William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) distort and promote unreliable witness statements as “smoking gun” evidence of "mass hallucination" at the Pentagon on 9/11
In this post I expose the following distortions and misleading claims:
- CIT claims that Lagasse, a witness who misplaced the location of the light poles, taxi cab, and even his own location is "smoking gun" proof
- CIT insinuate that the witness "did not see the light poles" when confronted with the fact that the witness misplaced the location of the light poles
- CIT claims that the fact that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane."
- CIT and their supporters confuse and obfuscate Lagasse's testimony that the "plane did not hit the light poles" with his statement that he "saw the light poles [on the ground]"
- CIT misleadingly claim that Lagasse could "not" have seen the plane on the "south" side of the station because "[Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all," when in reality, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view "at all".
In their first documentary, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis interviewed William Lagasse, a police officer and witness to the attack on the Pentagon. William Lagasse has always maintained that the plane struck the Pentagon on 9/11:
William Lagasse: “[The plane] flew into the building.”
In his recorded statements, Lagasse claims that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. Craig Ranke has always maintained that his eyewitness account is “credible” and part of the “smoking gun” evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. In fact, Lagasse’s testimony is not credible. As I pointed out in my original review, Lagasse misplaced the location of the light poles and the taxi cab:
[Ranke] then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:
“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here… none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”
This statement is factually inaccurate. In the statement above, William Lagasse denied that light poles knocked down on 9/11 were knocked down. He claims that they were knocked down in an alternate location. He also claimed that the taxi cab struck by the light poles were in an alternate location. Early on in the interview, Lagasse even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. When this is pointed out and he is shown the video, he later corrects his account to match what is in the video. Even more striking, he places the plane where he mistakenly placed the taxi cab and light poles. Logic dictates, that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the light poles were actually located, not where he mistakenly thought they were, he would have actually observed the plane on the south side of the CITGO gas station.
What has been Craig Ranke’s response to these facts which cast grave doubt on the reliability of Lagasse’s testimony? When pointed out by a user on the forum Above Top Secret that “The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at”, Craig Ranke deceptively responded:
Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.This statement is deceptive for several reasons:
- It is deceptive because Lagasse did indeed see the light poles as I quoted him describing their placement above.
- It is deceptive because Lagasse did not see the "plane" hit the light poles, which Craig Ranke is conflating with Lagasse’s statement that they were placed in the wrong location.
This is not the only example of this. On 911blogger, after I wrote that that Lagasse "didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down", Aldo responded:
"WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there... You are a joke and we're coming for you..."
This is an additional denial that the witness saw the light poles, despite his description of their placement that I quoted above. Instead of acknowledging that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong, Aldo deceptively claims that he "couldn't see the light poles from there." This is obviously misleading as Lagasse explains in CIT's own interview:
Clearly, CIT has engaged in a pattern of deceptively implying that the witness "could not see the poles" when in fact, he did see them and misremembered their actual location.CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?
Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.
Similarly, I have been attacked by supporters of CIT who conflate and "confuse" Lagasse's statement that he did not see the "plane" hit the poles with the issue that he misplaced their location.
When it is pointed out that Lagasse could have been facing in the wrong direction, he responded that “I do not have eyes in the back of my head!” As I pointed out in my original review, we know that Lagasse got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong. We also know he even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. It is not much of a stretch to point out that Lagasse could have misremembered which direction he was facing? In addition, Lagasse did not need "eyes in the back of his head" at all, since he only needed to be facing a slightly different direction to observe the plane on the "south" side of the CITGO gas station.
Ranke also implies that Lagasse could not have seen the plane on the "south" end of the station, writing:
"Obviously whether or not [Lagasse] was at the back or front pump has what he described as 'no bearing' as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true. [Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all."This is another obviously deceptive claim. It is certainly true that in general, people can not see through opaque objects obstructing their view. However, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view, and even if it did, it would not block your view of the plane as it passed over and by the CITGO station towards the Pentagon.
Despite these issues, CIT would outrageously have you believe that Lagasse is part of their "smoking gun" evidence when his testimony is filled with errors. As I have demonstrated, Lagasse's testimony is not credible.
1. He misplaces his own locationHas this prevented CIT from promoting Legasse testimony about the flight path as a reliable? In fact, the opposite. When it is pointed out to CIT that Lagasse got the location of the taxicab and light poles wrong, they deceptively and repeatedly imply that Lagasse “did not see the light poles” or "could not see them", when in fact, Lagasse stated that they were in the wrong location and that he did not see the "plane" strike them. Despite these issues and the fact that this witness is adamant the plane struck the Pentagon, CIT has continued to promote this witness as a “credible” report of the flight path of the plane and that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
2. He misplaces the location of the light poles
3. He misplaces the location of the cab which was damaged by these light poles.
4. He claims the plane struck the Pentagon which directly contradicts his flight path and the theory that the plane flew over the Pentagon
Clearly, this is blatantly deceptive and misleading and these distortions and misrepresentations by Craig Ranke should cast grave doubt on the credibility of "CIT" and their research.
