It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Details of our Nov 2007 research trip to Arlington.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 08:28 PM
Aldo and I have just returned from another groundbreaking research trip to Arlington where we have obtained more footage and first-hand eyewitness testimony further exposing the 9/11 deception.

In the spirit of openness and for the record I will share with you now the incredible details before we compile and present the data.

Here is a quick but detailed summary of what we accomplished.

First we interviewed a very personable woman/mother who was stuck in traffic on Route 27 northbound directly in front of the Pentagon and the flight path. She did not see or hear the plane at all despite being right where it flew and she was convinced that the Pentagon had been bombed up until she finally got home and heard the news.

We then had probably the most significant and important interview possible for establishing the true flight path of the plane.

A charter boat captain who takes clients bass fishing on the Potomac every day on his 3 person speedboat was on the river just south of the airport when he saw the plane approach from the east, cross the river, loop around north, and then he heard the explosion and saw the smoke.

This 100% contradicts the NTSB flight path proving it a fabrication.

This testimony is incredibly strong because the witness is on the river every day and he is quite familiar with the air traffic patterns which are pretty strict and constant since planes are flying to and from Reagan every 2 to 4 minutes. You can clearly see them flying by throughout the footage.

He was with clients when they noticed how strangely quiet the skies were after national ground stop at 9:26 just before the plane approached off the normal air traffic and looped around just before the explosion.

They couldn't see the Pentagon where they were and at first thought the plane went down at the airport that was northwest of them a bit so they took the boat up to go see if they could help and quickly learned that the smoke was coming from the Pentagon.

When they got up to the Pentagon lagoon a few minutes later they heard a secondary explosion.

Although he couldn't recall a color (the plane wasn't any lower than normal air traffic when he saw it) he distinctly remembers it as a standard passenger jet.

It's clear that the plane he saw could be no other than THE plane because of where it flew, it's timing with the explosion, and the fact that all other planes were grounded at the time. Because of the fact that he places the plane as coming from the DC or east side of the river, the critical role of the very visible E4B circling Washington serving as cover is becoming even more clear particularly in light of the fact that so many people identify the plane as being white.

So what about the C-130?

We are now more sure than ever how like the E4B, it was meant to ambiguously play a critical dual role as cover for the flyover as well.

Despite the fact that the C-130 pilot himself claims he did not see the plane impact the building and was even so far away that did not know at first the explosion was coming from the Pentagon; Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw it "shadowing" the AA jet and veering away right before impact.

I had a couple of hurried conversations on the phone with Keith that were cut off in the past where he confirmed this claim but after about a year of hoping and trying; he agreed to an interview so we dedicated Saturday to driving 3.5 hours to catch up with him in person at his summer home where he told us he would be painting. So we went there and obtained his testimony on video.

I've asked every single other witness I've interviewed about the C-130 or any 2nd plane and only USA Today editor Joel Sucherman claimed he saw one within seconds of the explosion while virtually none of the others saw one at all.

Everyone will now be able to make a more educated decision about who to believe in this regard but if majority rules it's clear that no c-130 or 2nd plane "shadowed" anything at all at the time of the explosion.

Saturday evening we met up with the currently enlisted decorated 9/11 rescue team worker, hero, toxic dust victim, and supporter of CIT who previously wrote this letter that you can see on the front page of our website:

He took us into DC and showed us around and we offered to buy him dinner but he insisted on picking up the check.

He has full access to the Pentagon so after our late dinner, he took us there at around 11:00 and we got a 2 hour tour personal tour through the empty halls.

Naturally we couldn't bring any cameras but it was an incredible experience to say the least.

We walked the halls, saw the courtyard, the AE Drive, and we signed the guest book in the 9/11 memorial right at the alleged impact point that has a window with a view of route 27 and the potential flight paths.

It was quite a moment for us in mourning for the victims of this horrible deception inspiring us even more to continue our quest for justice.

Sunday was dedicated to location shots.

We have tons of new footage of the highways and POV's that will really help people to understand the topography and just how difficult it is to see the alleged impact point from the surrounding areas.

Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio as an eyewitness declined to be interviewed on camera but let us into her Pentagon City high rise apartment to get shots of her POV and the one of the best possible views of the the event from high up.

Dawn swears that the plane was white and although with her panoramic view she got a great look at it approaching from a ways away, once it got near the Pentagon it was obscured by the building in front of her until a split second before the explosion.

She says it hit the heliport.

We know this isn't true because there was no damage to the heliport so likely the explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did.

Sunday night we had dinner with Bob Pugh, a free lance videographer who got the earliest and best footage of the damage to the building immediately after the attack and BEFORE the collapse.

He provided us with a copy of his footage but he was on the scene and has great insight into the event so we interviewed him as well.

Bob's footage is quite famous and it was a privilege to have him provide it for us and our cause.

He is also featured in Loose Change Final Cut as we met him for the first time on our original research trip with Dylan.

We caught our plane Monday late afternoon but not without doing some canvassing for some new witnesses in the neighborhoods right before the driving range of Army Navy Country Club where Jamal saw the plane.

Most people weren't home because they were at work just like they would have been on 9/11 but almost all the retired people we found confirmed that they heard the plane or knew that it flew over the area.

However we did find one more person who actually saw the plane and although he did not remember the color he further corroborates the flight path that has been getting established for us by the the people of Arlington.

This type of continuous corroboration is what makes us so certain that we are on the right track.

Besides all of this we also met up with DC 9/11 truth group member Jeff at Kramer books in Dupont Circle for a bit of socializing and networking with a local activist.

It was an incredibly productive trip and the plan is to first put together a short that exposes the new smoking gun flight path and the 2nd plane cover story featuring the charter boat captain and Keith Wheelhouse and then wrap up our investigation before completing the Researcher's Edition in 2008.

The names of all the witnesses will be revealed when the data is released as everyone testified on the record.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:56 AM
Sounds good. It's coming together.

I wonder why the one lady didn't hear anything.

So just one first thing then, on the charter boat captain - this is great - it could enable you to support the previous eyewitness accounts of a loop as reported now as specifically describing this loop that contradicts the official evidence.

I'm trying to visualize what he would've seen. Is this terribly off? Any further from due east would put it south of DC. And less south curve and it wouldn't match what your other witnesses saw. Did he see the plane after it flew over? If he saw it cross the river AND loop north, why would he not see it rising again back across the river north of there, or even further south?

Before you go too far with all this, you might want to talk to some pilots about the plausibility of turns like this on whatever plane you're looking at here. I'm no expert, but John Lear at least has said your previous path was impossible. The curves I've got here are about as minute as that. Just for scale, here's the official 330-degree loop in the FDR/radar record many have called impossible, with your final curve tacked on to scale.

Otherwise, lookin better every day.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:32 AM
Your path is incorrect.

The Koeppel path is incorrect.

The NTSB path is incorrect.

We will release the more correct path when we're ready in the mean time I suggest you stop guessing to deliberately muddy the waters.

John Lear said the witness flight path is impossible?

Oh really?

Is that true John?

Impossible for what?

How does he know what kind of plane it was or how fast it was going?

No other pilot has said that this is "impossible":

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Caustic Logic

. I'm no expert, but John Lear at least has said your previous path was impossible.

Thanks for the post CL. I don't ever remember saying this and if I said it I was wrong.

I agree with everyting that Craig has posted including the flight path.

If I did post that the 'previous flight path was impossible' I wondered if you would be good enough to tell me where I might find that statement to see what I might have been talking about.

Thanks for the post.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:41 AM
Thanks for the clarification John.

Perhaps CL misunderstood you or perhaps he was deliberately twisting your words to sow confusion and cast doubt.

It will be interesting to see your quote that he is referring to (if it even exists) to help clear that up.


There is no "previous" CIT flight path.

The witness flight path that we have provided so far still holds completely true and is not contradicted in any way by the charter boat captain.

He was not able to see the Pentagon or even the fireball from where he was located on the river.

He simply helps us establish where the plane came from BEFORE the final moments that we have already documented.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:50 PM
Perhaps I did misunderstand. I dug around a bit... it was at ATS. If I find it I'll post it.

But at any rate, it's not impossible now acc. to Lear, and apparently I drew the loop wrong here. So...

previous flight path was whatever you'd call this one tht I've used:

I took that as the north part of the loop prior to flyover since that's what your other witnesses said they saw. I didn't mean previous as in now out, just previous as is what you've previously illustrated as far as I know.
This was an effort to link the Capt's account with that.

For some reason my graphics aren't coming through so here again is that final path overlayed with the final 330 loop fr scale:

If turns like this are possible for whatever large plane is being speculated in, then alright I was wrong.

new topics

top topics

log in