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
 

Notices


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 cit , north of citgo , pentagon

Reply
Old 14th October 2008, 12:31 AM   #1
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,079
Why does Lagasse put the damaged light poles and cab NoC?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

Lagasse puts AA77, the light poles and damaged cab North of Citgo. Yet, CIT picks and chooses which is right and which is wrong. Has any explanation even been attempted by CIT?

Last edited by Baylor; 14th October 2008 at 12:32 AM. Reason: typo, grammar
Baylor 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 14th October 2008, 01:15 AM   #2
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Hello. For reference, the part in question is at 5:56 in that video. That little edit has so many weird moment, it's really a 8:00 weird moment. My favorite scene is at 2:50. Never, ever, ever talked about, huh-uh.

This is perhaps an interesting enough topic for its own thread and IMO a good question. He says with every fiber of his intent that the plane was and did everything the official story requires, but from a North of Citgo path. It's an impossible combination, but it's the "only one thing thatís irrefutable, that isnít me guesstimating." So they pick and choose, since he won't. Of all NoC witnesses, he's the one they pestered about the discrepancy rather than downplay it.

Therefore, Ranke mentions at 5:56 the "official story" pole locations and sets up a never-repeated feat of mental gymnastics. Lagasse can't abandon NoC now without saying something really dumb. So he does, and insists "nothing happened over here," where light poles were knocked across the road and into at least one car. He clearly indicates pole and cab troubles further north where nothing happened. He's in his own little universe here.

Oddities: He told CIT he didn't actually see these poles being impacted, but their downed location matching where he saw the plane was enough to deduce on. Earlier, when talking with Dick Eastman back in 2003:
Quote:
Eastman:
2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

Lagasse:
Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of
them

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.
Also, when Craig tries to confront him with the "official story" with a plane south of the Citgo, Lagasse asserts there isn't one of those at all aside from the Arlington County After-Action Report, which shows this for the plane's official trajectory:


And for the record, people who love to quote Lagasse's statements about how CTists make him sick, that was said once, as an introduction to eastman in 2003. Since then he's never changed his tune on the impact, but has become softer and more 'helpfull' in tone, and has never backed off giving them the BS they need to craft their geometry problems. He has never said a bad word about the CIT, and Craig proudly posted the Sgt's post-PentaCon-viewing response here.

So yeah, not a very consistent or reliable witness, to say the least.
Caustic Logic 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 14th October 2008, 01:28 AM   #3
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,079
Thanks for the great post CL. After reading the NIST WTC 7 report, then watching the video, I had to post this. I noticed NIST's interviewing methods. They used Loftus' approach to interviewing, as not to lead the interview. Shortly after, I came across this gem. CIT, looking to prove Lagasse right, ended up proving him wrong. Interviewing eyewitnesses is a lot trickier than one might think.
Baylor 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 14th October 2008, 04:21 AM   #4
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

Lagasse puts AA77, the light poles and damaged cab North of Citgo. Yet, CIT picks and chooses which is right and which is wrong. Has any explanation even been attempted by CIT?
I think I get what you were saying here now.

CIT chose not to use Lagasse's testimony as proof that Lloyd's cab and the downed poles were actually along the NoC path, as opposed to where "official photos" show them. The implications regarding faked evidence would be huge, but the light poles might be better explained in their story and relations with Lloyd wouldn't have to be so bad... it would be the consistent thing to do - if he says it, it must be true. Then again, acknowledging that it impacted the building where it meets the ground would be consistent as well.

Oh, and I don't have a quote handy, but the CIT have explained this recollection as Lagasse being in denial, warping his memories to fit the true trajectory. He can't grasp the horror of the light poles in the wrong spot, so he's shifted it all to where it 'should be.' Only stuff on the ground can shift like that of course, never the plane. He's definitely right on that.
Caustic Logic 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 14th October 2008, 07:31 AM   #5
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,502
Gee, and all Craig needs is one more thing, the calculations to show that the plane LaGasse saw could have performed the CIT flight path:

C’mon Craig and Aldo, you’ve been ducking my challenge forever, give us the calcs for you flight path:

Over the Annex, bank North of Citgo, descent under the tree line (just like YOU quote Morin saying!) Pull out of the bank, arrest the descent, and pull up and over the impact site.

C’mon guys, you posted the G force calculations to show other paths were not possible, so you must be able to do the math to support your flight path. And don’t duck by saying its not “your” flight path, c’mon guys, you are the ones who supply the key bit about pulling up and over the annex site.

Just show us it is possible.
__________________
Say, ya got that double sawbuck you owe me?
The Big Dog 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 14th October 2008, 08:21 AM   #6
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic
Of all NoC witnesses, he's the one they pestered about the discrepancy rather than downplay it.

I wonder if his 100% certitude is reflective of CIT's interest and/or agenda, that if they pressed him hard enough on any part of his story, he would have replied similarly. Would he have said he was 100% sure that he saw the downed lightpoles and taxi at a NOC location, if they pressed him on that point? That wouldn't have served CIT's interests as much, as it is a fact that there were no downed poles further north of the "official path". I would have to re-review the video to see how Craig queried him on the light poles and taxi, but maybe Caustic Logic might have that info ready at his fingertips.
__________________
Steven Jones: "Witness testimony evidencing explosions accompanied by white dust clouds ... are physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ." (source) Reality: The witness in question was actually describing the dust clouds accompanying the collapse of the South Tower. (source)

Last edited by Mangoose; 14th October 2008 at 08:27 AM.
Mangoose 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 14th October 2008, 08:33 AM   #7
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
How would he know which exact light poles were hit from the view of the gas station?

And why doesn't CIT bring up the damaged generator?
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX 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 14th October 2008, 08:39 AM   #8
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic
And for the record, people who love to quote Lagasse's statements about how CTists make him sick, that was said once, as an introduction to eastman in 2003. Since then he's never changed his tune on the impact, but has become softer and more 'helpfull' in tone, and has never backed off giving them the BS they need to craft their geometry problems. He has never said a bad word about the CIT, and Craig proudly posted the Sgt's post-PentaCon-viewing response here.
I am not so sure he never said a bad word about CIT. The email Craig posted looks heavily edited. That could hardly be all Lagasse said on the subject. I would hardly expect him to have had nothing to say about CIT's flyover theory, as it flatly contradicts the witness report he gave them. There is also an argumentative tenor latent in the excerpts that Craig posted, and "Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed..." can apply just as much to the "engineers" mentioned in the previous sentence as it can to CIT who deny that the impact he saw ever occurred. What was omitted in that ellipses?

And from what I recall from the OC Weekly article, Lagasse does not give any public comment any more without permission from his employer -- suggesting that his experience with CIT may not have been all that positive for him.
__________________
Steven Jones: "Witness testimony evidencing explosions accompanied by white dust clouds ... are physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ." (source) Reality: The witness in question was actually describing the dust clouds accompanying the collapse of the South Tower. (source)
Mangoose 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 14th October 2008, 03:36 PM   #9
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,079
Look at this gem by a CIT YouTuber.

[/quote]The Lagasse and Brooks and other north of Citgo witnesses have been the best piece of evidence to stump the "debunkers" and this animation is pretty incredible.
Sucherman might've seen the white plane and was told to say it was an AA 757. Maybe Mike Walter saw the white plane too, maybe the white plane hit one light pole, since several people think something was hit, but no one seeing 70 ft poles cut in half and fall over makes me doubt 5 poles were knocked down.[quote]


www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

Last edited by Baylor; 14th October 2008 at 03:37 PM. Reason: format
Baylor 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 14th October 2008, 03:57 PM   #10
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by Mangoose View Post
I wonder if his 100% certitude is reflective of CIT's interest and/or agenda, that if they pressed him hard enough on any part of his story, he would have replied similarly. Would he have said he was 100% sure that he saw the downed lightpoles and taxi at a NOC location, if they pressed him on that point? That wouldn't have served CIT's interests as much, as it is a fact that there were no downed poles further north of the "official path". I would have to re-review the video to see how Craig queried him on the light poles and taxi, but maybe Caustic Logic might have that info ready at his fingertips.
You can watch the video and see, OP, about 6:00 in. He doesn't say 100%, but he's fairly adamant. "NOTHING happened over here." It was ballsy to even mention it, let alone push it. As for his post-interview tone, I kind of doubt the e-mail was edited, but who can say. I suspect this was sent to them before his gag order was put in effect. There is likely veiled criticism of CIT, but I emphasize 'veiled.' He's been really cooperative, considering, and that seems off to me.

IMO Lagasse is the strongest case for liar. Brooks may have been just following his lead. Turcios seems to have a different origin. The rest of the witnesses are too ambiguous for me to call.
Caustic Logic 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 14th October 2008, 04:04 PM   #11
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Look at this gem by a CIT YouTuber.
The Lagasse and Brooks and other north of Citgo witnesses have been the best piece of evidence to stump the "debunkers" and this animation is pretty incredible.
Sucherman might've seen the white plane and was told to say it was an AA 757. Maybe Mike Walter saw the white plane too, maybe the white plane hit one light pole, since several people think something was hit, but no one seeing 70 ft poles cut in half and fall over makes me doubt 5 poles were knocked down.
Quote:
Oh my God, that is so full of wrong at every turn I feel a need to flush my head down the toilet just to try and forget.
Caustic Logic 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 14th October 2008, 04:38 PM   #12
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

Lagasse puts AA77, the light poles and damaged cab North of Citgo. Yet, CIT picks and chooses which is right and which is wrong. Has any explanation even been attempted by CIT?
Yes- I don't know if they explicitly state it since its kind of obvious from watching the interview.

Lagasse says he saw the plane to the north of the Citgo.

He says he didn't see the downed lightpoles or cab, but heard about the aftermath later.

Therefore, he deduced that the lightpoles and cab were where he saw the plane- that is, to the north of the Citgo.
TheLoneBedouin 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 14th October 2008, 04:49 PM   #13
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,584
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Yes- I don't know if they explicitly state it since its kind of obvious from watching the interview.

Lagasse says he saw the plane to the north of the Citgo.

He says he didn't see the downed lightpoles or cab, but heard about the aftermath later.

Therefore, he deduced that the lightpoles and cab were where he saw the plane- that is, to the north of the Citgo.
To be proven wrong by evidence. how sad... Why are eye witnesses wrong when CIT perverts their testimony to fit their insane fantasies?
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 14th October 2008, 05:19 PM   #14
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Yes- I don't know if they explicitly state it since its kind of obvious from watching the interview.

Lagasse says he saw the plane to the north of the Citgo.

He says he didn't see the downed lightpoles or cab, but heard about the aftermath later.

Therefore, he deduced that the lightpoles and cab were where he saw the plane- that is, to the north of the Citgo.
Really? Well, he doesn't say anything indicating he saw them himself, that's true. 7:45, he says the cab and poles were "here," but doesn't say he SAW them, and he doesn't say clearly that he deduced it either. he just knows, somehow.

One clue: "I know for a FACT there was a light pole here that was knocked down..." This is the kind of language one uses when they saw something with their own eyes. Another: He told Eastman years earlier he saw them hit, and saw the cab. (see above)
Caustic Logic 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 14th October 2008, 05:51 PM   #15
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Really? Well, he doesn't say anything indicating he saw them himself, that's true. 7:45, he says the cab and poles were "here," but doesn't say he SAW them, and he doesn't say clearly that he deduced it either. he just knows, somehow.
No, he says that he didn't see them (5:45). Therefore, when he says they were to the north later at 7:45, it must have been deduced after the fact.

Quote:
One clue: "I know for a FACT there was a light pole here that was knocked down..." This is the kind of language one uses when they saw something with their own eyes. Another: He told Eastman years earlier he saw them hit, and saw the cab. (see above)
You're speculating. "I know for a fact" could mean that he saw pictures of the downed light poles later. He says he "knows for a fact" that the lightpoles to the north were knocked down because "it had to be on the North Side- I don't have eyes in the back of my head" (6:40). He deduced the position of the cab and lightpoles- its painfully obvious, Larson.
What he told Eastmen was simply inaccurate, because, as he said on site in the video "you can't really see the light poles from here" (5:45).

Last edited by TheLoneBedouin; 14th October 2008 at 05:59 PM.
TheLoneBedouin 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 14th October 2008, 07:00 PM   #16
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,079
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
No, he says that he didn't see them (5:45). Therefore, when he says they were to the north later at 7:45, it must have been deduced after the fact.


You're speculating. "I know for a fact" could mean that he saw pictures of the downed light poles later. He says he "knows for a fact" that the lightpoles to the north were knocked down because "it had to be on the North Side- I don't have eyes in the back of my head" (6:40). He deduced the position of the cab and lightpoles- its painfully obvious, Larson.
Doesn't Lagasse originally put himself in the wrong spot though?
Baylor 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 14th October 2008, 09:36 PM   #17
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Doesn't Lagasse originally put himself in the wrong spot though?
He doesn't remember the exact pump he was at, but he remembered which direction he was facing. He's facing north in the Citgo video.
TheLoneBedouin 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 15th October 2008, 12:29 AM   #18
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,827
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
He doesn't remember the exact pump he was at, but he remembered which direction he was facing. He's facing north in the Citgo video.
I love how your avatar inults JREF members who do not even post in this sub forum as well as insulting yourself.

Very grown up.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 15th October 2008, 12:30 AM   #19
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,827
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
He doesn't remember the exact pump he was at, but he remembered which direction he was facing. He's facing north in the Citgo video.
Where does he place the final resting place of the plane?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 15th October 2008, 12:57 AM   #20
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,838
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
Where does he place the final resting place of the plane?
Now that's a trick question given that it was scattered across much of the Pentagon lawn and through the building into the c-ring service road. (or was it Cleveland, I always get the Pentagon and Cleveland mixed up....)
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf 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 15th October 2008, 05:02 AM   #21
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
No, he says that he didn't see them (5:45). Therefore, when he says they were to the north later at 7:45, it must have been deduced after the fact.
That's what I get starting at 6:00. So there he sez
"i didn't see it hit 'em. but obviously it did, cause (inaudible, cross-fade)"
Not here he doesn't say that. I mean see them after, in context, where they actually were. In the PentaCon, at 1:05:25 "cause it broke 'em knocked down (?)." He's 100% vague on how he knows this for a fact.

Methinks he saw them knocked down, by the wings, in reality world at least.

Quote:
You're speculating.
Good eye.

Quote:
"I know for a fact" could mean that he saw pictures of the downed light poles later. He says he "knows for a fact" that the lightpoles to the north were knocked down because "it had to be on the North Side- I don't have eyes in the back of my head" (6:40). He deduced the position of the cab and lightpoles
Against reality.

Quote:
- its painfully obvious, Larson.
That you are joined at the base of the brain with Ranke Lyte Brite, yes.

Quote:
What he told Eastmen was simply inaccurate, because, as he said on site in the video "you can't really see the light poles from here" (5:45).
That's why he says he didn't see them get hit, that's the context. In fact he'd have a great view of them, if at the north row of pumps. If he were facing the right way. Then he wouldn't have been a liar when talking to ol' Dick.


And either way, Would you deny that he probably saw the poles, and Lloyd's cab, where they actually were after? That's my point here - his memory of the scene had to be totally shifted from the distinctive overpass at the cloverleaf, to a different flatter spot. That's another unlikely memory error, IMO.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 15th October 2008 at 05:24 AM. Reason: edits and picture
Caustic Logic 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 15th October 2008, 05:35 AM   #22
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
He doesn't remember the exact pump he was at, but he remembered which direction he was facing. He's facing north in the Citgo video.

WHAT?
He doesn't remember the spot? The one that the video shows, that CIT were so excited when he remembered? His location was never an issue until now, as we're discussing light poles. the spot CIT and Lagasse and the video put him at, gives him a great view of the light poles, if he were facing the real plane.

Then you get it backwards and say while we don't know where he was, the video does show that he was FACING north? What expert was able to determine what direction his bald white blur of a head was pointing in any one direction from that crappy 1/4 screen view?
Caustic Logic 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 07:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.