IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Moved From Pentagon Section - No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

Q24
post Aug 21 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



As suggested by the title, this thread questions the oft made claim of CIT that there are no witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path. It is my contention that this is entirely untrue; subconscious bias at best, deliberate cherry-picking at worst. I am aware of the North of Citgo witnesses but so that we do not stray off-topic I will repeat, this thread is specifically to discuss the existing South of Citgo witnesses.

There are a number of witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path I would like to bring up here – all of which I am sure CIT are aware of. Rather than list them all at once (there are approximately forty in total) and risk the thread becoming convoluted, I will present short details of each, one at a time.

It should be noted that I have been banned from the CIT forum for discussing issues that oppose their flyover theory. In the interest of the truth and open debate I would hope that the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum will not partake in the same censorship.

And so on to witness number one…

Madelyn Zakhem, VDOT employee.

The following excerpt is sourced from a VDOT in-house publication – The Friday Report, September 21, 2001: -

“Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.”

The first indication is given above that the plane was travelling along the direction of Columbia Pike and over the STC – this is South of the Citgo, consistent with the official flight path.

This information was further confirmed in 2006 when Zakhem was interviewed by CIT. In regard to the interview, the following image, showing Zakhem’s circled location and path the plane would have followed, was provided by Marquis of CIT: -



If we are to pan out and extend that line to the Pentagon impact point, it is seen this falls South of the Citgo and very closely corroborates the official flight path: -



Is it possible that the plane performed a tight left-right bank manoeuvre to swerve up around the Citgo station after the viewpoint of Zakhem? Perhaps, even illogical as it would be, this is possible. Does Zakhem see the actual impact? Not so far as I am aware. These questions can be explored but neither are relevant to the point.

And that point: to all reasonable ends, Madelyn Zakhem places the plane where it is supposed to be, when it is supposed to be, in support of the official flight path.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Aug 22 2009, 12:02 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 22 2009, 12:44 AM) *
As suggested by the title, this thread questions the oft made claim of CIT that there are no witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path. It is my contention that this is entirely untrue; subconscious bias at best, deliberate cherry-picking at worst. <snip>




If Madelyne could see the cockpit, she could hardly have been under the aircraft when it passed her. If she was to the right of the aircraft this would put it flying "down Columbia Pike" as she said, but also flying over the Navy Annexe. What she states is so woolly that any version can be constructed from what she says. She says it flew down Columbia Pike. This is consistent with Ed Paik's view as well.

So " to all reasonable ends, Madelyn Zakhem does NOT place the plane where it is supposed to be, when it is supposed to be, in support of the official flight path."

This post has been edited by painter: Aug 22 2009, 01:36 PM
Reason for edit: Shortened quoted OP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 22 2009, 12:18 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Q 24!

I agree that Ms. Zakhem appears to be a competent witness in a position to see "an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level." Odds are that I have already read the balance of the 40 accounts that you plan to present as witnesses to an official government flight path. Before going through all of that trouble I think that there is a preliminary matter that has to be attended to - is there an official flight path?

My question is very specific, The italicized words have the specific definitions that follow.

The question is:

Where has an official government agency made an express claim that the plane took any specific path at all in the last minute before it reached the Pentagon, collected evidence in support of that express claim, and cited that collected evidence as proof of the specific path they claim?

"Official government agency" means The 911 Commission, which was officially charged with the duty of investigating 911 and issuing a definitive report stating the official government version of events, along with the agencies whose reports and investigations that Commission relied on such as the NTSB, FAA, FBI and perhaps the ASME.

"Express claim" means saying words like "The plane took the South Path" or "The plane took this Path" or "The plane took the North Path". It does not include videos or pictures that purport to show some Path unaccompanied by such a claim.

"Collected evidence" means saying "these three, four or whatever number of items of evidence prove the plane took the Path we just claimed". It includes, but is not limited to:

1. Ms. Zakhem's testimony.
2. The testimony of any of the other forty witnesses you propose to present.
3. Any other witness.
4. The ASME Pentagon Building report.
5. The animated Video shown by John Farmer at the 911 Commission Hearings.
6. Any FDR data indicating position, including the inertial navigation system and DME.
7. Any radar data.
8. The video depicting a path that appeared on a State Department Website.

Here's a link to a post where I give a summary of items 4, 5, 6 and 8.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774419

Here's a link to posts where I go into some of that in more detail, with citations:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763948
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763960
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763990

EDIT TO ADD: If the government never claimed, defined and plotted an official flight path, then one doesn't exist, there's nothing to support and all this will be a waste of time, right? I don't address people on the Internet who claim an official flight path for the government while the government has not, because they aren't the government. My 911 issues are solely with the government and with no one else.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 22 2009, 12:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 22 2009, 02:34 PM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Q!

I don't understand how you translate the first picture in your opening post taken by CIT into showing a flight path coming straight up Columbia Pike. The line is clearly crossing the west to east running Pike on a line from the southwest to the northeast. If you are saying that Ms Zakhem adopted that photo as a representation of her description of the flight path, then it appears that to her "straight up Columbia Pike" means crossing it at about a 30 degree angle.

Not do I understand the flight path shown in your first picture translates into or supports your second picture that purports to show the continuation of the path in the first photo from an overhead view. The continuation along the South Flight Path and ending at the Pentagon is impossible and the two photos have no relation to each other. The first picture has three point of reference that can be used to properly place the flight path in an overhead view:

1. Over the first tree in the middle of the parking lot.
2. Over the building that Ms Zakhem was standing outside of (and over her as well).
3. Over the Navy Annex Gate House on its far side in the picture.

Drawing a straight line through these marks puts the plane on a path to go North of Citgo even further than CIT has ever dared suggest. There is no possible way that the first photo shows the South Path. Here's a Google Earth .kmz file showing what I mean.

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id4756996777.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 22 2009, 09:52 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i wonder if zakhem is the accurate spelling. any chance that it could be zakheim? a relative of that dual passporter, deputy secdef dov zakheim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Aug 23 2009, 12:54 AM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



Good points guys :-).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 23 2009, 07:02 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 22 2009, 09:52 PM) *
i wonder if zakhem is the accurate spelling. any chance that it could be zakheim? a relative of that dual passporter, deputy secdef dov zakheim?



Or maybe it's her first name that's been changed? There's a Merilynn Zakhem who was married to a Sam Zakhem.

Sam Zakhem was a former US ambassador to Bahrain who was indicted for accepting $7.7 million from Kuwait in 1990 to help win American public support for military action against Iraq. Zakhem, 56, who made an unsuccessful bid this year to become the G.O.P. Senate nominee from Colorado, was accused of failing to register with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and of avoiding U.S. income taxes.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Aug 23 2009, 07:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Aug 23 2009, 05:10 PM
Post #8


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



the name could also be arab, and this might be her nephew (with her name mentioned as well):
http://www.aaiusa.org/press-room/1861/mustread082502

dunno.gif


here is the facebook page of a Madlene Zakhem, who has all the same relatives as the person described in the article above:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Madlene-Zakhem/1015055423

This post has been edited by paranoia: Aug 23 2009, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 23 2009, 06:21 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (paranoia @ Aug 23 2009, 05:10 PM) *
the name could also be arab, and this might be her nephew (with her name mentioned as well):
http://www.aaiusa.org/press-room/1861/mustread082502

dunno.gif


here is the facebook page of a Madlene Zakhem, who has all the same relatives as the person described in the article above:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Madlene-Zakhem/1015055423


Another made for TV 9/11 story. I wonder who his Aunt Madlene works for? Plus his 'uncle' was in the Pentagon when it got hit.

Did any of the CIT people (or anyone else) ever contact Madlene Zakhem and/or knows what she looks like?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 23 2009, 06:34 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



QUOTE (Skeptik @ Aug 22 2009, 11:02 AM) *
If Madelyne could see the cockpit, she could hardly have been under the aircraft when it passed her. If she was to the right of the aircraft this would put it flying "down Columbia Pike" as she said, but also flying over the Navy Annexe. What she states is so woolly that any version can be constructed from what she says. She says it flew down Columbia Pike. This is consistent with Ed Paik's view as well.

I agree that the aircraft could not have been directly overhead for Madelyn Zakhem to have seen the cockpit. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony for precise details due to factors such as perspective error, sensationalization of an account or simple failure of the memory can make it dangerous to take what is said overly literally. Any low flying aircraft, even if it were in reality to one side, close enough to make an eyewitness scared could be expected to be described as “overhead”.

If you view the second image I provided you will see that the line between Madelyn and the impact point does not match perfectly to the official flight path. I believe this would be due to exactly that described above – the aircraft was probably not directly overhead in relation to Madelyn Zakhem.


QUOTE (Skeptik @ Aug 22 2009, 11:02 AM) *
So " to all reasonable ends, Madelyn Zakhem does NOT place the plane where it is supposed to be, when it is supposed to be, in support of the official flight path."

The best that can be taken from the account of Madelyn Zakhem is that the aircraft passed within a vicinity close enough for it to be described as “overhead”. This places the aircraft in the reasonable proximity of the official flight path and, without assuming the illogical tight left-right bank manoeuvre, is opposed to a North of Citgo approach.


QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 22 2009, 11:18 AM) *
Before going through all of that trouble I think that there is a preliminary matter that has to be attended to - is there an official flight path?

I quite see your point and I am not aware there has been such an express claim based on collected evidence from an official government agency. There is obviously the official black box data though due to the recognised problems with that it can be assumed for the purposes of this discussion that the ‘official’ flight path is that which lines up with the physical light pole, generator and Pentagon impact damage: -




QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 22 2009, 11:18 AM) *
EDIT TO ADD: If the government never claimed, defined and plotted an official flight path, then one doesn't exist, there's nothing to support and all this will be a waste of time, right? I don't address people on the Internet who claim an official flight path for the government while the government has not, because they aren't the government. My 911 issues are solely with the government and with no one else.

We can refer to the “official story” (rather than “official government”) flight path if that would be more acceptable to you. I understand what you are saying but again for the purposes of this discussion I think everyone knows the approach the aircraft is required to have taken for the official story to be upheld.


QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 22 2009, 01:34 PM) *
I don't understand how you translate the first picture in your opening post taken by CIT into showing a flight path coming straight up Columbia Pike. The line is clearly crossing the west to east running Pike on a line from the southwest to the northeast. If you are saying that Ms Zakhem adopted that photo as a representation of her description of the flight path, then it appears that to her "straight up Columbia Pike" means crossing it at about a 30 degree angle.

My comments addressed to Skeptik at the beginning of this post apply again here. It is reported “straight” up Columbia Pike though it is dangerous to take this sort of wording in eyewitness testimony overly literally. The direction of Columbia Pike is the closest reference to most simply describe the aircraft approach. If an aircraft follows a route in the general direction of Columbia Pike, I don’t see it as suspect when a report based on an eyewitness account claims straight up Columbia Pike.

I am not saying Madelyn Zakhem personally adopted any picture as a representation of her description of the flight path, only that she placed the aircraft in a location that does not support North of the Citgo but does reasonably corroborate the official story flight path. The first image was supplied by Marquis of CIT. The second image is simply to demonstrate that a flight path drawn between Madelyn Zakhem and the Pentagon impact point (she has confirmed in an e-mail that it flew “straight to the Pentagon”) again gives reasonable support to the official story.


QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 22 2009, 01:34 PM) *
Drawing a straight line through these marks puts the plane on a path to go North of Citgo even further than CIT has ever dared suggest. There is no possible way that the first photo shows the South Path. Here's a Google Earth .kmz file showing what I mean.

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id4756996777.html

I do not believe Madelyn Zakhem’s account can be rationally argued to support a North of Citgo claim otherwise you can be sure CIT would be using it in their presentations. The fact that Marquis has highlighted “her Jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent” along with the “possibility she is Mossad” in an attempt to discredit her, tells us all we need to know. She is an eyewitness to the official story South flight path.


QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 22 2009, 08:52 PM) *
i wonder if zakhem is the accurate spelling. any chance that it could be zakheim? a relative of that dual passporter, deputy secdef dov zakheim?

It’s a long shot but if there were any solid evidence of that then it would certainly, for me at least, cast doubt on the authenticity of Madelyn Zakhem’s account. I have concern about the motivations of anyone connected to the PNAC.


QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Aug 23 2009, 05:21 PM) *
Did any of the CIT people (or anyone else) ever contact Madlene Zakhem and/or knows what she looks like?

Picture supplied in the following link if you think it is relevant to anything.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=412


I will make a short summary of points against Madelyn Zakhem’s account and move onto the next eyewitness to the official story shortly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 23 2009, 09:36 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 23 2009, 06:34 PM) *
Picture supplied in the following link if you think it is relevant to anything.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=412



Thanks for the link and the info.

It seems that paranoia's finding regarding Raif Zakem's aunt is most likely the same woman has the one who worked for VDOT on 9/11. I noticed in the link you posted that Craig was wondering about her background and the cross she was wearing. If she is Raif's aunt, then his account would confirm they are christians.

I get the feeling that the VA Zahkem's are some how related to Sam & Merilynn Zakhem. That's why I was curious about what Madelyn Zakhem looked like. (BTW: In the pic that you linked to, her name is spelled different. Any clue to the source of the pic?). Sam Zakhem is connected to Iran/Contra and was good friend's with the guy whose daughter testified about the babies get thrown out of the incubators in Kuwait. He's also a christian. He's very involved with Moon's Unification Church. So I would say he's very spooky.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeptik
post Aug 24 2009, 10:55 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 1-September 07
Member No.: 1,946



Quote by Q24

"If you view the second image I provided you will see that the line between Madelyn and the impact point does not match perfectly to the official flight path. I believe this would be due to exactly that described above – the aircraft was probably not directly overhead in relation to Madelyn Zakhem."

If the aircarft was not overhead then it could have been on the Naval Annexe side of her or the Aerial side of her, so her comment can be construed to suit whichever side the reader wishes it to be.Although she does say that it travelled down Columbia Pike (and from her position this must mean on the Naval Annexe side of her) her statement does not confirm or deny either of the routes being discussed, so it is therefore irrelevant.

This post has been edited by Skeptik: Aug 24 2009, 10:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 24 2009, 04:55 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



QUOTE (Skeptik @ Aug 24 2009, 09:55 AM) *
If the aircarft was not overhead then it could have been on the Naval Annexe side of her or the Aerial side of her, so her comment can be construed to suit whichever side the reader wishes it to be.Although she does say that it travelled down Columbia Pike (and from her position this must mean on the Naval Annexe side of her) her statement does not confirm or deny either of the routes being discussed, so it is therefore irrelevant.

Madelyn Zakhem certainly says the aircraft came from what you describe as the “aerial side”, ie if she were facing the Pentagon then the aircraft approached from a direction over her right shoulder. This is demonstrated in Marquis’ post here were Madelyn indicates the aircraft came from the general direction of route 395.

To summarise why I present Madelyn Zakhem as a witness to the official story flight path – her account describes, “coming straight up Columbia Pike”, approaching from closer to route 395, flying “overhead” of the STC and in her e-mail, “not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon”. Combining the above references places the aircraft somewhere within these lines: -



This is supportive of the official flight path and not a North of Citgo approach.

Still, to provide a list of complaints against the account: -

  • Taken literally, words such as “directly” and “straight” used to describe the flight path must be assumed to be inaccurate as they are contradictory of various points in the account.
  • Madelyn’s account is not precise enough (too woolly).
  • Madelyn’s view was obstructed by trees.
  • Madelyn Zakhem could be Jewish or perhaps even Mossad.
  • Madelyn Zakhem may possibly be related to Dov Zakheim or Sam Zakhem.
I will now move on from Madelyn Zakhem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 24 2009, 05:05 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



Witness number two…

Keith Wheelhouse

Another witness to the official flight path that we know CIT are aware of. At 12:05 in the presentation “The 2nd Plane Cover Story”, Keith Wheelhouse, sitting right in front of an overhead image clearly indicates with his finger a South of Citgo flight path. Watch further and sure enough he confirms this with a sketch that matches the official flight path near flawlessly: -



Note: the line shown North-West is the direction Keith believes the C-130 departed the area and is not directly relevant to this thread. It is the line directed to the Pentagon that Keith Wheelhouse described as the aircraft that impacted.

CIT’s reason for ignoring this account is that trees were blocking Keith Wheelhouse’s view as seen in this panned image: -



I agree Keith would not have a perfect view, but with the Navy Annex and Pentagon in sight and gaps between the trees it appears reasonable he could have witnessed a large portion of the flight path.

Are there any further objections to this witness to the official flight path?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Aug 24 2009, 05:29 PM
Post #15





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



What's the current North Side vs. South Side count?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Q24
post Aug 24 2009, 05:34 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-May 08
Member No.: 3,364



From a quick count-up I estimate South side/impact witnesses outnumber North side witnesses by approximately 3:1

Edit: I will know more accurately when I’m done with this thread.

This post has been edited by Q24: Aug 24 2009, 05:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 24 2009, 05:49 PM
Post #17


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
Keith Wheelhouse has been interviewed by CIT on camera at his summer home outside of Virgina Beach.

His account has been proven false and he is arguably one of the witnesses most implicated as a part of the operation. You can view our complete interview with him in our full-length supplemental presentation How They Pulled It Off and he is also featured in our video short The 2nd Plane Cover Story.




Keith was a well known witness prior to our interview with him because he was heavily featured in a series of articles written for local newspaper the Daily Press by reporters Terry Scanlon and David Lerman in the first weeks after the attack that focused on a mysterious "second plane" that was allegedly in the airspace at the time of the attack. Wheelhouse was quoted going so far as to claim that this second plane was actually "shadowing" the American Airlines jet that allegedly slammed into the building.


If you follow the progression of these articles it is presented as if the identity of this plane was unknown until the reporters ultimately published a piece announcing that they had obtained confirmation from Pentagon official Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan that there was a C-130 and crew who "followed the aircraft" and "saw it crash into the building". This has been proven false and we'll explain how a bit later.


Here are the articles in chronological order for the record:

1. 'HORRIFIC' IMAGE STILL HAUNTS SURRY WOMAN DISASTER VIEWED FROM ARLINGTON -
2. HAMPTON ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON
3. C-130 CREW SAW PENTAGON STRIKE, OFFICIAL CONFIRMS


Keith's sister Pam Young is also referenced in the articles but in our interview you can hear Keith awkwardly volunteer that she "exaggerates some when she talks".

Since Wheelhouse was the only witness directly quoted claiming the second plane "shadowed" the airliner we knew it was important to get a hold of him to see if he would confirm this detail firsthand. He did.




It was not easy getting Wheelhouse to commit to an interview. We followed up with him for about a year and he was always uncooperative, impatient, and rather curt with us over the phone. During our November 2007 trip to Arlington we tried him again and he told us he was going to be painting his summer home and that we could show up there if we still wanted to interview him. Although it was a 3.5 hour drive from Arlington we did not hesitate to take him up on the offer. When he answered the door the confident demeanor we were used to over the phone was completely gone and he seemed rather surprised to see that we showed up at all.


In fact even as we started setting up the camera inside his house he seemed extremely nervous and a bit in denial of what was happening and strangely questioned, "so you want to video record me?" even though that was obviously the entire reason we were there to begin with and exactly what we had been trying to get him to agree to for the prior year. When we told him that we had interviewed other witnesses he went so far as to ask, "well what did they say?". We laughed off the question and did not tell him. Even more oddly, after we finished the interview, even though we didn't challenge his account, as we were packing up he said, "y'all aren't going to make me out to be a liar are ya?". Naturally this is an extremely odd question for someone who is being honest.


Keith claimed that he first saw both planes approach when they were only "maybe a mile out, half a mile out, two thirds of a mile out", so <i>less</i> than a mile. He claims he watched the C-30 veer away at the last moment just before a silver American Airlines jet slam into the building on a descent angle after it "dropped its nose and gunned it". At the official speed of 460 knots during this final stretch it would only take about 7 seconds to reach the Pentagon from a mile out but let's take a closer look at his actual POV.


He indicated his exact alleged location in the cemetery on a map and admitted that he had no memory of the Citgo gas station and sure enough there is no view of the Citgo from the location he indicated at all.


Here is an image that he would later provide for us proving how the treeline blocked the view of the Pentagon making it impossible for him to have seen the alleged impact contrary to his claim.




Here is a panoramic gif of the entire area showing how he would have no view of the Citgo or the official flight at all let alone the alleged impact point.




Yet amazingly Keith Wheelhouse contradicted over a dozen other witnesses and illustrated the official south side flight path pretty much perfectly with no bank at all.



He marked his exact alleged location with an X so because we know for a fact that he would not have had a view of the Citgo or the official flight path from this location due to the topography and landscape, Keith can not fairly be considered a legitimate witness who saw the plane fly south of the former Citgo gas station. You can't be considered a witness to something you couldn't have seen.


Another extremely problematic claim by Keith is that he said he saw the two planes approach from only a mile or less out, yet he suggests that he watched them for a good "60 seconds". With the trees obstructing his view the most he would have seen a plane at the official speed on the official flight path would be a second or two of a mere flash in the distance.


Furthermore the direction he has the C-130 approaching from, and the location he has it turning away just before the Navy Annex, has been contradicted by every other witness we spoke with, specifically the Arlington Cemetery Employees who were right next to the area where Keith says he was located but in the maintenance yard with a clear view of the approach that is unobstructed by trees. They all independently said the C-130 approached from the northwest





The on-location interviews with the Arlington Cemetery employees where they describe their encounter with the C-130 in detail can be viewed in our supplemental presentation The North Side Flyover.


Even the alleged radar data that was officially released by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) in 2007 contradicts Wheelhouse by showing an arrival about 90 seconds after the explosion that would appear to be coming from the <u>south</u> from Keith's POV, not more west as he illustrated. However this official data is also fatally contradicted by the other witnesses who all said the C-130 approached from the <b>northwest</b> indicating both the data <i>and</i> Wheelhouse's account are fraudulent.








So although the officials threw Keith Wheelhouse under the bus with the 2007 release of the 84 RADES alleged radar data, even their data has been proven fraudulent via the independently corroborated witnesses who unanimously describe a much different approach of this C-130.

Continued below...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 24 2009, 05:50 PM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
But the most important point to remember is that all other evidence including all other witnesses have the C-130 flying into the scene a significant amount of time after the explosion as opposed to in the last moment just before the explosion as claimed by Wheelhouse. Nobody else at all claims they saw the two planes flying together. The approach of the C-130 a few minutes later is also confirmed in photographs, video, and by statements from the C-130 pilot himself, Lt Col Steve O'Brien definitively proving Keith's account false.






O'Brien admitted via email correspondence with fellow pilot Robert Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that he was so far away during the attack that he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon.

QUOTE

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.

-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien



So although air traffic control did ask O'Brien to turn around and report back on the attack jet, he never got a chance to "follow the aircraft" as stated by Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth McClellan and he certainly did not see it "crash into the building" because he was much too far away at the time.


This is independently confirmed with video evidence showing the C-130 flying into the scene recorded by Anthony Tribby who was driving on the 14th street bridge on highway 395. The C-130 appears about two minutes into the video while Tribby states at the beginning how he didn't turn on the camera until "approximately one minute after" the attack. This means the C-130 wasn't in the airspace above the Pentagon until about 3 minutes or 180 seconds later in stark contrast to both Wheelhouse's "shadow" claim and the 90 seconds indicated in the 84 RADES data.



View original video here and a close-up shot of the C-130 here.




Bruce Looney took the following photograph from Ft McNair.




The only possible way that Wheelhouse could be "innocent" would be if he simply lied for attention. When considering his reluctance to be interviewed and how convenient this is for the operation given the definitive evidence that the plane did not hit we find this highly unlikely. The implications are clear. Wheelhouse's false account of a "shadowing" second plane that veered away from the building during the explosion served as a perfect cover for the flyover jet that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building. It was expressly stated and implied in all media reports that the C-130 pilot and crew literally watched the plane impact the Pentagon when they have never made this claim. The exact details concerning its flight path and arrival time were a mystery until we asked questions on an investigative level to nail it all down. These important facts were left ambiguous by the media allowing various witness accounts floating around of another plane in the skies to serve as a plausible excuse for the witnesses who really saw the plane fly away during the explosion. Keith Wheelhouse's "shadowing" second plane story was critical to the success of the operation and worked wonders when conflated with legitimate accounts of the C-130 that really flew in the airspace about 3 minutes later.


This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 25 2009, 06:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Aug 24 2009, 05:56 PM
Post #19





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 24 2009, 05:34 PM) *
From a quick count-up I estimate South side/impact witnesses outnumber North side witnesses by approximately 3:1

Edit: I will know more accurately when I’m done with this thread.

Please list all sides when you can. I don't like taking people's word for things like this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Aug 24 2009, 05:56 PM
Post #20


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 24 2009, 10:34 PM) *
From a quick count-up I estimate South side/impact witnesses outnumber North side witnesses by approximately 3:1

Edit: I will know more accurately when I’m done with this thread.



Hi Q24,

As I am sure you are aware, we already investigated this very thoroughly. The plane was actually on the north side of the gas station. There were no viable south of the gas station eyewitnesses and all witnesses we spoke with who work in the area and are in a position to tell, placed the plane on the north side of the gas station.

I understand you are trying to re-invent the wheel anonymously, from behind your computer screen. But there is a reason why we've contacted eyewitnesses, spoke with them, and actually went there to interview them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th February 2020 - 05:25 AM