8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[achimspok]

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

From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: d*** Eastman

Mr. Eastman
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.

And finally this is the email that started all that nonsense BUT of course if
1) the lightpoles where hit
2) the generator was hit
3) the starboard side of the cockpit hit
THEN
it is simply impossible for Lagasse to be on the starboard side and at Citgo at the same time. ...at least not under earthly conditions.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Any comment on my slam-dunk debunk of your buddy YougeneDebs' deceptive little video, Achim?

 

[Arus808]

Any comment on my slam-dunk debunk of your buddy YougeneDebs' deceptive little video, Achim?

You did nothing of the sort. I notice that you won't make a comment on his video nor go to his site where he has a long thread on the video telling him this.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You did nothing of the sort. I notice that you won't make a comment on his video nor go to his site where he has a long thread on the video telling him this.

You mean achimspok's video? Why don't you give us your opinion, Arus? Your turn, duhbunkies:

 

[Arus808]

you mean that you can't provide your own story on about how 9/11 happened so all you're left to do is to poke holes as analysis of others, based on, now 6 year old history?

CE, you've been here long enough that we know that you're nothing more than troll, and in all that time, you've yet to present anything that supports the 9/11 conpiracy theory.

way to keep up that fairy tale belief.


by the time i was 6 i knew there was no santa claus or the tooth fairy.


BTW, i commented on that you did nothing to prove that YougeneDebs was fraudulent. Again, go to his website and tell him that. you'll get schooled royally about perspective just like mobert here is being schooled. Seems that you suffer from what all truthers suffer from, the inability to tell absolute directions from relative directions.

 

[achimspok]

Any comment on my slam-dunk debunk of your buddy YougeneDebs' deceptive little video, Achim?

Yes, your image of the "official flightpath" is wrong. Since the plane flew over the VDOT it was much higher than your red line and it wasn't obscured by trees.
So far Debs is perfectly right. A plane south of the Annex and high enough to appear "above" the Annex would look exactly like north of the Annex just a tiny little bit smaller.

That's the view of Stafford, Carter and Prather. There is just one difference to the official path: The animated plane is lower than the VDOT and flys between VDOT and Annex like described by Morin.

The relation to the Citgo Station might be hard to judge also.

The Stafford statements:

"I looked up and I could see the plane over the corner of the building there."

"That would be the Naval Annex. From what I've seen it was on the right of it. It was on this corner of it.
You can see the building in the background. It's the Sheraton. It looked like it came over that..."

"...and it did look like it was just over the top of the Navy Annex on the right corner of it."

"I said hey look look. They turned around and looked. By then it was vastly approaching. It was quiet thought. You couldn't hear. We were kind of stunned and..."

(Well, the time went by and a little later...)

"So we knew we want to get out of the way but ...something it would hit. It appeared it was coming right for us actually."

"So we knew we want to get out of the way but kind of... Yeah, it looked like it came straight in this direction. And may be this guy is out of control."

(Well, time went by and...)

"It came closer to ... "

"...may be where this little traffic light is..."

"... you can see him kind of bank a little bit ... kind of ..."

"... um ... I guess lean ... to the right ..."

(Well, time went by...)

"...and that's when I and Donald Carter decided 'Hey let's get away from it!'"

"And when it banked like that we ran toward it and ran up the hill and right there ... where that little machine is ... that stop sign is on that corner..."

"We ran in that direction and..."

(Well, time went by and a little later...)

"... we passed it right there."

(A little later in the interview...)

"...the first one (plane) was just beyond that tree top ... a little higher than that."

(The Citgo canopy is right in the picture.)

Some years later in an interview...

"We were kind of mesmerized by it, but we knew we wanted to get out of the way. I and one guy ran toward the plane as it went toward the Pentagon, and we actually went under the wing of it as it passed over...."

"... In a matter of seconds, we ducked for cover. I peeked over my shoulder, and moments later, I saw the big old ball of fire and heard the explosion, and it was unreal."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/memorial.day.arlington.worker/index.html?hpt=C2

In other words, if the plane would have been that close he thought it was then it had about the same speed like he ran to the STOP sign.
The big question is, if he was near the stop sign when the plane passed him then how could he see the plane behind the tree?
-----
The short version:

 

[Childlike Empress]

LOL. excellent. Readers, you can find the sequence Achim's stills are taken from at 37:30 in the video. Quick question - Stafford uses a tool provided to him to visualize exactly what he saw. That tool is absent from Achim's representation of his testimony. What is it?

Also, take a close look at his animated gif here

Try to find out where the bridge with Lloyd's Cab and the lightpole is located. If Achim's plane doesn't hit the poles it isn't on the "real/official" flight path.

 

[twinstead]

Is it still CIT's position that the plane suddenly reared up from that its path and flew over the Pentagon?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What does it matter if the aircraft was a bit further north or south? Why would it make a difference? THat there is the evidence of the light poles and the generator etc to show its path tells us it was on the more southerly path. If this extra evidence didn't exist would we be arguing this? It hit the Pentagon, all the witnesses say this.

What is the fuss?

 

[The Big Dog]

LOL. excellent. Readers, you can find the sequence Achim's stills are taken from at 37:30 in the video. Quick question - Stafford uses a tool provided to him to visualize exactly what he saw. That tool is absent from Achim's representation of his testimony. What is it?

Also, take a close look at his animated gif here

[qimg]http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1012/nvstafford.gif[/qimg]

Try to find out where the bridge with Lloyd's Cab and the lightpole is located. If Achim's plane doesn't hit the poles it isn't on the "real/official" flight path.

Hey, CE, still pimping the CIT's theory after acknowledging a couple of days ago that we have real reason to believe that CIT was being deceptive?

You see that little animation you put in your post? Good, now using CIT's theory, the plane would have had to have been banked over almost on its side, something no one described.

Get it? Good.

Book it, done.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Interesting move.
...a linked YT video that is unavailable in Germany probably due to some copy righted pop music in combination with, I would guess, "Arbeit macht frei" (work makes free) the slogan at the gate of Auschwitz. Is it some kind of humor?

No its another example of a Nazi lie......... My Belgium grandfather and his Family including my mother risked their lives to shelter Jewish families in WW2 and holocaust deniers really really piss me off.
He received a medal after the war from the King for what he had done.

 

[Reheat]

You see that little animation you put in your post? Good, now using CIT's theory, the plane would have had to have been banked over almost on its side, something no one described.

It's hilarious that all of CIT and their supporters *intentionally* avoid this inconvenient FACT. It would have been so shocking the witnesses would still be talking about how amazing it was.

It takes more than a little bit of blatant stupid ignorance to ignore this and support the CIT lunacy.

 

[Myriad]

Wing-tip cable grapples. Rapid turns, no banking.

Pilots, crew, and passengers smeared on side of cockpit/fuselage opposite the turn. We're working on that problem.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[I Ratant]

Direction of the view, flight path direction, structure and points of interest noted -ON the image, please.
The scrap image from Streets doesn't do the job.

 

[I Ratant]

No, the official flight path is more like my red line. Yours could be the reported northern path if it would fly right in front of your face.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]

.
A little physics on the most curved flight path...
The other yellow lines would fare little better.
The plane just CAN'T get to any of them from the blue line.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The plane just CAN'T get to any of them from the blue line.

That's correct. North path means it could not have caused the damage. They failed with that line of attack, too. I think that was the "broken styx" video. That was too dumb to even get picked up by Brainster's charming little blog.

Arus, Ron, notice the absence of the high priests of debunking? They understand that the work is already done.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What is the fuss?

CIT supporters will use witness testimony as long as it is convenient to them. It's always been the case, that's their only fuss.

 

[Mobertermy]

And finally this is the email that started all that nonsense BUT of course if
1) the lightpoles where hit
2) the generator was hit
3) the starboard side of the cockpit hit
THEN
it is simply impossible for Lagasse to be on the starboard side and at Citgo at the same time. ...at least not under earthly conditions.

Achim,

Have you ever considered the possibility that when Lagasse says he saw lightpoles hit he is referring to NoC lightpoles?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I've just realized that one can't see my attachments if not logged in.

Mind-blowingly stoopit. Make sure to watch it till the very end where he admits that the "question" he feigns to debunk is just a strawman he set up at 3:19 min.

To understand why his flight path construction based on the cemetery witnesses is equally bogus, i've attached a still of 3:59 min with the "official/real" flight path indicated.

You fall for this nonsense?

Actually, beachnut's polygon is not so bad at all - Here you see the line i tried to indicate continued backwards to the Annex. I would stop it at the memorial because of the perspective, but being generous it touches beachnut's polygon.

All of this fundamentally contradicts what the witnesses describe and makes the YougeneDebs video a load of hogwash.

No, the official flight path is more like my red line. Yours could be the reported northern path if it would fly right in front of your face.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]

 

[achimspok]

LOL. excellent. Readers, you can find the sequence Achim's stills are taken from at 37:30 in the video. Quick question - Stafford uses a tool provided to him to visualize exactly what he saw.

Yes, I like these "in the own words" accounts much more than some strange translation into an aerial photograph. Usually Ranke doesn't miss the chance to tell the proband that "we have numerous witnesses who all saw the plane north of Citgo". Sometimes it is in the video, sometimes it is not. However, the failure is immanent.

CE, just think about it for a moment. "... over the Sheraton ... over the right corner ... over the street sign it started to bank and Stafford started to run.
Plane and Stafford met at the Stop sign. Anything strange about that?

That tool is absent from Achim's representation of his testimony. What is it?

Indeed it is because I don't believe in Boeings at 30mph. And I don't believe in Staffords judgment about the distance at this point:

Also, take a close look at his animated gif here

[qimg]http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1012/nvstafford.gif[/qimg]

Try to find out where the bridge with Lloyd's Cab and the lightpole is located. If Achim's plane doesn't hit the poles it isn't on the "real/official" flight path.

It isn't. It is south of the Annex and north of the VDOT mast. The FDR path is some feet more to the south and above the VDOT mast. Therefore you see a little left bank. After that banking the plane is exactly aligned to the damage path.
Here is the bridge and the cab (frame 42 in the animation):

It's really quick, right? ...just 3 seconds from the Annex to the wall.