Previously unknown Pentagon witness proves NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent

Steve Chaconas was a previously unknown witness who was on the Potomac River south of the airport on 9/11. His account of seeing the plane approach from the east side of the river runs counter to the 2006 NTSB released alleged "black box" data as well as the 2007 84 RADES released alleged radar data.

Steve's flight path:


Official NTSB and 84 RADES flight path:



The east side claim is every bit as important as the north of the citgo claim and BOTH independently prove a military deception.

Watch Steve's interview in this 10 minute video short:


But you don't have to take Steve's word for it. The fact that the plane flew over DC skies and came from the east is also supported by Norman Mineta, former deputy director of the FAA Monte Belger, the C-130 pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien, an early statement from Ari Fleischer, a report on 9/11 from ABC News, and quite a few previously published witnesses.

All of this is outlined in our new full feature presentation that you view here.

But this thread is not about the flyover theory.

It is specifically about Steve Chaconas' testimony and all of the hard evidence proving the east side claim.



[edit on 7-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Yeah not too much to debunk here.

Steve's testimony is pretty much a slam dunk when it comes to proving a military deception.

But to be real clear regarding what was addressed in the presentation......

Although there are 2 radar returns that are seen crossing the river from east to west at that time neither are reconcilable with Steve's testimony.

Neither banked around the to the west side of the airport and neither could possibly have been commercial airliners.

The first could only supposed have been what was allegedly the C-130 but besides the fact that we already know that this is not really where the C-130 flew according to statements from the actual pilot himself .........Steve Chaconas did not see a military cargo plane and this flight path has no visible "bank" or loop around the airport at all.


The other return is shown even further north which means it would be less likely for Steve to have noticed but we know that this also can not be what Steve saw because it also did not "bank" or loop around the airport at all.




AND.....this radar return originated at 9:12 out of Easton airport in Maryland which is too small for commercial air traffic.




It could have only been a small commuter plane or jet which is not what Steve saw.

Plus Steve specifically says the plane approached from the northeast or the skies over DC while the commuter jet out of Easton airport approached more from the southeast.

Nicely posted, S/f'd. Another rip in the collapsing dressing gown of the official story...

reply to post by GhostR1der


Thanks GhostR1der.

You are most certainly correct.

That's why the "debunkers" won't even touch this.

Watch them scatter from my new thread that kills the official story from another angle.

(you'll get the pun when you read the new thread:lol

We're still waiting for you to provide the accounts of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

You must be hiding something. It's been a year since you were first asked to provide us those accounts from your so-called "Citizens Investigation", yet you continue to refuse.

Just what wreckage did they recover, Craig?




[edit on 15-3-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas


Just what wreckage did they recover, Craig?

Don't know, but I do know there wasn't very much of it and it wasn't from the plane that flew tree top level over Arlington and north of the citgo timed perfectly with the explosion.

Care to comment on the evidence presented that proves the plane also came from east of the river which in turn proves the alleged black box and radar data fraudulent?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas


Just what wreckage did they recover, Craig?

Don't know, but I do know there wasn't very much of it and it wasn't from the plane that flew tree top level over Arlington and north of the citgo timed perfectly with the explosion.

In fact, you have the statements from those 1,000+ people who do know. What did they tell you and your crack "investigating" team, Craig?

Why are you afraid to release their statements? One year later, and you still refuse to do so. Why, Craig?

Hi Craig,

Just wondering when that Grand Jury investigation is taking place. All this evidence you say "Proves" you have a case. Well? Bring it! It's up to you now sir. Take it to the MSM....take it to the democrats.

I was also curous if you ever questioned the private civilians that were involved in this "Deception." You picked on an old man and pretty much called him a liar. I haven't noticed if you have contacted the civilian contractors that were involved.

And no one has to debunk your investigations sir. Your Flyover theory is the forst one to debunk itself.

Craig will surely want to read this account of those he interviewed with his crack "investigation" team at the Pentagon:

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
www.amazon.com...

You can't honestly believe ONE witness, very, very, late in the game PROVES that data wrong.

Originally posted by chromatico
You can't honestly believe ONE witness, very, very, late in the game PROVES that data wrong.

Huh?

Who ever claimed that?

Please re-read the post.

The east side claim is backed up by former transportation secretary Norman Mineta, former head of the FAA Monte Belger, the C-130 pilot, Air Traffic Controllers Colin Scoggins and/or Kevin Naysypany on the NORAD tapes, an early statement from former white house spokesman Ari Fleischer, a report from ABC News, and numerous other eyewitnesses who place the plane over DC skies.

With all of this corroborating evidence the account of Steve Chaconas is undeniable.

reply to post by jthomas


JT... The CIT will not investigate the accounts of all the firefighters and EMS at the Pentagon that day. They will dismiss it all.

This fascinating, first-person account of the battle to save the Pentagon on 9/11 portrays the dramatic efforts of hundreds of firefighters, police, and other first responders as they fought to contain the largest building blaze in American history.

www.chapters.indigo.ca... atrick+Creed%2527&sterm=Patrick+Creed+-+Books

Here is a question...Craig may have the information...

How long did it take the first responders to get to the Pentagon? How much time did the "perps" have to plant the evidence?

I wonder Craig if you have contacted DMORT?
Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team

Are they perps too?
www.dmort.org...

Good article.



www.dmort.org...

reply to post by CaptainObvious

JT... The CIT will not investigate the accounts of all the firefighters and EMS at the Pentagon that day. They will dismiss it all.

But that sounds like what you do with reports of firefighters at the Trade Towers hearing explosions, they are all dismissed.

Also, reports of the plane flying like a "miltiary jet", the control tower thought the plane was a 'military jet'. What of those reports?

reply to post by talisman


i never dismissed them. Again....please reach out to those that heard explosions. Ask them what they think they were.

It was moving like a military jet? "like" IT wasnt. Even CIT will tell you that flight 77 flew OVER the pentagon.

CaptainObvious

You gotta believe that the gov is hiding something with the Pentagon strike. I personally don't know what happened there, but you can't think they don't have what happened documented visually.

The Pentagon to not have had a visual is like telling me they were only designed to defend against a BRINKS HEIST!

For goodness sakes, an AERIAL attack would be the only way an enemy could attack that building, so identifying AERIAL attackers would be part of the headquarters of the UNITED STATES MILITARY defense.

If they weren't that is like saying an unknown bomber could have flown by and dropped a bomb without them having a visual!



[edit on 16-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Care to respond to the topic?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Since this all links to your theory on a flyover... i would think it is all relevant. There was one post that I was responding to another member. You may want to ask him to stay on topic.

C.O.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Are you saying the flyover didn't happen and or doesn't fit with the facts as you know them>?

And what of the eyewitness posted in this thread?

[edit on 16-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Ok as long as we know that hard evidence is considered "irrelevant" to you.

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig..when you start looking at ALL the evidence....maybe people will take yours seriously.

You ignore anything that does not fit your theory. That is not an investigation.

DNA evidence
Plane Parts
Eye Witnesses
First Responder statements
ASCE report
Civilian contractors on the scene

I mean I can go one but you will ignore it or state that they are perps or suspects.