The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Boone 870

 

Since you discussed the C130 departure with CIT before, just wondering what you thought about this??
It seems to fit the witnesses and C130 pilot's account more than the RADES data does.

I can show you actual video footage of the C-130 which seems to match the rades 84 data. As you can see the plane turns just as the data from rades says. The witness scott cook definitly is mistaken as we can see from the actual footage of the video above. You can also watch here C130 penatgon and see also the c130 banking and heading away from the pentagon not over and past it like scott cook claims. If scotts claims were indeed correct you would easily be able to see the C-130 in the second video above.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by PplVSNWO


CampSpringsOne matches the C-130 flight path.



At the above image with these transcripts:aal77.com...

So what are your thoughts on the information provided in that link I posted? Did you read it?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
So what are your thoughts on the information provided in that link I posted? Did you read it?

I read it. It was BS when I first read it and it remains BS today.

There is nothing....I repeat...nothing...anamolous with the C-130 flight. It took off, either on a Morningstar One or Camp Springs One departure (both departures take the aircraft north and then west on vectors). It passed south of the mall, just like O'Brien said, just to the south of the Anacostia River, just like a million other aircraft on a departure from Andrews have done and like I have seen here in the DC area over the past 10 years, until it received instructions/request to "...follow that airliner". To listen to and believe the CIT boy is to surrender all semblance of intelligence to nonsensical gum-flapping (or finger pounding in this medium).

One of the BIGGEST problems in listening to the CIT Boys about this sort of "stuff"is that they have absolutely no way-no how ANY sort of aeronautical experience nor acumen whatsoever. So, when you DO listen to them about things aviation related, you might as well be listening to Chuckles the Clown opine on the results of hypothetical experiments on the existence of neutrino oscillations.

And don't give me that "Rob Balsamo" being a pilot crap. He might very well be, but he couldn't fly his way out of a wad of toilet paper if his life depended on it and he most *certainly* does not know squat all about the technical aspects of aerodynamics nor the flying of aerocraft. You just have to peruse his PffT web page for a minute or two to discern that.

Ok, I'm a bit confused. I did not catch the "eyewitness" bit mentioned. What was wrong with the eyewitnesses to the event? The ones that actually saw the plane striking the Pentagon. Here is a link to eyewitness comments:

www.geocities.com...

Based on interviews, TV reports, etc. Why are these people not correct, when they actually saw the event, while others who did NOT are the ones who are actually supposedly the ones that prove it didn't strike the Pentagon? I'm puzzled.

If someone could explain why these eyewitnesses are not credible, I'd love to hear it.

Brilliant!

When I first saw the famous officially released 'frames' I was almost shocked...'Do we (the people of course) really have to take this?!' Is what I thought. And I live in the freakin' Netherlands...

This mainly because I remembered a little piece of Michael Moore. According to Michael Moore there should be videos of the plane flying into the Pentagon from about 100 angles, this because that many cameras are at the scene were all this took place.

Also I thought of the story that the F.B.I. conviscated 'video material' from a hotel that had taped the whole impact.

And those 4 or 5 famous frames were all we got to watch?! For security reasons and more of that jibberish. A couple of frames?!?

Ever since I have to be convinced that there must be something more behind the Pentagon attack then what we know.

But...After reading and watching all information here...I cannot stop thinking; 'It's just people talking'...Like rumors and hearsay. No matter how reliable they might be, or no matter how serious they are...This isn't actually adding anything that will make it a more reliable story to the people that always laugh at me when I bring up these kind of 'new facts'.

I really like the way all of this is presented...But...When you think about it...It is 'just people telling their version of the story'. Even when they all say the same, independent of each other...Even if this is the actual truth.

What will this help? Will there be a new 'official' investigation? Will suddenly the world wake up and demand answers?

I guess there are as much or even more people telling and supporting 'the official story'. So what does this actually ad to the whole circus (besides a nice ATS post of course!)?

reply to post by fleabit


You've got it backwards, many of the witnesses the media reported on were not eye witnesses. This is why it is important to get independent confirmation. Did you really the miss the links that were posted several times that breaks it down?
z3.invisionfree.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There you go.

Originally posted by kcire
Brilliant!

When I first saw the famous officially released 'frames' I was almost shocked...'Do we (the people of course) really have to take this?!' Is what I thought. And I live in the freakin' Netherlands...

Ah, a Nederlander. Great country and tallest people in the world (maybe to keep your heads above water?) Excuse the O/T post, but could you answer a question? I was challenged the other day for stating that based on my travels, people in other countries have known for a long time that 9/11 was an inside job, while Americans are just waking up. What your opinion of how many people in the Netherlands know that something is very wrong with the official 9/11 story?

And have you seen this?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Funny how the video they are showing of WTC 7 doesnt show the initial collapse of the penthouse. In the full video the east penthouse collapses into the building, 7-8 second pause, then the rest of the building follows. FULL VIDEO OF WTC 7 COLLAPSE And to say that people from the Netherlands know more about 911 then us because they watched a few cut tapes is just plain rediculous. Wonder what he would of thought had he seen the whole video of WTC7. Also in reply to the witness poster here by PplVSNWO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS You do see they actual interviewed some of those people who claim they saw the plane hit and it specifically says: (just a few examples many more were contacted and interviewed)
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Then of course there are others , but CIT catagorizes them as liars, deduced accounts, or very dubious accounts. My question is after interviewing and contacting these witnesses , why was there testimony left out of their investigation? How can CIT call some accounts dubious and some people liars, yet when people agree with their theory it is fact. Those witnesses left out of their investigation should immediatly cause you concern about what kind of investigation they are running.

tide88

I can show you actual video footage of the C-130 which seems to match the rades 84 data. As you can see the plane turns just as the data from rades says. The witness scott cook definitly is mistaken as we can see from the actual footage of the video above. You can also watch here C130 penatgon and see also the c130 banking and heading away from the pentagon not over and past it like scott cook claims. If scotts claims were indeed correct you would easily be able to see the C-130 in the second video above.

Assuming the C-130, with Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien piloting, at a cruising speed of 374 mph flying east towards the Pentagon far behind the decoy aircraft and assuming a straight line flight path from the west for the C-130, the aircraft would have been 15.45 miles from the Pentagon at the time of the explosion and resulting high column of smoke which caught the attention of the video camera operator driving his car north on I-395.

374 / 60 = 6.23 mpm x 2.48 min = 15.45 miles distant before start of turn over Arlington Cemetary
Or assuming a speed of only 300 mph
300 / 60 = 5 mpm x 2.48 min = 12.4 miles distant before start of turn over Arlington Cemetary

Mystery plane appears from about 1:48 to 2:14
Video

Perhaps Scott Cook's testimony takes place later.

[edit on 8/13/08 by SPreston]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by PplVSNWO

So what are your thoughts on the information provided in that link I posted? Did you read it?

I have read the information before. Craig and I have discussed the C-130 in this thread.

CIT believes that Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien was only a "dupe" and nothing more, a pawn in the grand conspiracy. They also believe that the C-130 was placed over the Pentagon to create confusion and cover for any witnesses who may have seen the flyover plane(?).

There are some problems with this theory, however. For all of this to be true Gopher 06 would have had to have been completely controlled by someone other than the pilot. What I mean is, that someone other than the pilot would've had to work up the flight plan and scheduling.

O'Brien never mentions anything of the sort.

This whole debacle began by CIT not understanding what north and west means. O'Brien says that he departed from Andrews Air Force Base and flew north and west, CIT interpreted that as "Northwest".

If you look at the Camp Springs One standard departure procedure, it matches the C-130 departure almost exactly, including the left-hand turn out at 270° within 3 miles of the DME and the 3000' altitude within 8 miles from Andrews DME.

When you look at the RADES data, it seems like the C-130 is heading southwest. That is because the 270° heading is magnetic, not actual. Andrews Air Force Base has a 10° West magnetic variance which means that the true heading would be 260° even though the heading indicator in the C-130 is reading 270° (West).

O'Brien said West because that is what his heading indicator was reading.

One other problem with the CIT fantasy loop is that they have the C-130 turning left to follow flight 77. If 77 was crossing their nose from left to right, why would they turn left to follow it?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


You didn't watch the video. The penthouse collapses several seconds prior to the initiation of the global collapse.

(sorry for being off topic mods)

reply to post by SPreston


It was also filmed about 1 minute after the crash. Math is not my strong point so I am not going to even try to deduce the distances and times.



[edit on 13-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Ah, a Nederlander.I was challenged the other day for stating that based on my travels, people in other countries have known for a long time that 9/11 was an inside job, while Americans are just waking up. What your opinion of how many people in the Netherlands know that something is very wrong with the official 9/11 story?

And have you seen this?

I have seen it all! And then some...:worried:

I witnessed all of it from the second impact in the Twin Towers and it never let me go ever since. 9-11 actually still bothers me on almost a daily base.

In 2006 I even went to see Dr. David Ray Griffin when he was visiting the Netherlands to promote his book 'The New Pearl Harbor'. I got my father and my brother to go with me because I was afraid of all 'conspiracy nuts' I could encounter. And there were some nuts...

That is how crazy it made little old me...Here in the Netherlands. When I discus this subject with my good old father (a Bush-sympathiser) I am still stamped 'conspiracy nut!'. So was Dr. David Ray Griffin of course! According to my father people like him are just out there to sell a book and a DVD, 'who the hell are they anyway?!'. And I guess he has got a point.

At this moment, almost the 11th of september again 7 years later, I only have a few questions left. These questions are not answered according to me and I hope to a lot of others.

My questions:
- WTC Building 7, why and how did it colapse in such a demolitioned way?
- NORAD and all it's exercise nonsens, why didn't it react that day, who ordered this?
- Pentagon attack...Was there a passenger plane involved or not?
- Why is nobody shocked that the government denies knowing attacks like these could take place, while whole scenarios like this were discussed long before 9-11 happened?

But recently I watched a documentary about The Kennedy Assassination (this is just a very interesting YouTube clip) I watched this documentary because the Kennedy assassination has somehow also always intrigued me and I finally figured; 'Who the hell am I in all of this!? In the Kennedy assassination, in 9-11...I will never, ever know what happened, so why even bother?'.

This feeling is getting stronger each day...And I hope that when I am a old man I can finally say; 'You see Bush and Cheney and some others let it all happen, I have always told you so'. Because by then it is on the 8 O'Clock News.

Also...All these websites, books and DVD's...What is true and reliable? And what is not? Even a few days ago I bought a DVD called: 'Protocols of Zion' by Marc Levin...It was about the question; 'Did you hear that no jews died on 9/11?'. When I saw this DVD in a little DVD store I sometimes visit I just had to buy it. And actually every DVD on this subject I encounter I end up buying.

After watching this latest DVD I only wondered 'Is Marc Levin a jew?'...And back to Google and the likes it was. Will it ever stop?

To answer your question, GoldenFleece, I guess people in the USA are kept out of the loop more easy then 'objective' people that watch all of this from a (save) distance. Even before 9-11 I had my doubts about american citizens and their general intelligence...9-11 just acknowledged this.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by kcire]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by kcire]

reply to post by Boone 870


So you are rejecting the Morningside One departure based on the RADES data which was released after CIT's correspondence with O'Brien? Are you also rejecting the account given by O'Brien before the release of this data?

reply to post by tide88


The video you posted does seem to line up with the time frame from the RADES data and bank described by the ANC workers. So that would make Scott Cook mistaken or lying about the C-130 flying toward the basin/white house. It would also make the C130 "shadowing" AA77 claim even more ridiculous as I pointed out earlier. It puts the C130 banking away from the Pentagon about 3 minutes after impact. That shoots down Wheelhouse and Sucherman's accounts.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Yes.

No. I'm not rejecting anything that O'Brien said before the release of the RADES data. I've based my beliefs on several sources.

www.youtube.com...://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/42577/9/
www.cbc.ca...
s3.amazonaws.com...
news.minnesota.publicradio.org...
www.swirlspice.com...
www.minnesotanationalguard.org...
www.nydailynews.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
911digitalarchive.org...
911digitalarchive.org...
911digitalarchive.org...
911digitalarchive.org...
www.clothmonkey.com...
simonsays.com...
aal77.com...
airnav.com...

Among others.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by fleabit

 

You've got it backwards, many of the witnesses the media reported on were not eye witnesses. This is why it is important to get independent confirmation. Did you really the miss the links that were posted several times that breaks it down?
z3.invisionfree.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There you go.

That list doesn't tell us anything. It was first of all, written by a biased party. That makes the research (much like this thread), questionable.

But the "saw the plane hit" list in your first list has holes in it. 17 of 26 were never even reached! Great list there, half the folks on it are unconfirmed.

When we have the "CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT" comment. This means what? Again, excellent work.. we have no idea what the result was. I guess they said "Yea, I saw it fly into the Pentagon, I was standing there." And since that debunks this entire thing, they didn't bother posting the results.

That's not a final result, and you can't deduce anything from that list. I hope you don't consider a list where you have not talked to more than half the people on it "confirms" anything. How laughable, I'd not suggest you folks take up any serious investigation job in the future.

Let me put this another way, since people are purposely being dense. There were a LOT OF PEOPLE near the Pentagon when the explosion occured. There was a traffic jam nearby. There were people that saw the plane flying low to the ground. I think we can all agree that happened.

Are you seriously suggesting that from where that plane was flying, once people had sight of it, not ONE PERSON.. NO ONE.. saw where it went? No one REALLY saw it hit the Pentagon, and no one saw it fly away either! Wow.. that's one stealthy jumbo jet! Again.. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE.

Did that list contain everyone interviewed the day it happened? I seriously doubt it. I watched the news all day. I was home because we had a bit of a party the night before, and having drank a tad too many shots, I was feeling a bit woozy the next day. So I was at home, and I watched the news all day long. I saw the wreckage, I listened to the inteviews. I listented to the folks standing on the lawn, pointing and describing it flying into the Pentagon. I am absolutely staggered that you folks honestly believe that not ONE SINGLE PERSON saw where a 757 flew off to. It just what.. poofed off into thin air?

I guess I'm done with this thread, it's ridiculous. It's a common thing: people jump so on board to a fiction, that nothing, absolutely nothing will shake them off. Even in the face of cold, hard logic and common sense, they will deny it. Shoddy interviews from a handful of folks, dismissing the actual witnesses because they couldn't get a hold of them.. .. ignoring forensic evidence, personal effects, black box, wreckage on the lawn (people saying "what wreckage?".. when it's clearly visible in tons of available photos!), twisting quotes from media around to make it sound like they are saying what you want to hear, it's just unbelievable.

Make a real investigation, maybe I'll check this out again. Basing your entire premise on what direction some some few # of folks think they saw the plane go, is incredibly weak. Discouting witnesses because you can't get a hold of them? That's laughable.

Finally, just to hit it home: if I were standing near the Pentagon, and I hear a roar of a jet... I look and see it flying low to the ground.. I am going to watch it every second, to see what it does. Someone had to see where it ended up. It's impossible for it to just disappear. You will never make me believe that no one could see it as it closed on the Pentagon. There are NONE seeing it flying off. There are MANY who claim to have seen it hit the Pentagon. Just because you can't get a hold of those people, doesn't mean they didn't see it. Just beause you have a list, doesn't mean that's everyone that was there.

Use common sense for cripes sake, please, before accusing our own government of mass murder of innocents.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

No, all you have to prove is the plane was not on the official flight path to prove it didn't hit the Pentagon, flyover witnesses would just be icing on the cake.

I repeat: we don't care about an "official" flight path. We care about CIT's flight path. It is not "either-or". Please don't continue your evasion.

Unless you could draw us a diagram of how the plane could have flown on the North side of Citgo AND hit the light poles and made the damage to the Pentagon.

I repeat: we don't care about an "official" flight path. We care about CIT's flight path. It is not "either-or".

(If you could somehow prove that the plane was on the official flight path, then you still have the FDR putting the plane too high to have hit the Pentagon but that is topic for another thread.)

I repeat: we don't care about an "official" flight path. We care about CIT's flight path. It is not "either-or".

CIT's extreme distress is obvious. Your obvious resort to the fallacy of false alternatives is glaringly evident but it doesn't work. You still are obligated to provide evidence for your claim that a flyover actually took place. You and CIT have come no where near doing so.

Even Aldo is resisting any effort to provide eyewitness evidence that a plane actually emerged and was seen flying away from the Pentagon. The more all of CIT's crew tries every technique to evade that responsibility, the more painfully obvious it is that CIT doesn't have the evidence.

Let's review:

1. Confirmed by Aldo Marquis on P4T: CIT has NO eyewitnesses from the opposite side of the Pentagon in the geographic area that includes thousands of residents and many hundreds of drivers on freeways and bridges in a position to see a plane fly away from the Pentagon.

2. Confirmed by Aldo Marquis on P4T: CIT has NO flight path showing the route taken by the jet as it flew away from the Pentagon.

3. Confirmed: CIT's eyewitnesses were all on the approach side of the plane's path to the Pentagon, not from the Pentagon.

4. Confirmed: CIT and its supporters refuse to provide any eyewitnesses that saw the jet fly away from the Pentagon, of which there must necessarily be quite a few.

5. Confirmed: CIT and its supporters refuse to provide any flight path from the Pentagon after the explosion that must necessarily have existed had a flyover taken place AND that are consistent extensions with the flight paths TO the Pentagon that CIT has modeled in animation and claimed its eyewitnesses stated.

So the record is clear and we now need for you to provide the statements of the eyewitnesses and the flight path away from the Pentagon.

So, will you finally provide that necessary evidence, PplVSNWO?

P.S. The Fallacy of False Alternatives: "This fallacy consists in restricting too severely the number of proposed alternatives and in assuming that one of the suggested alternatives must be true."

- T. Edward Damer, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" ISBN: 0-534-60516-8