C-130 video confirms 84th RADES Data

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
Why does someone who works for the NSA unable to tell us why an E4B would be airborne when the USA is under attack at a time of confusion and no one knows for sure what is happening, at 10 AM?

I ask you a question. Please stop being so immature as to try to twist it back on me.

If your next post does not contain an reason for the E-4 being in DC it will show how immature and wrong you really are.

You work for the intelligence agency, the NSA, and can easily tell us why an E4B may be airborne on 9/11 during the attacks not known in origin. I am amazed why you are asking me to explain to the expert intelligence agency personnel what you already should know and tell us. Why are you holding back your NSA expertise?

However, the topic is more conducive to showing how CIT failed to make a rational conclusion! Do you agree CIT has failed and promotes false information as shown by this thread?

[edit on 19-8-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut
However, the topic is more conducive to showing how CIT failed to make a rational conclusion!

I ask you a question. Please stop being so immature as to ignore it.

Either answer the question or everyone will see how immature you really are.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
However, the topic is more conducive to showing how CIT failed to make a rational conclusion!

I ask you a question. Please stop being so immature as to ignore it.

Either answer the question or everyone will see how immature you really are.

I expect the NSA employee, you, to tell us why the E4B would be airborne on 9/11 during a surprise attack. What is wrong, the NSA is keeping information secret? Yet it is amazing how far off topic you roam as I actually explained why an E4B would be airborne on 9/11 but you missed it again.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic? RADES data is real and video shows the implications of CIT saying the RADES data was manufactured by the military or the FAA, or some unknown NWO guys, is a lie!


[edit on 19-8-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut
Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

I ask you a question. Please stop being so immature as to ignore it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

I ask you a question. Please stop being so immature as to ignore it.

I answered the question, you missed it covertly buried in the query to see if you would share your NSA expertise with us. But you refuse to tell us why an E4B was over DC on 9/11, and you offer no real ideas why a national asset would be airborne during a surpise attack. Oops, I did it again!

Come on and give us you NSA expert stuff! But gee, why are you off topic? Are you upset CIT has been proven wrong with collaborating hard evidence?

Originally posted by beachnut
I answered the question, you missed it covertly buried in the query to see if you would share your NSA expertise with us.

I ask for you to explain what the E-4 was doing flying around DC.

Please be adult enough to answer it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
I answered the question, you missed it covertly buried in the query to see if you would share your NSA expertise with us.

I ask for you to explain what the E-4 was doing flying around DC.

Please be adult enough to answer it.

You work for the NSA, prove it by telling us the answer to your own question. Prove you work for the NSA by telling us what the NSA knows about the E4B, or get back on topic and stop missing the reason an E4B may be airborne on 9/11 during a surprise attack. The NSA would know, they are the premiere intelligence agency in the world; am I right or wrong?

But back on topic what do you think about CIT fantasy being busted? On topic please, we know your NSA fantasy is false, you can't even scrap up a single plausible idea on the E4B or reply on topic; why?

Originally posted by beachnut
You work for the NSA, prove it by telling us the answer to your own question.

I ask for you to explain what the E-4 was doing flying around DC.

Please be adult enough to answer it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
You work for the NSA, prove it by telling us the answer to your own question.

I ask for you to explain what the E-4 was doing flying around DC.

Please be adult enough to answer it.

Yes, you are the adult, you work for the NSA and you can answer this question (you missed the reasons), but you can't.

It would be neat if you could answer one of the on topic questions you ignore, since you are the adult who works for the premiere intelligence agency of the world.

Originally posted by beachnut
It would be neat if you could answer one of the on topic questions you ignore, since you are the adult who works for the premiere intelligence agency of the world.

Why do you keep ignoring my question?

Well at least you keep proving my point about believers.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat

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?

Please tell us all the special stuff an NSA guy can tell us about the C-130 flight path shown on the RADES data! We are waiting for some NSA expertise to shine a light on why CIT's ideas are just a fantasy.

Reheat is a good name, it does not matter the meaning, and you as an NSA employee should know better than acting like a kid. Why are you posting tangential junk? Is it because you have no evidence to support CIT's ideas now proven again to be fantasy.
What is your point on the C-130, are you trying to make up some implied fantasy about the performance of a C-130 to aid the failing CIT efforts?

Not to interrupt you guys, but I did want to make a point to Beachnut.

The earliest video proof of the E4b over DC was at 944am, and if you base the crash time at 938am that puts that e4b there pretty darn close to when 77 crashed. Especially, when you consider it was in a full on banking curve(seeming to be circling DC) when that video was taken.

Would this time frame make it possible to be seen on the rades data?

I have always wondered if the E4b filmed the crash.

Originally posted by baffledon911
Not to interrupt you guys, but I did want to make a point to Beachnut.

The earliest video proof of the E4b over DC was at 944am, and if you base the crash time at 938am that puts that e4b there pretty darn close to when 77 crashed. Especially, when you consider it was in a full on banking curve(seeming to be circling DC) when that video was taken.

Would this time frame make it possible to be seen on the rades data?

I have always wondered if the E4b filmed the crash.

What happen on 9/11 earlier independent of flight 77 since 77 was not even on radar all the time? Gee, we were attacked by two jets, at the time we had no real clue how many more attacks were taking place! As I went to work at the Air Force base on 9/11 the security was extreme! Why would an E4B mean anything, why not my car approaching the air force base, why isn't that some smoking gun? Before the E4B is filmed we were clearly under attack, if I had E4Bs on the ground I would have launched them to be ready if the attack was state sponsored so we could be ready for what ever was coming next.

An E4B was airborne during a surprise attack on the USA from unknown source, which was known after 175 impacted the WTC! LAUNCH! Where would you want your assets when you see a second plane hit the WTC shortly after 9 am? The plane is high over DC and has nothing to do with CT on 9/11. I don't understand the problem, except for paranoid truth members who want to make up lies, fantasy, and false information about 9/11.

What possible CT does an E4B have? Let me explain why having an E4B in on a CT by the evil government would fail; E4B is manned by USAF personnel, they would not attack the USA! That is a fact and we all took oaths that go well beyond blind following of orders from above! So if the plane is an E4B you can bet they are on duty incase we were under attack from some foreign enemy who was about to escalate the situation! The E4B may have been launched or redirected to DC to get key personnel due to the disaster and unknown attack! At the attitude the E4B is at, he can do 550 knots and could have been over hundreds of miles away from DC when we knew we were under attack. I knew we were under attack at the second impact, who didn't?

If the failed truth movement ever had any evidence they would not be in the 7th year of fantasy ideas. If only coincidence and made up ideas were real, then the truth movement would be real.


On topic; The funny part of the truth movement, simple hard evidence proves them wrong. The RADES data was not faked, and CIT is making up their conclusions.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by baffledon911

The earliest video proof of the E4b over DC was at 944am, and if you base the crash time at 938am that puts that e4b there pretty darn close to when 77 crashed. Especially, when you consider it was in a full on banking curve(seeming to be circling DC) when that video was taken.

Would this time frame make it possible to be seen on the rades data?

No, because the timeframe is wrong. If I'm not mistaken, you are basing the time on a news report where the reporter says "about 10 minutes ago." Correct? There is more accurate information available if you are interested.

Go to this web site and click on the Marco Bollettino's RADES w/NEADS audio mix link.

It is a video depicting the flight paths of Flight 77, the C-130(Gopher 06), and the E-4B(M3-0310) based on the RADES recorded data. The E-4B's transponder was picked up 9:43:44am after departing from Andrews Air Force Base. That is five minutes after Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

More evidence to back this up can be found here(PDF). You will be looking at the control tower records from Andrews Air Force Base from September 11, 2001. Scroll down the page about 3/4 of the way and you will see a flight strip that says VENUS77, this is the mysterious E-4B that everyone is talking about.

The E-4 was seen in several places - it was seen near the WTC at the time of that attack, and at the Pentagon/Whitehouse shortly afterwards.

It was one of only extremely few aircraft flying after the ground stop and after other flights had been ordered to land.

The President was in AF1 down in Florida, the VP was in a bunker in DC (I think?), and they had good comms. They would be aware that only DC and the WTC was attacked at that time, adn that it was unlikely that a surprise military attack was launched on them due to the nature of the targets.

The E-4Bs were seen prior to the impact at the Pentagon, and I think it appears between the two crashes at the WTC. You don't just jump in a jet like that and start flying.

I suggest these aircraft were already airborne prior the first attack.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The E-4 was seen in several places - it was seen near the WTC at the time of that attack, and at the Pentagon/Whitehouse shortly afterwards.

Evidence?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
They would be aware that only DC and the WTC was attacked at that time, adn that it was unlikely that a surprise military attack was launched on them due to the nature of the targets.

Hindsight.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The E-4Bs were seen prior to the impact at the Pentagon, and I think it appears between the two crashes at the WTC.

Evidence?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I suggest these aircraft were already airborne prior the first attack.

I suggest you're full of false malarkey!

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The E-4 was seen in several places - it was seen near the WTC at the time of that attack, and at the Pentagon/Whitehouse shortly afterwards.

It was one of only extremely few aircraft flying after the ground stop and after other flights had been ordered to land.

The President was in AF1 down in Florida, the VP was in a bunker in DC (I think?), and they had good comms. They would be aware that only DC and the WTC was attacked at that time, adn that it was unlikely that a surprise military attack was launched on them due to the nature of the targets.

The E-4Bs were seen prior to the impact at the Pentagon, and I think it appears between the two crashes at the WTC. You don't just jump in a jet like that and start flying.

I suggest these aircraft were already airborne prior the first attack.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

E4B took off after 77 impacts the Pentagon. The WTC E4B is hearsay. No, the E4B seen over DC until after 77 impacts.

Yes you do just jump in and fly a jet like that; i fear they are on alert! I have sat alert and we were prepared to takeoff in minutes! It was our job.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Mirage, there are only 4 of these aircraft in existence. One of them took off from Wright Patterson Air Force Base after the Pentagon was hit. One of them took off from Andrews Air Force Base after the Pentagon was hit. One of them was hauling a general and his staff to Offutt Air Force Base.

That leaves only one left unaccounted for. Maybe just maybe, it could've been participating in Operation Northern Vigilance or sitting on the ground.

Or, it could've been flying around New York City at an altitude low enough for everyone to see, blowing the lid off of the entire conspiracy.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread381784/pg5#pid4837331]post

It is a video depicting the flight paths of Flight 77, the C-130(Gopher 06), and the E-4B(M3-0310) based on the RADES recorded data. The E-4B's transponder was picked up 9:43:44am after departing from Andrews Air Force Base. That is five minutes after Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Well something isnt right here then, because on the screen shot taken from the telemundo live feed(so says this author of the pdf) shows a time stamp of 943am on the screen with a caption referring to the 77 crash.

I personally agree with Beachnuts AF rant reply to me regarding the E4b, I just wondered if the E4 might of witnessed or been sent to witness the crash much like the C130 was sent.