The account of Steve Riskus

Steve riskus, a young man who likes skating (see his web site), was driving on Washington Blvd towards South. He was on the right lane, approximately facing the northern part of the heliport, when he saw the plane cross. He stopped his car soon, on the exit to Pentagon / Columbia Pike, took a camera, and shot a few pictures which are the first pictures after the impact (probably within one minute).

These photos, analysed by David Bosankoe, have been shot from the exit, approximately right in front of the Pentagon's west facade (see the trees on the south border of Washington Blvd). Steve Riskus gave some interviews about what he saw this day and his pictures. Here is one, already produced on the "trajectory" page of this site.

Steve Riskus , [Interview conducted by email by "Agent Fescado"]

"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way... "

Steve Riskus, gives some precise indications, including that the plane

The first point is logic and fits other witnesses accounts. The second point is completely illogic. The path allowing a plane to clip the lamp poles being approximately over the bridge of the crossroads, the distance beetween the plane and the point where Riskus was before stopping his car is at least 250 m (750 ft). See the pentagon's side which is 280 m long. It is likely that Riskus was under some stress conditions which made him see the plane much closer from him that it was really. Indeed, it's not so normal, when you drive your car, to see a big plane cross your road ahead of your windshield. The third point is very close from what happened : the left engine hit a small cement wall and some metal structures (ventilation exhausts), just 10 m (30 ft), i.e. less than one tenth of a second before the nose impacted the building. It's likely that Riskus did not notice this impact of the port engine, which could have been masked from him by the security barrier at the east side of Washington Blvd.

Dick Eastman has developped this "100 ft" statement, making it one of the bases of his theory : If Riskus saw the plane cross the highway at 100 ft ahead of him, it would be because it was not the Boeing which clipped the lamp poles, but a "killer jet" which flew so fast that nobody could remark it, having the attention attracted by the Boeing. This later one, flying there "to make a diversion", would have followed a path approximately perpandicular to the Pentagon's front, from the north side of the Navy Annex, overpassing the Pentagon just at the crash time of the "killer jet", escaping from the sight of witnesses behind the fireball which developped there.

Anyway, if the plane had crossed Washington Blvd on a path perpandicular to the Pentagon's front ("min estimated approach" on the picture) instead of an angle of 40° from this perpandicular ("max estimated approach"), the distance from Riskus would have been approximately 150 m (450 ft). So, is it worth discussing wether the distance was 450 or 750 ft, if a witness says that "the distance was 100 ft" ? It's just an irrelevant statement in his account.

There were some discussions on lists, where Eastman is very active, and in which he denied that Riskus had said that he saw the plane hit the lamp poles on crossing the highway. Unfortunately, this particular statement had been put on internet, and Riskus never denied it. Eastman thus says that Riskus and Ron Harvey (who pointed out this particular point) are liars, disinformation agents, ...

The account of Sgt Lagasse

Among all the witness of the Pentagon's attack, there is one precious and also controversial one : William Lagasse. He is a sergeant of the Pentagon's security guards, i.e. he doesn't not belong to military personnels but is a civilian employee, taking care of some security tasks : controlling the cars and persons access, ...

Sgt Lagasse wrote to Apfn web site in june 2003, criticizing Dick Eastman's plane plus missile theory which had been published on the site. Here is this first mail.

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

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

The fraud

Everything is coherent with the hypothese of the crash of an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 into the Pentagon. Everything but these two statements :

This would imply, if true, a trajectory of the plane on the north of the gas station, i.e. on the north of the naval annex. On such a trajectory, the plane woulnd't have flown over Columbia Pike or over other witnesses, the plane wouldn't have clipped the lamp poles at the crossroads of Washington Blvd (bridge), and the punch-in punch-out holes in the building wouln't align correctly with the trajectory. See below a picture taken from the gas station, the generally assumed trajectory in plain line (the plane would show it's port side), and a trajectory like described by Sgt Lagasse in dotted line (the plane would show it's starboard side). In orange is plotted the trajectory of the "diversion 757" which flew over the Pentagon to make a diversion and mask the attack according to Dick Eastman.

This photo shows clearly that the electrical generator hit by the plane (that Sgt Lagasse calls "a trailer to store construction equipment") is not visible from the gas station. This proves that Sgt Lagasse has directly seen some of the facts that he reports, and has reconstructed some others from an afterwards analysis of the crash scene.

According to Dick Eastman's "killer jet" theory, the Boeing would have flown over the north side of the navy annex, then shown it's starboard side to Sgt Lagasse, then over the Pentagon at the precise instant when a "killer jet" flew on the south side of the navy annex, clipped the lamp poles, fired a missile and then crashed into the Pentagon !
Sgt Lagasse's account that he saw the starboard side of the Boeing is the only solid argument for this theory. Of course, it is in complete contradiction with all other witness accounts on the trajectory of this Boeing, and also the fact that a jet fighter would be too small to knock lamp poles on a 35 m wide swath. How to explain that ? Several reasons can be found to this contradiction :

  1. Sgt Lagasse, as all persons who are subject to a strong adrenaline discharge due to a stress, didn't memorize the last seconds before the crash. What he describes could be a "logical reconstruction" made by his brain, where some oddity changes the side of the plane that he saw from port to starboard.
  2. Sgt Lagasse wrote nearly two years after the facts. His memory could lack precision.
  3. Sgt Lagasse makes a confusion beetween port and starboard, something frequent for people who don't practice boating.
  4. Dick Eastman has subrepticely changed the word "port" to "starboard" before sending to me and to APFN web site the email that he received from Sgt Lagasse, knowing that it would be a "proof" for his "killer jet" theory.
  5. Sgt Lagasse has been pushed by the pentagon psy-ops to make this account, to give credit to the "killer jet" theory and bring confusion among the researchers on the 9/11 case.

Each hypothesis can be discussed :

  1. Sgt Lagasse memorized some details, including the "severe yaw movement" of the plane upon impact : a physical effect not so easy to imagine for somebody not familiar with physics.
  2. Same : he seems to have a good visual memory.
  3. Sgt Lagasse flyes on small planes : he is supposed to know how to make the difference beetween port and starboard, terms also used in aviation.
  4. This hypothese wouln't surprise me, though Dick Eastman would take the risk to be publicly contradicted by Sgt Lagasse, which would ruin definetely the "killer jet" theory and make him appear as a liar. I am surprised to read an american citizens, who seems to have deep roots in his homeland's ground, as Sgt Lagasse, estimate a distance like "approx 500-600m", which is as unusual as if a french estimated a person's weight as "140 pounds". This could indicate that the email has been a little "massaged" before being forwarded to Apfn and myself.
  5. I must say that I'm amazed by the tremendous efforts, on a world wide basis, to promote the "No Boeing on the Pentagon" theses : as a consequence, the statement on command of Sgt Lagasse, as a part of this "disinformation", sounds acceptable to me. This explanation, i.e. that the US authorities could push the "No Boeing on the Pentagon" thesis, could seem rather odd and paranoid. This could make more sense after reading the remaining of this web site, particularly the "signal and noise" page.

Conclusion

It is physically impossible that Steve Riskus, being near the northern part of the heliport, could see "the aircraft strike the lamp poles", and estimate it's distance at "100 ft". Eastman prefers denie that Riskus could see the lamp poles hit instead of taking as false this distance estimation. It is physically impossible that Sgt Lagasse, being near his car at the Citgo gas station, could see "the aircraft strike the lamp poles" and "the aircraft's starboard side". See picture above and map. Sgt Lagasse has a good sense of observation and some knowledge in flight and aircrafts. We are thus probably facing a fraud. Either it is a fraud from Sgt Lagasse, pushed to do it by some authorities, and Dick Eastman is the poster boy in this operation, or it is a fraud by Dick Eastman who massaged the email of Sgt Lagasse.