C-130 video confirms 84th RADES Data

reply to post by ULTIMA1


you're named after a sword or a magic spell in a video game... so what?

All you can do to discredit this person is his screen name? Pathetic.



[edit on 16-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

Only for the ignorant who don't understand aerodynamics. I realize that fits you precisely and that's the audience to whom you aim your fraudulent crap.

Unfortunately for you, any credible MSM outlet or any Court in the land won't be so ignorant just as you discovered with the OC Weekly.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


In a month or two Ultima1 might figure out that I have him on Ignore. On second thought, it might be only a week since I just told him.

People clearly don't know their aircraft.

A C-130 flying at 300 kts IAS is getting very close to VMO of 320 kts. Turboprops aren't renowned for their speed (although that isn't to say they don't have good performance). That's not to say it isn't possible, just unlikely.

In the landing config, a C-130 can fly as slow as 80 kts. For reference, that's about as slow as a Cessna 150 on approach. The reason it can do that is because of its huge wing.

The C-130 can also be turned like crazy if the pilot so desired. It's one hell of an aircraft.

The point is that it is possible for it to pull off that seemingly tight turn.

The RADES flight path appears to be more akin to a general turn surveying the area.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


If you are trying to contend that the CIT Flight Path can merge with the video/photographic evidence then have at it. Otherwise, you are spewing hot air.

All of the information you should need is posted to include the ATC Transcripts.

reply to post by Reheat


CIT does not have a flight path.

But yes.....the true C-130 flight path as described by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien and independently corroborated 4 times over by the employees at ANC most certainly can fit with the photographic and video evidence that is inconclusive as to the exact location of the C-130 to the ground as it banked AWAY from the scene.

Seem like Reheat put me on ignore becasue he is afraid of anyone that debates him with facts and evidence and asks him hard questions.

He has just shown how immature the beleivers are and how much they are afraid of the truth.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

CIT does not have a flight path.

Oh, but you do until it's inconvenient for your fantasy.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But yes.....the true C-130 flight path as described by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien and independently corroborated 4 times over by the employees at ANC most certainly can fit with the photographic and video evidence that is inconclusive as to the exact location of the C-130 to the ground as it banked AWAY from the scene.

Your proof must be secret.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]

Wonder if Reheat will ever be adult enough to admit he is afraid of anyone who deabtes him and still cannot post and real evidence to support the official story?

We do not make up specific or exact flight paths for specific witnesses.

Yes that is our estimation of the GENERAL C-130 flight path and GENERAL contradictions with the RADES data but nowhere have we claimed that it is an exact flight path attributed to any specific witness.

I have no doubt that the actual flight path may vary significantly but the point of that image is to demonstrate a general approach from the northwest being irreconcilable with the RADES data.


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

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Translation = If we ever drew a flight path for any of our incredible claims for aircraft performance or to prove what we say, it would end our fantasy.


ETA: For everyone's benefit... Prior to my arrival on the scene CIT was drawing multiple flight paths to illustrate their claims. Those are in the archives of various Forums where they have posted. In fact, that's what drew my attention to this issue.

Most of the time, they only drew a partial flight path for small segments, not daring to show the full flight path which would have exposed their fantasy sooner. NONE of these flight paths have included numbers to support their plausibility. They were simply lines in a graphic which bore no semblance to reality and would not withstand simple scrutiny from an aerodynamic perspective.

Now, their policy is no flight path.... You get 3 guesses why, two guesses will be wrong!

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
All you can do to discredit this person is his screen name? Pathetic.

Wrong again. my name is from the old call sign for NORAD command.

Funny, since beleivers have to go after spelling becasue they have no evindece.

mirageofdeceit
People clearly don't know their aircraft.

A C-130 flying at 300 kts IAS is getting very close to VMO of 320 kts. Turboprops aren't renowned for their speed (although that isn't to say they don't have good performance). That's not to say it isn't possible, just unlikely.

In the landing config, a C-130 can fly as slow as 80 kts. For reference, that's about as slow as a Cessna 150 on approach. The reason it can do that is because of its huge wing.

The C-130 can also be turned like crazy if the pilot so desired. It's one hell of an aircraft.

The point is that it is possible for it to pull off that seemingly tight turn.

Reheat
One thing to check if you're going to analyze the data is exactly to what heading the C-130 turned to on his departure from the area. Also, his exact heading inbound to the Pentagon, then we could plot the two and calculate a pretty exact radius of turn.

One thing is already for sure, what we see on the video matches the RADES plots close enough. I'm going to actually plot the speed and that would only leave the EXACT bank angle he used for the turn. However, just in looking at the aircraft it's pretty close to a standard rate for ~300 KIAS.

In my opinion, this wraps it up. The RADES data is correct and this video verifies it.

Come on Reheat. Cut the BS. Your BLUFFING never ever works. You no more have the EXACT speed nor EXACT bank angle nor EXACT heading of the C-130 than you had the EXACT speed or EXACT bank angle or EXACT heading of the decoy aircraft before. You have NOTHING but OPINION Reheat.

Just another opinionated BLUFF with yet another STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

Most people with a lick of common sense just ignore your specious mathematical nonsense based on NOTHING. The decoy aircraft which was witnessed flying over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo was also witnessed by many flying over DC on the eastern side of the Potomac and then crossing the Potomac westward. That alone destroys your RADES data because it plots a faked Flight 77 loop southwest of the Pentagon which never happened.

If one item was faked on the RADES, then the other items are suspect also. The ordinary Americans working at Arlington Cemetery completed the destruction of your RADES data, which was illegally manufactured 4 years after 9-11. You are outed Reheat and your mathematical absurdity is destined for the garbage heap of failed disinformation.

The red stick pins are the faked RADES data representing the faked Flight 77 FDR flight path loop southwest of the Pentagon. C-130 RADES Data flight path 15 miles to the southwest apparently headed for Arkansas instead of Minnesota (shown with blue stick pins) The yellow line is the actual C-130 path west.

reply to post by SPreston


It's not surprising that you didn't post your proposed flight path linking the FANTASY with the video/photograph evidence.

Until you do that, all you can do is post "bloated hot air".

I realize that takes time, but you have weeks, months, years to do it. Get cracking now, everyone is waiting (with baited breath)....

Back to one of CIT's "credible" witnesses.

"They just hit the Pentagon!"

I turned. Rising up from the right center of the Pentagon’s mass was a gigantic spherical orange mass, the flames oddly bright and vivid in the clear direct sunlight. I stepped to the window, and instinctively put my hand to the glass. Verle and Ray were quickly on either side of me. A few seconds after the explosion, the glass rattled and a dull boom shook the room.

I yelled, "Jesus #ing Christ!" and the others yelled other things. The room seemed full of sound suddenly. Some people rushed in in response to the sound, then oddly left again.

Within seconds, the orange fireball had dissipated, replaced with an angry black plume, instantly bending to the southeast in the prevailing wind. I simply could not believe what I was looking at. To expect a bizarre, outrageous event like this, and then to see it happen, is literally the stuff of nightmares. The only similar experience I could compare it to was the Challenger explosion, when I actually believed that if I looked at the tape enough times and really concentrated, it wouldn’t blow up this time.

Why didn't Scott Cook witness the same aircraft as Roosevelt Roberts Jr.?

After all, he had his hand on the window before the shock wave reached his building.

But of course, YouTube is the ultimate authority on everything. Nobody ever fakes anything there.

Everyone knows that 9/11 was really caused by Martians who blew up the buildings with bombs concealed in 1948 Studebakers. They used their technology to make them appear to be airliners.

And of course the Pentagon people blew themselves up. It was all a conspiracy, to get Osamma blamed for the dental decay crisis in Canada, right?

"To expect a bizarre, outrageous event like this, and then to see it happen, is literally the stuff of nightmares."

See this is the mind control that was going on that day. everyone knew, heard and/or saw the second plane hit the WTC. So when a low flying plane came within proximity of the pentagon....they "expected" it to hit the building. As quoted above.

Even though everyone within the vicinity ducked for cover, and no one can actually say they saw the plane hit the building, this is what they surmized after what they had seen earlier, so they put two and two together, and voila, the plane must have hit the pentagon.

The cabby, even had time to get out of his car and remove the light pole that the 500 mph plane supposedly knocked down from his windshield before hearing the crash. That cab driver must be as fast as the Flash. Because if the plane did hit those poles, it would have smashed into the pentagon less than 1 second later.

Amazing psy-ops on the part of the US government I must say.

Sorry to go off topic here. But alot of witnesses expected to see certain things, and after many tests done, eye witness testimony is usually horrible. I've seen demonstrations done on unknown audiences, and the conflicting stories, and the amount of inconsistancies throughout the peoples stories was startling, especially when you think there are people on Death row, or people who have been killed, or serving life on the testimony of a single eyewitness.

It's scary stuff.

It can get 100x's worse when you have government psy-ops manipulating things, and pulling strings from behind the curtain.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Nola213]

Not sure if this is to far off the topic here, but according to video evidence that pesky E4B was also taking a looksy at the pentagon event at about the sametime...Why isnt its flight path shown here on the RADES data? Wouldnt the C130 guy happen to notice the E4 or be warned of its presence above the pentagon.

Originally posted by baffledon911
Not sure if this is to far off the topic here, but according to video evidence that pesky E4B was also taking a looksy at the pentagon event at about the sametime...

And what was an E-4B doing up that day?

reply to post by baffledon911


Yes, it is off topic. But since you mention it don't be shy. Without exercising your paranoid speculative fantasies tell us what it has to do with 9/11.

The E4B is an airplane.

Airplanes fly.

Now, what's so strange that one or more flew on 9/11?

How do you know it was over the Pentagon? How do you know what time it flew anywhere?

The E4B aircraft are very sensitive National Assets. Flying Schedules are not published just as they are not published for any USAF Combat asset.

Unless you have a need to know, for what reason they fly and when is NONE of YOUR business. Got it?