I'll start this thread by stating that Lagasse said he saw the lightpoles knocked down by the plane.

“There was a light pole here that was knocked down here..." Sgt. Lagasse (1 of the flyover theory's star witness)

Stay tuned. More to come. :)

LaGasse states that he saw the plane do that or that there was a light pole knocked down over there?

Please don't mislead anyone Raven, not that you are known for being intentionally deceitful or anything.

"I know for A FACT that there was a light pole here that was knocked down here and there was a lightpole here that was knocked down..." Sgt. Lagasse

1:07:30

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...237574426&hl=en

Uh-oh. What does that do for the flyover theory?

Yes or No Raven.

Does LaGasse say he saw a plane clipping light poles?

It does nothing for the flyover theory. We all know light poles were staged on the ground. Now are you actually capable of answering a yes or no question or are you too busy being a troll?

I posted the link so that anyone can find out. Why should I need to answer your question? Perhaps that's something that CIT should have cleared up then, but that doesn't fit their agenda, does it?

So, I would say that he witnessed that the plane hit the poles since he states it as A FACT, and he tries to line those light poles up with HIS flightpath that Lagasse says he WITNESSED.

I don't feel obligated to respond to trolls, but I did provide the relevant info for anyone (including you) to find out.

RIP Flyover Theory.

You are an evasive little troll.

None of the witnesses in the Pentacon seen a plane hit any lightpoles and not 1 single witness says that they did.
McGraw didn't see a plane hit any light poles.
Sucherman didn't.
Walter didn't.
LaGasse didn't.
Turcios didn't.
Brooks didn't.


You have been exposed already. Your thread has failed. Although I'm sure by now you're quite use to failure. Anonymous little waste of space and time. Please wake the rest of us up when you actually contribute something that points to 9/11 being an inside job you fake truther.

What's actually more revealing about Lagasse's testimony is that he supports a South Flight path more than he supports a north one.

For starters he said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Secondly, the flight path he DID allege lined up with where he thought the light poles were knocked down and where the taxi cab was located.

Just one small problem.

They were knocked down on the south side. The taxi cab was on the south side.

Not only is his testimony factually inaccurate, he supports the south side claim because no light poles were knocked down from a north approach. The taxi was not moved, and it was not on the north side.

This debunks his "north side" claim, whether or not he screams "100% certain". He was 100% WRONG about the location of the taxi cab and light poles.

CIT: Lagasse's "smoking gun" bites the dust.

And his "I couldn't see it through the back of my head" is irrelevant if he misremembered which direction he was facing.

Not to mention the fact that a commuter on the I-395 would have been in PERFECT position to record any plane flying over the Pentagon. Instead he focussed on the Pentagon and the tiny C-130 plane. I guess that was more interesting than a commercial plane flying by the Pentagon.

Oh, and NO evidence that someone said "I saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon" is EVIDENCE it didn't happen.

You seem to forget that Brooks, Paik, Turcios, and Ross have all corroborated the North side claim.

You guys are trying to do damage control because you know what CIT is going to be releasing next.

Paiks testimony is inconclusive.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios, and many many others claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.

Lagasse's flight path north side claim is completely debunked and not only that, his testimony SUPPORTS the south side claim because he says the plane flew where the light poles and taxi cab were located. Because he gave the INCORRECT location of where these objects were located, we are forced to assume the plane flew where these objects were ACTUALLY located.

No one supports the flyover theory. The video evidence does not support the flyover theory. In fact, the video evidence supports the south side and impact claim because of the shadow found on the CITGO gas station camera.

The only "damage control" is coming from CIT and their followers.

While CIT has provided good research, they have presented many misleading arguments and unjustifiable conclusions from their interpretation of this evidence. A small sample of a few witnesses statements is NOT evidence, and it is not a smoking gun of anything.

If CIT interviewed dozens of witnesses, and completely omitted every witness who said the plane hit the Pentagon and flew on the south side, this would be dishonest and disinformation. As I do not know what they have done with their research, I can not make this claim. They should however, disclose it all to the public for examination as any honest researcher would do.

I can and have observed their intentional efforts to mislead with faulty and illogical arguments as I have documented extensively in my reviews of their claims.

Damage control, indeed.

1) LaGasse is not a South side witness. He clearly places the plane on the North side. You can't just make things up as you go along. Lie and say it is truth. Do you really believe anyone who reads what you just typed is stupid enough to say "yeah that makes sense" and doesn't have a 5-7 letter name at this forum beginning with the letter R?

2) Whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not it approached on the North side. Bottom line. The flyover is not CIT's claim, it is a theory offered up as a possibility. The claim and the evidence is the plane approaching on the North side of the Citgo. You seem to want to keep people from focusing in on that corroborated 5x publicly claim.

3) Let's talk about the 'video' evidence. Where does the 'video evidence' of a "757" flying level 5' off the ground into the Pentagon corroborate the FDR data of the same 757?

4) Why are so many other videos from different camera angles which clearly document the flight path of the plane during it's approach being withheld? It's 6 years after 9/11 are you going to cling to Alex Jones' "honeypot" claim?

Nothing has been debunked. All you have managed to do is waste my and many others people time with your outlandish claims and bullshit accusations against CIT.

1. Lagasse places the plane on the North side, but this is only valuable information if it is TRUE.

What CIT fails to understand is that claims are only valuable when they are true. Evidence is only valuable when understood in CONTEXT.

The context is that Lagasse got the light pole damage and taxi cab location WRONG. The context is that he said the plane flew where these objects were located. The context is that he said the plane hit the Pentagon. The context is that he didn't say it flew over the Pentagon. This is all data provided by Lagasse.

Understanding context reveals that the north side claim is very likely FALSE, since he got the placement of these objects WRONG and therefore, he likely saw the plane on the SOUTH side to account for these objects were ACTUALLY located.

His statement supports the SOUTH side claim more than the north one.

2. The only "evidence" for a north side claim is based on unreliable data. You do not make conclusions on unreliable and contradictory data (unless you really want to easily be discredited). You seem to be missing the fact that there is no direct evidence whatsoever that a plane flew over the Pentagon. In fact there is strong evidence to disprove it including video evidence and overwhelming testimony of a plane impact. Once you accept this, the north side claim is even more dubious since it can not explain the physical damage, and it is countered indirectly by this evidence.

3. Which FDR data are you referring to? The black box data? The Flight simulation data that is supposed to be based on the black box data but isn't? Where would the black box come from if the plane flew over the Pentagon? Too much speculation here. From what I've seen this data does not debunk an impact by any stretch of the imagination.

I've wasted more of my time debunking the flyover theory than I ever wanted to. But if it will discredit the 9/11 truth movement through its sheer lack of evidence, logic, or even common sense, so be it.

He got the placement of these objects wrong because he did not actually see any light poles get hit. You shouldn't align yourself with -Raven-. He lies a lot.

You started this thread with a lie. Lagasse said that he did NOT see any light poles get hit.

1) LaGasse did not see the light poles get hit. LaGasse did see the plane approach the Pentagon. End of discussion. If you continue to insist that him not seeing an event and saying it took place only because he saw downed poles makes him a South side witness I will not continue this conversation any further because I question your sanity.

What you fail to understand is LaGasse did not see the Light Poles get hit. LaGasse only saw the plane. So LaGasse's account is only reliable in the placement of the plane because that is all he saw. No matter how you try to spin it you can't.

The fact that LaGasse knows what is alleged to have happened and therfor places it where he saw the plane doesn't move the plane. There is no CONTEXT to that. Once again did LaGasse see light poles getting hit or a plane? He saw a plane. He saw no light poles getting hit. Therefor you can not move his plane no matter how bad you want to.

The fact that he places these events as having to have happened elsewhere because of where he witnessed another event further proves that the other event was staged.

The North side evidence is corroborated by 5 different people. None who work for the mainstream media or are affiliated with USA Today who did a front page hit piece on Loose Change and none of them are affiliated with the government. The eyewitnesses you cling to like USA Today employees and former DOJ personnel have had their accounts dissected and proven to be impossible just like Lloyd the cab driver.

No one has proven that the 5 North side witnesses (to date - more to come) accounts are impossible.

So now I have to ask you since I have no idea who you are really : Was 9/11 an inside job?

Which FDR am I referring to???? LMMFAO!!!!!!! WOW!!!!
You know exactly what I am talking about and you don't want to talk about it. The FDR or your impact images are fake or both. Which is it?

I noticed you completely avoided #4.

Craig- "Did you see it hit any light poles?"

Lagasse- "I did not SEE them hit the light poles? But, obviously, when I got to the scene, the light poles were down."

see? the poles were down so obviously this is a South side witness. :rolleyes:

But you forgot to add the rest of what he said, Avenger. . . ;) (I made it bold)

Yeah, that's nice; but it's a good thing you saying it doesn't make it true. . . <_<

So?

Never mind. . . What he said next just indicates he didn't even necessarily see the lightpoles -- not to mention them getting knocked down.

Hey thanks buddy! :lol:

You just proved my case that indeed Lagasse saw the lightpoles (which is why Avenger was upset :D ). For those who missed it,

But Lagasse saying he could see the lightpoles does.

RIP Flyover Theory.

He was talking about the light poles that were standing there the day of the interview. The man clearly said he saw the poles when he arrived at the scene. He didn't see any light poles get hit.

Very well put. Indeed, Lagasse also placed the lightpoles and taxi to align with his recolected flightpath clearly indicating that he saw the lightpoles and the taxi.

And the video you posted shows a guy filming seconds after the fireball, as you can tell from the smoke plume, and he doesn't see a flyover. Instead he focuses on the tiny dot of a C-130, but he didn't see a flyover.

RIP Flyover Theory.

He did? Where did he place the light poles and taxi?

So your point is because LaGasse saw lightpoles off on the sides of the road as he got closer that proves no flyover?????

Raven no one said the lightpoles didn't exist only that a plane didn't hit. LaGasse admitted he didnot see the plane hit them.

You're a troll.

Proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I already had a topic on this. Lagasse is wrong on so many points, it is funny that anyone would cosider him credible. He says that the cab and the light poles that were knocked over, were north of where they actually were. He argues with the guy asking the questions. It proves that he doesn't know what he is talking about. How can you believe his northside claim, when he doesn't even know that the pole damage was south of where he insists that it was? Brooks says he saw a United plane with United colors and United logo. He is lying. He is trying to appease the interviewer and looks like an idiot. Since he is willing to lie about what kind of plane he saw, why would you believe anything he has to say? The flyover claim is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. The Doubletree video, does not show the plane hitting the west side of the pentagon, but it clearly shows that no plane flew over just as the explosion happened. If the plane was going to do a flyover, it could not have flown low enough, that so many witnesses would think it hit the pentagon. There is no way it could fly close enough to the impact area and still make it over the building.

On the North side where he saw the plane fly.

Why do these 2 trolls ignore Brooks, Turcios, Paik, & Ross as if none of them exist?

If LaGasse wasn't publicly corroborated by 4 other eyewitnesses their sad little theories might hold a grain of sand. Too bad for them he is and that number will only increase.

Do you think that's because that is where he saw the plane fly and since he knew the other event is alleged to have taken place it would have been natural for him to place it on the flight path of the plane instead of pointing in some direction that no plane flew in?

Seems quite logical to me.

Sounds like he wants to make sure he didn't get associated with any type of conspiracy theory and had no idea what the implications of his account really were.

Been waiting for that to show up here. The trees would have obscured the view. Even Pentagon Reality Check has publicly admitted that to be the case at the ATS forums.

A person who is just telling what he saw, would not say the pole damage was someplace it was not, unless that is what he saw. Is he saying he saw those poles get knocked over? He even puts the cab in the wrong place. Why? He is trying to make himself more important than he is and he is too stupid to know the facts, before saying what he saw. The same with Brooks. He says United, because he wants to add to his story, but the idiot should have said American. They are both adding to what they actually saw, and thus can not be believed.

No, Lagasse attested that he identified the aircraft as an American Airlines plane...

41:40

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...237574426&hl=en

I don't think Lagasse was lying, but that perhaps he imbellished portions. Remember, this was 5 years after the fact, and you can tell he was traumatized by the way he reacts to planes flying over while Ranke is interviewing him.

EDIT: Don't be so hard on Brooks, bpaulg. I don't agree with those kind of baseless claims.

That's correct. The Doubletree video shows no flyover.

RIP Flyover Theory.

Nobody's ignoring anyone (except perhaps me ignoring trolls at my leisure).

1.) Paik doesn't count as a CIT witness. He is not in proper position to even be considered a NORTH-of-the-Citgo witness. CIT had the plane flying all over the place with crazy plane maneuvers (impossible) in order to include Paik as a CIT witness. Paik's view was also blocked by the Navy Annex. In fact, Paik's testimony lines up more with a SOUTH-of-the-Citgo approach than anything else.

2.) Turcious was under a canopy with Lagasse, which has to block at least some of the flight path. Turcious is where in the Citgo video? Don't forget that Lagasse couldn't even remember exactly where he was at the time or which direction he was facing.

3.) Brooks was in his car.

4.) What about Ross and what's his story? And why is this just now coming up? Why hasn't CIT released all of their footage? What is CIT hiding?

RIP Flyover Theory.

Raven you certainly could try explaining yourself better, for one thing.

The REASON this is a problem is not like with the other witnesses - did they see it clip poles? Not only did "nothing happen" where everything happened, Lagasse specifically has moved the scene to a different spot on his path - poles and cab indicated up the road. To get from the Citgo to the Pentagon, he'd have to pass right by that spot. He'd see it in context - cloverleaf, bridge, pole, windshield. Even after having it pointed out he doesn't remember it how it was, perhaps because this would conflict with what he just said. An honest flawed memory would be open - oh yeah, it was there... but... that means... holy cow!

However a false memory is consciously concealed. Lies cover lies. "Nothing happened over here" when everyhing did. "Poles were knocked down over here" where none were. He thinks it flew in from his north AND impacted, and still can't get that's impossible, at least the way it hit. His testimony PROVES the plane did not hit, and there's still no retraction or anything from our fine uniformed protector of Mr. Rumsfeld.

And this is ttheir star witness - no matter how many supporting cast providence offers up, Lagasse is the guy who's bet his life on it. And DAMN if some folks haven't run long with it.

Ummm... how 'bout Lloyd? I know he's got problems, no need to repeat them or a pile of high-res photos AGAIN please, all, but you and the others sometimes don't even cite him as a lying witness. No witnesses to plane sending poles thru the air at all. He's just not there, not worth listing, like sub-Human or something. Appropriate treatment for 'the devil?'

Flyover theory RIP. It's okay to let it go, fellas.

Watch starting at 51:15-55:15, where Lagasse describes the flighpath and goes from 100% to NOT KNOWING WHERE HE WAS POSITIONED AT!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...237574426&hl=en

That puts his whole positioning of the flightpath under much questioning. If you are to place him where he was actually at and redo his testimony, it LINES UP WITH A SOUTH APROACH!!!

RIP Flyover Theory.

question: (and mind you - im not saying you are wrong or right), but where did you hear or get the "brooks saw a united plane" information from? the reason i ask is that witness omar campos also said it was a united plane. there is a shorter clip somewhere, but in this video its at the 19:00 thru 20:00th minute:

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109111036-1117



later in that video joel sucherman also mentions a second plane flying straight up ("making a bee line") into the sky, moments after the alleged "impact" (26:52 in the vid), which might be worth considering/looking into.

he describes it as "off to the southwest". if he was on washblvd next to the pentagon, then southwest would put the plane in a general area over (or near) columbia pike:





anyone know any more info about this second plane? anyone have any witness accounts relevant to joel's second plane? im not asserting anything about what this plane means in terms of our "mystery", but i think it should be looked deeper into.

In the Pentacon documentary. The interviewier asked Brooks what kind of plane did he see. He said "I think it was United". Then the guy says how do you know it was United. Brooks says I know the colors. I saw the blue logo. I saw the blue U on the plane. You can tell that he is just saying this because he thinks that is what the guy wants him to say. He is not credible.

how can you dismiss the corroborative account of campos? did u watch the archive vid? thats 2 people (brooks & campos) on record saying it was "united". two people completely unconnected to each other, one of whom was recorded saying it within minutes of the incident.

isnt it biased when u exclude this second statement from campos? at the very least, shouldnt you demote your accusation to some lesser level? you are certain he (brooks) is a liar and you even go on to speculate what his state of mind is, all based on the (incorrect) notion that there wasnt any United plane in sight. you bullishly maintain that point (brooks is a liar) in spite of evidence that contradicts the premise/foundation which u used to impeach brooks's credibilty.

there is no way to debate when you are this biased. if you were to exclude your speculations about brooks's motivations and mindset, and simply looked at the content of his statement, you would see that he is telling the truth (at least in regards to him seeing a united plane). omar campos proves that someone else (at least one person on public record) saw what they thought was a united plane. they both describe color and logo. their accounts in these 2 aspects are almost exactly the same (tho campos had his recollection translated to english by someone else).

this means brooks is not lying about seeing what he thought was a united plane, period - the end. the rest is still open to debate, but brooks's honesty about there being (what he thought was) a united plane, is not.


re: the pentacon
how did the interviewer (lyte) lead brooks into giving that answer (as u allege)? where and how did he point brooks towards a united plane? did craig ever utter the words "united airplane"? did he make suggestion to brooks about anything even remotely related to united planes? if anything i thought craig was abit surprised when he heard brooks say it.

i went back and watched it again just now (minutes 37-40), and i didnt get any sense whatsoever that craig led brooks to mention a united airlines airplane or anything else for that matter (in those 3 minutes). so ur making a completely unfounded accusation. lyte asked him to describe it. except for craig suggesting "offwhite" when brooks said "champagne" (tho he pointed to an offwhite shed), the rest of the questions were kosher and would have been asked by anyone enquiring about the plane.

in that same CBS9 archive clip (towards the end) is the original mike walter interview, as is the already aforementioned campos clip. compare the questions about plane description the reporters ask there to the questions craig does of brooks. you will see that contextwise, and even wordwise they are almost all the same exact questions. your judgement is clouded in this specific (brooks's united plane) regard.

I didn't see the Campos interview or I don't remember it. I can tell when someone is not saying what they actually saw. We know that United wasn't involved at the pentagon. If he would have just left it at I think it was United, it would be OK. It would show that he is being as honest as possible and maybe he doesn't know what the United livery looks like. For him to go the extra mile and say he knows what United looks like and that is what he saw, means he really did see United or he is not being honest.

I didn't say that he lead him to say United. He was trying to add more to the story by naming the airline of the plane that flew into the pentagon. For whatever reason he thought United was the plane that allegedly flew into the pentagon, so he says that is what he saw. Problem is that American was the plane that allegedly flew into the pentagon. He picked the wrong airline. When the interviewer asked him how he knew it was United, he felt the need to embelish and say he saw the United logo. He thought he was saying all of the right things, but he was naming the wrong airline.

Heh, not sure what you're talking about. :rolleyes: Lagasse's quote actually makes it clear that he did not see the lightpoles get knocked down; he in fact points out that you can hardly see the lightpoles from his position. The plane was flying quite fast; it's not as if anyone had several minutes to study the situation as it happened. . .

Of course, I don't remember anyone arguing that the lightpoles didn't exist. From all the evidence I've seen, they did exist and many people saw them. What the evidence does not show is that Lagasse saw the plane knock the lightpoles down. :)

How does Lagasse saying he could see the lightpoles show that he saw the plane knock them down, when he distinctly says that he did not see the plane hit the lightpoles? :huh:

That's exactly right.

Not at all. He actually makes it clear he did not. :blink:

Maybe because he knows for a fact where the plane flew, so he incorrectly remembers where the lightpoles were (which he knows were down somewhere). You see?

Does Lloyd say he saw the plane hit a lightpole?

Actually, if you watch the interview with Sgt Brooks in the PentaCon, you can see quite clearly that what Brooks actually stated went something more like this:

Where does Brooks say that? Once again, he actually seems to indicate that he doesn't fully recall what the markings were because of the fact that everything was happening so quickly. He does indeed seem unsure as to every little detail about how the plane looked, but isn't that understandable when you take into account that there was not a whole lot of time to study everything? :blink:

Say it all you want, but it doesn't make it any truer. . . :)

So why does Brooks say he saw the United logo? Is he lying or mistaken? He says he knows the colors of United livery. He does seem to not know the details, but he is willing to give them. That is why he can't be trusted. If he was on the stand, he would be impeached.

Would you point to the spot where Brooks says he knows the colors of United airplanes?

As to why he says it, it seems likely that he is just mistaken. He does say he doesn't recall, you know. . .