He saw the plane over the parking lot and higher than the poles, not hwy 27. Then you go on at 8:45 with a graphic saying he saw the plane "near" the poles. What are you trying to pull?
FYI - there are light poles throughout the south parking lot. Those are the poles he was talking about.
@brokenstyx In analyzing RR statements I prefer to stick w/ what he actually said, not what you wish he'd said, or think he meant to say. And no, it's not "well-known" the plane hit the light poles. All but 1 light pole strike witness, it turns out, only deduced the poles were struck after seeing them on the ground. The one actual witness per media accounts, former DPS officer Wanda Ramey, backed away from the claim when interviewed by CIT. RR saw the plane in S parking over the poles. :)
There's some kind of deception going on here all right, but it isn't CIT. Was it willful negligence of deliberate obfuscation that led you to put this deceitful presentation together? Let's take Roosevelt Roberts. He told CIT he saw the plane over S parking ln 1 just above the light poles at 7:45 at 50-100ft. But then you point to poles 1&2 on hwy 27. Are you saying it flew over those poles, or did it hit the poles? Get your story straight. RR didn't mention 27 or the poles being hit.
Roosevelt says he saw the plane over the lane 1 area, near the lightpoles. From his vantage point, the plane on the official path fits this description. I have a specific video on Roosevelt Roberts testimony that makes this a little clearer :)
@brokenstyx My interest is in RR; your presentations...not so much. RR said he first saw the plane over lane 1 and estimated it's alt at ~50-100ft agl. The poles were standard 40ft light posts. He clearly indicates the plane was higher than the poles. So if this was the plane coming across 27 as you suggest, you apparently agree w/ CIT it did not hit the poles. It was too high. And no, it doesn't fit the official description. You left out he said it was heading east. East? Over lane 1?
If the police officer claims the plane 100% approached from the north side of the Citgo station over the tree line, how could it of taken out the 1 & 2 poles?
Good question! You could also ask, if other people saw the plane hit the lightpoles, then how did it go north of citgo?
In my opinion, as Lagasse has changed his testomony everytime he has given it, and THIS PARTICULAR testimony to CIT was initiated from the wrong corner of the gas station, then Lagasse is wrong about the placement of the plane in this particular testimony.
Only a debunka would feel that the light poles were insignificant. Once again, it stands to reason that if you see the plane, you see it clip SIX light poles...
Seeing a plane NERA the light poles, is not the same as seeing the plane HIT the light poles....sheesh. And to think a debunker recommended this garbage to me.
It doesnt matter to them that NONE of these witnesses seen the plane hit a light pole. Even if the debunker is correct....NONE of the witnesses in this video saw the plane hit a light pole.Even though you are made to believe the plane was on the goverment flight path. NO MATTER WHAT, IF THE PLANE WAS WHERE THE DEBUNKAS NEED IT TO BE, THE WITNESSES WOULD OF SEEN A LIGHT POLE GET HIT
you seem to forget every single witness saw the plane hit the pentagon. you also seem to think that people would be paying attention to things like lightpoles when a 500mph plane is flying at them. hmm, i wonder if people remembered other insignificant details? did they remember what they were wearing? no? it must have been a flyover then LOL
trying to say that bill lagasse realized on HIS OWN that he was on the other pump?? It was Craig himself that pointed that out to him, I love this, it is so comical, but it is also disinfo. and misrepresenting CIT's work BIG TIME!!!!
misrepresenting CIT's lies and fraudulent attempts to deceive the world regarding the events of 911? i don't think i'd lose any sleep over that even if it were true.
if you're interested in the truth, try to question everything. CIT have tricked you. do you realise that every single witness saw the plane hit the pentagon? even lagasse? in fact, in lagasse's four different interviews, the only fact that is consistent is "the plane hit the building".
Why would R. Rogers "run" outside just because he saw the second impact of the towers?? NO. He ran outside because the Pentagon was alreadly hit....and THEN saw "the second" plane.
When you show what Roosevelt said to CIT then we can talk. Until then you are talking about CIT without showing their interview with Roosevelt which makes me wonder about your honesty.
if you would like to see/hear CIT's interviews in full, join the club - but best of luck getting unedited interviews from them. they don't jive with their "100% proven flyover" hypothesis, and are unavailable.
He saw the plane over the parking lot and higher than the poles, not hwy 27. Then you go on at 8:45 with a graphic saying he saw the plane "near" the poles. What are you trying to pull?
FYI - there are light poles throughout the south parking lot. Those are the poles he was talking about.
HUD92458 7 months ago
@HUD92458
In all likelihood, since it is well-known that the plane hit lightpoles, he was talking about the lightpoles that were hit. :)
brokenstyx 7 months ago
@brokenstyx In analyzing RR statements I prefer to stick w/ what he actually said, not what you wish he'd said, or think he meant to say. And no, it's not "well-known" the plane hit the light poles. All but 1 light pole strike witness, it turns out, only deduced the poles were struck after seeing them on the ground. The one actual witness per media accounts, former DPS officer Wanda Ramey, backed away from the claim when interviewed by CIT. RR saw the plane in S parking over the poles. :)
HUD92458 7 months ago
There's some kind of deception going on here all right, but it isn't CIT. Was it willful negligence of deliberate obfuscation that led you to put this deceitful presentation together? Let's take Roosevelt Roberts. He told CIT he saw the plane over S parking ln 1 just above the light poles at 7:45 at 50-100ft. But then you point to poles 1&2 on hwy 27. Are you saying it flew over those poles, or did it hit the poles? Get your story straight. RR didn't mention 27 or the poles being hit.
HUD92458 7 months ago
@HUD92458
Hi Hud, thanks for your interest.
Roosevelt says he saw the plane over the lane 1 area, near the lightpoles. From his vantage point, the plane on the official path fits this description. I have a specific video on Roosevelt Roberts testimony that makes this a little clearer :)
brokenstyx 7 months ago
@brokenstyx My interest is in RR; your presentations...not so much. RR said he first saw the plane over lane 1 and estimated it's alt at ~50-100ft agl. The poles were standard 40ft light posts. He clearly indicates the plane was higher than the poles. So if this was the plane coming across 27 as you suggest, you apparently agree w/ CIT it did not hit the poles. It was too high. And no, it doesn't fit the official description. You left out he said it was heading east. East? Over lane 1?
HUD92458 7 months ago
If the police officer claims the plane 100% approached from the north side of the Citgo station over the tree line, how could it of taken out the 1 & 2 poles?
edpgroup 8 months ago
@edpgroup
Good question! You could also ask, if other people saw the plane hit the lightpoles, then how did it go north of citgo?
In my opinion, as Lagasse has changed his testomony everytime he has given it, and THIS PARTICULAR testimony to CIT was initiated from the wrong corner of the gas station, then Lagasse is wrong about the placement of the plane in this particular testimony.
brokenstyx 8 months ago
Only a debunka would feel that the light poles were insignificant. Once again, it stands to reason that if you see the plane, you see it clip SIX light poles...
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
or you watch the 500mph plane within spitting distance of you because its a remarkable sight. one or the other x
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Seeing a plane NERA the light poles, is not the same as seeing the plane HIT the light poles....sheesh. And to think a debunker recommended this garbage to me.
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
thanks for dropping by :)
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Once again,the debunkers ignore evidence.
It doesnt matter to them that NONE of these witnesses seen the plane hit a light pole. Even if the debunker is correct....NONE of the witnesses in this video saw the plane hit a light pole.Even though you are made to believe the plane was on the goverment flight path. NO MATTER WHAT, IF THE PLANE WAS WHERE THE DEBUNKAS NEED IT TO BE, THE WITNESSES WOULD OF SEEN A LIGHT POLE GET HIT
NICE TRY DEBUNKA FLUNKA....but try again
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
lol well you're clearly an idiot :)
you seem to forget every single witness saw the plane hit the pentagon. you also seem to think that people would be paying attention to things like lightpoles when a 500mph plane is flying at them. hmm, i wonder if people remembered other insignificant details? did they remember what they were wearing? no? it must have been a flyover then LOL
brokenstyx 1 year ago
trying to say that bill lagasse realized on HIS OWN that he was on the other pump?? It was Craig himself that pointed that out to him, I love this, it is so comical, but it is also disinfo. and misrepresenting CIT's work BIG TIME!!!!
justinwdesautels 1 year ago
@justinwdesautels
misrepresenting CIT's lies and fraudulent attempts to deceive the world regarding the events of 911? i don't think i'd lose any sleep over that even if it were true.
if you're interested in the truth, try to question everything. CIT have tricked you. do you realise that every single witness saw the plane hit the pentagon? even lagasse? in fact, in lagasse's four different interviews, the only fact that is consistent is "the plane hit the building".
good luck!
brokenstyx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CIT is 100% garbage.
citwatch . blogspot . com
bumblebee8banana 1 year ago
Why would R. Rogers "run" outside just because he saw the second impact of the towers?? NO. He ran outside because the Pentagon was alreadly hit....and THEN saw "the second" plane.
katyu16 1 year ago
When you show what Roosevelt said to CIT then we can talk. Until then you are talking about CIT without showing their interview with Roosevelt which makes me wonder about your honesty.
Truthstorm911 2 years ago 5
roosevelt's account speaks for itself.
as do CIT's attempts to confuse the issue.
if you would like to see/hear CIT's interviews in full, join the club - but best of luck getting unedited interviews from them. they don't jive with their "100% proven flyover" hypothesis, and are unavailable.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
Wow! Good job with the Roosevelt account!
YougeneDebs 2 years ago