It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack.

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Griff,

Keep trying...I've been pointed that little factoid out for what feels like 2 years now and no one will listen. YES, there was a military plane in the area - it was the C130 trying to trail Flight 77.

*sigh*


But it wasn't "trailing" it.

The C-130 is not the plane that flew fast and low over columbia pike.

But yes it was the plane that was meant to create confusion and allow for an expanation that there was a fly-over.

You guys are getting it.





posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by nextguyinline

Mr. Tripper. Would you mind posting any unpublished eyewitness statements that you may have? Thanks


Sorry but I am not going to be around until Monday and that is a different topic.

I may create another thread about this in the future.

Realize that this forum is not my first priority.

In fact it is one of my last.


I sure hope you do make another thread sometime. You brought the topic into this discussion.
and my first post, regarded your time.



I'm very interested in the unpublished eye witness remarks that you mentioned, and how they relate to your admission that the plane did not hit the pentagon.

Would you mind publishing them in this thread, if you recorded them of course, and of course if you can find the time. Thanks



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline

I sure hope you do make another thread sometime. You brought the topic into this discussion.
and my first post, regarded your time.



Yes you did and I appreciate your request.

I will put something together next week.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


But it wasn't "trailing" it.

The C-130 is not the plane that flew fast and low over columbia pike.

But yes it was the plane that was meant to create confusion and allow for an expanation that there was a fly-over.

You guys are getting it.



Sorry...I don't agree.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Sorry Val but the idea that a C-130 was 'trailing' a 757 is absurd IMO.
Im fairly certain that the top speed of a C-130 is much slower than the 757, which was said to be going around 500 MPH if I remember correctly.
I agree that it was in the area, any 911 researcher will confirm this part of the story, but I am with Jack on this, it was just there to create clutter and confusion.
The old s magicians trick where you get people to focus >>OVER THERE >>
when the 'trick' is happening



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall


Sorry...I don't agree.


a C-130 is anything but low and fast. It would be almost impossible for it to trail a jetliner and not come considerably later. Its a propellor engined plane that can only really hit, at maximum speed, about 380 mph.

For a plane to be trailing, and be right htere, it would atleast need to match the speed of the jetliner, and would most likely need to be a more modern, jet engined, plane.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
C-130 Hercules


Performance

* Maximum speed: 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
* Range: 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
* Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)

The C-130 is a turboprop aircraft.



If it was trailing a commercial jetliner for any significant period of time, the jetliner would have had to have been flying slower than 379 MPH, unless there was something unusual about the C-130 in question.




[edit on 9/14/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It wasn't trailing it "for a significant amount of time".



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Personally, I think any reference to "trailing it" is more a "keep it in sight" instruct/situation, as opposed to staying "hot on it's tail". Which a C-130 couldn't accomplish, anyway.


$.02

[edit: to add]

If memory serves, it was reported as being seen overhead immediately following the "impact". ?

[edit on 9/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Personally, I think any reference to "trailing it" is more a "keep it in sight" instruct/situation, as opposed to staying "hot on it's tail". Which a C-130 couldn't accomplish, anyway.


$.02


Right. Flight 77 was barrelling down on the C130 when he was told to find it and identify it. He pretty much just had to stay out of the way.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Strangers In The Flight


Originally posted by Valhall
It wasn't trailing it "for a significant amount of time".

Accounts vary, so how long do you think it would have been following the jetliner?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Here is a news video interview with the Pilot of the C-130.

C-130 at both Pentagon & Shanksville crash sites

[edit on 9/14/06 by makeitso]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Strangers In The Flight


Originally posted by Valhall
It wasn't trailing it "for a significant amount of time".

Accounts vary, so how long do you think it would have been following the jetliner?


It didn't follow the jet. It spotted it, identified it by type. Headed in the same direction as it, and then verified it had just flown into the building (after the fact).



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Hot On The Trail


Originally posted by Valhall
It didn't follow the jet. It spotted it, identified it by type. Headed in the same direction as it, and then verified it had just flown into the building (after the fact).

Ahh, okay. I misunderstood your previous post.


This seems like a feasible scenario.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Flight 77 had already initiated that big loopty-do thingy when the C130 was taking off. As soon as he took off ATC requested he try to locate, identify and follow (if possible) the aircraft. Flight 77 continues its turn toward the Pentagon. C130 spots it at 9:34 and identifies it as a 757. 77 hits Pentagon at 9:38. C130 tells ATC at 9:38 "that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

This seems like a feasible scenario.

Just as feasible as a C-130 lumbering around the area to create a diversion.
As in: "Look at that! Whats that big military plane flying around so low and slow for?"



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Hmmm, so the mighty USAF, or was it the Army, launched a C-130 to 'intercept' on 911, but they couldnt get one fighter plane off the ground? This sounds more absurd than a C-130 'trailing' flight 77 when in actuality it only spotted it (allegedly).
I dont know, just more stuff that makes no sense, to me atleast.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Flight Plans By Kreskin


Originally posted by 11Bravo
Just as feasible as a C-130 lumbering around the area to create a diversion.
As in: "Look at that! Whats that big military plane flying around so low and slow for?"

That's also a possibility, of course, but one which requires an assumption about motives.

I don't know one way or the other, but I strongly suspect the stated mission for the C-130's flight wasn't "create a diversion".



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The C130 wasn't launched to "intercept" anything. It took off (8 minutes after the FCC grounded all flights mind) as a cargo plane to Missouri (not sure what state but I think it started with an M...Valhall?). So, it wasn't intended to intercept the flights...just identify them. Hope that clears it up for ya.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I must admit Jack what a great post and great work with the research. well done and keep up the good work mate!




top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join