Steve Chaconas' extremely important account

In this presentation we expose the methodology used to achieve the flyover effectively and we reveal new evidence proving the NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent.

Steve Chaconas' extremely important account

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

28 Feb 2008, 04:33 #1

It doesn't matter if someone refuses to accept everything else that we assert in our new presentation, the account of Steve Chaconas alone is solid irrefutable proof of a military deception on 9/11.



The approach and timing of the plane that he saw cross the river is proof that the decoy jet flew over DC skies and came from east of the river and then looped around to the Pentagon timed perfectly with the explosion.




Of course this is 100% irreconcilable with the NTSB and 84 RADES reported official flight path:




The one thing that detractors are trying to claim is that the plane Steve Chaconas saw was the C-130 but this is impossible for a few reasons.

1. Although the RADES flight path for the C-130 shows the plane crossing over the river in the same area where Chaconas saw the plane, this flight path is nowhere near where the pilot of the C-130 says he flew.



2. Steve is on the river every day as a charter boat captain and is quite familiar with the planes that fly over his head every few minutes. He is quite aware of the difference between military and commercial airliners as he explained in the interview. He specifically stated that the plane he saw looked like a "commercial jet".

3. Steve was very descriptive about a significant "bank" or turn that he saw the plane make as it looped around to the Pentagon. The flight path of the C-130 as depicted in the RADES data has the bank way too far out for Steve to have noticed at all.




So given that there is no other plane depicted on the RADES data that could possibly fit the flight path and timing that Steve Chaconas described, and in light of all the other fatal contradictions and anomalies we have uncovered in regards to the official story, it's 100% clear that the radar data representing the plane that Steve Chaconas saw on 9/11 was manipulated out of what 84 RADES released to the public in 2007 many years after the event and that the fabricated official flight path of AA77 was simply added to the data.


There is really no way around this conclusion as this evidence will surely test the intellectual honesty of some of the "debunkers" if they STILL refuse to accept it just like they refuse to accept the north side claim.

The east of the Potomac and north of the Citgo claims independently prove 9/11 was an inside job.
Reply
Like

catgrlz
Concerned Citizen
catgrlz
Concerned Citizen
Joined: 19 Dec 2007, 08:01

28 Feb 2008, 06:17 #2

Unravelling the deception at the Pentagon is vitally important because it proves very clearly governmental involvement in the whole of 911.
For example, one could look at the implosions of the WTC buildings and argue that a terrorist team may have infiltrated the buildings and rigged them with explosives, but when you prove deception literally in the military's own backyard there is no way to make excuses and shirk from the fact that 911 was an inside job.
It's awesome that you guys realize this and have been working so hard at putting the pieces together.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

28 Feb 2008, 06:29 #3

Yeah that's a great way to put it.

We also see the north side evidence (and now the east side evidence too!) more definitive than a simple belief in controlled demo.

They have all their BS official reports and "experts" to spin the controlled demo claim away but no expert, pilot, or engineer on earth can spin the north and east side claims.

All they can do is suggest that all the witnesses are lying.
Reply
Like

MirageOfDeceit
Concerned Citizen
MirageOfDeceit
Concerned Citizen
Joined: 23 Dec 2007, 00:26

29 Feb 2008, 02:21 #4

Hi,

Another excellent video! Nice work! B) (Thanks for the mention in the credits at the end!).

Regarding all the aircraft, I count in total:

* Flight 77
* C-130
* E4-B

If the C-130 was a set-up, and it's pilot wasn't briefed prior to flying, and further, "they" didn't know where he was going to fly once he started to deviate from his flight plan to look for Flight 77, do you think it is conceivable that Flight 77 over-flew, then continued heading ENE, towards Andrews AFB, low-level and at high speed, where the C-130 wouldn't see him?

I note that in the interview with the C-130 pilot, that he mentions that he couldn't initially see what had crashed where, to create the smoke plume that he was looking at.

Given the location of Andrews AFB, and the fact that it was a military base in the first instance, is it probable that Flight 77 headed for it after its Pentagon fly-over, and landed?

If the aircraft wasn't in AA colors, but was a generic white or gray aircraft (easily re-painted), were there any witnesses to an aircraft landing at Andrews shortly after the alleged Pentagon flyover?

Has anyone investigated the movements in/out of Andrews that day?

Did Steve Chaconas remember seeing any aircraft flying east after the smoke plume occurred? Given his position on the river, it appears he'd be in a good position to see the aircraft returning from its over-flight, even if at low-level.

Regarding the other flight path (the one that has it flying down the Potomac, then circling) - do you think that this is now the more likely flight path, rather than the official loop version, given Steve's testament?

Best regards,
MoD.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

29 Feb 2008, 04:39 #5

MirageOfDeceit @ Feb 29 2008, 02:21 AM wrote:Hi,

Another excellent video! Nice work!  B) (Thanks for the mention in the credits at the end!).



Thank you for participating and supporting the info!
:)



Regarding all the aircraft, I count in total:

* Flight 77
* C-130
* E4-B


We call it the "decoy jet" because there is no valid evidence that "flight 77 was ever in the area at all.


If the C-130 was a set-up, and it's pilot wasn't briefed prior to flying, and further, "they" didn't know where he was going to fly once he started to deviate from his flight plan to look for Flight 77, do you think it is conceivable that Flight 77 over-flew, then continued heading ENE, towards Andrews AFB, low-level and at high speed, where the C-130 wouldn't see him?


I suppose it's technically "possible" but we have no evidence for it and it would definitely be more consipicuous than traveling up river blended with typical departures.



I note that in the interview with the C-130 pilot, that he mentions that he couldn't initially see what had crashed where, to create the smoke plume that he was looking at.

Given the location of Andrews AFB, and the fact that it was a military base in the first instance, is it probable that Flight 77 headed for it after its Pentagon fly-over, and landed?


You just said the same thing right? That's ok but I got it the first time.
;)

Again, it's possible. We can't say for sure what the plane did after it flew north of the citgo and pulled up and we will likely never know the answer to that question.


If the aircraft wasn't in AA colors, but was a generic white or gray aircraft (easily re-painted), were there any witnesses to an aircraft landing at Andrews shortly after the alleged Pentagon flyover?



Not that I am aware of.


Has anyone investigated the movements in/out of Andrews that day?


Since it's a military base it's going to be pretty hard getting answers out of them and we already know the RADES data is fraudulent.


Did Steve Chaconas remember seeing any aircraft flying east after the smoke plume occurred? Given his position on the river, it appears he'd be in a good position to see the aircraft returning from its over-flight, even if at low-level.


No he did not. Of course he would not have been able to if it flew up river like a normal departure out of Reagan like we think.



Regarding the other flight path (the one that has it flying down the Potomac, then circling) - do you think that this is now the more likely flight path, rather than the official loop version, given Steve's testament?


If you mean the yellow one in the graphic above, yes.

Steve proves the NTSB flight path fraudulent.

There is no other explanation for the plane he saw.

Reply
Like

MirageOfDeceit
Concerned Citizen
MirageOfDeceit
Concerned Citizen
Joined: 23 Dec 2007, 00:26

29 Feb 2008, 14:17 #6

You just said the same thing right? That's ok but I got it the first time.

Sort of. The first paragraph was regarding Steve seeing the aircraft fly away from the Pentagon, the second point was really moot given what I'd said in the previous paragraph, but I'd edited it which is why it doesn't make sense!

I'm not sure if I've ever really made this clear, but I've always found it incredulous that the hijackers, from so far out, could make such an accurate bee-line for the Pentagon, given the C-130 pilot could hardly see the Pentagon from just a few miles away.

I know people keep saying they have the VOR at DCA to tune, or could enter the DCA VOR into the FMC and get a bearing/distance that way, but from looking at the data, it appears that the VOR wasn't tuned by the hijackers. Further, they'd be too far out to receive it initially anyway. I find this highly suspicious. There is also this strange DME at 4 miles or so that can't exist.

Best regards,
MoD.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

29 Feb 2008, 15:07 #7

Well sure.

We all find that suspicious but we are beyond that.

We now have hard evidence that PROVES their story false!

All of the witnesses we present said they would testify willingly or could be subpoenaed.

The north of the citgo and east of the Potomac claims independently prove a military deception.
Reply
Like

Caustic Logic
Curious Citizen
Caustic Logic
Curious Citizen
Joined: 29 Feb 2008, 06:42

04 Mar 2008, 10:57 #8

Two questions about other witnesses cited in this same video:

1) Joel Sucherman – he mentions a 2nd plane passing '3-5 seconds' after impact (wrong time) but behaving as the C-130 did (hence his being cited as a C-130 witness), “highly publicized […] as one of the second plane witnesses, yet he would not identify the type of plane.” This is made to seem suspicious, no?

Steve also refuses to describe the type of plane.

But he does affirm he DIDN'T see a C-130, right?

2) Vin Narayanan - he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact (right time), but is steadfast that it was a jet, not a propellor plane. Aldo has to correct himself - the plane - the jet, right...

When Chaconas sees a plane passing just where radar shows the C-130 passing and roughly when... and he suspiciously refuses to identify it, but says he's sure it's a jet... it is as he says and we know we've got hard proof of this ... cinnamon roll loop path.

What am I missing?

I'm not saying he DID see the C-130, or that he even saw any one plane do all he says. It seems possible he saw one plane cross, another looping, etc... maybe an airliner landing (there were some stragglers still landing as you know) happening to line up with the explosion right by the airport.

It could also be that he's embellishing and doing a bit o' mental welding to place his own experience at the center of action. I'm sure that's common in witness accounts, even honest ones. The human brain, right?
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

04 Mar 2008, 15:31 #9

Caustic Logic @ Mar 4 2008, 10:57 AM wrote:Two questions about other witnesses cited in this same video:

1) Joel Sucherman – he mentions a 2nd plane passing '3-5 seconds' after impact (wrong time) but behaving as the C-130 did (hence his being cited as a C-130 witness), “highly publicized […] as one of the second plane witnesses, yet he would not identify the type of plane.” This is made to seem suspicious, no? 


Sucherman says the 2nd plane banked off north, the RADES data and Wheelhouse show more of a west bank.

It's unlikely Sucherman would have seen it at all on the RADES path.

The fact in itself that he didn't identify it isn't necessarily "suspicious" (although you would think as a reporter and a high profile witness he would at least have been aware of the C-130 from reports after the fact but he played dumb) however this fact helped keep reports of the "2nd plane" ambiguous as to what type of plane it was helping to more effectively serve the purpose of cover for the flyover.



Steve also refuses to describe the type of plane.


No he did not refuse. He was adamant that it was a commercial airliner.


But he does affirm he DIDN'T see a C-130, right?


Yes and he was adamant that he saw a commercial airliner like they see "every 2 and half minutes on the river every day".


2) Vin Narayanan - he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact (right time), but is steadfast that it was a jet, not a propellor plane. Aldo has to correct himself - the plane - the jet, right...

When Chaconas sees a plane passing just where radar shows the C-130 passing and roughly when... and he suspiciously refuses to identify it, but says he's sure it's a jet...  it is as he says and we know we've got hard proof of this ... cinnamon roll loop path.

What am I missing?


What don't you get? Even according to the RADES data the C-130 didn't behave anything like the commercial jet that Chaconas saw.

Plus the C-130 pilot says he had just past the Mall headed westbound so he was nowhere near the south side of Reagan.


I'm not saying he DID see the C-130, or that he even saw any one plane do all he says. It seems possible he saw one plane cross, another looping, etc... maybe an airliner landing (there were some stragglers still landing as you know) happening to line up with the explosion right by the airport.


Planes don't "loop" when they land at Reagan. He watched the same craft the entire time. You are reaching for ANYTHING to dismiss his account.

If you can't identify the "stragglers" on your precious RADES data (which you can not) then you can't make it up in your imagination.

Funny how the existence of this proven fraudulent data has you backed into a corner.


It could also be that he's embellishing and doing a bit o' mental welding to place his own experience at the center of action. I'm sure that's common in witness accounts, even honest ones. The human brain, right?



If that's the best you can come up with you clearly lose.

To you all of the government provided data or anything that supports the official narrative is solid and everything that contradicts it and proves it false is anomalous.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

04 Mar 2008, 18:27 #10

New 12 minute short focusing on Chaconas and the only other possible planes shown on the RADES data:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=DR64SV3R

Reply
Like