So you see the video and photographs support the EYEWITNESSES (and O'Brien's statements) giving 4 separate independent sources contradicting the
dubious government supplied 84 RADES data, that was conveniently released soon after we started aggressively inquiring direct with O'Brien about this
But the contradictions don't end there!
Approach path and timing
The APPROACH of the C-130 is not caught on video or photographs.
But the eyewitnesses we present all saw it approach from the north west or from over Arlington Cemetery.
Crude estimation of the approach that they describe compared to completely opposite RADES approach:
This is absolutely fatal to the official data. This is the main reason the pseudo-skeptics are going so strong with the false assertion that the
images and video support the data. They prefer to discredit the independent genuine witnesses who were there in order to defend this dubious
government data at all costs.
The timing is important too....they describe it as coming in the scene well after the explosion, as much as a couple minutes later.
Of course this ALSO matches with what O'Brien and Tribby prove about the timing!
Tribby claims he didn't turn on his camera for "approximately one minute" after the explosion and you don't see the C-130 until 1:48 which means
it was about 3:00 minutes later
O'Brien straight up admitted that he was so far away from the Pentagon at the time of the attack that he could not even tell at first that the
explosion was coming from the Pentagon!
"When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to
give to ATC."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien
Although he was ordered to turn around and follow the attack jet by the time he turned around it was too late. He never got a chance to follow it.
So once again the video and the pilot himself corroborate the witnesses.
Well......the genuine witnesses.
Before we got a hold of O'Brien and exposed all these details it was clear that the media and government were trying to ambiguously paint a picture
that some sort of plane or jet closely followed or shadowed "Flight 77", which is eventually blended into and blamed on the C-130, that DID in fact
follow the attack jet, but never got the chance to.
The fraudulent RADES data gives a mild impression of the C-130 following closely behind on the official story flight path, but the following suspect
alleged witnesses were a bit more bold in their assertions of this well before the data was even released.
Keith Wheelhouse specifically claims the C-130 was "shadowing" the attack jet and veered away over the cemetery at the very last moment or during
From exclusive November 2007 interview with CIT:
He was the only one who was so specific about this proven false claim (not even the fraudulent RADES data supports it) and there was a series of
articles in local newspaper The Daily Press by reporter Terry Scanlon detailing Wheelhouse's anomalous account only days after the event. Again, our
belief was that this ambiguous second plane/jet story was circulated to cover for the flyover/away, but eventually turned into the C-130 which was
really in the area. We believe that once the event was sold, suspect witnesses would no longer need to worry about being questioned about this.
However, if they were ever questioned again by independent investigators like CIT, they would have to carefully tailor their responses especially in
light of the release of the RADES data.
So Keith Wheelhouse was able to perfectly relay to us the fraudulent C-130 flight path from the newly released official data, but he was not able to
back out of his anomalous "shadowing" claim. Sure enough he dutifully stuck by it in our exclusive interview with him.
Strangely, in yet another "coincidence", out of the small handful of previously published "2nd plane" witnesses, a good portion were USA Today
They were more ambiguous than Wheelhouse in their previous quotes about timing and type of plane (Vin Narayanan even called it a "jet"!). But when
we got USA Today editor Joel Sucherman in the CIT hot seat we got him to nail down exactly when
he allegedly saw the C-130 after the explosion.
He told us "3 to 5 seconds"!
People can easily write off what Sucherman said to time distortion due to a traumatic event. But he was very lucid in the other details he alleges to
have seen and was a major part of the mainstream media propaganda campaign to sell the official story immediately after the event. But remember, if we
didn't press for details, he would have remained an ambiguous witness account to an alleged second plane (which he did not and would not even try to
identify) peeling off immediately at the time of the alleged impact. As he was pressed for details, the second plane begins to turn into and starts to
sound an awful lot like the C-130 while still remaining vague and ambiguous enough to continue to serve as cover for the flyover.
Frankly we find it suspicious that he would act so clueless as to what this 2nd plane was. Whether or not he could tell that it was a C-130, you
would think that an editor for a major news outlet who was prominently featured as a witness to the event would have at least heard of
reports of the C-130 after the fact. But when we interviewed him in 2006 he acted completely clueless as if he had no notion whatsoever about reports
of Lt. Col Steve O'Brien and the C-130.
The Tribby video is the ultimate proof that these guys were not being honest about this 2nd plane being immediately in the scene.
It is not logical to suggest such high profile "credible" alleged witnesses could mistake it as "shadowing" or coming in "3 to 5 seconds" later
and "veering away" immediately after the explosion when the Tribby video, the pilot himself, and all the other witnesses completely contradict
But what's 100% clear is that by having ANY witnesses place the "2nd plane" there at the time of the explosion it helps serve as perfect cover for
Details and exclusive interviews with Wheelhouse, Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan available in our short presentation
The 2nd Plane Cover Story
The pseudo-skeptics simply blow all of this off and confidently assert that the government data is right despite all of these clear anomalies.
They are once again forced to suggest that all of the witnesses were simultaneously remembering the opposite of reality in order to defend the
They want you to simply believe them when they say everything matches perfectly with the official story and to dismiss all the independent evidence
proving otherwise out of nothing but pure faith in the government.
Does that really make sense? Is that true "skepticism"?
The only witness who has the C-130 on the RADES flight path is Keith Wheelhouse but he is fully discredited with his "shadowing" claim that
contradicts the data and isn't supported by anything else.
So the fact that we now have these 4 genuine new witnesses giving us clear corroborated accounts of the C-130 approach and bank away, and the fact
that this is corroborated by the photos and video as well as O'Brien, should be enough for any intellectually honest person to realize that there are
serious issues in regards to this mysterious "2nd plane" once again implicating a military deception.
Oh and did I mention that the Arlington Cemetery witnesses also saw the attack jet on the north side of the citgo?
Here is more overwhelming evidence that shows how the attack jet flew over DC skies on our proposed DC/East of Potomac flight flight path which
also means the C-130 flew on the Morningside Departure/south of the mall flight path
So do you choose to believe the genuine independent witnesses who were NOT used as part of the propaganda campaign and are corroborated by video,
images, and the pilot himself? Or do you choose to believe the dubious 2007 released government supplied 84 RADES data and radio transcripts that are
not backed up by anything but the anonymous pseudo-skeptics online authoritatively stating over and over that they are valid?
Bottom line the C-130 pilot needs to be subpoenaed in a congressional hearing because he could easily put all of this to rest.
No doubt this is why the pseudo-skeptics didn't even bother trying to contact him and why if he ever resurfaces for another media interview that you
won't hear a single word regarding his flight path.