover theory false.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
There is zero room for error in the physical damage path and there is plenty of room for error in the north side path.


Double standard, much? (My theory can have errors in it, other theories can't)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 21 2008, 01:06 PM


:D
Quote:
 


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Does lagasse report that the fireball occurred prior to the plane contacting the building?


No, what does that have to do with anything?

If the plane hit before the fireball, then the initial impact could not have been obstructed by the fireball.


Oh really? But does that mean that he could see details? So tell me, is that what you truly believe? Do you believe that Lagasse, after looking to his left at the plane on the north side, being startled and "flinching", jumping into his car, grabbing his radio, and then looking up that he actually then saw the detailed impact of a plane that took place in 2 seconds?

Did Mike Walter see the wings fold back and the plane crumple like an accordian?

Did Dave Marra see the plane cartwheel into the building?

Did Dawn Vignola, Lincoln Liebner, Tim Timmerman, all see the plane hit the helipad before hitting the wall?

Did Stephen McGraw see the plane hit the grass like it was coming in for a landing before hitting the wall?

You should stop and research these accounts and then think about it before you answer.

Do you honestly believe Lagasse could make out any significant details or did he just see a plane and then an explosion within seconds? What about Robert Turcios, he just saw the plane headed toward the Pentagon and then the explosion. Sgt Brooks, saw the plane "go in front of the building" and then saw a big explosion.

Plane approaching + explosion, that's all they saw.


I believe they saw what they said they saw, not what YOU concluded that they saw.


Craig Ranke CIT
 
Nope, but it means it was on the NORTH SIDE!!!!

So was Lagasse wrong about the path, or was Turcios.?..because they don't agree on where the plane was.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Exactly, an estimate on where it was ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO! And no, it doesn't "require further investigation." That is you trying to move goal posts and keep everyone distracted. Go talk to him, go "investigate it further". There is nothing more to investigate.


Wow, you don't seem concerned at all that your witnesses' flight paths don't line up at all.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Aaaand, Lagasse said it could have been closer or further.

How much closer? How much furher? I guess we're going to extend that margin of error more than the line he drew?

Did you show Turcio's flight path to Lagasse & vice versa and ask for comments? Why not?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply