Allow me to start by stating I am a great fan of CIT and believed their research without doubt until a few days ago. I still believe the North side flyover occurred but now those 2nd plane doubts have reentered my mind. While plundering around the 9/11 info I came across a video of Omar Campo and he states the plane was a small business plane that flew directly over him as he was cutting the lawn. With that being said, I then found the article written by the UK Guardian on 9/12/01 which completely changed his story.

This is just a Mississippi redneck thinking, but imo there is a good possibility that a special craft was outfitted with a single RB-211 engine, extended reinforced wings, 757 rims and a few other parts to leave a minimal amount of convincing evidence after the impact. Perhaps the impact video was based somewhat on reality with the flyover craft being edited out. I do tend to believe the cab driver thinks he is telling the truth.

Rich

i have to disagree.

there is no need for a flyover if you're going to crash a plane into the building. the 2nd plane story have been explained sufficiently. no one saw 2 planes approaching except keith wheelhouse. so if keith wheelhouse's testimony someone trumps the combined testimonies of all the other witnesses, there is nothing to support a 2 plane theory.

it is a cover story to explain to the witnesses of the flyover "what they really saw".

Rich,

Omar Campo does NOT report 2 planes and reports a "blanco" or white plane with blue on the bottom. So why do you think what few pieces that did exist perfectly matched an AA jet?

Do you really think the planners got lucky and that this small drone plane completely disintegrated and that they planted all the parts even though a plane supposedly hit?

If his rather vague 1st hand account (regarding the flight path) told in his native Spanish tongue with a translator is enough to convince you that a plane hit the light poles and the building even though you have no independent confirmation of his exact location, true POV, or even exactly where he places that plane then you are asserting nothing more than a faith based conspiracy theory with zero independent evidence to back it up and that completely goes against the critical thinking principles and purely skeptical approach that CIT has used for this investigation.

Furthermore, all indications are that he was an Arlington Cemetery employee somewhere on the grounds. This would mean that no matter WHERE he was at the cemetery he would have an infinitely better view of the large north side plane reported by all the other witnesses and in fact would likely not be able to see a low level approach of a south side plane at all. It makes no sense to suggest he would completely miss the large north side plane.

I believe he was further in on the grounds than all the ANC guys we interviewed which is why it appeared to be "no es muy grande" or not very big to him.

Here is his account for the record:
http://dailymotion.virgilio.it/video/x1fa2...mar-campos_news

Now if you really believe that a light pole caused the damage to Lloyde's taxicab in light of his virtual admission of involvement then I think you are very confused and simply have not paid enough attention to the evidence in full.

One glaring physical issue with your 2 plane theory that you have failed to consider is that the plane is required to have a wing span about as large as a 757 to hit the light poles, AND Pilots for 9/11 Truth has shown you that the necessary G forces for the plane to descend to light pole 1 based solely on the topography and landscape is impossible.

Also....please explain to me what of the direct evidence we have presented for a deliberately planted 2nd plane cover story that you disagree with and why.

Hi Guys,

It may just be me, but the flight path over the golf course seems to be in a straight line with the impact damage. What happens if there are two white planes and this is what is causing all of the confusion?

I do not recall you talking with Mickey Bell. He stated the plane came within 100' of him and his truck had rivets and plastic embedded in the sheet metal. Campo and Bell are both close range witnesses.

Then there is the officer Roberts that did see a plane over the parking lot after the explosion.

When all of the witnesses you have located proving a north side approach is coupled with up close witnesses and then throwing in a low level parking lot witness....I cannot come to any other conclusion. But no matter what really happened we know 9/11 is a major lie and you guys have proven it by the north side approach.

You guys have been the "boots on the ground" for us average citizens and have done great work so please understand this is not to take away from any of your theories just perhaps expand them a little to fit my logic patterns. So for me, in order to be honest with myself it had to have been two aircraft and of what make/origin I have no idea.

I'm editing this part in, but Campo's statement could be just as important as Susan's in Shanksville. He has nothing to gain except ridicule if he could be found and still describes a smaller jet.

Rich

Mickey Bell??

There isn't even a direct quote from him.

His "story" was told 3rd hand by the media with quotes from his Pentagon Renovation contractor boss and heavily used as a part of the propaganda.

Even according to them Bell didn't remember the event!

How do they know it was plastic and rivets from an airplane?

Better yet how do YOU know that and why do you believe them?

Sorry man but you are not citing evidence, you are not addressing the evidence, and you failed to answer my questions.

There is noting remotely logical about your train of thought here.

THE PHOTOGRAPHED DEBRIS WAS NOT WHITE AND MATCHES AN AA PLANE AND THE ANOMALOUS PHYSICAL DAMAGE THAT DOES NOT MATCH A PLANE IMPACT IS WHAT GOT EVERYONE QUESTIONING THE EVENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Your theory is illogical, completely unsupported, fully debunked, and has been heavily pushed by proven liar John Farmer.

Read this article:
A review of John Farmer's 2-plane conspiracy theory article: "You All Just Haven't Talked About It"

Read the entire thing. Read it slowly. And then read it again.

Proven liars have been trying to push this nonsense to counter what we present. Please stop facilitating them.

Furthermore, please make sure to limit your unsupported conspiracy theorizing to the debate forum.

Yes "theories" most certainly DO take away from the hard evidence we present.

We do not have a "theory".

We have evidence proving a deception.

For you to continue theorizing when we already provide proof is extremely damaging to our efforts.

You are confused because you are unresearched.

You are merely acting on a belief or a wild hunch with zero investigation or direct confirmation and that is not productive.

So PLEASE do not "expand" on the hard evidence we present with completely unnecessary theory.

That is why we went to Arlington in the first place.

We were sick and tired of the "theories" that have kept us all running around in circles and kept this mired in debate.

It's time for action Rich.

Please help us force accountability.

That is how you can help and our upcoming new website will give you step-by-step instructions.

Stay tuned and stay focused.

It's time to END the conspiracy theorizing.

Hi Craig,

I'm a long time visitor at your board (like since day one), but until now hadn’t registered. I drop by here and the P4T board regularly to keep up with your research and learn the latest of what you and the pilots have come up with. I don’t have the technical background to contribute much to the research, but once in a while I do have something I can add to a thread, and that’s why I’m posting now.

Specifically I’ve a few comments about the posted links of the interview with Omar Campos. Without a doubt, that was one of the most god-awful Spanish-English translations I've ever heard. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it was so bad you might think it was deliberate.

I hadn’t watched this clip before, but now that I have I can tell you it has several mistranslations. And I noticed even you quoted one of the erroneous statements made by the translator (Adiel Rajish sp?); the description that the bottom of the plane was blue and the top was white. That's what the translator said, but that’s backwards. Campos said the bottom of the plane was white and the top, or around the sides, was light/sky blue. "Alcance ver que fue blanco por bajo, y asi alrededor celeste". But that's minor compared with the rest of the misquotes.

When asked what he saw Campos said the plane came in over him low, so low it moved the trees; “yo lo via que me pasaba aqui por encima, tu sabes que venia muy bajo y movia hasta los arboles, hasta segun venia tan de bajo”. He repeats the fact that it was low twice. The translator, on the other hand, changed that to say it came in “very fast down it moved then go straight to the building”. He didn’t even mention it was low, which is what Campos emphasized. Campos didn’t say anything about the speed of the plane, and sure as hell didn't say it “moved straight to the building”. Rajish made that up.

Also related to the color of the plane, Gordon Peterson mentioned American Airlines (nothing leading there) and Rajish passed that on in his question to Omar. Campos ignored them and responded that it was like one of the planes here from United ("algo asi como los de la United"), which was translated as "a United States Plane" by his friend Adiel. Omar was clearly talking about United Airlines, not "United States Plane". Omar wasn’t mixing English and Spanish like the “translator”. Had he meant a “United States Plane” he would have used “de los estados unidos” or “estado unidinese”. In effect Omar was confirming Sgt Brooke’s perception of the plane as being one from United Airlines.

There are a few other things.

In the clip by the OP at the start of the thread, there was a short section at the beginning that was cut from the one you posted. In it Omar says he was working in (or at) the building next to the Pentagon; “sabes que yo estaba trabjando en el edificio que tenemos aqui al costado", which sounds like the ANC maintenance building. In the clip, which has the camera focused on the burning Pentagon, Adiel says "outside the building" which to someone watching, sounds like outside the Pentagon (although he does follow afterwards with “the building right there. But you don’t see what he’s pointing to). And, contrary to the quote from the UK Guardian linked in the opening post:
“Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.
‘It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.’ "
Omar didn’t say he was cutting grass, or emphasize that he was outside the building, only that he was working at the building. And unless there was another interview with him somewhere else, he didn’t say anything about “screaming,” “feeling the impact”, or anything else attributed to him in the article in the posted clips. They did get it right that he was across the street, but they don’t specify where.
It seems that if Omar Campos was working at the ANC maintenance building and the plane "paso por encima", (passed over the top of him) he sounds like another north side witness. One thing I don’t understand about his statement though, is why he said it looked like a small business jet if he was near the same area all the other ANC witnesses were. The idea that he may have been further away makes sense. But that’s not what I hear him saying in the interview.

Just my 2 cents on the Omar Campos interview. Keep up the good work, and don’t let them get you down. You must be doing something right if this many trolls keep gunning for you.

Be seein’ ya

Excellent insights and unraveling of this interview hadmatter, thanks!

We actually did go over this with someone who is fluent in Spanish a while back and she also thought the translation was rather odd.

But I don't remember catching that Campo actually described blue on top and white on bottom.

Either way he isn't describing the livery for a United Airlines (or AA obviously) plane as Brooks didn't either. But the "white" theme is repeated yet again so we do cite Campo in "Flight 77" The White Plane.

And I agree....he definitely seems like a solid north side witness if we assume he was anywhere in ANC....but that's why we don't heavily cite this witness....we don't like to assume anything.

His exact position is crucial to come to any determination regarding his description of the jet as not very big. That's why it's fundamentally flawed and rather careless for "Oouthere" to use this account as the basis for a convoluted 2-plane theory. Particularly given all the evidence we have against this notion.

Again, thanks for your insight and welcome to the forums!

This made me think of the scripted Sucherman interviews, where he repeatedly says the plane came "screaming" above/across the highway (see here.) Interesting that someone seemingly inserted the same language into Campo's account.

Great post hadmatter... Welcome! B)

Hiya,

I have to admit that it puts salt in the wound to say I have not done my research. I have watched EVERY video of CIT, AE911truth.org, & pilotsfor911truth.org at least twice. Some may have been better than a year ago when viewed but I have put hundreds of hours into this topic.

I completely agree that you have proven a conspiracy but when I looked at the interview of Campo and using it with other statements the second plane was the best way to make all of the statements and physical evidence fit. Now that a more accurate translation is given of Campo's actual statement, it falls back into your ball park and probably fits the north side flyover. But attacking someone simply because I use KISS in my theories is not very productive.

I have had 9/11 booths at the Mobile, AL and talked to people until I could hardly speak anymore. The primary information used is as quoted above, CIT, AE911truth.org & pilotsfor911truth.org . I've put hundreds of dollars into disseminating this information and put together a wmv, mp3 & jpeg files disk with over 2.2 gig of information I've been mailing for free to those wanting a down and dirty of what has been proven to be a lie as well as an 18 page color photo package I send to those that are prone to work with the public. I've been asked to be on internet radio shows but turned them down while at the same time suggesting they go straight to the investigators themselves. I've had my supervisor's supervisor so mad at me about bring this up at work that I was told not to discuss it anymore.

But anyway, I am doing what I think is right and appreciate all of the investigators hard work and resources that have been placed into one of the most important topics of our time. And I really appreciate the translation post that cleared up so much.

Rich

Rich,

Right on man. It's all good. Don't take offense.

Nobody was questioning your motives, intent, or your dedication to exposing the 9/11 deception.

But as you found out you jumped the gun here regarding Campo. Big time.

And when I specifically asked you to outline exactly what direct evidence we present for a 2nd plane cover story that you disagree with and why you completely ignored the request which led me to believe that you were not researched enough on the evidence to cite any.

I apologize if I am wrong but I think perhaps a review of this specific evidence in particular would be a wise idea.

Also, I'm sorry but if you really think that the cab driver is "telling the truth" I have no choice but to question your critical thinking abilities when looking at the evidence.

Unless of course you meant he was telling the truth when he admitted that he was involved with an operation that was "planned" by the people with "all the money" and that they got "away with it" because it wasn't "stopped in the beginning when it's small" so he could "do nothing about it".

Is that you what you meant or did you simply miss this virtual confession in the interview?

Hey guys,
I know this is an old topic on Campos but I just saw the interview myself on YT.
My gf is Spanish and she was helping me translate (I speak Spanish but had trouble with the dialect..Mexican?)
Anyway, madhatter´s post was correct but there was one word ´costado´ which means ´to the side of/beside´ but it may also be ´cortado´ which means cut/cut off. As in cut off by police tape?
Was the ANC/Northern Pentagon route cut off?

And yes, Campos said that the plane was white underneath and light blue on top.
It is true that it´s a pity he described it as a ´commercial jet´ as he could have proven to be a vital witness as to where the plane was just before it crossed onto the motorway.

But again , his testimony confuses me. Might he have been on the other side of the trees and didn´t get a good look at the plane?
It´s a pity we can´t find out what gardening projects were taking place that day in the area as he said he was ´planting small trees´ (border work)

Are there any good recent or 2001 photos of the treelines around the SOC so we could at least rule OUT Campos being there?