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.

 

Previously unknown Pentagon witness proves NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Steve Chaconas saw the C-130 and the RADAR data backs that fact up.




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Steve Chaconas saw the C-130 and the RADAR data backs that fact up.


Only if you completely dismiss all of Chaconas' claims.

Chaconas was not only certain it was a "commercial airliner" but he was clearly quite detailed regarding the significant bank around the airport that he described over and over in the interview.

This is irreconcilable with the alleged C-130 flight path from the 84 RADES data.




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
In the meantime, Pilots for 9/11 Truth is disintegrating as a result of publicly refusing to deal with all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Maybe this is the time for you to jump ship, Craig....., sorry, wrong metaphor.... bail out.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


do you have anything besides hearsay in your book of tricks?

pilots for truth is not disintegrating, and they are dealing with a lot more evidence and analysis than the FBI, FAA, 911 commission, etc. ever did.

they just got four new pilots, last week. i just joined. YOU just joined, LOL! how is that 'disintegrating'?

and, where is the testimony of your alleged 1000+ witnesses? you've thrown that out many times, but NEVER backed it up(that i have seen, anyway, although i did ask for a link to it on your pilots for truth thread).


[edit on 19-3-2008 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by jthomas
 


do you have anything besides hearsay in your book of tricks?

pilots for truth is not disintegrating, and they are dealing with a lot more evidence and analysis than the FBI, FAA, 911 commission, etc. ever did.


Indeed it is. One only has to read the threads to here to know it.


they just got four new pilots, last week. i just joined. YOU just joined, LOL! how is that 'disintegrating'?


Numbers of members is irrelevant. The site's claims are all wrong.


and, where is the testimony of your alleged 1000+ witnesses?


I have asked you all for their statements repeatedly. Why won't Craig Ranke's "Investigation" team present their statements? Why does Rob Balsamo refuse to deal with it at all?

Unless, you all believe that the firemen, rescue crews, 700 FBI agents, Red Cross volunteers, civilians, Pentagon employees, and construction workers are just figments of someone's imagination.

The point is easy. If one claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, that person is obligated to deal with all the evidence. That none of those making that claim refuse to deal with evidence tells us all we need to know.

And that is why Pilots for 9/11 Truth is disintegrating just as all previous no-planers have.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I wonder why Caustic Logic has so little to say about this critical evidence proving a military deception on 9/11.

Hmmmmmm.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I wonder why you havent fixed the errors on your other thread with Rob Balsamo?

Been over a week now. No changes.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Craig, I noticed in your lovely paint photo that you have the words "Bank too far to see", do you have LOS calculations to back that up?

Steve Chaconas never stated that he was 100% positive about the type of aircraft it was. The first words out of his mouth were that he remembered nothing specific about the airplane (after all, it's been years). Surely you got his email address and contact info, why don't you have him clarify his statement?

Also, the RADES data has dozens of aircraft in the air (within Chaconas's sight) at the time Chaconas would have seen the C130 (or 'decoy'), yet he said the skies were quiet other than the plane he noticed. If he is 100% right and the RADES data is wrong, then you are claiming that those aircraft didn't exist.. that's a pretty bold assumption.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0ridin
Craig, I noticed in your lovely paint photo that you have the words "Bank too far to see", do you have LOS calculations to back that up?


The alleged C-130 bank is over North Springfield which is 9 miles away. You don't need calculations to prove that he could not see that far since this is impossible for the human eye.

But feel free to compute all the "LOC calculations" you want to prove me wrong big guy. I'd put money on the fact that you won't.

I was there and we have provided the POV for you on video tape. The planes are even difficult to see once they reach the airport which is only 2 miles up river with no landscape in the way.

Plus Chaconas was quite clear about where he saw the bank and how he even thought it flew over Crystal City.

This is 100% irreconcilable with the fraudulent RADES C-130 path placing the alleged bank 9 miles west.



Steve Chaconas never stated that he was 100% positive about the type of aircraft it was. The first words out of his mouth were that he remembered nothing specific about the airplane (after all, it's been years). Surely you got his email address and contact info, why don't you have him clarify his statement?


Excuse me? He was 100% clear that it...."Just looked like a normal commercial airliner that was, the kind that we see land and take off every 3, 3 and half minutes every day on the water."

He does not see C-130's taking off and landing at Reagan every day or at all. He clearly knows the difference between commercial jets and a military plane. He merely didn't recall anything specific about what type or color of commercial airliner it was but he was VERY clear in the fact that he could tell it was a commercial jet and NOT a military plane.

Why are you misrepresenting his claims to cast doubt on his account?



Also, the RADES data has dozens of aircraft in the air (within Chaconas's sight) at the time Chaconas would have seen the C130 (or 'decoy'), yet he said the skies were quiet other than the plane he noticed. If he is 100% right and the RADES data is wrong, then you are claiming that those aircraft didn't exist.. that's a pretty bold assumption.


What are you talking about?

Dozens???

This is nonsense.

Why are you lying about what the fraudulent RADES data shows?

Are you calling Steve a liar about this detail?

Steve was preoccupied with the strange bank around the airport and Arlington that the curious "commercial airliner" that oddly came from the east sky was making just before he thought it went down north of the airport timed perfectly with the smoke plume. He and his passengers instantly packed up and rushed to the scene.

No doubt he wouldn't remember any other planes approaching from the south for landing at that time but there are certainly not "dozens" shown flying in the area before the alleged impact time.

Regardless.........Steve's account proves the RADES data fraudulent either way since there is NOTHING that can explain what he saw and there is a lot more corroborating evidence supporting the east side claim.

To suggest the RADES data proves him wrong is circular logic.

Faulty logic and data solely controlled and provided for by the suspect alone does not prove multiple corroborating INDEPENDENT information sources contradicting the RADES data incorrect.

Why are you so quick to use government data to dismiss hard evidence that contradicts it?

Is your faith in the government that strong?

Unverifiable faith based claims do not cancel out multiple lines of corroborated hard evidence.

You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.




[edit on 26-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The alleged C-130 bank is over North Springfield which is 9 miles away. You don't need calculations to prove that he could not see that far since this is impossible for the human eye.

But feel free to compute all the "LOC calculations" you want to prove me wrong big guy. I'd put money on the fact that you won't.


What?! Are you saying the human eye cannot see something 9 miles away?

Burden of proof is on you, not me. This is why you need LOS (line of sight, not "LOC" - whatever that means) calculations. You need to prove that it's physically impossible to see the C130 from Steve Chaconas's position and the C130's position to refute the very reasonable argument (based on the radar data vs his testimony) that he saw the C130 loop and head towards the pentagon.


I was there and we have provided the POV for you on video tape. The planes are even difficult to see once they reach the airport which is only 2 miles up river with no landscape in the way.


Difficult to see only 2 miles away? So then, how could he tell the difference between aircraft if it was that hard to see even at that distance? Didn't think that one through did you.


What are you talking about?
Dozens???
This is nonsense.
Why are you lying about what the fraudulent RADES data shows?


Here

Green circles are additional aircraft. The one in red was right in the direction he was supposedly looking.




Are you calling Steve a liar about this detail?


Saying that someone has a fuzzy memory isn't calling them a liar, Craig. I honestly believe Steve was trying his best to remember what he saw, but it's been a good while.


No doubt he wouldn't remember any other planes approaching from the south for landing at that time but there are certainly not "dozens" shown flying in the area before the alleged impact time.


You are correct, there were not dozens around his location, only a handful. My original statement should have read "dozens of aircraft in the air (several were in Chaconas's field of view)". This still doesn't answer the question as to why he didn't mention the other aircraft right in front of him.


Why are you so quick to use government data to dismiss hard evidence that contradicts it?


Last time I checked, witness testimony 6+ years after a crime by itself isn't hard evidence.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0ridin

What?! Are you saying the human eye cannot see something 9 miles away?


Not when the topography levels are relatively equal. You can clearly see that the there is no visible elevation in topography so the human eye can not see far beyond the opposite side of the river at all.



Burden of proof is on you, not me. This is why you need LOS (line of sight, not "LOC" - whatever that means) calculations. You need to prove that it's physically impossible to see the C130 from Steve Chaconas's position and the C130's position to refute the very reasonable argument (based on the radar data vs his testimony) that he saw the C130 loop and head towards the pentagon.


I proved it perfectly with actual video tape of his POV and his first hand testimony on location! You can SEE in the video how the land is level and you can not see much of anything beyond the other side of the river. You can WATCH Chaconas clearly point out where he saw the plane bank (AND lost sight of it) over Arlington and Crystal City about a couple miles in front of him......NOT 9 miles west and south. He is extremely explicit about this but you have no problem ignoring what he says while suggesting something completely irreconcilable with his claims is what he really saw.

Why does evidence that contradicts the official story cause you to so blatantly and outright deny it?




Difficult to see only 2 miles away? So then, how could he tell the difference between aircraft if it was that hard to see even at that distance? Didn't think that one through did you.


Huh? He saw it come from the east further south of the airport and THEN bank north until he lost sight of it. Obviously he would have a better view of it as it approached from the east as opposed to when it was banking north on the west side of the airport and he eventually lost sight of it. The fact that he lost sight of it as it looped over Arlington and what he THOUGHT was Crystal City a mere 3 miles away has no bearing on the FACT that he initially had a good enough view to tell it was a commercial airliner. But it sure does demonstrate well how there is NO WAY he could have or did see a C-130 bank 9 miles west!

You are in essence dismissing ALL of his claims and suggesting he was absolutely wrong about everything he said.



Green circles are additional aircraft. The one in red was right in the direction he was supposedly looking.


Not even close to dozens.

Funny how you knew this but it didn't stop you from making that false claim anyway.





Saying that someone has a fuzzy memory isn't calling them a liar, Craig. I honestly believe Steve was trying his best to remember what he saw, but it's been a good while.


Ok I just wanted to clear that up. So basically you think his memory is sooooo fuzzy that every one of his claims are drastically incorrect. You think he was simply "fuzzy" about the notion that there were "dozens" of aircraft in the air even though he specifically says he distinctly remembered it was noticeably quiet. You think he was "fuzzy" about the notion that a propeller engine military cargo plane passed directly in front of him west and south and didn't bank at all until 9 miles inland and at least 2 minutes later when he VERY distinctly remembered it was a commercial airliner that instantly banked north around the airport a couple miles in front of him over Arlington and Crystal City with no landscape obscuring the view.

Got it.





You are correct, there were not dozens around his location, only a handful. My original statement should have read "dozens of aircraft in the air (several were in Chaconas's field of view)". This still doesn't answer the question as to why he didn't mention the other aircraft right in front of him.


You knew this and are only admitting that you lied about it because I called you out.

To suggest the RADES data proves him wrong is circular logic.

Faulty logic and data solely controlled and provided for by the suspect alone does not prove multiple corroborating INDEPENDENT information sources contradicting the RADES data incorrect.

Why are you so quick to use government data to dismiss hard evidence that contradicts it?

Is your faith in the government that strong?

Unverifiable faith based claims do not cancel out multiple lines of corroborated hard evidence.

You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.




Last time I checked, witness testimony 6+ years after a crime by itself isn't hard evidence.


Uh-huh.

I guess what you FAILED to check is our documentary presenting MULTIPLE lines of evidence corroborating the notion that the plane was east of the Pentagon/river fatally contradicting the RADES & NTSB data.

You know......things like statements from the white house spokesman, transportation secretary, air traffic controllers, the C-130 pilot, ABC News, and many other previously published witness accounts.

You've got a lot of debunking *cough*spin*cough* to go there buddy.

You better study up.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Dodge noted. Craig, why didn't he see the other aircraft right in front of him? The red circle.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by m0ridin
 


Dodge??

I addressed every one of your sentences while you ignore virtually everything I said yet I'm the one dodging?

Please.

Apparently you didn't watch the presentation as that blip in the proven fraudulent data is FULLY addressed and couldn't possibly explain what Steve saw and even if it is legitimate there is no reason he WOULD have seen it.

Here....watch our 12 minute short on Chaconas again but pay attention this time.

The blip you are referring to originates from Easton airport and therefore HAD to have been a small commuter plane as OPPOSED to a "commercial airliner" like Steve was certain that he saw. Big difference.

It did not come from DC skies or the northeast as Steve described it came from more southeast but was FURTHER north than the alleged C-130 flight path and therefore would have likely been too far to see since it was allegedly at landing altitude and instantly landed at the airport across the river as OPPOSED to banking around north on the west side of the airport at a higher altitude like Steve explicitly described.

That's why.

Of course since we know the data has been demonstrated fraudulent from MULTIPLE independent sources it could simply be a fake blip added to help account for the decoy jet.

Here is the full summary for you since you didn't get it the first time I posted it in this thread OR when you watched the presentation.

Although there are 2 radar returns that are seen crossing the river from east to west at that time neither are reconcilable with Steve's testimony.

Neither banked around the to the west side of the airport and neither could possibly have been commercial airliners.

The first could only supposed have been what was allegedly the C-130 but besides the fact that we already know that this is not really where the C-130 flew according to statements from the actual pilot himself .........Steve Chaconas did not see a military cargo plane and this flight path has no visible "bank" or loop around the airport at all.


The other return is shown even further north which means it would be less likely for Steve to have noticed but we know that this also can not be what Steve saw because it also did not "bank" or loop around the airport at all.


In fact it's over 2 miles away from him and since we know that even the large commercial airliners are hard to see at this point it's likely that a small commuter plane would be impossible to see.

His line of sight of this alleged craft was blocked by the landscape as well particularly since we know that it had to be at landing altitude.




AND.....this radar return originated at 9:12 out of Easton airport in Maryland which is too small for commercial air traffic.




It could have only been a small commuter plane or jet which is not what Steve saw.

Plus Steve specifically says the plane approached from the northeast or the skies over DC while the commuter jet out of Easton airport approached more from the southeast.



There is no reason to expect that he should have seen it at all even if it is legitimate.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Yes, you have proven Steve saw the C-130. You did a good job. The C-130 is the only plane he could see, and the C-130 was high like he described, and it was a military plane, he called a plane. And it came from the east; Steve said "east". And he was not use to seeing planes that direction because the military does not have a lot of traffic, like the approach corridor to the civilian field. Do you need help to understand the how planes land and takeoff? That is why the C-130 was high, so the approach planes could come in low. Your work supports the official story. Why do you make up stuff and say the FAA, the Military, and other people faked data? Where is your evidence for that slander? Why do you slander the military and the FAA and others. No evidence, just made up stuff to slander people.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Thanks for bumping this thread "beachnut".

It is a VERY important one.

Any person with the smallest amount of critical thinking skills will see that it is impossible for the plane that Chaconas describes to have flown in the alleged 84 RADES C-130 flight path.

The C-130 does NOT bank around the airport at all and clearly is not a "commercial airliner" as Steve claims.

Here is the approach and loop around the airport that Steve describes:


That is not even remotely reconcilable with the alleged C-130 path:


Steve saw the bank happen instantly around the airport yet the 84 RADES data doesn't have the C-130 banking for 9 miles.


Besides the fact that this is not what he described it would have been physically impossible for him to have seen it.

I know.....the facts are hard to accept when they contradict your faith in the OCT.

I'm sorry "beachnut" but we have exposed your messiah as a false prophet.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Any person with the smallest amount of critical thinking skills will see that it is impossible for the plane that Chaconas describes to have flown in the alleged 84 RADES C-130 flight path.

The C-130 does NOT bank around the airport at all and clearly is not a "commercial airliner" as Steve claims.

Steve saw a plane. He did not say commercial.
Steve said higher than what he was use to. Because the C-130 he saw was on a departure from east to west at or above 3000 feet. If you can prove he did not see the C-130, it is sad, because like the C-130, 77 was on RADAR data, confirmed; making your false paths more fiction.
Steve did not say the plane was 2 miles away in the air and west, where 77 was when the C-130 went over the river 77, was not over the river; only the C-130. 77 was over 6000 feet up! And not directly over the river, or ever crossing the river. How did you make up you paths? You have no evidence trail for your made up paths? Are these like your false NoC paths?
Steve said out of the east, not from over DC, he can't see that because the C-130 came from Andrews on a departure matching the RADAR data and the C-130 pilots testimony.
Bank, oh, the C-130 can't bank? I have shown you that bank angles are not your expertise, as you had to retract all your paths for NoC, and now you talk about bank?
Did the C-130 banked to see 77, you should go fly, you need some practical experience.
You have made up the path for the C-130 when it was exactly on track for the departure the C-130 had to fly, and confirmed by RADAR data. YET you say the RADAR data is fake, but offer zero evidence. Why do you slander the FAA, NTSB, and the military for faking data you ignore by making this insult up?

You have made up a path for a decoy aircraft. Fake, you made it up and try to get Steve to say the plane came from over DC, but he said from the east. Even you said from the east. End of the Decoy made up flight path. It is even worse than your non-paths for NoC that were impossible due to you own witnesses.

The fact is only one plane could have gone over Steve as seen by RADAR data at that moment he saw it. I have watched your video, you have added your own fantasy which does not even match Steve's story. You are sunk if he did not see the C-130, then he did not see anything close to the right time.

Fact is, you are using some failed news story path before the evidence was in on 9/11. Why are you so bad at interpreting witness statements? Glad to see you confirm Steve was solid on EAST and not the northeast you need for your made up path of some Decoy plane. That is on your video.

So Steve sees a plane go over the river high. Too bad you do not have physics and knowledge as your messiah.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Man those incomplete sentences are hard to read!

Do you talk like that? I would LOVE to hear it!

We should do a recorded debate sometime.






Originally posted by beachnut

Steve saw a plane. He did not say commercial.


Ummm....yes he does. That's exactly what he says:



Steve: I don't recall anything very specific about the airplane again it was far enough away to where we, you know to me it looked just like a commercial airliner. Didn't look like anything else. Just looked like a normal commercial airliner that's the kind we see land and take off every 3, 3 and half minutes out here on the water.
25:10


He's there every day. He knows what a commercial airliner looks like.






Steve did not say the plane was 2 miles away in the air and west,



Ummmm....yes he did. That's exactly what he says:


Aldo: How far west or southwest did it go that way before it turned around?

Steve: It made a pretty big loop over there...it went, from my guess it went over Crystal City. It went over Crystal City which is Arlington and then made a turn back.

Aldo: When it turned back this way to go to the Pentagon (points north), how far out would you say that it went this way (points southwest which is alleged C-130 direction)

Steve: It didn't go much this way (points southwest which is alleged C-130 direction) it went that way (points northwest). And I'd say it probably went a mile or two that way (northwest) and then made the turn back.
23:30


And he pointed it out on the map exactly as he described:



This is clearly nothing like what the alleged C-130 path does in the fraudulent 84 RADES data that goes southwest and doesn't start banking for 9 miles. Steve would not be able to see that at all.

You know this "beachnut".

The fact that you insist on playing dumb about it proves how deep your denial runs.




You have made up a path for a decoy aircraft. Fake, you made it up and try to get Steve to say the plane came from over DC, but he said from the east. Even you said from the east. End of the Decoy made up flight path. It is even worse than your non-paths for NoC that were impossible due to you own witnesses.


I made up nothing. Steve was very descriptive and you are simply choosing to ignore everything he claims.

Steve was not the least bit led and anyone who watches the interview will see this.

The commercial airliner making the loop he describes around the airport over Arlington and what he thought may have been Crystal City can NOT be explained by the C-130. The planes timing with the smoke plume proves he saw the decoy jet.

You have zero evidence that 77 was ever anywhere near the area and we have a mountain of evidence proving a military deception.



[edit on 22-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 

This is clearly nothing like what the alleged C-130 path does in the fraudulent 84 RADES data that goes southwest and doesn't start banking for 9 miles. Steve would not be able to see that at all.


Craig, what exactly would prevent him from seeing the C130 during the bank? You haven't shown us that LOS would be impossible, so i'll do your work for you and show that he could have seen it. One question first though: how tall is Chaconas? I don't need an exact figure.. ballpark estimate will work.


The C-130 does NOT bank around the airport at all and clearly is not a "commercial airliner" as Steve claims.


That's a flat-out lie. The C130 passes the airport to the south, continues their heading of 260degrees, banks right, and comes back north of the airport.

Take a look at Chaconas tracing the FP and tell me it's not an uncanny resemblance to the green FP in this photo:





[edit on 22-4-2008 by m0ridin]

[edit on 22-4-2008 by m0ridin]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0ridin

Take a look at Chaconas tracing the FP and tell me it's not an uncanny resemblance to the green FP in this photo:




Ummm not in the least.

Nice satellite view/radar image to take it out of perspective.

Chaconas is tracing a loop around the airport immediately after it crosses the river a mere 2 miles away over Arlington which is exactly what he specifically says and where his field of vision ends.

That is nowhere near the alleged C-130 bank.

How you think you can deceptively suggest otherwise even though we provide video taped proof showing his exact POV and even though he is extremely explicit regarding these details through the entire interview is beyond me.

Chaconas explains it all for the camera and even points to a map in order to perfectly describe how far he saw the plane loop while explaining how he still lost sight of the plane as it banked around the airport over Arlington only a couple miles away.

The alleged C-130 flight path does nothing of the sort and continues southwest for 9 miles before it allegedly starts banking.

This would be impossible for him to see and this is perfectly clear from the video tape.

You guys are bumbling around like keystone cops trying to explain away this critical account and you sure as heck aren't being very intellectually honest with yourselves.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Man those incomplete sentences are hard to read!

… the alleged C-130 path does in the fraudulent 84 RADES data that goes southwest and doesn't start banking for 9 miles.
You have zero evidence that 77 was ever anywhere near the area and we have a mountain of evidence proving a military deception.

When will you prove the military/FAA faked the RADAR data? Where is your Pulitzer Prize? What did the POLICE, FBI, and the New York Times say about this?

Steve said "a plane". Much of what you said was your coaching. Once you coach and coax your witnesses, you have ruined his testimony.

RADAR data declared faked by you with zero proof. False accusation and slander of the military, FAA, and NTSB. Why do you make this up?

There is hard evidence in the FDR, RADAR data, DNA, jet fuel, all the parts of 77, and witnesses!; even your witnesses support 77 hitting the Pentagon. You say it is fake, but your own witnesses confirm the data.

You have ZERO evidence of a military deception. Why do you slander the military?

Did you mean to say this?

Planes land into the winds and depart with the winds.
Planes land into the wind and the depart into the winds. Even Steve knows this.
Then you said,

The winds on 9/11 were coming from the north so planes were approaching from the south which would make it extremely unlikely that ATC would direct traffic out of Andrews right into that approach corridor.
How did you get this wrong?, The C-130 did use this departure. It is backed up with RADAR data. (oh, you said the military faked this but they did not)

The 3000 feet on the departure makes it safe for the C-130 to cross final approach. There was no commercial traffic anyway. Steve confirms the commercial traffic had stopped. Who told you it was unlikely; did you make that up so you could fake the C-130 path. This is basic pilot stuff, you need some help? Try not to mess up the flying stuff, you have all those p4t guys. Just as you find it hard to decode my writing and your own witness statements; you failed to get the departure correct.

Steve saw the C-130, because only military planes were in the air at the time! All other planes were grounded and rerouted away from NYC and DC. And you have prove no other planes were high over the river.

You threw out the RADAR data proving Steve did not see 77, by saying the military faked it. Calling the military liars! Did you tell them in person yet?

Steve said, "a plane", he said, "coming out of the east", not supporting a flight path prior over DC. You then coach him and tried to get him to support your made up decoy path? You coached him on the DC area, but he does not support it with his testimony.

Math comes in handy. The C-130 was visible to Steve as it passed over and the sound of 77 was audible. Wonder if he heard and saw what he wanted to see, a plane and jet noise. Then as the C-130 goes west it never gets lower than 6 degrees, where as 77 was 2 degrees and less above the horizon over Crystal City. Therefore Steve could not see a bank within 2 to 3 miles of the Pentagon, from 5 miles away of a plane barely over the Annex. But the C-130 was high enough and doing turns and banks to be seen.

Steve: He said it went over Crystal City and made a turn back (gee, the C-130 made a turn back, oops). The only plane that did that turn back, was the C-130. Your made up path is false (now you can say it again, you never had a path). Steve shows where the C-130 went, are you guys paying attention? He is pointing out the path the C-130 went. You find it hard to figure out what I say, and you are not figuring out Steve either.

Steve said, it was heading west (C-130 was heading west), then turned right (C-130 turned right) and came back down (the C-130 was at 3600 feet max and then came back down to 2100 feet). Oops, the C-130 is the only plane that did that and was visible at Crystal City. Seems 77 was too low, confirmed too low, by Paik, Morin, and Boger! This is cool, you interrogate and interpret witnesses like I write; poorly.

Your made up decoy path is not west where Steve said his "plane" went. He said east to west, and then it turned to the right. He talks about a turn over Crystal City, did you miss that? . Your decoy is turning all the time, never goes east to west, your decoy just keeps turning! Steve said east to west (like straight) then turn right after about 2 miles. The good part about 2 miles is your decoy path was over 4 miles away. Before you say he can not see the C-130, it is visible 6 degree above the horizon or higher the whole time.

The only plane that looped around the Pentagon area was the C-130, not 77. 77 never crossed the river. It made a pretty big loop over there" Steve said, and " it went over Crystal City and turned back". Oh? Steve said the plane turned right, flew over Crystal City and turned back! The C-130 crossed the river exactly where Steve saw a plane high, east to west, and it went west pretty far and turn right, and then it turned back over Crystal city, back is to the left, as did the C-130!

OMG, your decoy path uses 60 degree of bank on the turn to Crystal City, which was never seen by Steve. Steve never said 60 degrees of bank, something you never see, he would have said something, but he did not. He made a point of tell you things he had never seen before. Big bank is out! Do you want to redo your decoy path like your non-NoC paths, you never had? Or is this a real path you really have; proven with real "hard evidence"?

That turn back over Crystal City dooms your story. How did you coach him to say a commercial aircraft? Did he say it was not a C-130? Only a C-130 crossed the river high, exactly where he said it was. Only the C-130 was going east to west, not like your decoy's constant turn.

The more I watch Steve, the more he refutes your made up path and story. No giant bank, and your decoy plane does not turn back over Crystal City. With 77 at 100 feet above Paik, Morin, and hitting next to Boger; that makes your tale, and non-paths false. As Boger and others watched 77 hit the Pentagon, your tale was doomed 6 years ago.







 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join