New Film Reveals Smoking Gun in Pentagon Crash, MUST SEE!

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

Quantum, I hope you treat Scepcop's post like you have mine.

[Hamlyn]

The last thing I want to think is that the Washington government falsified any information about the 9/11 attacks, and the last group I would want to be associated with is "truthers." That's why I've avoided the subject for 8 years. The "Truth movement" is either wrong, or I don't want to hear it. That's been my attitude.

So I watched this video hoping there would be nothing to it, and I could laugh at it and go on with my life.

Instead, the evidence and eyewitness testimony presented here add up to a decisive invalidation of the official story. Furthermore, I don't see any way around the allegation that the whole event had to be officially staged.

This proposition is much like some of the other ones that this forum discusses. I have no inclination to entertain them seriously, much less believe them. I would in fact be much more comfortable dismissing them out of hand. It is just not possible to do so in full view of the facts.

I will keep an eye out for a point by point refutation of the argument presented there, but it's hard to imagine what form that could possibly take.

I am not interested in generalizations or ad hominem bluster, especially from anyone who has not considered all of the evidence presented in the video and is not attempting to fit it into a competing explanation. But I imagine I will hear the bluster anyway. Another reason I would rather not engage this subject at all.

[soldiergirl]

Scecop,

Why don't you show a little respect on this date. Is it that hard for you to be respectful to people who have lost loved ones and to those still making sacrafices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Nostradamus]

Another stupid lying video - how crass.

Numerous blazing lies in the video:
1. no parts identified as pieces of the commercial plane - huge LIE
2. plane crash examples that did not hit reinforced structures - huge misrepresentation
3. lack of damage to foundation - huge LIE
4. math - huge LIE

The film does make one truthful claim. Earlier on it states that its so-called facts are dubious.

How interesting to see that fraud Gage listed as someone giving thumbs up to this garbage video.

[Nostradamus]

Even the twoofers think the video is garbage:

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

The overall substance of the film is that there is hard evidence and then there are a handful of selected witnesses and since the witness accounts that are chosen do not match the hard evidence then then throw out the hard evidence in favor of witnesses.

They also admit to cherry picking the witness accounts. The dopes from CIT state, "we have determined that he likely reacted as anybody would and hit the deck as soon as he realized there was a plane headed right towards him". They dismiss the eyewitness account of Sean Boger, because it conflicts with the other eyewitness statements. So in fact they found a witness that disagrees with their position and they claim it is wrong.

[Nostradamus]

What is even more interesting is that the statement by officer Lagasse has him describing the events from a position which does not match the video tape from the gas station. The video shows him at a different location when the plane flew overhead. It seems that eyewitness reports are unreliable.

This whole flight path issue is a straw man argument. What the video does not ask is, "Did you see the plane hit or pass overhead?"

If you want to hear the original interviews with the 2 police officers check below. I have typed a few comments from the interviews.

Brooks:
"plane flying awful low" "nose down into the Pentagon" "full throttle" "plane clip the lamp poles" "soon as the impact"
"plane hit the building" "heading to the crash site" "going into the building like that"

Lagasse:
"100 feet off the ground" "400 miles an hour" "wind blast knocked me into my vehicle"
"began methodical recovery of evidence from the aircraft" "image of the airplane flying into the building has never left me"

[Nostradamus]

An email from Sgt Lagasse wrote to the Apfn web site

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William" <...@...>
To: "'apfn@apfn.org'"

"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."

"...The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon.

The aircraft struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC and Columbia pike, and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground.

There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,

Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...

again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw it and radioed that it had struck the building.

I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.

There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended.

How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.

you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this entire process and are luck to be alive.

There was almost no debris to the right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that morning.

no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't there claim.

I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions"

[Hamlyn]

Sgt. Lagasse's rebuttal is a good one.

I am new to this whole mess because honestly it's so full of absolute crap from both sides that it has made the issue both supremely difficult and supremely distasteful. The signal to noise ratio is very low, and the invective is nauseating.

Therefore, Sgt Lagasse's 6-year-old rebuttal is new to me. It should not be, even at this preliminary stage of my interest in the subject. If groups like CIT were being honest and exhaustive in their treatment of the facts and testimony, they would include it in their video here and perhaps attempt to account for it. Instead, they ignore it. As pointed out elsewhere, selective attention to the evidence is a hallmark of pseudo-skepticism.

I still have some questions. I emphasize that they are questions about things I don't fully understand. The fact that I don't understand something does not prove to me that somebody's pet theory must be true. They are just things that I don't understand and would like to have explained.

The main thing is, if the plane flew in the path that Sgt. Lagasse and others described, how is it possible that it clipped the light poles, as he also described?

I do not pose this as a rhetorical question. I am inclined to think that I simply lack information here.

I also wonder about other mutually corroborated aspects of the witness testimony: the flyaway, the description of the plane, the banking and course corrections, and the nosing up.

I also would like to know what the hell that cab driver thinks he is doing. But God knows it is not hard to find a weird and erratic character driving a DC cab around by the airport. If that proves a US government conspiracy, then it was proved to me the second I set foot in that town.

In short, a mental DC cab driver does not require any explanation other than the fact that DC cab drivers are often mental. But I would still like to know what the guy is trying to accomplish.

I had seen arguments before about the size and shape of the entry hole in the Pentagon and all that stuff, and how it appears strange, and it never impressed me. It is not every day that you take a large jetliner and smash it into a modern fortress at hundreds of miles per hour. If the results appear strange, that's because it is a strange event. If there were more to that line of argument than speculation about what it "should" look like, then I might be more impressed. I haven't noticed that there is, and I don't know what it should look like because I've never seen it happen before, and neither have they.

To me, it is very persuasive to see the testimony of people like Sgt Lagasse. He was there at the impact site, and he saw what he saw, and it convinces him absolutely that a large jetliner hit the Pentagon. That weighs heavily enough in my estimation that I would lean substantially toward his account of it, and if there are odd or misfit facts, then those alone don't prove that something entirely different happened. They are just facts that may or may not be fit into our theory of what happened.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I would just like to decide what is the best explanation for what happened that day.

I do want to say that if large numbers of people distrust the government in Washington this deeply, it is not all the people's fault. We have a lying, lawless, violent state. But most of its crimes are right out on the table, and in scale, they tend to dwarf even the horrendous crimes of 9/11/2001. That is why people like Noam Chomsky say "so what?" Not because mass murder is trivial, but because our government (among many others) has routinely inflicted such harm on innocent people.

And it is definitely true that the US government at least had a hand in creating and nuturing the very groups that it blames for the catastrophe and against whom it has therefore gone to war. This too has its precedents.

These are the kinds of facts that make wild 9/11 inside-job theories appear not so wild to some people. Is it so difficult to imagine a Rumsfeld or a Bush or a Cheney engineering such a crime? Why? Certainly not because it's evil. My answer is because it's too elaborate and unnecessary and unpredictable. But some people don't see that, and if you think about where they're coming from, it's not that hard to understand.

I am talking about people who entertain these "Truth" theories, not about the ones who engineer them. It seems to me that by throwing out the parts of Sgt Lagasse's (among others') testimony that do not suit their pet theory, they've dishonored and insulted him, and they've distorted the truth to serve their own purposes. It's a sin of omission that I think is unconscionable, no matter what the Truth happens to be.

[Hamlyn]

While I have a few minutes to kill, here are a few more of my so-called thoughts.

That video fooled me. It did so skillfully but simply, the way a magician does, by showing you some things while not showing others-- but giving the appearance that it is showing everything.

I came away with the impression that if what the witnesses were saying was true, then some evidence at the scene must have been staged, and some of the records must have been falsified. Very effective argument. I was still not convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon, but the flyaway sighting and lack of a second plane in other witness accounts seemed a point in favor of that argument. What seemed ironclad to me was that something about the official story was profoundly fishy.

But then a thing that they hid is revealed, and the carefully wrought appearance of an ironclad case falls apart.

It reminds me of how easy it is to be fooled if you consider only the evidence in favor of a proposition. This is not a good test for truth. The real test of a proposition is whether or not it stands up to evidence aimed at proving it false. In the philosophy of science, this is called the Popperian criterion, and it is essential to the practice of true skepticism.

The mark of a pseudo-skeptic is the refusal to employ it. So I am comfortable at this point labeling CIT pseudo-skeptical, given their omission of crucial testimony that casts severe doubt on their theory.

I'm told that this is typical of "troofers," and now I have experienced it for myself. And furthermore, I can understand some of the vitriol. Nobody likes being deceived, especially about something this serious. Bullshit me about a car you want to sell me, fine, but don't bullshit me about thousands of innocent people being incinerated at a single stroke.

Now... what I think does nobody any favors is rebutting such bullshit with ideology, and that is mostly what I see. If anything, waving a flag and playing the national anthem and showing an eagle with a tear in its eye is a response that arouses suspicion. To be honest, it is really just more bullshit.

I love our soldiers, too. But when Washington wages war, it is just like any other state waging war. It is not all eagles weeping and we are the good guys and we go kill all those bad guys and the Baby Jesus will be happy up in Heaven. That is all a load of complete bullshit. Yes, a lot of our soldiers have died. That is what happens when you go to war. A lot of innocent people over there have died, too. Some say we have destroyed several countries with this thing. So yes, fine, let's salute our war dead, but let's not confuse that with the idea that Washington and its wars are sacred.

All that crap gets mixed up together in this field.

Don't feed into it, if you can help it.

I keep coming back to the Popperian criterion. A rational mindset, a truly skeptical one, is one that exercises doubt in order to see what propositions can withstand it. It says, on the one hand this, but on the other hand that, and on yet a third hand, such-and-such. It tends toward ambiguity and ambivalence. And so I am suspicious of any argument that is too sure of itself, which lacks ambivalence, and we all should be, I think. Certainty is the mark of ideology, and I think that most ideologies should be vigorously resisted.

That includes the kind of ideology that waves a flag in support of starting a war. Especially that kind.

[Hamlyn]

Soldiergirl, getting at Winston by insulting the appearance of his girlfriends is morally repugnant.

Insulting a woman's appearance is what bullies and lowlifes do.

And these women are not even your target by reason of anything they did. You are just using them.

As a person who did not know that Winston Wu existed until this past Thursday, I'll tell you that the impression you give me by posting this video is that he has enemies who will stoop to anything to insult him, and that you are a lowlife for repeating this garbage.

Way to strike a blow for truth and reason. Disgusting.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

If anyone has doubts about the crash of a jetliner into the Pentagon please read here:


Here are dozens of witnesses. Read Sean Boger's statement here and then read the CIT comment that he was probably hiding, not watching. Notice that Lagasse is listed here, but not as a main witness.

End of story on the CIT claims - just more rubbish.