posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:26 AM
I was hoping this might trigger some discussion during which I'd have an opportunity to ask Craig Ranke CIT about their C-130 findings. They read the
evidence and its correlation differently; O'Brien's words 'north and west' and 'by the south side of the mall' can only mean this flight path or
something very similar to it:
Compared to radar plots, fraudulent to CIT for defying the clear words of O'Brien, which show less north travel, a slight southward trend for the
west part, and crossing the river well south of the mall.
BTW: the map rotation of 15 degrees CCW is accidental in both of these cases, CIT says. It makes the C-130 outbound path look more SW than it really
is 255 degrees from north, whereas true west is 270.
This is where O'Brien's previous descriptions of the encounter with "Flight 77" comes back into play.
Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound. [...] 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. [...] and as he moved to our 11:00 position, he started his turn and by the time he got to our 12:00 position right out
the front of the aircraft, he was rolled up into about I would estimate 30-40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for a commercial airliner. [...]
The 30-45 degree bank I described was always in reference to the AA flight during its initial pass across our flight path when it turned from a
northerly heading to an eastbound heading.
This describes perfectly the C-130's interaction with "Flight 77" as shown on radar. But if this data is fraudulent, then the interaction might
have happened elsewhere. So if the C-130 was just over the mall or barely south of it as CIT has decided must be the case, then O'Brien's account of
seeing the airliner approaching from 10:00 left to 12:00 and beyond, curving west-north-east while descending, then this graphic must represent what
happened - the plane he saw looped around north of the Capital.
If I'm reading this wrong I welcome any corrections from Craig or anyone who's hip enough to their works they can show me where they explain what
they DO think O'Brien saw.
Craig stated once:
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!
So it was looping north and east of the C-130, which we've already decided could be no further south than shown above, 'timed perfectly' with the
explosion a few miles to the southeast?
So did O'Brien see a different plane?
Or was he further south after all?
[edit on 30-1-2008 by Caustic Logic]