Steve Chaconas' extremely important account, proves a military deception

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.

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.

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.

Hi,

Another excellent video! Nice work! (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.

Thank you for participating and supporting the info!

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

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.

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.

Not that I am aware of.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Hi,

I'm curious about something.

Aircraft don't just disappear off RADAR when their transponders are off. RADAR = RAdio Detection And Ranging. This means that an aircrafts position can still be plotted, even if nothing else is known about it.

Assuming the jet had its transponder switched off, from what Steve is saying about its approach altitude, it should appear on RADAR somewhere.

Is there any other RADAR data available, besides the RADES 84 data? What about RADAR for the DC area? Has anyone put a FOIA request into the FAA for the RADAR tapes from 9/11 for that area?

Something should be showing.

Does the RADES 84 data only show the two aircraft, or does it show others?

The 12 minute video is a great intro into the full video.

Best regards,
MoD.

The craft Steve Chaconas describes is not on radar at all.

The craft Steve Chaconas describes was the same one that flew north of the citgo timed perfectly with the explosion.

The flight path is irreconcilable with the NTSB black box and all physical damage.

This is why Steve Chaconas and all the citgo witnesses prove that this government provided data that was released many years after the event by the NTSB and 84 RADES is fraudulent.

OK.

One point I need clearing up is regarding the guy on the North side of the Potomac, looking south-west towards the Pentagon. He saw the C-130 pulling up. Am I correct?

How is it that no-one saw the 757 fly away from the Pentagon afterwards?

Steve would have been in a good position to see the aircratf fly back over the water if it simply kept low and held its heading. The guy in the office (?) over the Potomac would have seen *something*, too.

Put into context with the Double Tree footage, and lots of things don't add-up WRT the aircraft flying into the building.

Maybe this thread isn't the place to post this, but the view of the tail in the Double Tree video is wholly inconsistent with any manouver the aircraft would have to make, to either impact or fly-over, and it also seems to be going far too slowly for an aircraft allegedly flying at 580 MPH at that point (I know the usual points about it being a government-released/controlled video apply).

Best regards,
MoD.

If you are talking about Scott Cook on the other side of the river, yes and we believe him.

He says he saw it pull up over the Tidal Basin which is on the DC side of the river.

Perhaps somebody did.

A better question is why were the only unfiltered 1st reports (911 calls) permanently sequestered?

Incorrect.

He could not even see the north side of the airport from his location let alone the Pentagon.

Scott Cook demonstrates perfectly how little anyone would see from across the river.

"From our office window across the river, the area behind the Pentagon is a mishmash of woods, office buildings and Arlington Ridge, which is a minor range of hills just behind the Pentagon. [b]From our vantage, something as small as a 757 zooming along at 250-300 knots was lost in the clutter[b]."

His actual view:


He had in essence the best possible view from across the river and within seconds the plane which would be a blip in the landscape would be gone and the fireball and smoke plume would command all attention.

All government data have been controlled, vetted, manipulated, and provided for by the suspect and is therefore invalid.

Sorry but it's true.

Hi,

I'm guessing because of what is on those tapes (or rather, not on them ).

Incorrect.

He could not even see the north side of the airport from his location let alone the Pentagon.

I stand corrected.

I know.

So what is the general feeling regarding after the fly-over then? That it stayed low?

Best regards,
MoD.