Sgt. Lagasse Testimony....From 2003..Not the Pentacon Video

I found an interesting website that has a couple exchanged E-mail from 2003 with Sgt. Lagasse. I found a few things in his letters pretty interesting. Anyway...let me know what you guys think?

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.
William Lagasse's mail seems to express a sincere feeling of anger, which can be understood from somebody who witnessed a plane crash into the building and doesn't appreciate to read what appears to him as a nonsense. Dick Eastman, then writes to Sgt Lagasse :

To: Sgt. WIlliam Lagasse
From: Dick Eastman

Dear Sgt. Lagasse,

Ken Varden considers you letter important enough to forward to several people interested in what REALLY happened.
Your statement indicates that you are a very good witnesses who knows planes and knows who what to look for.
Before passing on your letter to others who can't make up their minds what to believe, could you describe further all that you witnessed.
Is Barraks K in Fort Meyer, west of the crash, or is it attached to the Pentagon itself?
Where did the plane come in, in relation to the Naval Annex and the Columbia Pike?
Were you able to see what part of the Boeing hit the lamp posts and at what height the posts were "clipped"? (Or did you notice the downed poles afterwards?)
Where were you standing in relation to the crash point, the helipad, the trailor that was hit?
How far from the crash? I'd like to locate you on the map.
Several people saw the shades pulled down -- were you looking at the port (left) or starboard side?
Did you notice the plane tilt its wings or bank in its final flight?
Did you see the trailer being struck or is this based on your later observation of the damage?
How did the plane descend as it approached the Pentagon at the bottom of the hill?
You saw the debis everywhere in the building. Were you in the building or did you look in through the hole made in the crash before the wall collapsed?
Or did you go inside and look around at a later day?
What specific parts of the Boeing (passenger chairs, fuselage, aluminum frame etc.) did you see?
What debris did you see that you recognized as coming from a commercial airliner?
You saw the Boeing go by. Did you see the actual explosion? If so, can you describe how the plane went in.
I will pass on the letter you have already sent to places where this topic is being heatedly argued and where the majority of people have not yet made up their minds.
I must admit that I am heavily influenced by pictures of the hole and the video camera evidence -- but I cannot say I am 100 percent certain what happened.
I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt that I will not dismiss your observations out of hand. If I am mistaken, please believe it is an honest mistake and remember, I have never heard your story.
Sincerely,
Dick Eastman
Yakima

William Lagasse answers Dick Eastman's mail :

From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: Dick 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

perso.orange.fr...

I'm no expert here, so this is just a layperson's observation, but it doesn't seem to me that Sgt. Lagasse's two pieces of correspondence are written by the same person.

The first is riddled with spelling mistakes (barraks and websight, for example), which aren't present in the latter; and there is a marked difference in punctuation and layout between the two also.

Try playing this:
memory.loc.gov...

Item Title
Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

Author/Creator
Interviewee: Lagasse, William
Interviewer: Brennan, Jennifer

Created/Published
December 4, 2001

Source: Library of Congress


[edit on 24-2-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Wait a minute... in that December, 2001 interview... he says he was at the "Barracks K Gas Station", not the CITGO gas station!?

We have a conflict in story here.

I think they are the same place.... and in the Pentacon video you can see him driving away in his car.

This testimoy is great, thanks Cameron. I've ignored the eyewitess accounts a bit myself. Time to change that.
The Citgo is also a Navy Exchannge, and may go by different names and serve multi-functions. I doubt there's any other gas stations near enough. Prob. same place. Thanks much mr. Overlord for that link. Lagasse goes on my Fraud Fighters list.

But wait... is he one of their witnesses now?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Try playing this:
memory.loc.gov...


[edit on 24-2-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Gee, we finally have a witness talk about turbulence. I was always stating about a plane that size going that fast and that low would have had severe turbulence comming off it. Turbulence which would have also made the plane harder to control.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But wait... is he one of their witnesses now?

This witness is one that Jack Tripper used. His story changes here and there..... he says there isnt a conspiracy. Not sure what his thoughts are now after JAck showed him the flight path.

I dunno... this guy just doesnt seem reliable to me.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, we finally have a witness talk about turbulence. I was always stating about a plane that size going that fast and that low would have had severe turbulence comming off it. Turbulence which would have also made the plane harder to control.

The NTSB determined that Flight 587 crashed in part because of turbulence from a 747 five *miles* ahead of Flight 587's flight path. If an airliner can cause that much turbulence 5 miles behind it, it would make sense that there might be a little turbulence on the street near the Pentagon, right?


Source:
www.ntsb.gov...

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, we finally have a witness talk about turbulence. I was always stating about a plane that size going that fast and that low would have had severe turbulence comming off it. Turbulence which would have also made the plane harder to control.

The NTSB determined that Flight 587 crashed in part because of turbulence from a 747 five *miles* ahead of Flight 587's flight path. If an airliner can cause that much turbulence 5 miles behind it, it would make sense that there might be a little turbulence on the street near the Pentagon, right?


Source:
www.ntsb.gov...

Sgt Lagasse : "There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me."

Originally posted by CameronFox
This witness is one that Jack Tripper used. His story changes here and there..... he says there isnt a conspiracy. Not sure what his thoughts are now after JAck showed him the flight path.

I dunno... this guy just doesnt seem reliable to me.

Yes, the only thing i picked up on was he is the only witness that has said anything about turbulence. He did not say anything about if the plane banked or any real changes the plane made.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Wait a minute... in that December, 2001 interview... he says he was at the "Barracks K Gas Station", not the CITGO gas station!?

We have a conflict in story here.

Same place.

Navy Exchange, Quarters k, Barraks k, CITGO.

They recently removed the citgo name from it a couple weeks after Hugo Chavez called Bush "the devil" at the UN meeting last year.

CITGO gas comes from Venezuela!


But the place has always been a military exchange. You have to be a government employee to get anything there.



Anyway.........we specifically asked Bill about the "wing vortices" pushing him into the car because he had previously contradicted himself.

Turns out there were no wing vortices and that he simply "flinched" and jumped into his car out of a "fear".

Human nature and basic pride for most men would explain why he changed the story.

But he was MAN enough to admit the truth and clear this up for us on camera.

No matter how you look at it this has no bearing on the critical quadruple corroborated north side of the station claim.


[edit on 25-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]