ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Chadwick Brooks , William Lagasse

Reply
Old 28th March 2007, 05:23 PM   #121
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
All of those choices indicate that you believe their account of the impact over their account of the placement of the plane.


Exactly right! So will everyone else in the world except you and Merc. You can take your ball and go home now.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:31 PM   #122
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Lyte- relatively simple question:

Under what conditions do you feel it is acceptable- and indeed rational- to exclude eyewitness testimony? Logically speaking. You're doing it for certain witnesses to the Pentagon attack, so I would like to know your criteria.

Thank you.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:33 PM   #123
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
Lyte and merc stil have to explain how the damage path through the pentagon matches the official explanation; the flight path they claim wouldn't have caused the damage path trhough the pentagon.


ETA: also, there were people working in that section of the pentagon during that time as well (as stated by the testimony of rescue workers and clean up crew; as well as what was presented at the Mossoaui trial). Do they blieve that the "workers" who were there that day were willing to get themselves killed to "setup" a fake plane impact?
We know that the damage all lines up with the official explanation.

This is what proves that the plane could not have hit the building if it was anywhere remotely near where all of the witnesses place it.

Of course we don't believe that any of the victims were in on it!

April Gallop is one of those victims and she supports our research.

April Gallop's endorsement of The PentaCon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUato7U5JY
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:36 PM   #124
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
The corroboration is only within the individual claim- not amongst each other- the "corroboration" you speak of is your predetermined "corroboration", not the corroboration of the majority of the witnesses. That monumentally important difference seems to escape you.
Incorrect.

You can not provide a single witness who specifically claims that they saw the plane on the south of the citgo station.

Of course they pretty much have to be on the property to have a good enough vantage point to tell but none on the property or anywhere else make this claim.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:36 PM   #125
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
My take: the intrepid "investigators" are sadly disappointed, dejected and deflated by the complete failure of their (very poorly produced) little video to persuade even their fellow troofers, let alone critical thinkers, that they have uncovered even a sputtering dud of a firecracker, let alone the "smoking gun" to end all smoking guns that the intrepid "investigators" conned some of their fellow troofers into believing they had. (Hey, now I know where the "con" in the title came from.)

Their dreams of fame and accolades fizzled, their months and months of self-aggrandizement spent hyping their "Case Closed" "proof" turned to ashes, their fantasies of being lauded by their fellow troofers shattered, their delusions that they had "solved" the Pentagon "mystery" and that their work would be spread far and wide throughout the worldwide media exposed as the delusions they were, their hopes of raking in scads of cash through the sale of their "Researchers Edition" thwarted, the intrepid "investigators" are reduced to trying to salvage whatever remnants of their dignity they can by steadfastly sticking to their BS story, steadfastly ignoring the facts and evidence, while steadfastly shoving their fingers in their ears and chanting "lalalalalala - I can't hear you" and posting their self-debunking crap on as many internet forums as possible, in hopes that someone - anyone - somewhere, might believe it.

That's my take on it, anyway. This thread is yet another attempt to publish their crap in hopes that it will draw attention to their little video.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:39 PM   #126
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
We know that the damage all lines up with the official explanation.
so that means you yourself know that A77 hit the pentagon. Since that is the only thing that witnesses (even YOUR witnesses) state that hit the pentagon, and PHYSICAL evidence prove that it was A77

Quote:
This is what proves that the plane could not have hit the building if it was anywhere remotely near where all of the witnesses place it.
again, if you can't explain or prove how the physical evidence happened, how is anyone going to take your theory as being right?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:40 PM   #127
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Well, I appreciate all the intelligent questions directed to him, but I've seen enough of Lyte's cowardice, nastiness, and attention-whoring for several lifetimes. Someone let me know if he ever crawls out of his cesspool and wipes the muck from his eyes.

Lyte, I hope you are treated with all the respect you deserve. So long.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:40 PM   #128
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
Incorrect.

You can not provide a single witness who specifically claims that they saw the plane on the south of the citgo station.
How many times must we post the testimony of witnesses who WEREN:T at the CITGO station (who were on the FREEWAY that heads south of the CITGO station) that claim to have seen teh plane??????

Here's a flip on your standard question that you like to repeat:

YOU can not provide a SINGLE witness who specifically claims they saw the plane FLY OVER the pentagon.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:41 PM   #129
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
Lyte- relatively simple question:

Under what conditions do you feel it is acceptable- and indeed rational- to exclude eyewitness testimony? Logically speaking. You're doing it for certain witnesses to the Pentagon attack, so I would like to know your criteria.

Thank you.
I don't exclude ANY testimony.

Naturally though.....if indeed the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim is correct.....this proves that the plane did not hit the building which means this was an operation of deception.

Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.

In all investigations it is up to the investigator to determine which accounts are accurate, inaccurate, embellishments, or lies.

Quite typically all exist and this is certainly the case in regards to the Pentagon attack.

Things like independent corroboration usually tend to lend credence to accounts.

And when you have independent corroboration from Police officers......it is pretty much a slam dunk.

Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:47 PM   #130
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
How many times must we post the testimony of witnesses who WEREN:T at the CITGO station (who were on the FREEWAY that heads south of the CITGO station) that claim to have seen teh plane??????

Here's a flip on your standard question that you like to repeat:

YOU can not provide a SINGLE witness who specifically claims they saw the plane FLY OVER the pentagon.
'
None of the eyewitnesses on route 27 specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo station so none of them contradict the citgo witnesses.

What's particularly odd is that we interviewed both Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman who BOTH admitted that they did not see the light poles get clipped and only saw them on the ground after the fact.

Joel Sucherman's POV:



Stephen McGraw's POV:
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:47 PM   #131
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
I don't exclude ANY testimony.

Naturally though.....if indeed the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim is correct.....this proves that the plane did not hit the building which means this was an operation of deception.

Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.

In all investigations it is up to the investigator to determine which accounts are accurate, inaccurate, embellishments, or lies.

Quite typically all exist and this is certainly the case in regards to the Pentagon attack.

Things like independent corroboration usually tend to lend credence to accounts.

And when you have independent corroboration from Police officers......it is pretty much a slam dunk.

That is not what they said in 2001. I have to with the fresh stuff from 2001 and not your filtered lies.

Quote:
American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.
They both had interviews in 2001, I have the mp3 copies and they said things that you have not addressed. You should have listened and you could save your time. If you need a copy I can email the MP3 direct.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html

Flight 77 was found in the Pentagon as was DNA from the passengers. All your witness statements must be wrong, and you ignore their 2001 interviews. Why do you persist on making up lies about the Pentagon?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:50 PM   #132
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
again, if you can't explain or prove how the physical evidence happened, how is anyone going to take your theory as being right?
It simply comes down to whether or not they believe the independent testimony of where these witnesses all place the pane.

It's a simple claim.

They are quite believable.

It's pretty difficult to fathom how they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the same way.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:50 PM   #133
Crungy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
their hopes of raking in scads of cash through the sale of their "Researchers Edition"
What I wanna know is, if I plunk down my hard earned cash for this, does it come with some kine bud that will help me see the lyte to their theory?
Crungy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:51 PM   #134
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Anyway.....peace out again.

Be back after dinner.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:51 PM   #135
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
'
None of the eyewitnesses on route 27 specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo station so none of them contradict the citgo witnesses.
Have you interviewed EVERY one who traveled on route 27 that day? Not just the ones that media got ahold of; im talking about EVERY single person who was on that road that day.

Quote:
What's particularly odd is that we interviewed both Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman who BOTH admitted that they did not see the light poles get clipped and only saw them on the ground after the fact.
that's 2 people out of hundreds.

What in my example of my personal accident experience did YOU NOT GET About eyewitness testimony and how conflicting they can be on the SAME incident?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:51 PM   #136
alexg
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Lyte, I've seen the whole Pentacon film. I understand your point and I think you are sincere - you have dug up some interesting stuff. The officers memory of the flight path does seem odd. I grant you that. But I think you have big problems which you could still resolve with more work.

As it stands you have witness accounts which are conflicting. Seeing the impact trumps seeing the path. It's that simple.

I know, I know, you say they didn't actually see the impact but that's likely wisfull thinking and a bit of steering to boot. Their first response was 'I saw it hit" (paraphrasing). I remember Lagasse saying something about not seeing the plane contact the building but I got the impression he was referring to difficulty of seeing any detail of impact, since the explosion so quickly obscurred it. I think he made it clear that he saw the plane and the building nose to face, as it were. Did you ask him if there was any room for a flyover? If he saw the two objects a few feet apart but just saw no impact detail then there was no room to pull up the plane. Did you attempt to resolve this with him? The difficulty was the speed at which all of this occured. You can try to twist this to leave room for the flyover but that seems EXTREMELY unlikely to me, MORE unlikely then remembering the wrong path, although I grant you that does seems odd.

Forgetting where the cab and the poles were is no small detail. You dismiss this too quickly by saying that was minor point compared to the path. Less important and less remeberable than the path, yes, but not minor. The point is that their memory is clearly way off about major details of the event. And he was so ADAMANT about where the poles were. That was odd. How could he be so darn sure and be so wrong? Memeroy is a tricky business, this is a fact it takes some years of life experience to grok. I assure you of that.


With so many eye witnesses on record why did you stop here? Why not dig up all the others on record and track their path? I know that is hard work but that's exactly what this investigation needs in order to get off of this impasse.

ETA:
As it stands it is interesting but far, far from conclusive. If you couldn't convince the LC board you won't get much support elsewhere. You do see that I hope. Howver much Russell and his supporters have sway there I feel sure the rest of the group would drop everything and hop on your smoking gun if you had one.

Were you at least surprised to find out that these two officers were not coached to repeat the OS?

Last edited by alexg; 28th March 2007 at 06:33 PM.
alexg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:53 PM   #137
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
From one of your star witnesses

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR...on_quotes.html



Quote:
Quote:
Sgt. William Lagasse in an email conversation with Dick Eastman
"Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker."
Has William Laggase seen your little film? and if he has. Have you spoken to him since?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 28th March 2007 at 05:55 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:53 PM   #138
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
It simply comes down to whether or not they believe the independent testimony of where these witnesses all place the pane.
what part of PHYSICAL evidence trumps eyewitness testimony do you not understand?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:56 PM   #139
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Who left the back door open?
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:58 PM   #140
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Not to mention, beyond PHYSICAL EVIDENCE trumping Eyewitness Testimony, I would say:

EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY TEMPORALLY CLOSER TO THE EVENT trumps RECOLLECTIONS OF THE EVENT 5 to 6 YEARS LATER.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 05:59 PM   #141
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,535
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
It's pretty difficult to fathom how they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the same way.
No, it is not. Not at all.

As I said above, I believe that you are doing this only to draw attention to your poorly produced little video since it was so poorly received even among your fellow tinhatters. I do not intend to participate in giving it any further unwarranted attention.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:21 PM   #142
John Blonn
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 390
Lagasse also "remembers" the downed poles being in a location DIFFERENT FROM WHERE THEY ACTUALLY WERE.

He SWEARS that "nothing happened" where the poles actually fell. Where there are pictures of poles down on the ground.

How reliable can his testimony be, really?
John Blonn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 06:58 PM   #143
alexg
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Lyte, here is an idea; interview Lagasse again, if he confirms that he did not actually see the point of impact simply ask him if there was enough room between the plane and the wall for a pull up when he lost sight of it. I gotta say I can almost hear him guffawing but I think that's what you're going to need to do. What he said about missing the impact is simply ambiguous. No way you can take that to the bank for a fly over.

Even better: give him a model plane and a rough model of the wall and get him to demonstrate what he saw, all of this without ANY coaching. Then ask him if there was room in his mind for a flyover.

Simple test. It will resolve a lot. Why not?

Last edited by alexg; 28th March 2007 at 07:01 PM.
alexg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:16 PM   #144
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
I don't exclude ANY testimony.
You cannot continue to claim this and maintain consistency. The vast majority of the witnesses, physical evidence, and flight path damage point to the "south of the Citgo" trajectory.

You have to- and have- excluded witness testimony you simply do not like without any reason other than you have a smaller number of witnesses who cannot corroborate each other, let alone your story.

Quote:
Naturally though.....if indeed the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim is correct.....this proves that the plane did not hit the building which means this was an operation of deception.
Everything you have just said here is patently false. Even if it were unanimous, it would not prove that the plane did not hit the building. What part about that do you not get? You cannot simply exclude evidence because you do not like it.

Quote:
Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.
"Reason" is being pushed aside, here- this is circular logic: the witnesses are planted because the vast majority of the witnesses who disagree with you do not confirm your "north of Citgo" claim and are therefore fabricated.

You have no basis for your claim, but you pretend as if it's rational.

This is the problem with denying logic at the same time you're trying to use it: you constantly contradict yourself and make blatant errors which you cannot resolve by simply saying "trust me".

Quote:
In all investigations it is up to the investigator to determine which accounts are accurate, inaccurate, embellishments, or lies.
And I asked you to answer this question, already: Using what criteria?

Quote:
Quite typically all exist and this is certainly the case in regards to the Pentagon attack.
I don't even understand what that means. What is "quite typically" [sic] about the Pentagon attack, Lyte?

Quote:
Things like independent corroboration usually tend to lend credence to accounts.


Holy crap- you just shot yourself in the foot.

Quote:
And when you have independent corroboration from Police officers......it is pretty much a slam dunk.
Pretty much... not. What are they "independently corroborating" Lyte? Their own story? Because not only do they contradict themselves- they contradict each other. That's not corroboration under any definition or bastardization of the concept.

What you do not have is any evidence whatsoever to support your claim- and much evidence to the contrary of your claim- so why you think your case is strong despite the painfully obvious position you're in baffles everyone, including conspiracists.

I must say- that's quite a feat.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:26 PM   #145
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
Incorrect.

You can not provide a single witness who specifically claims that they saw the plane on the south of the citgo station.

Of course they pretty much have to be on the property to have a good enough vantage point to tell but none on the property or anywhere else make this claim.
Why would they have to be on the property? That seems like a silly requirement (and a clever way for you to immediately dismiss any testimony which does not fit your predetermined theory).

This webpage has a compilation of the Pentagon witness accounts. There are many witnesses which contradict your claims:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:32 PM   #146
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post

I don't exclude ANY testimony.
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
Therefore it would stand to reason that some witness accounts would have been fabricated/planted.

You can't even maintain consistency in one posting, and you completely avoided the question.

I'll ask it again, just to make sure you understood how important it is:

Under what conditions do you feel it is acceptable- and indeed rational- to exclude eyewitness testimony? Logically speaking. You're doing it for certain witnesses to the Pentagon attack, so I would like to know your criteria.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 08:58 PM   #147
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
You aren't thinking logically.

The plane flying by was likely one of the most memorable and significant events of SGT Lagasse's life.

He could not have seen it at all if it was on the opposite side of the station.

Did you watch the testimony?

Will you please at least view the 8 minute clip linked in the OP?
Lagasse could have easily seen the plane on the south, because he was in the back of the station.



You don't mind if I borrow a photo explaining your laughable "plant the poles and glass and cab" theory, do you?

You see, Lagasse was at the corner closest to us in the picture. He had a view of the plane in either direction.

Judging from the confusion he expressed in your own video (not realizing which pump he was at until you pointed it out), his placement of the cab (recorded above), and his curious initial story about how he ended up in his car (blown there by the vortex? WTF?), I think he's confused about where the plane was.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:25 PM   #148
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
Have you interviewed EVERY one who traveled on route 27 that day? Not just the ones that media got ahold of; im talking about EVERY single person who was on that road that day.



that's 2 people out of hundreds.

What in my example of my personal accident experience did YOU NOT GET About eyewitness testimony and how conflicting they can be on the SAME incident?
Your example proved that you all perfectly corroborated each other in the general fact that there was an accident and where it took place. This is EXACTLY all the citgo witnesses had to get right. If you guys had thought it was on completely different intersections you would have a point but you all reported an accident on the same intersection. Perfect corroboration just like the citgo witnesses.

Other details such as color and markings of the plane, exactly which light poles were knocked down or exactly where the cab was were remembered differently, as you might expect from eyewitnesses. But they all saw the plane in the same place just like you and your friends saw the accident in the same place.


There are not "hundreds" that saw the light poles OR the alleged impact.

This is a lie that gets repeated over and over while witness lists filled with accounts from people who couldn't even see the pentagon at all are continuously posted.

The fact is there really aren't that many witnesses that were in a position to see the alleged impact at all. The topography of the area is complex and not level with a maze of highways and tall trees.

Not even the citgo witnesses had a great view of the alleged impact.

It is accepted by most that the witnesses on route 27 right in front of the Pentagon had the best view of the impact.

But what did they really see?

First I'd like to point out that according to the official flight path there is only a less than 1/4 mile stretch of route 27 where witnesses stuck in northbound traffic would have been able to see the plane.

Anyone in front of the flight path would have only seen the explosion because the plane would have come from behind them in a very sharp angle.

Call it coincidence if you want but fact is there was quite a slew of USA Today editors and/or reporters that were packed within this critical tiny stretch of hwy.



Here we measured it with the ruler tool and it came to a mere .16 of a mile.



So however many people were packed into this area is hard to say for sure but what did they really see?

I'll show you.

But first take notice to the trees blocking their view.

This satellite image from 9/7/2001 proves that the trees were still there on 9/11.



Of course this is only so convincing when looking at a satellite image.

So here is a nice gift from CIT to JREF in the way of exclusive images from our onsite research featuring the ACTUAL point of view of the famous critical witnesses on this all important stretch of highway......


We start coming out from underneath the overpass (where Joel Sucherman allegedly was) and we will finish after we get in front of the the official flight path (just after where Steven McGraw allegedly was).






















This one here would be right under the flight path and about where Stephen McGraw was. Although this would be the best view of the impact so far........clearly it's a REALLY GREAT view of poles 3, 4, and 5.


So I wonder why Stephen McGraw said he didn't see any light poles get hit?




Bottom line the view is pretty much obstructed the ENTIRE stretch until you come out from underneath the highway sign.

And at that point none of them would see the plane fly past them but would only see the back end of the plane for a millisecond before it hit.

Anyone further up would simply see an explosion to their right.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:28 PM   #149
John Blonn
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 390
Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.

ETA: Oh, and the fireball/smoke would be severely affected by a plane passing through it - it would be noticeable on video.

I guess they edited that too, though.

Last edited by John Blonn; 28th March 2007 at 09:31 PM.
John Blonn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:30 PM   #150
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by alexg View Post


With so many eye witnesses on record why did you stop here? Why not dig up all the others on record and track their path? I know that is hard work but that's exactly what this investigation needs in order to get off of this impasse.
We attempted to call virtually every published eyewitness there is.

We knocked on doors to find unpublished eyewitnesses.

We will present 13 total after we release the Researcher's Edition.

So far NOBODY has presented ANY eyewitnesses of the plane filmed on location.

We are the first to do this.

We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim.

If you can find one let us know.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:33 PM   #151
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by John Blonn View Post
Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.
Yep.

And Joel Sucherman reports another plane flying over the Pentagon "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion.

And other published eyewitnesses like Keith Wheelhouse claim another plane was "shadowing" the AA jet.

There are many reports of other planes immediately in the area.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:34 PM   #152
John Blonn
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 390
So then the conspirators didn't fool everyone, then? Wasn't a perfect synchronization?

ETA: 3 to 5 seconds? The plane was going hundreds of miles per hour. In the event of a fly-over, it would be gone in under a second.
John Blonn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:35 PM   #153
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post

Judging from the confusion he expressed in your own video (not realizing which pump he was at until you pointed it out), his placement of the cab (recorded above), and his curious initial story about how he ended up in his car (blown there by the vortex? WTF?), I think he's confused about where the plane was.
Eyewitness accounts are never perfect.

But guess what?

You don't have to rely on just Lagasse!

All the other witnesses corroborate his claim!
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:36 PM   #154
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by John Blonn View Post
Looks like a perfect view to witness a fly-over to me.

ETA: Oh, and the fireball/smoke would be severely affected by a plane passing through it - it would be noticeable on video.

I guess they edited that too, though.
Exactly what I was about to say- having this obstructed view only hurts the case of the fireball/flyover claim because it means that the individuals would have only been able to focus on the area above the Pentagon- where this flyover apparently took place.

Any witnesses to this flyover?

That's what I thought.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:37 PM   #155
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
Yep.

And Joel Sucherman reports another plane flying over the Pentagon "3 to 5 seconds" after the explosion.

And other published eyewitnesses like Keith Wheelhouse claim another plane was "shadowing" the AA jet.

There are many reports of other planes immediately in the area.
What a perfect example of quote mining.

These individuals are not referring to the plane going over the Pentagon. That is what is required. These witnesses, in fact, specifically state that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:37 PM   #156
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip View Post
Eyewitness accounts are never perfect.

But guess what?

You don't have to rely on just Lagasse!

All the other witnesses corroborate his claim!
So when does this hit the media? When will we read about the lawsuits? When we will read about the subpoena's? When will we read about the police charges?

Better yet, when will we stop hearing people laughing at you for using witnesses who debunk your own theories?
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:39 PM   #157
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by John Blonn View Post
So then the conspirators didn't fool everyone, then? Wasn't a perfect synchronization?
Think.

There are reports of other planes.

There were other planes too.

But was there really one that "shadowed" the AA jet or veered away within a couple seconds??

None of the other witnesses we talked to saw this other plane.

We know from the C-130 pilot himself that he didn't do this.

Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it.



"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection"

"We were at about 3,500 feet at the time that I first noticed this commercial airliner in our 12 o'clock position in about a 45-degree bank, which is unusual for a large aircraft to be descending and turning at a 45-degree bank turn like that, so that really got our attention."





So what were those other reports of a 2nd plane really talking about?
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:41 PM   #158
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
What a perfect example of quote mining.

These individuals are not referring to the plane going over the Pentagon. That is what is required. These witnesses, in fact, specifically state that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
Yes they are claiming that a "second plane" flew over the pentagon.

But did that really happen?

If not why did they say this?
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:44 PM   #159
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 571
Right so... corroboration... people who say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, lets be generous and say 100+

People who say they saw a fly over... lets be generous and say ZERO

Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2007, 09:44 PM   #160
Lyte Trip
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post

This webpage has a compilation of the Pentagon witness accounts. There are many witnesses which contradict your claims:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm
None specifically claim the plane was on the south of the citgo station therefore none directly contradict the citgo witnesses placement of the plane.
Lyte Trip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.