Madlene Zakhem, Not an impact or SoC witness

This post is to focus attention on an alleged witness and VDOT employee named Madlene Zakhem.



On our first trip to Arlington with the very deceptive former alleged "truther" Russell Pickering we visited the VDOT in the attempt of interviewing her and others .

Her original previously published account is as follows:

When we went there to interview her she said we had to get permission from the VDOT PR dept to be able to film her at the VDOT, so we walked outside onto the lawn area she claims she was standing at and conducted an impromptu off camera interview. She came off as very standoffish. She stood there with her arms crossed and was not very verbal in her description. It was like we had to pull details out of her. We stood out here on the VDOT lawn and interviewed her:




She maintained her story about the plane coming over the VDOT/STC(Smart Traffic Center), only she described it as inches above the roof of the brick building with the right wing hanging over, at least that is how Russell Pickering decided to interpret it.



As we stood there, I knew the north of the Citgo flight path as cited by Lagasse was still a possibility so I asked her when it came up Columbia Pike was it 1). closer to the Sheraton, 2) closer to the white house next to the brick building, or 3)closer to (coming from) 395 in an attempt to determine the direction:



When I did that she indicated a path more in line with the plane coming from the direction of 395 and heading toward north of the Citgo:



So it seems that when pressed, Madlene knew the plane headed in that general direction and subtly abandoned her already vague and ambiguous SoC claim.

This became a point of contention when Russell Pickering started his very subversive attempt at establishing a SoC path. He boiled it down to memory and he said/she said. Yet, I remember standing there and pointing off in these 3 different directions to determine which direction Madlene claims the plane flew in. She agreed with the one that seemed to take it NoC. In retrospect, it seems as if she tried to blend her story with what actually happened...the plane flying over the Annex and toward NoC. Simply because she didn't know if we had determined this already and perhaps didn't want to seem completely dishonest.

Regardless, there are some serious problems with Madlene's account...


1. We have corroborated eyewitnesses statements that place the plane flying over Ed Paik's shop, over the Navy Annex, and north of the Citgo. The plane would essentially have been across the street from her and nowhere near over her.


2. As you can see from the blue Official SoC flight path line in the graphic above, the plane didn't even fly over the Smart Traffic Center OR Madlene according to the official data from the FDR and the official story. So her story doesn't even match with the gov't's and the physical damage path.

3. She claims she saw the cockpit and a wing. But in reality she very clearly admitted that:

" I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

This would be an indicator that she wouldn't have and couldn't have seen what she claims she saw in the official story's split second flyover of the VDOT/STC @ 535 MPH.

4. More importantly, on 9/11 her view would have been obstructed by the low hanging trees that covered the front of the VDOT lawn, which weren't there the day we interviewed her...

No Trees in August 2006:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/a07c211b.jpg

NO TREES from Sheraton:


Trees on lawn at Madlene's location on 9/11:




It was a forest!

Then she went even further fibbing to Russell Pickering in an e-mail when he tried to "clarify" her account...

From the point forward, Russell used her to not only support an SoC flight path but to personally cast doubt on our credibility. He would go on to say that she claimed we were "creepy"...

Clearly from her response she was somewhat standoffish and somewhat uncooperative/evasive again. But thankfully, she came clean about Russell's accusations. Perhaps Russell thought we wouldn't follow up on this claim.

When we returned in November '06. Craig went through the motions and scheduled a tour of the VDOT and even attempted to schedule an on camera interview with Madlene through the PR department. Videos here:

http://thepentacon.com/Topic4.htm

Madlene said she would give us an interview as long as we had the approval. Once we obtained that approval; she backed out. You can hear Ryan the PR rep giving the tour actually having to explain Madlene's alleged flight path. When Craig realized we weren't getting her on camera, he asked Ryan to get her to draw the flight path and where she was standing. Instead she simply noted where she was standing with a dot. Clearly she was again being evasive about documenting this flight path.

The question is why?

Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event?

Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely.

Or is Madlene an operative or asset of some sort?

I have pointed out her Jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent and the fact that I noticed she was wearing a crucifix as a curious oddity. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps.

But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

Everyone needs to understand how Madlene's account is directly contrasted by Edward Paik and Terry Morin who are infinitely more credible for many reasons.

Obviously the citgo witnesses are enough to prove Madlene's ambiguous and sketchy account false, but Terry Morin and Edward Paik drop a bulldozer of earth on that grave.

Terry Morin is an aviator and Ed Paik had a view of the approach so they are both clearly in a better position to accurately report the true location of the plane.






Both were directly across the street from Madlene and definitively place the plane directly above them on the north side or just over the Navy Annex across the street along with the current total of 13 confirmed north side witnesses.

But there are even more accounts of people who saw the plane directly over the top of the Navy Annex so the evidence quite clearly leans in this favor proving Madlene did not tell the truth.

nice and detailed breakdown Craig....thanks!

You bet!

Aldo composed the OP though!

Zakhem and Landis were co-workers?

How did you guys get hooked up with Pickering?

Who is Pickering... really?

Put Zakhem in the "suspect witness" group.

Yes.

He weaseled his way into our first research trip via the LC forums and Dylan.

An emotionally unstable fake truther/proven liar who quit the movement because of the north side evidence.

To say the least.

Pickering was desperate to stop CIT. He tried to intimidate you guys.

What a weasel.

Yes sir.

He was desperate yet he failed miserably which no doubt got him his walking papers.