Actual C-130 Interaction With The Pentaplane helps reveal the TRUE flight path.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Nothing.

It has to be either left or right.

Nothing changes either way.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I noticed in the OP that you had a ? next to O'Brien's name.

O'Brien?: Just to report, be advised the aircraft is 4-6 miles SE (southeast) of the White House.

ATC: 6 miles SOUTHEAST of the White House?

O'Brien?: Yup

ATC: He's moving away?
That's not O'Brien.

That transcript was cut a little short.

It's Colin Scoggins(Boston Center) relaying information to Senior Airman Stacia Rountree at NEADS(Huntress).

Vanityfair.com audiotape of the conversation.

The audiotape clearly shows that Scoggins corrected himself. He says, "6 Southwest-6 southwest of the White House.... deviating away."

There never was an aircraft 6 miles to the southeast of the White House.

That works out with the RADES data.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Yeah I know thanks.

It has been corrected in my posts at other forums but you can't edit here after the first day.

ETA:

Interesting.

I downloaded it before and the correction wasn't there.






[edit on 12-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Ok well 6 miles SW of the white house would put it about 3 miles from the Pentagon.

At 535 mph that means the plane would have hit the white house in about 7 seconds.

Scoggins reported that at 9:35:41

So that's a contradiction.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Nice research once again, your certainly calling some of the official story into question. I'll continue to read your posts and those who try to contradict you.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by Craig Ranke
Ok well 6 miles SW of the white house would put it about 3 miles from the Pentagon.

At 535 mph that means the plane would have hit the white house in about 7 seconds.

Scoggins reported that at 9:35:41

So that's a contradiction.


Not necessarily.

You're assuming that Scoggins is watching the radar screen as he's talking to NEADS. It's pretty clear from the audiotapes that Scoggins is relaying information from someone else at Boston Center.

He called to report an aircraft 6 miles southwest of the White House. The call started at 9:35:41, he was told where the aircraft was and then called NEADS.

Off to Google Earth I go.

At 9:35:41 Flight 77 is 11 miles from the White House(long line).
From the White House, I went to a point 6 miles southwest and drew a line.
Flight 77 with 6 miles southwest of the White House at 9:34:13.



He said that the aircraft was deviating away from the White House. It's pretty obvious that he was reporting the aircraft as it started the right hand turn toward the south and not as it was ending its turn before lining up with the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
But the same description also fits the loop we provide as the decoy flight would also have been "deviating away" from the white house and ended up about 6 miles SW.

However our loop also fits with what ABC news, Monte Belger, Steve O'Brien, and our charter boat captain who all fatally contradict the 84 RADES data and the NTSB data.

So although the Colin Scoggin's report could go either way all of this other data can not.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Craig, you mentioned Kieth Wheelhouse and Joel Sucherman in the OP. Where do they tie into this story?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 



Ooooo!

Good question.

They both claim there was a "2nd plane" in the area at the same time as the alleged impact.

Wheelhouse specifically says it was a C-130 and that it was literally "shadowing" the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon and that it veered away at the very last second.

Sucherman claims he saw a "2nd plane" but says he can't identify what kind or color but he says that it veered off north upriver within "3 to 5 seconds" of the alleged impact.

If these claims were true they would of course prove the RADES data fraudulent but the evidence simply does not support their claims which has other implications.

We have exclusive video taped interviews with both of these alleged witnesses and they will both be featured in our next release.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So that would make it five airplanes in the area?

1. Silver American Airlines
2. An airplane shadowing within a few seconds
3. C-130
4. The white plane
5. E-4B



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Make what you will of the evidence and how many planes there really were but no matter how you slice it; it doesn't look too good for the RADES or NTSB data.


Oh and we have another "gem" from the jems report but I'll let you wait for that or figure it out for yourself.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 



posted by Boone 870
reply to post by SPreston
 




Here is a link to the sector recording with the controller that instructed GOFER06 to follow Flight 77.



Well Boone, it seems Craig has adequately replied to your disinformation. Were you part of the fitting the evidence to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY from the very beginning?

This and the RADES data were faked and other evidence altered to fit.


Gee Boone; you've been repeatedly corrected, and obviously learned nothing from your errors, and you just keep on repeating the endless disinformation? Ad infinitum?



[edit on 4/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 




What is up with this ? Collin Scoggins has to be a bad guy. He keeps calling NEADS and telling them this and that. His calling covers up for the fact that the guy who is supposed to be calling never does. Way beyond obvious.
edit on 17-7-2012 by DigItLosseJam because: remedied the vidi



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigItLosseJam
What is up with this ? Collin Scoggins has to be a bad guy. He keeps calling NEADS and telling them this and that. His calling covers up for the fact that the guy who is supposed to be calling never does. Way beyond obvious.


He has to be a "bad guy"? Because he calls NEADS (the only guys with "guns") with any information he gets? His calls enabled the QUIT fighters to get airborne a lot sooner than they otherwise would have and for this he is a "bad guy". Sounds more like a hero to me.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Since this thread of lies had been bumped, lets look at the "actual C-130 [GOFER06] interaction with the Pentaplane".






posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Since this thread of lies had been bumped, lets look at the "actual C-130 [GOFER06] interaction with the Pentaplane".





Great stuff. I'm sorry these things have to be kept being trotted out for the masses to listen to. Those of us who understand these recordings - the terminology, the instructions, the creation of that three-dimensional picture in your head as you follow along with what Gopher 06 and ATC are talking about - have a light-years-worth of a head start ahead of the play-time/part-time sooper-sleuths/investagangstas! who have not clue 1 whatsoever about these radio transmissions.

Still, its funny to watch them twist in the wind as they try to explain how a hammer is really a screwdriver and how a ham sandwich is really a bicycle tire...or how a C-130 departure out of Andrews headed to Minneapolis would not depart on the Camp Springs 2 departure - even though that was the exact departure instruction they received and destinations to the west use the CS2.

Come on, CIT! BTW, how's that "Operation Accountability" (insert ominous, suspense-laden music here) coming along? Isn't there a law against saying something is "under construction" for more than 5 years?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
This thread sure is a blast from the past!

The additional information we've learned over the years makes this thread even more comical.

The most important thing to remember about this debacle is that CIT has had the flight crew's contact information for over five years, and they've had access to the radar data and air traffic control recordings for over four years, yet they refuse to forward the information to the guardsmen who were on the C-130 to see if any of the information has been faked.

I wonder why that is?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is a rhetorical question.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


I think DigIt's angle is that if Scoggins hadn't called, then no one would have. Actually there were others that called NEADS, but the interactions were minimal. In other words, Collin Scoggins is conspicuously present. What is he doing calling ? Not saying DigIt is correct here, but it is not a bad point, and it is certainly something to think about . I always thought that Scoggins stories about just happening to go into work that day late and then his heading over to the credit union after being apprised of the attack were somewhat implausible.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join