How CIT uses "witnesses" to promote the No Plane/Wrong Plane Theory

Some actual research into CIT’s witness statements, yields some interesting facts. Below is the tail end of a discussion between a member of CIT and a skeptic who uncovered that CIT lied to and deceived their very own “witnesses” in the hopes they would say something completely out of context on camera that CIT could then use as “proof”.

"Haven't you been paying attention?

They said the plane hit the pentagon, because they were on camera to tell us about being there when the plane allegedly hit the pentagon.

They just didn't realize they weren't supposed to tell us about the north side approach.

In other words, they wouldn't have gone on camera if they saw it fly over, didn't think it hit, or realized what the north side path meant. They went on camera, because at the time, they believed the plane hit the building.

Why don't you ask them what they think now."

.

Catch that?

They were misrepresenting to their own witnesses what they were really after when interviewing them. This is a serious investigative team?

Have you ever wondered what one of those star witnesses might have to say about theories like CITs, without the CIT spin? CIT wont tell you, but I will:

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'[email protected] '"


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.

BTW, this is one of CIT's star witnesses whom they claim "proves" the no plane/wrong plane theory.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

The English in that letter/e-mail is atrocious! Did he really write that???

Who cares about their witnesses???

Even a chimpanzee can understand that a plane doesn't fit into that tiny hole. That's the end all, be all of the Pentagon hoax.

Peace

He did and you're correct - horrid communication skills. But, I left it as is.

Originally posted by Dr Love
Who cares about their witnesses???

Even a chimpanzee can understand that a plane doesn't fit into that tiny hole. That's the end all, be all of the Pentagon hoax.

Peace

They sure do. The witnesses are the sum total of their evidence to support the no plane/wrong plane nonsense. I find it very illuminating what one of their witnesses - they claim proves(!) their theory - has to say, without the spin, mischaracterizations and outright deceit.

Now, about your other contention. Come on man! If you want to discuss that old-school theory, start a thread and I will discuss it with you there – honestly, no snit or snide attitude intended.

This thread is about how CIT exploits "witnesses" to further their propaganda.

P.S. Just food for thought concerning your statement: is Lagassee incorrect? If not, there is but one piece of evidence in relation to your assertion.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


What's the point in arguing something that's so obviously cut and dry? Hole, plane, that's all one needs to see to put that puppy to bed.

See, the trick that you and yours like to pull is to argue all the meaningless peripherals. The more the better because there's more to cherrypick. The easiest way to beat that is to break down what happened that day to it's most basic and relevant aspects; hole and plane. Plane does not fit into hole, thus there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.

Peace

Ummmm...

You have failed to show an instance where we misled anybody.

It seems as though you don't understand the quote.

The point is that if the witnesses are aware that what they saw was a military deception that they would be too afraid to talk.

We don't know what the witnesses are going to tell us before we interview them and certainly it does not make sense to tell them what other witnesses told us in advance!

We always tell them what we are "after" and that is to get their honest objective testimony regarding the flight path.

Nobody has been misled and you have provided no evidence of such a claim.

You have merely demonstrated your inability to comprehend English.



[edit on 17-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Btw that Lagasse email is not to us and it is from 2003.

I didn't even know about 9/11 truth back then!

We interviewed him more than 3 years later in 2006.

Pseudoskeptics often imply that email was written to us but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Our follow up dialog with him has always been civil.

Lagasse has told us many times that he respects us because we went there to talk with him in person and we reported his testimony accurately.

He stands by his north side claim to this day.

What's with all the pointless and desperate CIT bashing threads lately?

The pseudoskeptics must be nervous about the new wave of witness testimony we will be presenting soon!

So take note how "slightlyabovepar" deceptively used that old Lagasse email to Dick Eastman that was written 3.5 years before we ever talked to him.

But here is what Lagasse actually said to us AFTER we interviewed him and AFTER he saw The PentaCon when we asked him for feedback and we told him how people like "slightlyabovepar" are challenging his north side claim and trying to discredit him as a witness:

"I would love to know who discredits what I
say about where the plane flew? No one has ever told me
diffrent in an offcial capacity. The building performance
report should not be taken as a gospel...that is scientific
theory based on damage to the building, ther is plenty of
room for error since it is science and none of the people
that wrote it saw the plane."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

Here is what he said when we asked him if he understands how his testimony contradicts the official story:

"I understand how it contradicts the evaluation made by
persons not at the scene at that time....my testimony won't
change."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

When pressed further regarding the north side contradiction he said this:

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscaculations on my part, but NOT wether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

And then after I thanked him for the feedback he ended with this:

"OK Craig...like I said, I do respect the fact you came and
met me in person to ask these questions."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

So there you go.

Lagasse is cool with CIT because we reported what he said accurately and honestly.

He stands by his north side claim DESPITE the fact that he now knows it fully contradicts the official story.


Now Lagasse's north side claim has been independently corroborated by 12 other people while NOBODY refutes him and claims the plane was on the south side.


Can you honestly say you believe that ALL the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated opposite of reality?









[edit on 17-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I have to echo Craig on this: What is it with all the debunking threads of CIT on this board?

Personally, I think something made holes at the Pentagon, but beyond that, I've seen no definitive proof of anything, from gov't or anyone else.

That said, perhaps SAP, or jthomas, or Cap'n O, one of you could enlighten us as to why we need a thread a day trying to take CIT down?

Is it Randi spillover/infection? Should ATS get antivirus?

Is it that Craig is a member here, as in V for Vendetta?

Or is it that they're on to something?

I'm not a Pentagon do or die researcher, so what's going on here these past few months???

reply to post by gottago


They're scared.

They know we have proof.

They know we have further unreleased validation even stronger than the original 4 witnesses presented in The PentaCon.

They know we are right.

Stay tuned.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig is a hard worker on 911 truth. This much is true.

Bottom line. He can not and will not ever provide ANY flight path that will back up any witness statements.

6 years after the fact.... the math will not change.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

"I would love to know who discredits what I
say about where the plane flew? No one has ever told me
diffrent in an offcial capacity. The building performance
report should not be taken as a gospel...that is scientific
theory based on damage to the building, ther is plenty of
room for error since it is science and none of the people
that wrote it saw the plane."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

Damn, I thought I was a bad spallar.

Here is what he said when we asked him if he understands how his testimony contradicts the official story:

"I understand how it contradicts the evaluation made by
persons not at the scene at that time....my testimony won't
change."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

When pressed further regarding the north side contradiction he said this:

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscaculations on my part, but NOT wether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."

-Bill Lagasse on email to CIT

I bolded the important part. The man saw the plane HIT the Pentagon.

I think the reason why people (truthers included) like to confront CIT is that the theory is SOOO far out there. To think the government would risk everything on a discpetion and INCORRECT FDR information is just laughable. WAY too many things would go wrong.



[edit on 17-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Glad to provide an answer: if you don't want to read or participate in discussions about CIT, don't.

This is an open board and as such, I will continue to post what I wish. You can read it, or move along.

In addition, CIT puts themselves out into the public domain and as such, it's entirely appropriate to discuss them not at all, once a day, ten times a day or any permutation thereof.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Honest to God buddy, at this point, if your attempting to relay something from someone else second hand, I'm going to have a hard time believing it.

People can make their own minds up and I am comfortable with that.

P.S. Do you have any math to support the plausability of flight paths, based on your NOC witnesses, yet?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Bottom line. He can not and will not ever provide ANY flight path that will back up any witness statements.

6 years after the fact.... the math will not change.

Since when does CIT have to show a flight plan to back up their witnesses? Isn't their witnesses enough? Math or not, are you calling these people liars?

If so, I'd like to film it when you do to their face.

If anyone is being dishonest here it's the pseudoskeptics as proven by Craig with those e-mails.

Since when is it allowable to knowingly post false information on ATS? I'm starting to get worried about ATS's image here.

On a side note, I agree with Craig and Gottago. There seems to be an influx of the *snip* from jref. Yes, I said it. If the pseudoskeptics can get away with calling "truthers" loons, nutters, losers etc. all day long, it's time to fight fire with fire.

Edit: I went a little overboard. Sorry SAP and the mods......I blame stress with not smoking. No excuse, that's why I edited it.

Almost forgot my proof:

Originally posted by scotty18
the conspiracy kids

Originally posted by thedman
how come you and your band of conspiracy loons

Originally posted by scotty18
the conspiracy nuts

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read through that thread and tell me ATS isn't letting this stuff go anymore.

Also edited that sentence to sound less harsh.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Dr Love


Thank you for your condescending tone and engaging the very things your supposedly, as a forum moderator, moderating.

This thread is about CIT and their witnesses.

I am curious, when you start your own thread, on your topic concerning the lack of a proper hole in the Pentagon, which hole will you be referring to? The 90 foot hole in the outside ring, or the 16 foot hole punched through one of the inner rings?

Start a thread, I'll be happy to discuss your thoughts there.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Honest to God buddy, at this point, if your attempting to relay something from someone else second hand, I'm going to have a hard time believing it.

Yet you posted this:

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'[email protected] '"


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.

Or was that e-mail directly to you. Or was it second hand-third hand?

Your hypocrisy is funny at times.

reply to post by Griff


Yes, I think CIT engages in deception to further their agenda. Math doesn't make someone fraudulent. Their claims do. I am gonna have a hard time with the position that states using math somehow calls another person a lier. Liars prove themselves to be liars.

I think you may be missing the point: if CIT's witnesses are at all accurate about the location they remember the plane being.....well....located (NoC) the math must add up. Sorry for the puns.

If the plane(s) flew over the Pentagon, or around or beside it then the plane must go from the location the witnesses remember to one of the locations I just mentioned. The plane was in motion. So to get from the suggested locations (from CIT's own witnesses recollections), at the speed the plane was traveling (even “low balling the actual number and using 350 knots), there are a series of maneuvers the plane must make in order to avoid the Pentagon. These maneuvers, based off of known, accepted mathematical standards no higher than the 12th grade make these maneuvers a mathematical impossibility.

Not improbable. Not unlikely. Totally, utterly impossible. So, no (not to be rude) their witnesses are not enough.

So, either – according to their witnesses, as framed and presented by CIT the suggested positions and resulting flight paths make it a mathematical impossibility the plane flew around, over or beside the building. The fact that CIT keeps claiming they haven't provided a flight path is meaningless.

It doesn't matter if CIT offers a flight path. The plane can only get from one location to another by flying a flight path which would be mathematically impossible for any current technology to fly, much less for the crew and/or passengers to survive those maneuvers.

So then the question becomes, “So, where did the plane go?” You guessed it. Right into the side of the Pentagon.

So, again:

(1)The CIT witnesses are wrong concerning the NoC locations based off of the maneuvering required to fly from physically NoC to over, around or beside the Pentagon
(2)Or the math is wrong

This thread is about how easily CIT manipulates, misrepresents and mis characterizes so-called witnesses.