Merged Too Much NoC Evidence?

Caustic Logic

Illuminator
C
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,494
Exhibit A - The Account of Robert Turcios

First, I am not trying to excuse any of CIT's behaviors or conclusions, and I'm not necessarily making a case for "Pentagon-sponsored disinfo."

But...

I've found myself at odds with other members here over my belief that there is more to their north-path-flyover insanity than the Team itself. I feel a need to explain why I hold these suspicions and haven't abandoned them.

In general, Back in late 2006-early 2007, there was a suspiciously sudden rush of semi-corroborating north-=path evidence, mostly gathered from "human intel" sources in Arlington - the Citgo manager's supposedly removed north-pointing camera, her swearing an employee saw a plane north of the station, the same employee's multiple verification, and the videotaped testimony of this employee and previous NoC witness [via Eastman] Sgt Lagasse, along with the confirming Sgt Brooks, all bolstered and neatly visualized by an NTSB animation showing a NoC path by some unexplained error. There are also timeline clues hinting some sort of coordination in all this, but I'll get back to that.

And then there are additional NoC verifications since then, not as many as or as solid as CIT says, but too many and too consistent for me to call pure honest chance.

I'm not sure how to approach this in the detail it's worth, so I'll start with one point, and a challenge.

Robert Turcios, the Citgo employee. Watch his testimony in The PentaCon, Smoking Crack Gun version [19:00 –30:00]. Is it really so clear that he’s being honest here?

He offers the CIT and their flyover hunger the only pull-up account in the world. He affirms this without hesitation, twice [22:57-23:50, 26:00], and quite clearly. It pitched upward to avoid the sign truss thing, hundreds of feet from the building. He’s not even entirely sure (or strangely vague on) if it impacted because his view was “obstructed still” by nothing I can see [24:00]. And of course it came from the north side of the station when he had been at the south (and yet saw no markings, consistent with a view from below rather than to the side). [22:25]

All this could only be visible at the spot he led to CIT to during the interview, the crest of the mound he ran up to after hearing the plane. The Citgo security video of course all but proves he was under the south canopy the whole time, his view blocked by the mound ahead, and then running inside the store as the impact fireball lights up the area. Simply put, he was not on the mound and couldn’t have actually seen any of the stuff he says. (unless the video is altered of course).

A bad sign: The witness’ behavior is dodgy and unsettled. He fidgets, hands in pockets, the sunglasses of course. In places he’s clearly trying to keep a straight face. Did anyone else catch him starting to bust up at 22:50, right before mentioning the pull-up?

If he’s not lying, that means he honestly believes all the tripe he’s spewing, and must have been thinking of a joke when he nearly laughed. He was presumably present, but in this case must be completely forgetting what he actually saw and did. Was Turcios “led” to these false memories by dishonest researchers? Was his memory just really odd, by sheer accident manufacturing stuff that kinda corroborates the NoC claim while also hinting with unprecedented clarity at the implications (flyover) CIT wanted?

Aside from simple, honest memory error, complete mental manipulation by CIT’s leading questions and the help of Hypno-Toad it seems, there are few options open to explain all this pouring out of this one guy. Mainly, he’s either willfully fabricating this story for their camera, for whatever reason, or his story is correct. This says nothing to intent, but certainly opens the question of it.

It should be clear which way I lean on this issue. I’ll let this one get some discussion going before moving on the other exhibits.
 
Eye-witness accounts are pretty unreliable; he could just be completely mistaken.
 
Mark Felt said:
Eye-witness accounts are pretty unreliable; he could just be completely mistaken.
Click to expand...

Thx for the comment. Just to clarify, in light of the points I've included:

He would have seen the plane just south of and nearly over him. He was almost certainly under the canopy until impact (with his view of this "obstructed still"), and then runs inside the store. The video shows this.

He could have just been completely mistaken and remembered himself running up to the mound, seeing it pass off to his right over the north canopy, pull-up before impact without showing any stripes, and having an "obstructed" view of the deduced impact?

I'll have to agree, he could be just mistaken. The real world and all its surrounding parallel universes are composed of "coulds." He "could" have been totally correct and the flyover happened.

And I'll also agree this isn't the best comparison, since memory is far more malleable than the laws of physics.

Beyond that we're disagreeing. I know he's not a "twoofer," but there's something wrong with Robert.
 
Just one possibility here...

If you're standing at the citgo station and looking at the impact point of the pentagon, you'd be looking northeast. The impact point itself is further north than the citgo station, which sits at an angle anyways (the front of the main building faces northeast). I think it's entirely possible that people seeing the impact from near the station may not have seen the plane as it passed the citgo, but they saw the impact, or at least the impact's aftermath, and noting the location of that impact, they very likely could have assumed that the plane was flying a due east heading prior to impact, which would place it passing north of the Citgo station. It's not surprising that his brian would try to "fill in the gaps" of such a traumatic event.....especially when the interviewer asks him leading questions.

I don't think Turcios is lying about what he saw....lying implies that he is deliberatly falsifying his statements. I think he has some fuzzy memories about that day, seemed a little nervous, and his English skills suggested a possible language barrier as well.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Mainly, he’s either willfully fabricating this story for their camera, for whatever reason, or his story is correct.
Click to expand...
This sentence seems to best summarize your post, but it's pretty obviously a false dichotomy, wouldn't you agree? What about the much more likely explanation that he spent a lot of time on the morning of 9/11/2001 running around the Citgo station, standing on the mound, etc., and six years later had them all jumbled together in his memory?
 
Adam, I know your intentions are honorable, but are you suggesting it is possible to delve into the human mind and determine how or why it works the way it does? Analysis done by a bunch of amateurs? Heck, psychiatrists don't even know. All we can really say with any authority is that eye witness statements are notoriously unreliable. I suggest that will be the final answer no matter how many pages it takes. IMHO, it is a futile quest. There are simply too many unknowns.
 
Reheat said:
Adam, I know your intentions are honorable, but are you suggesting it is possible to delve into the human mind and determine how or why it works the way it does? Analysis done by a bunch of amateurs? Heck, psychiatrists don't even know. All we can really say with any authority is that eye witness statements are notoriously unreliable. I suggest that will be the final answer no matter how many pages it takes. IMHO, it is a futile quest. There are simply too many unknowns.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment Reheat. This does indeed all fall in the realm of mental unknowns, and nothing scientific or quantifiable can be ascertained. However, I am indeed suggesting it is possible to delve into the human mind and TRY TO determine how or why it works the way it does. We all do this when we speculate on the motives and issues of whack-jobs we're debunking.

I have seen some studies and anecdotal evidence about way out memory errors. They do happen, and probably no memory from anyone is clear of some distortion. Witness statements are unreliable, but do usually approximate reality. People usually don't hallucinate entirely different scenarios from reality, as Turcios is thought by some to have.

I'd also like to add that I don't care if anyone here agrees with my suspicions or not. I just wanted to explain them and start an open discussion. Mission accomplished so far.
 
nicepants said:
Just one possibility here...

If you're standing at the citgo station and looking at the impact point of the pentagon, you'd be looking northeast. The impact point itself is further north than the citgo station, which sits at an angle anyways (the front of the main building faces northeast). I think it's entirely possible that people seeing the impact from near the station may not have seen the plane as it passed the citgo, but they saw the impact, or at least the impact's aftermath, and noting the location of that impact, they very likely could have assumed that the plane was flying a due east heading prior to impact, which would place it passing north of the Citgo station.
Click to expand...

Constructive points, thanks. I think there's a gap between the canopy and mound so he'd see it near over him and just left, but it is possible he didn't see the plane at all. Only then can his north deduction make sense, and then he's embellishing seeing it north and of course the pull up. If he saw it, it boils down to left or right. I have a hard time imagining his seeing it to his left and remembering it right, especially since this means a different vantage point to see it.

I guess "I have a hard time..." doesn't do much tho.

It's not surprising that his brian would try to "fill in the gaps" of such a traumatic event.....especially when the interviewer asks him leading questions.

I don't think Turcios is lying about what he saw....lying implies that he is deliberatly falsifying his statements. I think he has some fuzzy memories about that day, seemed a little nervous, and his English skills suggested a possible language barrier as well.
Click to expand...

I doubt language is an issue - he has an accent is all. What else can "pull-up" mean? And that laughter right before he says it - that's the universal language, isn't it? As far as fuzzy, I've compared reality to his statements and that's a lot of fuzz to turn one into the other. Go ahead and review the video. This is not minor discrepancies territory, this is him saying CIT's flight path theory right to them and calling it his memory. If it's an honest mistake it's both neuro-psychologically bizarre and a remarkable coincidence.

CurtC said:
Mainly, he’s either willfully fabricating this story for their camera, for whatever reason, or his story is correct.
Click to expand...
This sentence seems to best summarize your post, but it's pretty obviously a false dichotomy, wouldn't you agree? What about the much more likely explanation that he spent a lot of time on the morning of 9/11/2001 running around the Citgo station, standing on the mound, etc., and six years later had them all jumbled together in his memory?
Click to expand...

That would be a false dichotomy if I hadn't clearly preceded that sentence with
Aside from simple, honest memory error, complete mental manipulation by CIT’s leading questions and the help of Hypno-Toad it seems, there are few options open to explain all this pouring out of this one guy.
Click to expand...
Honest natural error, honest led error, dishonest error, or correct. These are the options I listed and although there are others, this is all I felt worth mentioning. Yes, I poo-pooed the honest options a bit, because I feel it's justified and knew everyone else would plug for those plenty. It's the easiest solution after all, that keeps all focus on the dingbats we love to hate. So would you agree your false dichotomy charge was false? It's just how I framed it you didn't like.

I disagree that your explanation is "much more likely," although i'll concede it's quite reasonable and might just be true. I presume you've watched his testimony closely for gestures and clues, and pondered on this?

Alright, so things are going about as expected. Turcios is just in error is the general consensus. If that was all I had, I'd let it drop, but he's just one point on the list. I'm not ready to post on Lagasse yet, but anyone who knows what I'm likely to say can start explaining how he too was just a bit confused and was tricked the evil geniuses at CIT, and Dick Eastman too.
 
I seriously doubt a "conspiracy" between witnesses, the NTSB, and other parties to invent a NOC path. On the part of the witnesses, I think NOC is part of the natural variation in where witnesses placed the plane; we also have witnesses that placed the plane far SOC than the "official path". Did you see my post last week on the effect of trauma on perception in the event itself, and how it would then lead to inaccuracies of locating threatening objects in "revisualizations" and recollections? It may well account for the NOC placements of the plane by those in ANC. Turcios was almost directly in the plane's path, but not exactly, and it would not be unusual if the experience was very traumatizing to him in that moment. If he experienced any of the related phenomena (tunnel vision, loss of depth perception, etc.), he may well not be sure himself of where he was at the time, how far away the plane was, and where the plane was in relation to insignificant background objects. Or in the years since the attack, that initial uncertainty gave way to a new but inaccurate certainty on account of revisualizations of the event. Considering that he worked at the CITGO on a daily basis, he probably had many opportunities to revisualize what he saw and solidify what initially may have seemed more like a blur. The CIT boys were probably not the first people who asked him to show them what he saw. Their belief that people closest to the event are the most reliable is certainly not true. The incongruities with his placement of actual real-world objects and with possibly his own location (as evidenced by the CITGO video) would attest to the fallibility of memory.

ETA: Reheat is right of course, and there is no way anyone could know what was going through his mind at the time of the attack, and in the years since. The above is to point out that there are more possibilities than supposing that Turcios was being dishonest, which I doubt.
 
Last edited:
You always have witnesses who saw something and they are wrong. You don't have to ignore them, they may have some important information when you analyze their statement. I do not trust anything CIT puts out, they are the worse investigators in the world. You understand perception of an event varies. You are taking a fringe witness and a lunatic paranoid group CIT and giving it credence.

I have watched CIT enough to know they make up this junk, and it is funny cause it stems from the working copy of the NTSB animation. They have made up their fantasy based on a working copy where the Pentagon on the animation is not in the real position relative to 77 but has a NoC path depicted and they use this as their idea now. They are stupid when it comes to investigating 9/11. You can't use witness statement to form conclusions when the physical evidence refutes the conclusion you make from the witness statement.

Witness perception, an age old dilemma, innocent people have died when witness statements were WRONG. We have physical evidence and witness statements that are confirmed by the physical evidence on 9/11. So using a witness with obvious false perceptions, is stupid; don't throw out his statement, use it for what it is worth. You must weigh each witness and use physical evidence. You need zero witnesses to prove 77 hit the Pentagon, physical evidence proves this. Witness statement we are in the world of perception, and we all see things differently.

Physics, physical evidence, other witness statements make a NoC impossible. The only thing of interest for this witness who says NoC is the study of witness perception, what makes him think this was the case?
 
Caustic Logic said:
What else can "pull-up" mean?
Click to expand...


My own interpretation is that he was describing a change in the attitude of the plane -- from a nose-down to a more level attitude. That would have reduced the steepness of the descent and if it occurred while the plane was passing Route 27, it may have given one the impression (viewing form behind the plane) that the plane was pulling up to avoid hitting short of the building, or to avoid hitting overhead signs on the street. Or maybe he was recalling a wing "pull up", also making it look like it was avoiding something on the street.

There were other witnesses who described some adjustment of the plane as (or just after) it crossed the street. Tom Hovis wrote that the aircraft "put the nose down coming over Fort Myer picking off trees and light poles" and then "leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building." Albert Hemphill described the plane in a "sharp downward angle of attack" with the "left wing down" but "as he crossed Route 110 [sic] he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building". Terry Morin, who would not have been able to see the plane past Route 27, described seeing "the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction". William Lagasse made his own problematic reference to the plane yawing to the left. Penny Elgas who was on Route 27 described seeing the plane "banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport", allowing her to see the underside of the left wing as it "rocked slightly toward the ground." Noel Sepulveda described seeing the plane "struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle ... The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle". Wanda Ramey said "I saw the wing of the plane clip a light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building." David Marra said that when the plane was 50 feet off the deck it "rolled left and then rolled right" and Afework Hagos said that the plane "was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance" and "it hit some lampposts on the way in". The accounts all vary in the details and Turcios' own unique account would fit into this variation, but I think these are probably reports of some adjustment that the pilot made at around that time.

The references to the engines "revving up" or "powering up" may also suggest that such a sound contributed to an impression of the plane pulling up. Wanda Ramey described the engines revving up as or after the plane hit the light poles. Kat Gaines similarly saw "a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles" and then heard "the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon". Mark Bright said that he "heard the plane 'power-up' just before it struck the Pentagon". And Noel Sepulveda said that after the plane tried to recover after hitting lightpoles "you could hear the engines being revved up even higher".

Although he was talking about a point prior to when the plane crossed Route 27, Tim Timmerman makes an interesting reference to the plane "pulling up" on account of the sound of the engines. He said that "the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more and then I lost it behind a building". Interesting that the "pulling up" is something he describes hearing, and of course this was not a "pull up" for a flyover.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Constructive points, thanks. I think there's a gap between the canopy and mound so he'd see it near over him and just left, but it is possible he didn't see the plane at all. Only then can his north deduction make sense, and then he's embellishing seeing it north and of course the pull up. If he saw it, it boils down to left or right. I have a hard time imagining his seeing it to his left and remembering it right, especially since this means a different vantage point to see it.

I guess "I have a hard time..." doesn't do much tho.



I doubt language is an issue - he has an accent is all. What else can "pull-up" mean? And that laughter right before he says it - that's the universal language, isn't it? As far as fuzzy, I've compared reality to his statements and that's a lot of fuzz to turn one into the other. Go ahead and review the video. This is not minor discrepancies territory, this is him saying CIT's flight path theory right to them and calling it his memory. If it's an honest mistake it's both neuro-psychologically bizarre and a remarkable coincidence.



That would be a false dichotomy if I hadn't clearly preceded that sentence with

Honest natural error, honest led error, dishonest error, or correct. These are the options I listed and although there are others, this is all I felt worth mentioning. Yes, I poo-pooed the honest options a bit, because I feel it's justified and knew everyone else would plug for those plenty. It's the easiest solution after all, that keeps all focus on the dingbats we love to hate. So would you agree your false dichotomy charge was false? It's just how I framed it you didn't like.

I disagree that your explanation is "much more likely," although i'll concede it's quite reasonable and might just be true. I presume you've watched his testimony closely for gestures and clues, and pondered on this?

Alright, so things are going about as expected. Turcios is just in error is the general consensus. If that was all I had, I'd let it drop, but he's just one point on the list. I'm not ready to post on Lagasse yet, but anyone who knows what I'm likely to say can start explaining how he too was just a bit confused and was tricked the evil geniuses at CIT, and Dick Eastman too.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say you think the planes flew NOC?

Reality trumps memory and speculation every time.
 
Let's take a look at what the ANC witnesses said about the C-130 instead of what they said about the path of AA77 for just a moment.

They all stated that the C-130 flew from the NW or N and departed in the same direction. We know for a FACT it did not fly that path as conclusively proven by the Tribby video and Looney photographs. That is not speculation, not contrived logic, and certainly not a strawman (some of the favorite CIT accusations). Did the ANC people all hallucinate the same thing? Gee, their statements are "scientifically corroborated", so there can be no doubt that what they said is correct. Well, they were WRONG about the C-130 path whatever the reasons.

If this is not proof that the witnesses had perception problems due to trauma?, angle of view?, influence of interviewers?, false memory?, or simply outright lying about what they witnessed? From what is known at the current time, I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty WHY these witnesses said what they did. The only certainty is that they were WRONG!

If they have been proven wrong on the C-130 path would it not be reasonable to assume they were also wrong about the path AA77 flew?
 
Quickly on the above points - ain't I tenacious like a twoofer?

Mangoose's leveling as pull-up does make sense. The plane did level out at about Route 27, as widely corroborated by individually unreliable but collectively accurate witness testimony. and the revving part could support that.

Again, trauma can cause memories, theoretically, as strange as they come. A witness COULD recall the plane flying upside down away from the Pentagon and NoC. I haven't seen one this odd yet. Someone said it "cartwheeled" into the lawn.

ANC witnesses are a good example of people north or south of the flight path fudging it a bit further north or south from them, and this is to be expected (although if several of them who talked to CIT agree too close on the error, or a C-130 error I'd have to wonder - I haven't watched that video still). It's a whole different error for those ON the dividing line. The simple right or left nature of his claim is the sticking point for me - a totally different side of his body AND the station... yeah, possible, so it must be so?

Tsig: No, the NoC option is the one I listed for logical fullness and I put no stock in. So that's it for Turcios for now. I have less time this week and may or may not post on Lagasse tonight.
 
Precisely. As I said the other day, the witnesses to the C-130 demonstrate that people have erred in placing the position of this plane and its direction.

Consider again the variation in witness accounts of how the plane hit the building. Some said it looked like it the plane hit the helicopter pad or bounced off it. Others said it looked like it it cartwheeled into the building. Others said it flew straight in like a dart without hitting the ground. Some had better views than others and some were certainly misled by their own angle of view, objects that obstructed their view, etc. while others had a clear shot of what happened. NO ONE SAW ANYTHING like the fantasy that CIT promotes of a plane overshooting the Pentagon and happily flying away. Even though they may disagree widely in the details (and that is normal and to be expected), all these accounts agree that the plane did crash into the building.
 
Caustic Logic said:
What else can "pull-up" mean?
Click to expand...
Most witnesses talk about the planes movements, they all gave me the impressions of erratic movement. As you look at the FDR, you find Hani was going from 0.306 G to 1.673 G in 3 seconds at one point, and he kept doing a PIO in the last 20 seconds of data. That is a pull-up of sorts. In the last 15 seconds of recorded information there were 3 major "pull ups".

The plane was going down, over all, at rates as high as 6000 f/s.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Quickly on the above points - ain't I tenacious like a twoofer?

Mangoose's leveling as pull-up does make sense. The plane did level out at about Route 27, as widely corroborated by individually unreliable but collectively accurate witness testimony. and the revving part could support that.

Again, trauma can cause memories, theoretically, as strange as they come. A witness COULD recall the plane flying upside down away from the Pentagon and NoC. I haven't seen one this odd yet. Someone said it "cartwheeled" into the lawn.

ANC witnesses are a good example of people north or south of the flight path fudging it a bit further north or south from them, and this is to be expected (although if several of them who talked to CIT agree too close on the error, or a C-130 error I'd have to wonder - I haven't watched that video still). It's a whole different error for those ON the dividing line. The simple right or left nature of his claim is the sticking point for me - a totally different side of his body AND the station... yeah, possible, so it must be so?

Tsig: No, the NoC option is the one I listed for logical fullness and I put no stock in. So that's it for Turcios for now. I have less time this week and may or may not post on Lagasse tonight.
Click to expand...

Well for logical fullness you could have added acts of the gods.

Or grumpy gnomes.
 
nicepants said:
Just one possibility here...

If you're standing at the citgo station and looking at the impact point of the pentagon, you'd be looking northeast. The impact point itself is further north than the citgo station, which sits at an angle anyways (the front of the main building faces northeast). I think it's entirely possible that people seeing the impact from near the station may not have seen the plane as it passed the citgo, but they saw the impact, or at least the impact's aftermath, and noting the location of that impact, they very likely could have assumed that the plane was flying a due east heading prior to impact, which would place it passing north of the Citgo station. It's not surprising that his brian would try to "fill in the gaps" of such a traumatic event.....especially when the interviewer asks him leading questions.

I don't think Turcios is lying about what he saw....lying implies that he is deliberatly falsifying his statements. I think he has some fuzzy memories about that day, seemed a little nervous, and his English skills suggested a possible language barrier as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This hit me a while back. The impact point was north. The more memory fades the more we tend to oversimplify things; north impact=north path.

Ever since all this 911 stuff came up and I started seeing how unreliable the witness testimony and memory of those events can be I have been examining the accuracy of my and my friends memory and I can tell you the accuracy is atrociously bad. This was a real revelation for me. I think it can take many years of life experience and a lot of refection and testing to grok this. (which could explain why the CIT team cannot believe their witnesses could be so wrong)
 
alexg said:
The impact point was north. The more memory fades the more we tend to oversimplify things; north impact=north path.
Click to expand...


Good observation. And the Citgo video suggests that Turcios also misremembered his position as well as his actions.
 
Okay, so I'm willing to call Turcios ambiguous and move on. But to sum up, is the context, unless anyone objects to a point here:

Arlington, Aug 2006: CIT's initial theory of no 757 impact, coupled with the confirmation they were seeing of an AA 757 in the area, could only have left them thinking flyover, as Eastman had already proposed, using a NoC path as the explanation. Also it would have to fly high enough to pass over the Pentagon, even though most reports mention a dive to low altitude, ground level, so it must have pulled back up to clear. While visiting the Citgo with the "elite Pentagon research team," Ranke allegedly tells the station manager he "knows" the plane flew NoC. The manager happens to (then?) tell them her employee saw it there, and they make contact. Perhaps he really did report this from such error, and this was just a lucky find. They follow up and find the witness Turcios did indeed recall it to the north, being only the second such witness for this. Then he's also the only witness to use the terms "pull up" and "lift up" acc. by hand gestures indicating upward motion. This could just be a distortion on the leveling off, but he is the only witness to use these words and gestures to illustrate it. Two distinct and basically unprecedented errors that happen to fit CIT's neccesary theory. He also misremembered his location, which in this case makes a dramatic difference in what he could see, although I'm not sure what being under the canopy rules out (this one would be fun, Mangoose!). And as far as I know he's the only witness to nearly bust out laughing during his interview.

Can anyone at least admit this is a remarkably coincidental set of errors?

So that's exhibit A.
 
Mark Felt said:
Is there an exhibit b?
Click to expand...

Exibit B: The Account of William Lagasse

For reference, see Lagasse in The PentaCon [39:15-59:45 and 1:00:30-1:08:15]. Note that he's on-screen for 28 of the video's 80 minutes.

Sgt William Lagasse could not possibly have been led by CIT to his emphatically asserted North-of-Citgo conclusions, as he first described this flight path to Dick Eastman in mid-2003, three years before the team came into existence. In fact, it was his trail-blazing account that in effect led Ranke and Marquis to recognize and latch onto the importance of Turcios when he was offered to them.

So up front, CIT’s observed pattern of leading questions becomes secondary at best, to the extent they were posed to Lagasse. Perhaps Eastman had originally led him to these conclusions, like with creative e-mail editing, as has been speculated [Desmoulins]. But CIT’s video verification in Nov. 2006 confirmed that by then at least he was an autonomous NoC generator of unyielding power. Aside from the unpopular alternatives of correct memory or some sort of dishonesty, this leaves only honest misconstruction of memory as a reasonable explanation. I’d guess the general opinion here leans toward the last, and so as I did with Turcios I’ll examine the context of this error.

First, he had to be mistaken of the side of his body the plane flew on, confusing a left passage (when facing east) for a right. He would have misremembered his view of it – mostly blocked by the station to a clear view north of it as far back as the Navy Annex and up to a low impact. All of the details pertaining to this would have to have been adjusted accordingly. Like when he emphatically remembers the downed light poles and Lloyd England’s damaged taxi in the entirely wrong spot, when he would have certainly seen them where they were. I don’t think anyone else mentioned a left yaw of the plane at impact as Lagasse did, thus fitting his approach with the generator damage, but Boger I believe reports an opposite right yaw.

Fuzzy memory probably should be the first guess with such errors, but then we have another issue – his involvement with the 9/11 conspiracy theorist world. To become widely-published as the NoC witness, he had to first become aware of and sickened enough by Dick Eastman’s killer jet theory to contact the author to set him straight. As it just so happened, Eastman asked Lagasse what he saw rather than ignore him, and as it so happened, the north-path details fit perfectly with Eastman’s existing story and became his leading evidence, cited repeatedly as proof of his decoy flyover theory, which is otherwise even stupider than CIT's.

Lagasse’s initial interest in Eastman seems to have stopped there. It’s not clear if he ever checked back and found his story differed from the “official” one and was said to prove “that the Boeing could not have been the plane that knocked down those poles and hit the wall at approx. a 55-dregree angle.” He has never lodged a lawsuit I’m aware of, or issued any public complaint that his apparently erred memory was doing the opposite of its intent. He remained silent in fact for years until CIT gave him a chance to affirm his ignorance of, or perhaps pleasure with, the previous situation, and to repeat the performance again.

Anyone can review his extended performance for the team. Let’s just note he’s very helpful, offers no sign of any reality check along his journeys, barreling ahead 100% bet his life on it certain, less than 0% chance he was in error on the NoC path. He does this in uniform and with his patrol car, for what it’s worth, which means he’s on-duty and not doing this in his off-time. Officer Brooks, who corroborates the path just as clearly does the same. They do usually work in pairs, don’t they? Neither seems in a hurry. [see this post for some thoughts on their possible teamwork here].

If Sgt Lagasse manufactured this testimony from a mix of reality, trauma, and whatever else, this false memory has apparently rendered conflicting elements of his recall inaccessible. Mitigating against this, however is his sudden recollection that he was standing at the wrong pump, then moved to the spot the just-released Citgo video showed him to be. He also admitted how a “flinch” rather than the previously stated wind blast is what “knocked” him back in the car. Between these two clarifications, there is a soft implication that all errors had been identified and cleared up but the plane definitely flew north and impacted without a doubt.

I think it’s most likely that from his perspective Lagasse has been pranking people by handing them a performance art illustration of the fallibility of eyewitness accounts. As everyone knows, EVERY ASPECT of his account confirms the “official story” of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. Except this one dyslexic, simple, persistent error. On top of Turcios’ and Brooks’ curiously strong corroboration of that same error, this gave CIT the leverage to get their misinfo campaign going. Again, his response is muted. All I’ve heard is him saying the CIT are wrong, but they correctly characterized what he saw. There is again no hint of acknowledgement that he might be wrong. When Nick Schou called him recently,“Legasse [sic] groaned when he heard the names Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and said he couldn’t comment without permission from a press officer.” Did they take the good but confused officer for a ride and embarrass him, or did he get himself in trouble pranking people on company time, or what?

Thoughts?
 
Forget every single eyewitness and just stick to the physical evidence. What is the only conclusion?
 
CL:

"Mitigating against this, however is his sudden recollection that he was standing at the wrong pump, then moved to the spot the just-released Citgo video showed him to be."

The what now? Recently released?

The old video is all but unwatchable for me. Can you show me where he was and which way he was facing in the video?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Exibit B: The Account of William Lagasse

For reference, see Lagasse in The PentaCon [39:15-59:45 and 1:00:30-1:08:15]. Note that he's on-screen for 28 of the video's 80 minutes.

Sgt William Lagasse could not possibly have been led by CIT to his emphatically asserted North-of-Citgo conclusions, as he first described this flight path to Dick Eastman in mid-2003, three years before the team came into existence. In fact, it was his trail-blazing account that in effect led Ranke and Marquis to recognize and latch onto the importance of Turcios when he was offered to them.

So up front, CIT’s observed pattern of leading questions becomes secondary at best, to the extent they were posed to Lagasse. Perhaps Eastman had originally led him to these conclusions, like with creative e-mail editing, as has been speculated [Desmoulins]. But CIT’s video verification in Nov. 2006 confirmed that by then at least he was an autonomous NoC generator of unyielding power. Aside from the unpopular alternatives of correct memory or some sort of dishonesty, this leaves only honest misconstruction of memory as a reasonable explanation. I’d guess the general opinion here leans toward the last, and so as I did with Turcios I’ll examine the context of this error.

First, he had to be mistaken of the side of his body the plane flew on, confusing a left passage (when facing east) for a right. He would have misremembered his view of it – mostly blocked by the station to a clear view north of it as far back as the Navy Annex and up to a low impact. All of the details pertaining to this would have to have been adjusted accordingly. Like when he emphatically remembers the downed light poles and Lloyd England’s damaged taxi in the entirely wrong spot, when he would have certainly seen them where they were. I don’t think anyone else mentioned a left yaw of the plane at impact as Lagasse did, thus fitting his approach with the generator damage, but Boger I believe reports an opposite right yaw.

Fuzzy memory probably should be the first guess with such errors, but then we have another issue – his involvement with the 9/11 conspiracy theorist world. To become widely-published as the NoC witness, he had to first become aware of and sickened enough by Dick Eastman’s killer jet theory to contact the author to set him straight. As it just so happened, Eastman asked Lagasse what he saw rather than ignore him, and as it so happened, the north-path details fit perfectly with Eastman’s existing story and became his leading evidence, cited repeatedly as proof of his decoy flyover theory, which is otherwise even stupider than CIT's.

Lagasse’s initial interest in Eastman seems to have stopped there. It’s not clear if he ever checked back and found his story differed from the “official” one and was said to prove “that the Boeing could not have been the plane that knocked down those poles and hit the wall at approx. a 55-dregree angle.” He has never lodged a lawsuit I’m aware of, or issued any public complaint that his apparently erred memory was doing the opposite of its intent. He remained silent in fact for years until CIT gave him a chance to affirm his ignorance of, or perhaps pleasure with, the previous situation, and to repeat the performance again.

Anyone can review his extended performance for the team. Let’s just note he’s very helpful, offers no sign of any reality check along his journeys, barreling ahead 100% bet his life on it certain, less than 0% chance he was in error on the NoC path. He does this in uniform and with his patrol car, for what it’s worth, which means he’s on-duty and not doing this in his off-time. Officer Brooks, who corroborates the path just as clearly does the same. They do usually work in pairs, don’t they? Neither seems in a hurry. [see this post for some thoughts on their possible teamwork here].

If Sgt Lagasse manufactured this testimony from a mix of reality, trauma, and whatever else, this false memory has apparently rendered conflicting elements of his recall inaccessible. Mitigating against this, however is his sudden recollection that he was standing at the wrong pump, then moved to the spot the just-released Citgo video showed him to be. He also admitted how a “flinch” rather than the previously stated wind blast is what “knocked” him back in the car. Between these two clarifications, there is a soft implication that all errors had been identified and cleared up but the plane definitely flew north and impacted without a doubt.

I think it’s most likely that from his perspective Lagasse has been pranking people by handing them a performance art illustration of the fallibility of eyewitness accounts. As everyone knows, EVERY ASPECT of his account confirms the “official story” of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. Except this one dyslexic, simple, persistent error. On top of Turcios’ and Brooks’ curiously strong corroboration of that same error, this gave CIT the leverage to get their misinfo campaign going. Again, his response is muted. All I’ve heard is him saying the CIT are wrong, but they correctly characterized what he saw. There is again no hint of acknowledgement that he might be wrong. When Nick Schou called him recently,“Legasse [sic] groaned when he heard the names Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and said he couldn’t comment without permission from a press officer.” Did they take the good but confused officer for a ride and embarrass him, or did he get himself in trouble pranking people on company time, or what?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Reality beats remembrance every time.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Constructive points, thanks. I think there's a gap between the canopy and mound so he'd see it near over him and just left, but it is possible he didn't see the plane at all. Only then can his north deduction make sense, and then he's embellishing seeing it north and of course the pull up. If he saw it, it boils down to left or right. I have a hard time imagining his seeing it to his left and remembering it right, especially since this means a different vantage point to see it.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about some time between 9am and 10am on a bright sunny September morning at roughly 40o N, what's the direction and altitude of the sun? If you overlay the "official" south side path that lines up with all the physical evidence, and give the plane sufficient altitude to clear the navy annex but have the pat decend to hit the target location, where's that place the shadow of the plane?

I think that this is easily explained by people being under the canopy, hearig the roar of the jet, seeing the shadow on the north side, looking up and seeing the impact, and then simply extrapolating incorrectly. No malice need be involved.
 
16.5 said:
CL:

"Mitigating against this, however is his sudden recollection that he was standing at the wrong pump, then moved to the spot the just-released Citgo video showed him to be."

The what now? Recently released?

The old video is all but unwatchable for me. Can you show me where he was and which way he was facing in the video?
Click to expand...

New at the time. Release sept 11, interview Nov 6 I think. No one can say for sure that's him in the video, but it fits the location he gave - north canopy - and the white patrol car he says he was driving. It's the upper left large screen. You cannot tell which way he's facing or anything.

Other quick responses:
Alt+F4 said:
Forget every single eyewitness and just stick to the physical evidence. What is the only conclusion?
Click to expand...
Plane hit. You don't even need to ignore more than a few witnesses, or more than some aspects of each's account

tsig said:
Reality beats remembrance every time.
Click to expand...
They don't even have to fight most of the time. But when they do, of course you're right. Must you quote my entire long post for a one-liner when we're in the midst of a peak bandwidth crisis? :)

Minadin said:
If you're talking about some time between 9am and 10am on a bright sunny September morning at roughly 40o N, what's the direction and altitude of the sun? If you overlay the "official" south side path that lines up with all the physical evidence, and give the plane sufficient altitude to clear the navy annex but have the pat decend to hit the target location, where's that place the shadow of the plane?

I think that this is easily explained by people being under the canopy, hearig the roar of the jet, seeing the shadow on the north side, looking up and seeing the impact, and then simply extrapolating incorrectly. No malice need be involved.
Click to expand...

Ah! I know this one! 32deg above the horizon. 113 deg azimuth. It puts the shadow just south of the station still, across the south lot's south edge, as visible in the video. [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117951] It was too low for the shadow to be north, plus he couldn't see it from the south canopy if it were, so that ain't it. What I'm wondering is relative topography, mound height, Turcios height, and resulting vertical field of view as framed by the 15-foot canopy. Would he have seen the real plane? Could he have seen the north one theoretically? It's a side point tho as no one can prove where he got the north path from other than NOT reality.
 
Last edited:
I have different numbers for the altitude / azimuth of the sun, but it's probably just a difference in nomenclature on how AutoCAD figures it into their calculator. But, when I put in Washington DC and 9:30 AM with Daylight Savings time on for Sept. 11, 2001, I get these numbers:

Azimuth: 298.23
Altitude: -24.54 (this is almost certainly an AutoCAD quirk)

And when I overlay a series of passerger jets (DC-10 was the closest 3D block I had) onto a map of the interchange there, approximating their decent, I get something like this:

1253248b5d4616caea.jpg


But, that's certainly not gospel, just a quick sketch of how the shadow's position might differ from the plane's position. I have not gone through the rigors of trying to match up the altitude or flight path exactly or anything.
 
Ooooh, the shadow stuff is interesting. I always thought it would have been a little to the south but now I'm not sure --- I would be quite interested to see how the shadow matter is resolved.

With respect to Lagasse, he described on ABC's Nightline (9/11/2002) how traumatized he was by the experience:

William Lagasse said:
Immediately after the 11th, I probably didn't sleep a decent night for months. I had a complete and utter fear of ever getting in an airplane again. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see the plane hit the building. The first time I did fly again, I was so petrified, I almost couldn't sit in the seat because I kept seeing that image over and over again.
Click to expand...


So yes, I think trauma's known effects on perception (e.g. tunnel vision and misplacement of distance and position) and memory (e.g. revisualizations that alter one's memory of the event) may indeed be relevant here, at least as one possibility of why Lagasse's placement of the plane differs from reality.
 
I think it is worth mentioning Gravy's research on the inaccuracy of 9/11 witness recollections:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/thefogofwar%3Aconfusionon911

(In addition, John Schroeder is an excellent example of what happens when memory goes wrong) The most revealing account on that page is this one:

Stephen King said:
What gets sort of interesting and confusing here is there's a videotape that was taken by, I guess, a department photographer that was in that [North Tower] lobby with us, and I had the opportunity to see some of that recently, I guess last week, and I'm in that videotape quite a bit. Some of the events I remember are a little bit different than when I'm watching myself.

To give you an idea, when I say that this has been a very stressful or confusing event for me, literally, if you would have asked me to do this interview without seeing that tape, I would have said that I remember the escalators distinctly and that I thought I walked and continued past them and got out. However, on the videotape, we go up the escalator and I go up the escalator with them.

At some point I was interviewed on TV, you know, a camera, not for very long. I have not seen this interview, but everybody in the entire United States has. It was on for two weeks straight every day. It was on America's Most Wanted. But I had people from all over the United States calling me up. I sit on a lot of national committees, the NFPA and other things. But they're all calling me up, "Steve, I saw you on TV," and I don't ever remember speaking to anybody on camera at all.

I know when I viewed that videotape that I mentioned to you last week (the Naudet tape inside the north tower, in which King appears), I only saw parts of it, but it certainly looked a lot different. Some of it is different from what you remember. It's amazing. It really is.
Click to expand...
 
I was meaning to not respond to every post here as they're mostly repeats of the same point. But I responded to all but alexg anyway. I don't want him to feel left out.

alexg said:
Agreed. This hit me a while back. The impact point was north. The more memory fades the more we tend to oversimplify things; north impact=north path.
Click to expand...

Sure, memories can be warped, but most of the witnesses were able to be generally accurate despite the trauma. For Lagasse and Turcios and Brooks - the entire body (??) of published at-the-Citgo witnesses - to all forget what they actually saw in favor of this deduction, seems to me a remarkable coincidence.

Regarding the error in perspective issue, as per the ANC witnesses, here's a graphic to consider:
north-south_perspective_witnesses.jpg

purple is real, yellow is NoC error. people south might imagine it further away, and those north might percieve it as closer. It seems to me the latter is more likely. All fine and good, but how about those between the paths? Consider Albert Hemphill, at the Navy Annex' east end recalling the plane "coming over my right shoulder." He did not confuse his sides. But all the Citgo witnesses mistook right for left? Three of them, and how many there were right? Really people, what are the odds?

Minadin: I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but I used an online solar calculator. Were you sure to look for as close to 9:38 as possible, 9/11/01 at Arlington? I got 32 altitude and 113 azimuth, as have others. Also your flight path is wrong - poles don't line up right, heading might be off too. Did you see my thread and video? The shadow is actually visible just about right under where you drew the plane at the Citgo south lot. The plane was like 150-200 feet south of that and app 100-120 feet above ground.

ETA: cool graphic tho.

And it's a side point. He didn't see the shadow north and remember that right and deduce. He says he saw the plane north. Why would he imagine/deduce something like that and yet be right about a memory of a piddling shadow on the ground? Do you really think he missed the plane but watched its shadow? That just seems silly to me. Giant plane in the sky, fast and low, diving to the Pentagon across your FOV between the canopy and mound crest - stare at the ground carefully now.

Oh yeah, and all the ground past the station would be hidden from his view behind the mound. If he saw the shadow, it was to his right and darkening the lot he knew so well. That's an image that would sink in it seems.

Mangoose: interesting example, thanks. Up remembered as past and out, huh? I wonder if he did both at different times, but only one was videotaped and confused him.

And so far no one has convinced me any more than I've convinced anyone else. "it seems to me" vs. "it seems to me" and "it's possible that..." Speculation, on both sides. But the coincidences... no one's moved, eh?
 
Last edited:
Caustic - I think I already answered most of your questions in the post of mine to which you were responding. Did you read it or just look at the picture?

Caustic Logic said:
Minadin: I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but I used an online solar calculator.
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
it's probably just a difference in nomenclature on how AutoCAD figures it into their calculator.
Click to expand...

Caustic Logic said:
Were you sure to look for as close to 9:38 as possible, 9/11/01 at Arlington?
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
I put in Washington DC and 9:30 AM with Daylight Savings time on for Sept. 11, 2001
Click to expand...

Caustic Logic said:
I got 32 altitude and 113 azimuth, as have others.
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
it's probably just a difference in nomenclature on how AutoCAD figures it into their calculator.
Click to expand...
Minadin said:
(this is almost certainly an AutoCAD quirk)
Click to expand...

Caustic Logic said:
Also your flight path is wrong - poles don't line up right, heading might be off too.
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
I have not gone through the rigors of trying to match up the altitude or flight path exactly or anything.
Click to expand...

Caustic Logic said:
Did you see my thread and video? The shadow is actually visible just about right under where you drew the plane at the Citgo south lot. The plane was like 150-200 feet south of that and app 100-120 feet above ground.
Click to expand...

I actually had not seen your thread until after I had made the image, which is just something I threw together quickly after my work day was done, and was only meant to show the relationship of the shadow to the plane. I didn't have time to try to find graphics of the exact flight path to use as underlays, so I approximated it.


Caustic Logic said:
ETA: cool graphic tho.
Click to expand...

Thanks. If I get some time on Friday or perhaps over the weekend I can use your numbers and your graphic underlay to get something that's a little more accurate. No promises, though.
 
Minadin said:
Caustic - I think I already answered most of your questions in the post of mine to which you were responding. Did you read it or just look at the picture?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's about what I did. I scanned for the main points and glossed over the details. Your azimuth is close to 180 deg off from mine, so that's the problem there - terminology. I have it as direction TO the sun, where this would be the direction of light FROM it. Give or take five deg. Altitude is quite off from what I'm seeing even if we presume the same inversion and turn to neg to pos...

Here's a calculator to try:
http://www2.arnes.si/~gljsentvid10/nebes_pod/legasonca.html
I have the exact coordinates somewhere, but they can be found.

But are we agreed that under the south canopy and behind the mound is a bad place to see the shadow on approach? Sorry if I sounded harsh on you, when I only meant to be harsh on this theory and deal it a quick death so we can move on.

Thanks. If I get some time on Friday or perhaps over the weekend I can use your numbers and your graphic underlay to get something that's a little more accurate. No promises, though.
Click to expand...

It would be cool to see a more technically precise rendering. I've done everything freehand on Photoshop so far. Nothing gospel, accurate but not precise.

ETA: In mapping, some points to consider - no one knows the exact path to the foot. It should be almost straight at this scale, but with a slight curve to the left. How slight is up to you. Forget FDR headings - map out impact, pole s 1-5, VDOT mast framing left wingtip, curve that back a bit to Columbia Pike, and just do what seems right.
 
Last edited:
Here is something else to throw out there about Lagasse and Turcios. In both his 2003 email and his CIT interview, Lagasse said that he saw the plane nearly alongside the CITGO before even hearing it, and he attributed this to the Doppler effect. Indeed at 530 mph the plane would have been travelling at 70% of the speed of sound (i.e. at 777 feet per second), and this means that the sound of the engines was delayed somewhat and the plane would have been closer to Lagasse than it sounded. At 100% of the speed of sound (Mach 1), there would have been no sound at all before the arrival of the plane. After passing the Sheraton Hotel, the plane would have been about 2,250 feet from the CITGO -- about two seconds would be needed for the sound of the engines in that location to reach Lagasse. But by the time the sound would reach him, the plane would have only been a little less than a second from the CITGO -- and then from there it was only 2 seconds to the Pentagon.

But here is the interesting thing: Turcios didn't see the plane first; he heard it:

"I had just come out to do maintenance this morning ... when I heard a loud engine sound. We normally get flybys from the airplanes but it was louder than that, and so I started looking where it was coming from. And so I was looking around and I saw the airplane come down here over the tree."

Now maybe Turcios has better hearing than Lagasse, but it seems quite likely that he heard the plane after Lagasse saw it; and since Turcios claims that he spent a moment looking around for the plane, he probably did not see it until after it had passed the CITGO and came into view in front of him below the canopy. This raises the possibility that he extrapolated the direction from which the plane approached from how it looked to him in that mere second or two. At least it suggests that there wasn't enough time for Turcios to climb the mound to see the plane hit the building -- and we know this didn't happen anyway from the CITGO video.

And if that is the case, do we know precisely how much was visible over the mound from Turcios' location (as it was in 2001)? And where would the plane on a "SOC" flight path have been visible to Lagasse? Could he have seen it as it passed the CITGO with the canopy? It is interesting that in his 2003 email he described it as "splitting the distance between the Columbia Pike and ANC" and "closer to the Columbia Pike". That suggests that he caught a glimpse of it approaching after passing the Annex and he thought it was heading straight towards him (in that horrifying instant he probably thought the plane was a bit closer to him than it really was, and thus perceived it as more north). Then, in all of his accounts, he described himself hitting the deck and getting into his car. Maybe he was flinching as he said, but he also said in 2001 that he thought it was the blast from the wings that forced him into his car. This suggests that the plane passed the CITGO while Lagasse was ducking for cover inside his car. If he ducked into his car, he probably took his eyes off the plane. If he did not see the plane pass at that moment, and if that was when the aural assault of the plane's engines reached their peak (as suggested by the sound delay), then he perhaps did believe the plane was passing right by him. Then when he looked at the plane in front of him, it was more to the south than it should have been passing on his north -- and so he perceived the plane's attitude adjustment over Route 27 as a severe "yaw" that aligned the plane the way he saw it. That means that his memory of seeing the plane pass over Southgate Road may be a deduction of what happened while he ducked in his car, which through repeated revisualizations has become part of the memory.

Complete speculation here, but one that seems reasonable and gives Lagasse more credit than positing him as dishonest. Because the experience of their perceptions and memories is so subjective, the reasons why the NOC witnesses' reports are anomalous will always lie in the realm of speculation.
 
Last edited:
Mangoose said:
Here is something else to throw out there about Lagasse and Turcios. In both his 2003 email and his CIT interview, Lagasse said that he saw the plane nearly alongside the CITGO before even hearing it, and he attributed this to the Doppler effect.
[...]
But here is the interesting thing: Turcios didn't see the plane first; he heard it:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd noticed that too, and thought of it as as an inconsistency that showed someone was making something up.

Now maybe Turcios has better hearing than Lagasse, but it seems quite likely that he heard the plane after Lagasse saw it; and since Turcios claims that he spent a moment looking around for the plane, he probably did not see it until after it had passed the CITGO and came into view in front of him below the canopy. This raises the possibility that he extrapolated the direction from which the plane approached from how it looked to him in that mere second or two. At least it suggests that there wasn't enough time for Turcios to climb the mound to see the plane hit the building -- and we know this didn't happen anyway from the CITGO video.
Click to expand...

And yet he says he did, and saw the plane NoC, just then passing over some trees there. Extrapolation bolstered with false memories is one possible explanation.

And if that is the case, do we know precisely how much was visible over the mound from Turcios' location (as it was in 2001)?
Click to expand...

No, that's what I was hoping you'd figure out. :) I'm not in that mode right now, and you've proven so good at it. It's trickier though, working with ill-defined variables - Robert height, Citgo elevation, mound height, canopy height (this is 15'), Pentagon elevation, plane altitude and flight path. minute differences make big differences in his FoV... it's a daunting task, but are you up to it? I sure ain't.

And where would the plane on a "SOC" flight path have been visible to Lagasse? Could he have seen it as it passed the CITGO with the canopy?
Click to expand...

He'd be able to see it from about the first light poles and forward it seems from memory. Similar un-established equation.

It is interesting that in his 2003 email he described it as "splitting the distance between the Columbia Pike and ANC" and "closer to the Columbia Pike".
Click to expand...
He might've meant where the Pike runs north and bends, at the station.

That suggests that he caught a glimpse of it approaching after passing the Annex and he thought it was heading straight towards him (in that horrifying instant he probably thought the plane was a bit closer to him than it really was, and thus perceived it as more north). Then, in all of his accounts, he described himself hitting the deck and getting into his car. Maybe he was flinching as he said, but he also said in 2001 that he thought it was the blast from the wings that forced him into his car. This suggests that the plane passed the CITGO while Lagasse was ducking for cover inside his car.
If he ducked into his car, he probably took his eyes off the plane. If he did not see the plane pass at that moment, and if that was when the aural assault of the plane's engines reached their peak (as suggested by the sound delay), then he perhaps did believe the plane was passing right by him. Then when he looked at the plane in front of him, it was more to the south than it should have been passing on his north -- and so he perceived the plane's attitude adjustment over Route 27 as a severe "yaw" that aligned the plane the way he saw it. That means that his memory of seeing the plane pass over Southgate Road may be a deduction of what happened while he ducked in his car, which through repeated revisualizations has become part of the memory.

Complete speculation here, but one that seems reasonable and gives Lagasse more credit than positing him as dishonest. Because the experience of their perceptions and memories is so subjective, the reasons why the NOC witnesses' reports are anomalous will always lie in the realm of speculation.
Click to expand...

I'd concede that as a possibility, if I hadn't already. I'm really no memory expert, and put this well, in fact, it sounds extremely reasonable. There are a lot of embellishments (blinds drawn, landing gear up, correct altitude, pitch, plane description, etc), but as you say, by now it's a memory to him. It does seem odd or coincidental that he has no doubts, in particular, about its northiness, no "y'know, come to think of it..." moments about this, when he can correct himself on the wind blast and his videotaped location. But there's perhaps a natural explanation for one memory being locked while others are open to revision. Who knows?

Minadin - if you do the mapping thing whenever you have time, this image might help get an idea of the app descent angle.
Click to expand...
 
Caustic, in general and IMHO, the whole CIT brouhaha can be explained by the MSM. These are some of the samples of the Pentagon coverage after the event.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/images/pentagon_strike_0911.gif
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/nation_world/terrorism/pentagon3_12.gif




Can you see the main theme? Wouldn't you say these graphics show the plane quite favorably on the NoC flight path? The plane does appear to be hitting the wall nearly perpendicularly. Imagine what kind of memory reinforcement would those do to anyone, who was there to witness the actual event. An event which took place in a mere fraction of a second or two, without a chance of replay, but with a significant chance to get reinforced by such images over the next few weeks, months, or even years.

Mind you, I hadn't closely looked at the 9/11 CT until about 2004-5, so I have no real idea how the event was covered in American MSM at the time (except CNN on 9/11 itself). Yet even then, when I had eventually started reading up about it, these kind of pictures were the first I ran into, regarding the Pentagon crash. I don't have a convenient access to american print media, but I've seen some archived newspapers from the time and they show similar graphics of planes hitting the western wall more or less straight on, leaving the impression the plane came in from above the Arlington Cemetary and thus from North of Citgo.

Now, imagine what would those images do, if one was to show them to potencial eyewitnesses prior to their interview. 4d7ec2804b6a9f92426be8eef12291fc
 
As I posted in another thread, I tend to agree with CL on this. While I am skeptical of NoC due to the obvious conflicts with the physical evidence, I believe that there must be some explanation for not just one or two, but 13 NoC accounts. Maybe it's a quirk of perception, maybe it's a prank, maybe anything.

There's more than meets the eye here (no pun intended).
 
I'm sorry, I've been trying for days, but I still can't help reading "NoC" as "North of Cthulhu." Really. Every single time I see it in text.

Of course, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that Cthulhu was hanging out at the Citgo station on 9/11. But there's no evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
celestrin said:
Caustic, in general and IMHO, the whole CIT brouhaha can be explained by the MSM. These are some of the samples of the Pentagon coverage after the event.
Click to expand...

Cool collection! I always like corny graphics I'm smarter than, but suddenly they seem like baseball card collectible.

Can you see the main theme? Wouldn't you say these graphics show the plane quite favorably on the NoC flight path? The plane does appear to be hitting the wall nearly perpendicularly.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the MSM is in on the NoC conspiracy? Kidding... simplification and partial knowledge early on is of course at fault.

Imagine what kind of memory reinforcement would those do to anyone, who was there to witness the actual event. An event which took place in a mere fraction of a second or two, without a chance of replay, but with a significant chance to get reinforced by such images over the next few weeks, months, or even years.
Click to expand...

Well no one reported the plane pushing a giat arrow before it or trailing a dotted line, but this is certainly another point for the maybe pile.

Mind you, I hadn't closely looked at the 9/11 CT until about 2004-5, so I have no real idea how the event was covered in American MSM at the time (except CNN on 9/11 itself). Yet even then, when I had eventually started reading up about it, these kind of pictures were the first I ran into, regarding the Pentagon crash. I don't have a convenient access to american print media, but I've seen some archived newspapers from the time and they show similar graphics of planes hitting the western wall more or less straight on, leaving the impression the plane came in from above the Arlington Cemetary and thus from North of Citgo.

Now, imagine what would those images do, if one was to show them to potencial eyewitnesses prior to their interview.
Click to expand...

Well they did make an impression on you, but again, you had no direct memories for this impression to combat against. For the sake of my argument I'll have to note - if this, or some other reasonable distortion is responsible for the NoC claims, it only works on witnesses at the Citgo and/or ANC who also talked with CIT. Everyone else seems immune and reports a south path if anything particular. Not sure what combo of factors would then be at work there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom