Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sgt. William Lagasse - Pentagon witness?
Topic Started: Jun 21 2010, 06:55 PM (12,683 Views)
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
A few years ago Craig Ranke interviewed a guy named Sgt. William Lagasse, a Pentagon police officer who claims to have seen aa77 fly in NOC and hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Quoting Sgt. William Lagasse;
"...100% I'd bet my life on it"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE


Recently achimspok put together an analysis of Sgt. William Lagasse from the day of 9/11 using the CITGO security cameras:

Quote:
 
achimspok — June 19, 2010 — A path of the alleged AA77 north of the Citgo gas station would not just contradict the official story, it also contradicts instincts and logic.


CIT witness for the Northern Approach pt.1:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VefUF5w8Dz0

CIT witness for the Northern Approach pt.2:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZI6WaDxQzw

Well, Sgt. Lagasse, looks like you lose the bet!!!

:P










Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
srstorti

He is correct! At that point it was north of the Navy Annex, but it did not come in North of the Navy Annex. The path he drew was consistent with mine except he didnt see the plane fly in. He didnt see it because of the height of the overpass. Route 395 is at least 30 to 40 feet high behind the citgo station. By the time he saw it, it was , from his perspective, on the North side of the annex. However. this is based in his perspective. What they didn't see is how it flew in! Both of the officers mirror my perspective, however they did not see the fly in path. Look at a topographical map of this area. That station is in a hollow, its tucled in to an area below the Navy Annex and 395. Also, please take into account the officers perspective may have been skewed by the fact that they were under the Citgo overhang which covered the pumps..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

srstorti
Jun 22 2010, 01:45 AM
Also, please take into account the officers perspective may have been skewed by the fact that they were under the Citgo overhang which covered the pumps..
Yes. The entire CIT interview with Lagasse was conducted from the wrong gas pump - all of his positional testimony is, as he says himself, "best-guess estimates", but they are all from the wrong corner of the canopy. CIT knew which gas pump he was at on 911 because you can see him in the gas station security video, but they didn't correct him, they just encourage him to give this erroneous testimony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

Interesting statement, srstorti! Does it mean you are a witness as well somewhere near that area?

My biggest problem with Lagasse is this:
The plane approached over/south of the Navy Annex. He sits in his car under his roof with the back to the plane.
He drives into the gas station and under the canopy. The plane is still behind him.
He jumps out off his car. The canopy would allow him a very very short glimpse at best - requires that he turn around and get the right direction immediately.
Let's say he saw it!
There is no way that he wouldn't hear it. There is no way that he could have missed the sound of a tremendous explosion. You know, the kitchens shook a mile away.
Nevertheless, Lagasse acts 100% untouched by that event that brought other witnesses some years of nightmares and psychological help.
Two men waiting for Lagasse. They jump into their car when they see him coming. These two cannot see the plane or impact.
While everyone around them hurrying around to see what happened neither Lagasse nor these two men need any glimpse. They just talk. After finishing their talk the two men immediately drive away. Lagasse walks back to his car.

A little later Lagasse calls a number to give an eyewitness account.
He states that he was refueling his car when he saw the plane approaching. (Lie!)
He knows a lot of details: American Airlines, 100ft above ground, 60ft in front of him (the wingspan is 125ft), 400mph, the wind force knocked him into his vehicle...

And so he stood up again and walked over to the waiting guys???

Lagasse: "First thing I did was call our communications and I nearly stated: an aircraft is just flown into the side of the building. I arrived on scene probably 15-20 seconds after impact and went into the renovation construction area where they had a series of trailers. And that is also on this side of the Pentagon just south of where the aircraft hit the building - may be 100 yards - and began helping people out of that area. ..."

Here is the full account:
http://rapidshare.com/files/401665632/Lagasse.rar.html
(Btw it can be downloaded 10 times. Maybe Jeff can link it in a better way.)

15-20 seconds after the impact Lagasse still talking to these guys in the car.
Who are these guys? Some informants in an undercover investigation? No. Lagasse's job wasn't any investigation.
Drugdealers? Lagasse don't look like a dope addict, right?
Intelligence? ...no comment.

Craig Ranke wrote to the "frustrating fraud" website:
Craig Ranke
 
...we read an email exchange from back in 2003 where Lagasse said he was on the "starboard" side of the plane which destroys the official story. People blew it off thinking he might have confused starboard and port and because it was just one account and it was simply an email.
We talk to the manager of the citgo station in person in 2006 and she tells us about her employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane. SHE told us that Robert saw the plane on the north side and that this has always been his story. We instantly thought about Lagasse's email to d*** Eastman and red flags went off like crazy.
But it was merely an old ambiguous email and a 2nd hand account so it didn't mean much but if they were true it was CORROBORATION and it meant a lot.
So we talk to Robert Turcios and he CONFIRMED that he saw it on the north side.
Now it becomes evidence.
Once I got Turcios' and Lagasse's accounts on video and they both confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that they really for sure both independently saw it on the north side and that Lagasse really did mean he was on the starboard side of the plane when he said it back in 2003.
Now it becomes strong evidence.
It's clear these people are not hazy on this simple fact.
Plus don't forget.......
LAGASSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE PLANE THROUGH THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE!
That means he would have had to fabricate his entire account.
Now the fact that Brooks ALSO independently and definitively saw the plane on the north side makes it proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Lagasse wrote an email to d*** Eastman? He wrote d*** Eastman what he really saw on 9/11????

When the CIT "investigation" started they involved the Loose Change team.
Posted Image
L-R: Bermas, Rowe, Avery, Pickering, Marquis. Photo by Craig Ranke (app), Arlington VA August 22 2006. word balloons by Marquis.

If you want to hijack the so called Truth Movement then you should do it exactly this way because the film Loose Change was probably one of the strongest influence to normal people to start thinking twice. Shortly after Craig Ranke blew his new knowledge all over the internet.

Craig Ranke
 
“You see this is EXACTLY why Aldo and I get frustrated with the "movement". Russell Pickering should have freaked out when this video (Citgo surveillance video) was released and used all of his connections to get people to realize how incredibly important it is that the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager.
This is HUGE! But instead it's ignored and used by Russell, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and even Dylan Avery to support the government story! This is how bad some people out there want CIT to be wrong and the official story to be right.


So why is Dylan Avery supporting the government story?

The CIT team suspected that the Citgo surveillance video was altered by the FBI.
1) because Robert Turcios did not what he said he did (He is marked with a green arrow in my video.)
2) because one camera view is allegedly missing

Russell Pickering
 
According to the manager of the Citgo who was very kind and informative with us, their video was not actually taken away in minutes as the famous quote has told us. They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. Her account was interesting as an audio witness. She recalls the rumbling sound and 3 distinct explosions. Merc has a lead on an employee who was outside the station and may place the aircraft for us.
The first day I was detained by the Pentagon police I was able to capture some photos that made it home. The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. My website page on this is in error and will be corrected as time allows (trying to locate the camera with her on the phone originally led to the misunderstanding).

Posted Image

ALL of the cameras are under the canopy. I did not see any that were external. The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well. You can see where the impact was and the higher angle of the camera that may have captured it.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12296

In other words, the missing camera pointed exactly at the two guys in the car and right in the face of Lagasse when he jumped out of the car.
Intelligence? ...no comment.

So if indeed the video was altered then only the view was taken out. The picture necessarily would have either to replace the missing camera by another one or to rearrange the picture.
A replacement requires a second tape with some additional view. ...makes no sense.
A rearrangement would be obvious for the employees and requires initially a smaller grid of the camera views and a blow up of the original view to fill the screen. Given the timestamps in the picture it appears to be impossible to rearrange the views anyhow. (nice riddle)

Shortly after the meating of CIT and Loose Change in Arlington the interviews with Lagasse and Brooks were recorded.
(Somehow, Lagasse is always some first row witness for the witness telephone, for Eastman, for CIT.)

Lagasse and Brooks claim that they never discussed this before but they are colleagues.
Brooks claims he heard Lagasse's call on the communication.
Both draw the very same (impossible) flight path.
Posted Image

Somehow, there is no reason for Ranke et al to doubt a single word of Lagasse and Brooks. Instead an old cab driver becomes the center of their conspiracy.

They do a video called: Lloyd England ! First Known Accomplice

That cabbie was "knocked out" by
1) taping him secretly saying that he was on the bridge
2) then Ranke told him that the plane wasn't there (don't mention why he believes that the plane wasn't in this location)
3) recording Lloyed England who hardly try to figure out where he possibly was if the plane wasn't there

England knows that he was where the plane was. Ranke interprets his F***ed up video result as prove for an involved and lying cab driver.
...still no doubt on any word Lagasse told him.

That's how you can shock first hand witnesses. They probably don't want to talk again to anyone of the "Truth Movement".
That's how to ridicule the entire "Truth Movement".
That's how to blame Avery a govt asset.
and so on and so on and so on....

All you need is Lagasse and someone in his back.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Quote:
 

Lagasse Mp3 direct download:

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Lagasse.mp3






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
onesliceshort


Hi Mr. Storti,

Quote:
 

He is correct! At that point it was north of the Navy Annex but it did not come in North of the Navy Annex. The path he drew was consistent with mine

[...]

Both of the officers mirror my perspective




Thanks for your honesty Mr Storti!

I am glad to hear that you agree with the Citgo station witnesses. Don't you find it strange that the other members here are suggesting they lied?

This was also a very important and honest admission on your part:

Quote:
 

The path I drew isn't 100% accurate, it is based on perspective and knowledge of the terrain.

source


Due to your perspective from almost a mile away it makes perfect sense that you would think the plane was flying directly over 395.

However the "sharp quick bank" you describe is corroborated by many witnesses yet is fatal to the official story.

The Arlington Cemetery employees reported the exact same thing from the opposite perspective:

Posted Image

Please make sure to watch their on-camera, on-location interviews.

What's also consistent with the other witnesses regarding your flight path, yet fatal to the official flight path, is your belief that the plane followed the contours of 395 and approached from south of the Navy Annex before it banked north of the gas station. Here is a comparison of the banking witness fight path that CIT has documented with the proven false perfectly straight official flight path:

Posted Image

Obviously your description matches the other witnesses much more than it does the official data.

Posted Image

Why do you think shure, achimspok, caustic logic, and others here all think the police officers and other witnesses who corroborate them are lying even though they match the flight path you are describing?

Oh, and Officer Brooks was not under the canopy.

Posted Image


Thanks.
Edited by onesliceshort, Jun 22 2010, 03:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
onesliceshort
Jun 22 2010, 03:53 PM
Why do you think shure, achimspok, caustic logic, and others here all think the police officers and other witnesses who corroborate them are lying even though they match the flight path you are describing?
I never said the witnesses were lying you little maggot!

You are the one that says Steve and everyone else that saw the plane hit the Pentagon are liars!

achimspok has pointed out that Sgt. William Lagasse's account to CIT doesn't add up with what the CITGO security camera shows!




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

OMG that short sliced one can really disturb everything he gets.

Did you realize that "your" nonsensical flightpath do not match almost all witness accounts?

Not one of them:
Posted Image
Btw the position of Joel Sucherman is wrong.

Not one of them:
Posted Image
Thomas Trapasso saw the plane from below - deleted in your bogus path
Linda Plaisted saw the plane over her home - deleted in your bogus path
Jamal saw the plane first over Sean Lansdowne's home - turned in your bogus path
Mrs. Hubbert and Veronica saw the plane almost parallel to the 13th street - turned in your bogus path
Cindy Reyes shows the path along Columbia Pike - turned in your bogus path
Morin saw the plane "outside" of the Navy Annex - you turned him 180° in your bogus path
Hemphill saw the plane over his right shoulder left banking - doesn't matter for you and your bogus path
Zackhem saw the cockpit side straight down Columbia pike - deleted in your bogus path
Boger describes anything but NOT something like this...
Posted Image
...- doesn't matter in your bogus path
And btw Stortis path fits more a south of VDOT path then your bogus flyover path.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
onesliceshort

Quote:
 

achimspok has pointed out that Sgt. William Lagasse's "witness" testimony doesn't add up with what the CITGO security camera shows!


What do you think that would suggest?

Either he was really at his car fueling up and saw the plane north of the Citgo or he is lying.

Even though Caustic Logic's "shadow analysis" from the Citgo video completely contradicts achimspok and has the plane passing over while Lagasse is at the car.....he STILL suggests that Lagasse is lying!

Quote:
 
IMO Lagasse is the strongest case for liar. Brooks may have been just following his lead. Turcios seems to have a different origin. The rest of the witnesses are too ambiguous for me to call.

Caustic Logic

Source


Quote:
 
Robert Turcios, the Citgo employee. Watch his testimony in The PentaCon, Smoking Crack Gun version [19:00 –30:00]. Is it really so clear that he’s being honest here?

(...)

A bad sign: The witness’ behavior is dodgy and unsettled. He fidgets, hands in pockets, the sunglasses of course. In places he’s clearly trying to keep a straight face. Did anyone else catch him starting to bust up at 22:50, right before mentioning the pull-up?

If he’s not lying, that means he honestly believes all the tripe he’s spewing, and must have been thinking of a joke when he nearly laughed.

(...)

I know he's not a "twoofer," but there's something wrong with Robert.

Caustic Logic

Source



By promoting achimspok's video in this thread and saying this: "Well, Sgt. Lagasse, looks like you lose the bet!!!", you most certainly are suggesting he is lying.

Either way, as you can see, Steve Storti agrees with Lagasse and NOT achimspok!

:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

OMG that short sliced one can really disturb everything he gets.

Did you realize that "your" nonsensical flightpath do not match almost all witness accounts?

Not one of them:
Posted Image
Btw the position of Joel Sucherman is wrong.

Not one of them:
Posted Image
Thomas Trapasso saw the plane from below - deleted in your bogus path
Linda Plaisted saw the plane over her home - deleted in your bogus path
Jamal saw the plane first over Sean Lansdowne's home - turned in your bogus path
Mrs. Hubbert and Veronica saw the plane almost parallel to the 13th street - turned in your bogus path
Cindy Reyes shows the path along Columbia Pike - turned in your bogus path
Morin saw the plane "outside" of the Navy Annex - you turned him 180° in your bogus path
Hemphill saw the plane over his right shoulder left banking - doesn't matter for you and your bogus path
Zackhem saw the cockpit side straight down Columbia pike - deleted in your bogus path
Boger describes anything but NOT something like this...
Posted Image
...- doesn't matter in your bogus path
And btw Stortis path fits more a south of VDOT path then your bogus flyover path.

Lagasse estimated 400mph? Your plane had to bank 80° right from the Navy Annex until reaching the Pentagon.
At the slowest possible speed your plane had to bank more that 45° from the Navy Annex all the way to the Pentagon.
Posted Image
In other words, your path is 100% nonsense.

But we can ask Storti. If I interpret his words right then he believes that the plane was high enough to be visible over/behind/south of the Navy Annex. That would explain some misinterpretation of the recalled images. On the other hand saw Storti the plane below (I guess the roofline of) the Sheraton Hotel. If the plane was that low then Lagasse and Brooks had no=zero chance to see the plane.

Posted Image

If the plane was south of the VDOT mast then Lagasse and Brooks had less than zero chance to see it.
Edited by achimspok, Jun 22 2010, 05:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
onesliceshort

achimspok,

This thread is about your new video that uses the govt controlled and manipulated citgo security video to suggest that Lagasse is a liar.

You are now desperately trying to divert attention from the fact that Steve Storti agrees with Lagasse.

Stop it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Geeeez onesliceshort, everything that doesn't fit what you think always has an excuse. All the witnesses are liars, planted plane parts, docotred videos and on and on and on. Where does it end?

Did the government delete the movements of the people in the video and replace them with sims?

Lagasse said the plane hit the building. You say the plane flew over the building are you calling him a liar?

Steve Storti said he saw the plane hit the building. Are you calling him a liar?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

Quote:
 
...the govt controlled and manipulated citgo security video...

Slice, your ability to bow anything into your crazy mass hypnosis is some kind of Guinnes record. I tried to describe the problems with the arrangement of 7 picture in picture views including time stamps. Do you have a lukewarm fart of an idea how in hell the govt faked Lagasses zero interest in a plane crash while stating he was at the Pentagon helping people out? You wouldn't believe the truth even if you see it with your own eyes. "100% bet my life for it." LOL

Quote:
 
You are now desperately trying to divert attention from the fact that Steve Storti agrees with Lagasse.

I cannot see the "fact" you are talking about. Are you talking about your newest distortion?
Where are Morin's trees, Sliced?
Posted Image
Btw, between the wings of the Navy Annex less trees are visible.

Where is Paik's roof of the Navy Annex, Slice?
Posted Image

Quote:
 
What do you think that would suggest?
Either he was really at his car fueling up and saw the plane north of the Citgo or he is lying.

It suggests that all the Citgo employees had a sudden interest in the fly of the birds and looked out of the window (south).
Meanwhile Robert Turcios repaired a dark van that coincidentally parked at the south side of Citgo while Lagasse entered the scene in the north. Lagasse had a small talk with some nice guys while Robert went into the shop. That's all, isn't it? And after the two nice guys drove away and Lagasse started to refuel his vehicle a plane came across. 100%, bet my life for it.
Edited by achimspok, Jun 22 2010, 08:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

exactly jeff.
and debating how likely someone is to be a liar is also not calling someone a liar.

achimspok, i just figured the time in the security cam video was wrong - what do you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

Do you mean the time stamp I added or the impact time according to NTSB?
Both isn't correct. The video runs a little faster. So my added time stamp is correct about at the time the people in the shop notice something in the south.
The time given by the NTSB for the impact don't fit at all. Either the watch at Citgo was wrong or NTSB is wrong. But there is no other way to interpret the behavior of the people in and outside the shop.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply