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.

 

84 RADES radar data

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I'm not babysitting this thread, as I'm not making a case here just presenting the fact that new 9/11 info has been obtained by FOIA - 84th Radar Evalutaion Squadron - 84RADES - analysis of 9/11 radar returns, made September 13 2001 for the FBI. John Farmer (911files.info, AAL77.com) recieved this stuff on Oct. 5 he and others are looking at it.

Some interesting stuff at the Pentagon anyway - in fact I'm not sure he even got the data for the other areas. There's a great animation of the DC area air activity - fighters, C-130, even the E4B is recorded it seems, etc - all only visible above 500' so the Pgon attack is still unseen. It's big stuff, might help clear up some confusion.
Anyway, here are the links for those who'd like to learn more:
All 911files.info blog posts on radar data
84 Rades discussion forum
PDF - initial RADES/FDR comparitive study

Craig will now have some things to add about Farmer's possible motives and probably about the nature of this data - officially controlled and released - so it can have no bearing on the CIT/PentaCon investiigation. For those on that track, please disregard.

For others willing to look there it is. I do recommend caution. I'll pop in when I have something worth adding.




posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Craig will now have some things to add about Farmer's possible motives and probably about the nature of this data - officially controlled and released - so it can have no bearing on the CIT/PentaCon investiigation. For those on that track, please disregard.



Not "babysitting"? Nice condescending way to address the entire forum regarding a thread that YOU started. What you really mean is that you have nothing of value to add.

In consideration of the fact that you don't even have any comments on this information why on earth would you dare to tell people what I have to say about it and to disregard me?

Lame dude.

Real lame.

You keep losing credibility by the day and comments like this do nothing to help you gain it back.

Now that you have finally agreed to a recorded phone debate with CIT where you won't be able to pull off your ambiguous neutralization/doubt casting forum techniques I am quite certain that the true Adam Larson (if that is your real name) will be revealed.

Naturally it is foolish to accept the RADES data as valid without scrutiny, investigation, and corroboration but the information already exists to fatally contradict it so not much legwork on our end was necessary this time.

The primary things that prove the RADES data fraudulent right off the bat are......

1) The C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien's accounts.
(I'll go over a summary here but most of these details are covered in this thread that CL has dutifully ignored.)

2) The new charter boat captain witness who was on the Potomac River we have obtained on our research trip last week who establishes the true approach of the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon.

3) The footage and eyewitness reports of where the E4B actually flew. The E4B research specialist Pinnacle on the Pilots for Truth forum has the goods on this so I will cite the contradiction he mentions.


So the true flight path of all 3 of the primary planes in this saga prove the recently released RADES data fraudulent.

The C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien's account is very compelling since he was actually in the airspace.

He has been very explicit in regards to the details of where he flew and it's clear that the perpetrators had no problem throwing him under the bus by completely rewriting history with the release of this RADES data (as well as the NTSB data).

It was important for the perpetrators to make it seem like O'Brien...

A. Would have seen the impact
B. Could have "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off over the Pentagon at the last moment as we have heard ambiguously and even directly from some very suspect witnesses.

Although O'Brien never claimed he did either of these things an ambiguous picture was deliberately painted by the media implying both because it served as an effective cover for the flyover.

Well the RADES data takes all the ambiguity out of this deception and holds the government to their word and confirmed our suspicions that this was their intent since day one. The fact that we have documented all of O'Brien's statements and had direct contact with him helps prove this fatal contradiction.

Ultimately the fact that they released the RADES data is GOOD thing because they can no longer dance around their own claims.

So either O'Brien has been lying about where he flew since day one or the government and media have been using his account to manipulate people.

Since he has no motive to lie about his location the choice is clear.

Here is what O'Brien says about where he flew:


"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection"
source


This image illustrates what he is describing after having departed from Andrews:



So O'Brien has always maintained he took off from Andrews AFB headed north and west to an altitude of 3000 ft to the "south side of the Mall".

He described the same thing in the BBC/911 hit piece special but they chose to create an animation depicting something completely different from what he describes so it would make sense with the NTSB flight path:




The above image is completely irreconcilable with O'Brien's account.

Yet it turns out to be a lot more similar to what this RADES data would end up showing!




How did the BBC know this when the RADES data hadn't been released yet and O'Brien told them a different story?

The nature of their horrible hit piece alone is enough to show their complicit involvement in this operation.



We were always stumped with how O'Brien's account didn't make sense with the 2006 NTSB flight path of AA77 until we talked with our newest witness who was on the Potomac River who reveals that the NTSB flight path is false and that the plane came from the EAST of the river and looped around north timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon!




This witness account delivers a fatal blow to the NTSB flight path which never has the plane on the east side of the Potomac at all and of course completely contradicts the RADES data as well.


But his account jives with the C-130 pilot's account perfectly!

All of the sudden it all makes perfect sense.

Finally......the RADES data does not jive with reports of where the E4B flew either.

Pinnacle reports:


I sent the radar track image to one of the journalists who reported the E-4B
on air on 9/11. He says it looks too far north.
He remembers it being very large and closer to his position in Lafayette Park.
Also the CNN video of the return pass seems much closer than the first shot
both of which used the same camera and lens.
In order to make the pass by the Capital dome it may have made a tighter
turn taking it back closer to the White House and then gone left to fly due east over the Capital.
None of this appears in the radar data.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Do you realize just how many military aircraft are airborne at any given time and in any given location? They don't send that B-2 from Whiteman AFB just to do a flyby at the airshow you are at - they run a request to alter its flight plan and route it down through, and the pilots get to have a little fun and buzz the civies.

It wouldn't surprise me if a number of military aircraft were rerouted - either taking them by the disaster (and put into an orbit as they are placed in a waiting line for recovery (landing)) - or, you may have seen some helos orbiting the area feeding intel directly to the brass, or awaiting the opportunity to assist.

We keep our stuff moving. For example - Whiteman AFB is about twenty minutes from here driving on country roads. A10s occasionally wake me up in the morning as they practically clip the tops off of local trees. That's the home of the B-2s. There are 21.... maybe 22 if I am remembering right, B-2s stationed there. You'd be lucky to see more than five there at any given time. Of course - it's hard to tell, sometimes, since they are stored underground - and despite being a member of the armed forces and being an avionics technician.... I can't waltz in and have a look.

That, and the exact movement of them (and a lot of other military paraphenalia) is classified information - and reasonably so.

So, I would not be surprised to see military aircraft flocking to that area - particularly AWACS aircraft.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Right on man.

Let us know if you have any evidence as to what happened on 9/11 which was certainly not "any given day".

Speculation doesn't help us much even if you are involved with the military or ATC.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Craig, do you think Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien would agree with the R.A.D.E.S. data on his aircraft and the data of flight 77?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Sure don't.

That's the point.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Have you asked him? Wouldn't that help clear things up?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Right on man.

Let us know if you have any evidence as to what happened on 9/11 which was certainly not "any given day".

Speculation doesn't help us much even if you are involved with the military or ATC.



I have yet to see anything other than some artistic impressions and "he-said-she-said" to support your claims.

It was NOT an ordinary day..... but it was PRIOR to a civilian airliner or three slamming into various buildings.

Also, taking the personal account of the pilot of his flight path is a rather risky thing to base yourself off of. Figuring out where you're flying based off of visual landmarks is rather tricky - even when you're experienced.

To demonstrate this property - I recommend you find someone who has the game Ace Combat 4 or 6 (5 probably does it as well - but as I have not played it.... I cannot say for sure). Yes - I'm aware these are highly unrealistic when it comes to combat or a number of flight characteristics. That's not what we're after - we're after the spatial awareness. Take your plane however you choose - here, there, everywhere - be sure to go high and go low - pick a landmark and keep track of it even though you can no longer see it - fly back to it.... then - after your mission (this is the important part) watch the 'flight of the arrow' replay of your flight. It will give you a perfect recreation of your flightpath in 3d and relative to the terrain. It will allow you to see just how far you flew out of your way - how tight your turn was, etc. For even more fun - watch a good dogfight between you and another aircraft that you were working around into your sights for a while.

It's tough to see what you did "from the bird's eye" simply from your own memory - even for someone like myself who scores incredibly high in spatial awareness on every test dealing with it. Cities, especially, are misleading - and the more distance between you and the ground - the more difficult it becomes to determine where you were.

And, before you get the idea - no - there is no GPS onboard aircraft. It doesn't work through the varying altitudes. INS (inertial navigation system) is far more accurate, anyway. But, in such events, you're not taking down numbers off of your INS - you do that when you're lining yourself up for approach or making sure you're flying in the right direction over long distances.

The most accurate review of the flightpath of that aircraft could come from the tower receiving the transponder signal.

And I still have yet to see where you're going with all of this. Planes are flying around the towers - that proves the government was involved!

And firefighters responded to the emergency - so therefor they are in on it as well.

The military is just a bunch of robots and has absolutely no consideration for the civilians who may also be our families - or the family of one of our fellow service members - who is like a brother to us........ Of course - their presence in a disaster area means they are just trying to cover something up or make the lives of the civies harder.

Thanks - needed the morale boost, Hanoi Jane.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Yes.

We have an open dialog.

He has not replied since the release of the RADES data but the statements that are currently published already contradict the RADES data 100%.

He will be forced to retract all his previous claims or admit that the RADES and NTSB data are irreconcilable with his experience.

My guess is that he will now slip away into oblivion but we also have contact with his public relations associates who assure us that further dialog will continue.

But I'll only believe it when I see it.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I read your response and saw no evidence.


A routine departure for an enlisted C-130 pilot out of Andrews AFB traveling over DC is not equivalent to a video game.

Thanks anyway for your input but it seems as though you have nothing of legitimate value to offer to this conversation.

ETA: the c-130 pilot took off near 9:30.

That was well after both towers in NY had been hit.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 9-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
For the record:

CIT believes that the C-130 pilot is an unwilling dupe in this operation.

The one factor that leads me personally to believe he was involved is that he took off right at or near the 9:26 national ground stop and was (according to what he claims) allegedly unaware of the attacks in New York.


This seems rather difficult to believe.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
No, you didn't read my response, or didn't understand it - which is more likely - or you would have understood the relevance.

So, a C-130 taking off from Andrews at 9:26 (or near that time) is suspicious?

I guess it's a coincidence that my name is a modified version of Sean, which is a modified version of John - which was the name of one of the disciples of Jesus, and my astrology report says that my spirit is ancient - among one of the first - and I have been told I'm "wise beyond my years" on more than one occasion. Coincidence, or not?

9:26 is rather close to 9:30 - a nice, even number to schedule the launch of an aircraft, wouldn't you say?

As for evidence, what am I supposed to say "No, your source is wrong - he's lying!"? Where will that get me? I could simply debate the logic behind all of this, and not try to assassinate anyone's character. However, I guess you can still hide behind "You have no evidence to bring to the table" ...... well...... you don't have any either..... aside from testimony from invisible friends.

Not saying you're making things up - or your friend is, either. But I will say that there are plenty of people who stand to gain from the propigation of the 9/11 conspiracy rumors.... especially people who invest in various business ventures. So, testimony gets pretty shaky when you start introducing those considerations.

I could cite the official reports for evidence - but since your 'evidence' is counter to that - it won't do me any good, now will it? So what am I left with? To try and provide evidence against hearsay or to try and debate the logic behind it all and further explain how hearsay is inherently unreliable?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You said:



It was NOT an ordinary day..... but it was PRIOR to a civilian airliner or three slamming into various buildings.


You are wrong.

The impact of tower two was at 9:03.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Was it, or was it not a normal day prior to the aircraft being hijacked and flown into the WTC?

I made no other stipulations in that assertion.

Likewise - preparations for the launch of that plane began quite a while before the towers were hit. It was a scheduled flight.

You don't scramble cargo aircraft in 20 minutes. You scramble fighters in 5 or less - IF you have them to scramble....

I fail to see anything suspicious.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Was it, or was it not a normal day prior to the aircraft being hijacked and flown into the WTC?

I made no other stipulations in that assertion.

Likewise - preparations for the launch of that plane began quite a while before the towers were hit. It was a scheduled flight.

You don't scramble cargo aircraft in 20 minutes. You scramble fighters in 5 or less - IF you have them to scramble....

I fail to see anything suspicious.


You sure changed your tone.

I believe it is entirely possible that Col. Steve O'Brien is an innocent dupe.

I prefer to go with that easier to accept version of reality but no matter how you look at it he fatally contradicts the recently released NTSB and RADES data.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Craig, isn't area 56 with the White House inside, the Capitol and the Mall, at all times, severely if not totally forbidden, restricted airspace?

My question : did O'Brien fly in or into this restricted airspace when flying so near to the Mall?

EDIT:

""I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so.""

In both maps, your yellow(O'Brien) and red (AA77) map, and the RADES blue and yellow pinned map, O'Brien will see AA77 as coming from the 10 o'clock position and descending.
And will both have a view on the Mall, however in the RADES mapping, I can't exactly describe that as "" a beautiful view" of it, the Mall will be too far in the distance for his RADES position and that altitude.

Only, in the RADES map I don't see AA77 descending from 4 miles away there. It is much closer!

END EDIT.

[edit on 10/11/07 by LaBTop]

[edit on 10/11/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


No.

In the RADES data one it would be already descended and headed towards the Pentagon at tree top level when it is at "10:00."

And O'Brien wouldn't see the mall from that position at 3,000 feet either.

Whether or not that airspace is normally forbidden that's where he describes being.

I also think it's strange that he was able to take off at all that close to national ground stop.

He also says he was unaware of the attacks in NY until later.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Craig will now have some things to add about Farmer's possible motives and probably about the nature of this data - officially controlled and released - so it can have no bearing on the CIT/PentaCon investiigation. For those on that track, please disregard.



Not "babysitting"? Nice condescending way to address the entire forum regarding a thread that YOU started. What you really mean is that you have nothing of value to add.


Sorry if that wasn't the right word. Usher through, see through, micromanage, follow closely, respond to each post, etc. I don't have a case to make except the data's there and that point's made. Sorry to have confused you there.


In consideration of the fact that you don't even have any comments on this information why on earth would you dare to tell people what I have to say about it and to disregard me?

That part was condescending a little bit. Sorry. I will now carefully consider your first thoughts in this thread and skim the rest quick.



Lame dude.

Real lame.

You keep losing credibility by the day and comments like this do nothing to help you gain it back.

Now that you have finally agreed to a recorded phone debate with CIT where you won't be able to pull off your ambiguous neutralization/doubt casting forum techniques I am quite certain that the true Adam Larson (if that is your real name) will be revealed.

yadda yadda...


Naturally it is foolish to accept the RADES data as valid without scrutiny, investigation, and corroboration but the information already exists to fatally contradict it so not much legwork on our end was necessary this time.

The primary things that prove the RADES data fraudulent right off the bat are......

1) The C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien's accounts.
(I'll go over a summary here but most of these details are covered in this thread that CL has dutifully ignored.)

2) The new charter boat captain witness who was on the Potomac River we have obtained on our research trip last week who establishes the true approach of the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon.

3) The footage and eyewitness reports of where the E4B actually flew. The E4B research specialist Pinnacle on the Pilots for Truth forum has the goods on this so I will cite the contradiction he mentions.


So the true flight path of all 3 of the primary planes in this saga prove the recently released RADES data fraudulent.


That sound quite interesting. Again, I'm too hazy on both sides of this, and only just becoming aware there are sides. I dig into stuff deep but kinda slow. Just run on ahead, I'll catch up later. So we have a clear contradiction. Hmmm.


The C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien's account is very compelling since he was actually in the airspace.

He has been very explicit in regards to the details of where he flew and it's clear that the perpetrators had no problem throwing him under the bus by completely rewriting history with the release of this RADES data (as well as the NTSB data).


Yes, the Turcios pattern. Is this a similar deal? When did O'Brien talk to you?


It was important for the perpetrators to make it seem like O'Brien...

A. Would have seen the impact
B. Could have "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off over the Pentagon at the last moment as we have heard ambiguously and even directly from some very suspect witnesses.

Although O'Brien never claimed he did either of these things an ambiguous picture was deliberately painted by the media implying both because it served as an effective cover for the flyover.

Well the RADES data takes all the ambiguity out of this deception and holds the government to their word and confirmed our suspicions that this was their intent since day one. The fact that we have documented all of O'Brien's statements and had direct contact with him helps prove this fatal contradiction.


Damn, that is interesting. Nothing else to say until I've studied it, no need to reproduce the rest, already plenty of comment. Whatever I finally think, that's some good work there.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Hello all,
Just a quick question, (although it's probably been covered and I missed it) what are the thoughts about why AA77 made that big loop before it crashed? It makes no sense to me. I mean, there's the target fully visible yet he diverts into a big loop over the city. It's like he was stalling, waiting for something before doing the deed???



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


1. It wasn't AA77.

2. The loop it made was in a completely different place from where they reported with the NTSB and RADES data.

3. They had to make it loop the area so it could be blended with accounts of other planes in the area most notably the C-130 and E4B so if anyone saw it fly over the Pentagon and keep going they could say it was a different plane.


Your question is actually quite relevant because #3 is the entire reason that they had to fabricate the RADES and NTSB data to tell a different story from where the plane really flew and perhaps even why they had it fly north of the citgo despite the fact that it doesn't match up with the light poles.





[edit on 10-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join