| 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! |
| Question for CIT regarding Sgt Brooks | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 26 2008, 01:22 AM (1,197 Views) | |
| bileduct | Jan 26 2008, 01:22 AM Post #1 |
|
Craig, Aldo, Could I please ask you to confirm that the embedded image accurately reflects Sgt Brooks' position when he first witnessed a plane heading towards the Pentagon?
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 02:10 AM Post #2 |
|
He was in that parking lot yes. FOB 2 Lot 6. I highly doubt you have indicated the exact parking space and obviously there is no reason to expect Brooks himself to remember the exact parking space either. But from that vantage point north or south of the citgo would be clear as day.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 26 2008, 02:38 AM Post #3 |
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm one or two car spaces to the north. It's not too difficult to place his location using the light pole and trees directly behind Brooks as reference points. You are also now indicating that Brooks himself may not have remembered where he was parked either. That's fair enough, the event did happen 5 years prior to his testimony. Nevertheless, could you please have a look at the next image and answer the questions below? ![]() 1. Is location B the location of the "jersey barrier" mentioned by Brooks at 34:50? 2. Is location C the location of the telephone pole mentioned by Brooks at 35:35? 3. Is location D the location of the trees shown at 36:04? 4. Is location E the location Brooks was standing when he drew the flight path of the plane? A simple YES/NO answer for these questions will suffice. Edited by bileduct, Jan 26 2008, 02:39 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 03:14 AM Post #4 |
|
It is impossible for you to be sure of the exact parking spot because there is no reason to expect Brooks to be exactly sure about such detail.
Yes.
Not exactly sure. As you can see in the interview it wasn't 100% clarified. This is because he was using it as a reference as to the altitude of the plane, not it's exact location. So really ANY telephone pole would suffice to make his point.
Yes.
Yes. Reason for this...... I simply forgot to get him to draw the flight path. I had both officers booked on the same morning. After Brooks left I interviewed Lagasse. After Lagasse's interview I realized that I forgot to ask Brooks to draw the flight path and called him on his cell phone. He agreed to come back and draw it so Lagasse stuck around to see what he would draw out of pure curiosity. That is what led to the segment with both of them. I suppose I should have taken Brooks across the street again but to be honest it didn't cross my mind as I knew he had already explained in detail how he saw the plane on the north side. You can't forget how these guys are all at the Navy Exchange/former citgo EVERY DAY (obviously including Turcios). They know the area. Believe me this place is THE Pentagon cop/military/government worker take 5 spot and where they all get their gas. Brooks saw the plane on the north side like everyone else. Edward Paik and all the other witnesses further back prove the plane HAD to have banked over the Navy Annex exactly like Sean Boger (with a front row seat on a platform) described. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 03:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 26 2008, 03:47 AM Post #5 |
|
34:20 Craig Ranke: Ok Sgt Brooks, so this is exactly where you were standing when you got out of the car Sgt Brooks: Right I'm 100% confident I have marked the correct place on the map that corresponds to this quote. You are now suggesting that Brooks may not have remembered where he was parked. It was, after all, five years prior to the interview. You have also indicated that all of the points marked on the map correspond to the locations I have suggested. Excellent. 34:40 Craig Ranke: Ok, now, yeah, go ahead, well, first off I wanted to ask you what side of the station did you see the plane fly over? Sgt Brooks: Ok actually from the front of the station. From the front of the station. Exactly where we were at earlier where the yellow jersey barrier is. 35:59 Craig Ranke: So it came from up over here? (Camera pointed at trees) Sgt Brooks: Correct. See where the trees are at? See where the trees are at? In the middle. Now refer to the following map. ![]() So let's recap - Standing at point A, Sgt Brooks saw the plane approach from point D, pass over point B, and then witnesses the plane impact directly with the Pentagon. Standing at point E (over 300 feet from the position he actually saw the plane), Sgt Brooks draws the flight path illustrated at point F. Is it fair to say that there is an inconsistency with what Sgt Brooks said he saw, and what he drew? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 03:54 AM Post #6 |
|
No. Unless you expect humans to be computers. They only need to be correct about the approximate placement of the plane and this is all we should expect them to be correct about. We have never asserted that any of them were 100% accurate as to the exact placement of the plane. That would be stupid and wouldn't make any logical sense at all. We simply assert that the very general and approximate north side claim is correct due to the unanimous corroboration from all accounts INCLUDING people in different perspectives like Sean Boger and Levi Stephens. The notion that they would all remember and explain the flight path perfectly is ridiculous. The notion that they would all be DRASTICALLY incorrect in the same way and that the plane was way the hell over on the south side is simply insane. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 03:56 AM Post #7 |
|
The plane banked over the Navy Annex, bile. It had to have. Edward Paik proves it and Sean Boger saw it. Something similar to this: ![]() ![]() Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 04:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 26 2008, 04:17 AM Post #8 |
|
So drawing the plane approximately 450 feet further north of where he said it came from isn't inconsistent? Something else strikes me as odd about your theory, Craig. If your theory is true there is a massive conspiracy involving police agencies, fire departments, Pentagon officials, the FAA, and a whole litany of other Government authorities. Yet the only people in your video that place the plane north of the Citgo (Paik puts it to the south, Turcios puts it over the top, as does Brooks who later changes his story) are.... Pentagon cops. Did they miss the memo? Edited by bileduct, Jan 26 2008, 11:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 26 2008, 04:20 AM Post #9 |
|
Edward doesn't prove shit. Did you specifically ask him if the plane was in a banking maneuver over the Navy Annex? I think I missed that part of your video. Your "proof" involves reconciling Lagasse's testimony with Paik's and deducing what may have happened to explain the inconsistency with what they both report the angle of approach to be. At least be honest about that. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 12:49 PM Post #10 |
|
Paik and Lagasse could not and did not see the bank. Sean Boger could and did. Sean's POV: ![]() "As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle" "It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side." Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 01:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 01:12 PM Post #11 |
|
Why would you say that entire "agencies" had to have been involved? No doubt there are a couple moles in each but the notion and any single one of those entire agencies had to have been involved makes no sense. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 01:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 26 2008, 01:28 PM Post #12 |
|
If the plane flew where brooks drew it, then it couldn't have come from over the middle of those trees. It's one thing to be a little bit inaccurate, but he specifically states that it flew over those trees, and drew a completely different path. I wonder if, looking at the photo you gave him, he was somewhat confused as to what was where. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 01:43 PM Post #13 |
|
The plane banked. Just ask Sean Boger who had a perfect view of this. Brooks saw it north of the citgo just like everyone else. This extremely general claim is the only thing that we have claimed is 100% accurate as we should not and can not expect witnesses to be perfectly precise. This would be particularly hard since they missed the bank that Sean Boger was able to see clearly. The witnesses only need to be approximately right which is all that we should expect them to be. The physical damage flight path, however, is drastically different from what all of them claim and not even close to approximately right. It is not more logical to suggest that it is right and they all are drastically wrong in the same way. Especially when considering the fact that we can prove the plane came from east of the Potomac which completely destroys the NTSB and RADES data. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 02:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 27 2008, 03:20 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
You're losing it, Craig. I agree the human mind is not a computer and can't be read like one. One major difference you acknowledge with all but your own witnesses, is their susceptibility to viruses as it were that corrupt the data in extreme ways (ie witnesses can be wrong and even flat lie). Brooks says north, sure, but in a shifting path. I'd never broken his account down like that, but it's interesting. So he describes a path - straight, banking, whatever... that came over the trees and the barrier, visual clues he recalls and now had a chance to see - that takes it over the north canopy. Lagasse's path was further north if I recall, over the stone fence and entirely north of the station. You forget to have Brooks draw a line then (understandable, I'm sure there's a lot to keep track of) and then have him come back when Lagasse is there, and somehow when shown a photo, he draws this: ![]() Lagasse looks at it and says "That's damn near perfect from what I saw. And we've never -- for the record we never talked to each other about this. Sgt. Brooks: Yeah, for the record, we never -- we've never discussed it at all. ... Craig Ranke: So you guys, neither of you guys have really talked about this with each other? Never in all these five years, and you both independently drew the flight path line pretty much exact. Sgt. Lagasse: I know, I was -- the way this has been going -- who knew what he was going to put down there because he was in a different location. But it's right there, which makes me feel good about the way I remembered it. Craig Ranke: So you're both pretty much 100% certain that that's what you remember the flight path being? Sgt. Brooks: But from different locations, yes.” The part where they chuckle together, that happens elsewhere in the movie, right? |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 27 2008, 12:33 PM Post #15 |
|
I am not "losing" anything. The accounts of all the witnesses including Jamal and Edward Paik prove the plane had to have banked. You can not insist on taking any one claim from any one witness and taking it as 100% accurate as a means to completely dismiss the rest of their account and while ignoring all the other witnesses. The plane banked. Just ask Sean Boger. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 27 2008, 12:37 PM Post #16 |
|
Furthermore the image that Brooks and Lagasse drew on is not any human's perspective. It was simply meant to have them show what they approximately remember in regards to the plane's placement in relation to the citgo. You guys are choosing to over analyze details while expecting humans to be computers. What is your conclusion? That all of them hallucinated? None of the evidence is remotely valid? Start with Jamal, take all the witnesses we report into consideration and draw your own flight path based on their testimony. Go ahead. Do it. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 27 2008, 03:41 PM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Couldn't have said it better myself. Here's another question about Brooks I'm surprised no one has asked yet: Instead of AA like Lagasse cited, Brooks describes a United Airlines paint job with blue letters. From what I hear, that design wasn't even used until 2004, so that don't sound like AA or UA... I know you have an answer for this now, but for those who don't know, why not explain that. I'm still a little unclear on it myself. He just called it that 'cause it looked kinda similar. How did the decoy plane look in your investigation? As detailed as possible, model, overall color, decorations, lettering, etc... |
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 10:09 AM Post #18 |
|
So you don't expect witnesses to be perfectly precise....EXCEPT when they make the claim that the plane was north of citgo...then it's "100% accurate". If they could be mistaken about one thing, why is it impossible for them to be mistaken about the NOC claim? Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 10:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 28 2008, 10:29 AM Post #19 |
|
I only expect them to be approximately accurate. That is all anyone should expect. North of the citgo is a very general claim. The fact that they all match unanimously about this very general and approximate claim proves it is correct. Especially considering their vantage point and the fact that people from different perspectives also corroborate this very general and approximate claim. |
![]() |
|
| Bret08 | Jan 28 2008, 11:03 AM Post #20 |
|
repeated trolling offender
|
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 11:07 AM Post #21 |
|
The Pentagon impact is a pretty general claim too. Either it hit or it didn't. Couldn't this statement apply to the impact claim as well? "The fact that they all match unanimously about this very general and approximate claim proves it is correct.n Especially considering their vantage point and the fact that people from different perspectives also corroborate this very general and approximate claim." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |













7:21 PM Jul 10