What publicly available flight-tracking data shows the route of Egyptian airlines near charlie and erika kirk
Executive summary
Publicly reported accounts say conservative commentator Candace Owens used ADS‑B flight‑tracking records to claim two Egyptian‑registered aircraft (SU‑BTT and SU‑BND) overlapped with Erika Kirk’s movements roughly 68–73 times between 2022 and September 2025; Owens and multiple outlets say those overlaps include an appearance at Provo on the day Charlie Kirk was shot (reports cite “about 70” overlaps and specific counts of 68, 69, 70 or 73) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public reporting actually says about the flight data
Multiple news outlets describe Owens’s claim that flight‑tracking data — reportedly from ADS‑B style feeds — shows two Egyptian aircraft, identified by tail numbers SU‑BTT and SU‑BND, “overlapping” with Erika Kirk’s travel on roughly 68–73 occasions from 2022 through September 2025; stories repeat Owens’s assertion that the pair were at Provo airport the day Charlie Kirk was killed [1] [2] [3].
2. Where the reports say the data came from and what that implies
Sources say Owens relied on flight‑tracking feeds (she referenced ADS‑B Exchange in media coverage) and matched those public tracks against published or public reports of Erika Kirk’s locations; outlets report she described one plane “transponding” at an FBO and named specific tail numbers — but the reporting is based on Owens’s podcast claims and public flight logs rather than an independent forensic analysis cited in those stories [4] [1].
3. Discrepancies and uncertainty in the published counts
Different outlets quote slightly different totals: some stories say “nearly 70” or “around 70” overlaps, others report 68, and several repeat Owens’s later figure of 73 overlaps. That variation appears in the press summaries of the podcast claims and shows those counts are Owens’s tallies as reported, not unified, independently verified totals published in these sources [3] [1] [2].
4. What flight‑tracking data publicly available can and cannot show (as discussed in reporting)
The cited coverage frames ADS‑B and similar public feeds as able to show aircraft positions, tail numbers and timestamped tracks — which allow pattern matching with travel itineraries — but the stories stress Owens’s interpretation (that overlaps equal targeted surveillance) is an inference drawn from those correlations rather than a proven causal link or a law‑enforcement finding in the cited reporting [5] [1].
5. Alternative explanations and caveats reported by outlets
Some reporting notes errors and caveats around Owens’s earlier posts (for example, a referenced time‑zone mistake regarding a Provo departure) and emphasizes that matching tracks to people’s locations can produce misleading coincidences without additional evidence; these pieces underline that the public stories present Owens’s suspicions, not an established foreign‑surveillance conspiracy proved by the sources provided [6] [5].
6. What reporters did not find or did not publish in these sources
Available sources do not mention any independent forensic audit of the flight‑tracking records, any confirmation from aviation authorities that those tail numbers were operated by Egyptian military or intelligence assets, or any law‑enforcement corroboration tying the aircraft to a surveillance operation against Erika Kirk; those gaps are explicit in the coverage, which presents Owens’s claims and associated reporting rather than verified investigative conclusions [2] [3] [1].
7. Why this matters — interplay of public data, inference and narrative
The story illustrates how publicly accessible ADS‑B style flight logs enable pattern searches that can produce striking correlations; the media pieces repeatedly show that drawing the larger conclusion (foreign surveillance and linkage to an assassination) requires independent verification beyond correlation — a point underscored where outlets note Owens’s assertions fuel broader conspiracy narratives but rely on her interpretation of the track data [5] [1].
8. How readers should evaluate future claims tied to flight‑tracking
Treat raw overlap counts reported here (68–73 instances, SU‑BTT and SU‑BND cited) as a starting point, not proof: corroborate tail‑number ownership and mission, confirm timestamps and geolocation metadata, and seek official statements from aviation authorities or investigative bodies. The articles in these sources present Owens’s analysis and media summaries; they do not supply the independent confirmations that would move the claim from allegation to demonstrated fact [2] [3].
Limitations: this piece uses only the provided reporting on Owens’s podcast and subsequent coverage; available sources do not include the original ADS‑B logs, an independent technical audit, nor official aviation or law‑enforcement findings to confirm or refute the interpretation described above [4] [1].