Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

C-130 video confirms 84th RADES Data

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Hay SPreston,

I challenge you to use your graphics and math skills to draw a depiction of the C-130 flight path from the ANC approach and how it got to the position we observe in the video.

Now, hop to it and show everyone how this ANC observed flight path matches with the Tribby video.

Pssst - I'll check back in a week or two and see how you're doing.




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
We now have both video proof and photographic proof from two different sources that the 84th RADES data for the C-130 is correct.

CIT FAILS AGAIN



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


I have no clue and it's irrelevant anyway.

Well so you adimt you do not know much about things as you let on.

Do you you know the specail versions of the C-130H and what they can do? What their performance is?



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
My, my, my....

No one wants to refute the video and photographic proof that the 84th RADES data is correct and that CIT is "out to lunch".

I don't suppose most of their drones realize that this completely destroys at least half of the garbage CIT spews. The other half has already been destroyed, so it appears to me as if CIT is finished. And who would have thunk it after all of those stars.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
No one wants to refute the video and photographic proof that the 84th RADES data is correct.


So sad that you have to ignore others who debate you or ask you questions.

You just keep showing everyone who you really are.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Isn't this a nice photo of a C-130 flying through some smoke?






Want to guess where it is located?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


South Vietnam? Panamá? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Southwest of the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Ummmm....

The contradiction in the alleged C-130 flight path depicted by 84 RADES is in regards to where it flew BEFORE the explosion!

The Tribby video is clearly taken about 3 minutes AFTER the explosion which has nothing to do with the evidence proving a fatal contradiction yet further proves how it was not "shadowing" the attack jet as falsely reported by Keith Wheelhouse or in the area "3 to 5 seconds" later as falsely reported by Joel Sucherman as cover for the flyover.

See The 2nd Plane Cover Story for more details on this.

The contradiction is in regards to the fact that the C-130 approached from a completely different direction than shown in the 84 RADES data as reported by the pilot himself Lt Col Steve O'Brien and corroborated by all the ANC witnesses in our new presentationThe North Side Flyover.

The Tribby video has nothing to do with this.

NEXT!



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


This is so much BS that it smells even through my monitor. The C-130 CAN NOT get from your fantasy flight path, following what the ANC grave diggers said to the position in the Tribby video. If you continue to spin this you have to show a flight path, which you can't do.

You have distorted O'Brien's statements from day one.

I don't give a crap how you misinterpret Wheelhouse.

The Tribby video was not taken 3 minutes after the explosion and we have proof via time stamps on photographs, but it is not crucial anyway as there is NO WAY for the C-130 to get to the position shown in the Tribby video from you fantasy position.

YOU'RE FINISHED RANKE

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]





[Mod Edit - removed quote]

ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote Please Review this link

Quoting the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.


[edit on 16/8/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Your blanket denial of the facts does not refute them.

All of the ANC workers saw it approach from the northwest, not southwest.

This is EXACTLY where O'Brien describes himself as having come from...



"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound."

-Lt. Col Steve O'Brien


Nothing was "distorted". It is what he says.

Just like he says that he was so far away when he first saw the explosion that he could not even tell it came from the Pentagon!



"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC."
-Lt. Col Steve O'Brien


Do you really think if the RADES data were true he wouldn't be able to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon??



Get real with yourself for once reheat.

You can't provide a single example of anything being "distorted" by us yet you have no problem spouting off this lie anyway.

Support your claims reheat.

Denial is nothing.

Evidence is everything.

We provide evidence and you provide none.

The Tribby video has nothing to do with the approach since it was taken minutes AFTER the explosion.

Besides the time on the Tribby video itself when it shows the C-130 is 1:48!

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is almost 2 minutes isn't it? And Tribby claims he started his camera about 1 minute after. That would make it almost 3 minutes from the event would it not? This is exactly what the ANC witnesses report as well.

Wheelhouse's confirmed false claim of it "shadowing" the attack jet and flying away IMMEDIATELY after the explosion was not distorted by us either and we provide the evidence proving it.

He is quite clear in this false claim as he told us on camera in person when we interviewed him at his house.




Of course this ALSO is irreconcilable with the RADES data.

You have been debunked.

Your desperation is showing.



[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Isn't this a nice photo of a C-130 flying through some smoke?


Still waiting for you to answer the question about what model it is.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Craig, on January 14 of this year, Aldo started this thread over at LCF.

In that thread, CIT uses Scott Cook's account to prove that the RADES data was fraudulent:

Scott Cook: "Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail."


After I pointed out that "right over the tidal basin" did not mean what you wanted it to, you stuck to your guns and continued to use his testimony as proof of a "military deception."

Shortly thereafter, Caustic Logic posted a link to the Tribby video proving that the C-130 never crossed the Potomac and, therefore, proved that I was right about your misinterpretation of his account. After watching the video, you said, "there is no possible way you can tell that it is a C-130 were even if it is a plane", and labeled it as a "UFO."

Now that the close up of Tribby's video proves that it was actually a C-130, are you still considering Scott Cook a reliable witness?

I sure hope so.

Scott Cook:

Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office

Couple the above quote with the following image:


Scott Cook's account matches the RADES data, do you agree?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your blanket denial of the facts does not refute them.


What facts? I don't refute the ANC people, but the Tribby video and the Looney Photographs do.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
img98.imageshack.us...


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
All of the ANC workers saw it approach from the northwest, not southwest.


And they were WRONG. If you continue to deny this in the fact of conclusive proof, I'll have to resort to one of your favorite tactics.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is EXACTLY where O'Brien describes himself as having come from...



"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound." -Lt. Col Steve O'Brien

Nothing was "distorted". It is what he says.[/qoute]

Your tactic is not cute or endearing. This is exactly why you're a FRAUD. It's the position you place the aircraft nearly on top of the Mall that is the distortion. If he was where you place the aircraft he could not have seen the Mall as he could have been trying to looking through the bottom of the aircraft. He can't see directly below him, particularly on the right side of the aircraft. It is quite obvious that he was further south of the Mall as the RADES data depicted, but indeed still south of the Mall..


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like he says that he was so far away when he first saw the explosion that he could not even tell it came from the Pentagon!



"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC."
-Lt. Col Steve O'Brien


Do you really think if the RADES data were true he wouldn't be able to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon??


A perfect example of your distortion to try and mislead to prove your fantasy. He DID NOT say he was too far away at all. You said that, he didn't. 1. He was looking down on a low altitude AA77 AND 2. The sun would have been in his eyes. That would be 2 obvious reason he had difficulty keeping the aircraft in sight, but HE didn't say why, you did.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Get real with yourself for once reheat.


Bwhahahahaha. Coming from you that is hilarious!


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You can't provide a single example of anything being "distorted" yet you have no problem spouting off this lie anyway.


I just did. There's more to come.....


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Support your claims reheat.


I have, plain as day.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We provide evidence and you provide none.


Bwhahahaha. I think you got the time of day right, once.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The Tribby video has nothing to do with the approach since it was taken minutes AFTER the explosion.


It has everything to do with the approach simply because an aircraft is not a Chess piece. You can't just move it around as if on a game board. You can fool ignorant souls with this, but not rational knowledgeable people that have a clue about aerodynamics.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your desperation is showing.


Is it now? Pssssst - You're going to feel really, really bad to have wasted all of the time and money you've spent on this, not to mention the embarrassment of having wasted 2 years of your life.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your blanket denial of the facts does not refute them.

I don't refute the ANC people, but the Tribby video and the Looney Photographs do.



No they don't.

They could not possibly do this because....


1. They are not conclusive as to EXACT location in relation to the ground.

2. They were taken minutes AFTER the explosion and therefore have nothing to do with the approach of the craft PRIOR to the explosion which is where evidence proves a fatal contradiction with the RADES data.




Is it now? Pssssst - You're going to feel really, really bad to have wasted all of the time and money you've spent on this, not to mention the embarrassment of having wasted 2 years of your life.


The way you are completely oblivious to the hypocritical irony of this statement!


You hang on to our every word and dedicate yourself on a daily basis to responding to us with spin and denial!

Think about that!

You have devoted countless hours on a daily basis desperately attempting to respond to information gathered from people you think are delusional!

And of course denying what all the real witnesses (all ANC workers, all CITGO station witnesses, heliport ATC Sean Boger etc) who were really there are telling you regarding the flight paths of both planes in question.

You have to maintain that they are delusional just as you do about CIT while dedicating your daily existence to attempting to counter us.

We keep coming up with MORE evidence reheat and we're not done yet.

pssst....CIT is not going anywhere and attention to this info is only growing.

How many years are YOU going to devote to people you think are nutcases?






[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Do not confuse Reheat and the other beleivers with facts and evidence, they live in a fantasy world and do not know how to face the reallty that something may have happened other then what they were told.

Besides who would believe a person that uses the British term for afterburner as a name.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Besides who would believe a person that uses the British term for afterburner as a name.



Did you ever think Roger that.....



Maybe just maybe....he's British?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Maybe just maybe....he's British?




DAAAAAHH no S**t. But still who would believe someone what that as a name.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your blanket denial of the facts does not refute them.

I don't refute the ANC people, but the Tribby video and the Looney Photographs do.


No they don't.

They could not possibly do this because....

1. They are not conclusive as to EXACT location in relation to the ground.

2. They were taken minutes AFTER the explosion and therefore have nothing to do with the approach of the craft PRIOR to the explosion which is where evidence proves a fatal contradiction with the RADES data.


They are not exact to the inch, but they are certainly conclusive enough to show that the C-130 came from the SW, just as the RADES Data showed.

I'm certainly not going to continue to get into a pissing match about what the video and the photograph show. But, if you continue to deny they PROVE your crap wrong, I'm going to have to resort to calling you a LIAR.



Is it now? Pssssst - You're going to feel really, really bad to have wasted all of the time and money you've spent on this, not to mention the embarrassment of having wasted 2 years of your life.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Blah, Blah, Blah.....


Yes, I know you'd rather I'd go away, but I will stick around long enough to ensure that your crap affects as few people as possible until you're shamed out of existence.

Got a Court Date yet?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Got a Court Date yet?


How about if i take you to court and challenge you to show any actual evidence to support the official story?

Becasue i can show evidence that shows reasonable doubt against the official story.



[edit on 16-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
.

I'm certainly not going to continue to get into a pissing match about what the video and the photograph show. But, if you continue to deny they PROVE your crap wrong, I'm going to have to resort to calling you a LIAR.


That is against the rules and you will be reported.

It is impossible for images or footage of the plane flying AWAY from the event to disprove where independent corroborated witness say the plane flew on the approach TO the event.

Why do you insist on suggesting all the witnesses are delusional?

Do you realize how silly that makes you look?

The ANC workers were there.

You weren't.

The CITGO witnesses were there.

You weren't.

Even though they corroborate each other perfectly you have to insist they are all delusional in the exact same way in order to defend what you were told by the government.

Step back and think of how illogical that is.



psssst.......you only give more attention to what we have done and demonstrate the levels of spin and denial that our detractors have to resort to as they anonymously obsess on us daily.


Stick around as long as you want!

Dedicate your life.

It really does help validate the extreme importance of this info.






[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join