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.

 

C-130 video & photos disprove 84th RADES data while corroborating witnesses & pilot

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Okay, this bickering is going too far.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
PM me your real name, I'll reply back with my phone number, call me and and talk to me like any normal honest human would, and I'll be happy to provide you with contact information.


It's in Reheat's ball court now. Reheat, CR gave you the opportunity to PM him your name, and he will give you his phone number. If you're afraid he's going to steal your name, the admins of ATS can view his location and find out where he's at, so there's no security issue if you both agreed. That way, Reheat can contact the man and figure out who the real liar is. Just ENOUGH of this pointless bickering already.




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


They don't need me to contact him.

That is just a ruse.

reheat already said that he WON'T try contacting him.

They would have tried contacting him long ago if they really wanted the truth.

But we DID contact him and he already confirmed what we he had said in the past. That he first saw the attack jet after just passing the Mall headed westbound.

Then he fell mysteriously silent and the government pulled a counter chess move by releasing the RADES data.

I highly doubt he'll ever say another word about his flight path to anyone unless he is subpoenaed.

But he has been plenty clear enough in the past just like so many others were about the DC flight path.

The NTSB data threw a lot of people under the bus.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Here are just SOME of the officials who had indicated a flight path over DC and were ultimately thrown under the bus by the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data:


1. Transportation secretary Norman Mineta and Deputy Director of the FAA Monte Belger:


quote source



2. Dulles air traffic controller Daniel O'Brien:


O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House.

"I've been down to the Pentagon and stood on the hillside and imagined where, according to what I saw on the radar, that flight would have come from," she says. "And I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it."
abcnews.go.com... or
abcnews.go.com...




3. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer


Fleischer admitted that there was another flight path that took the plane towards the white house that was not southwest of it as the NTSB/RADES data would ultimately attempt to depict.


Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.

[...]

At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."
www.cbsnews.com...



That is just a sample of the extensive amount of DC flight path evidence confirming the C-130 pilot's claim of first seeing the attack jet after just having passed the Mall headed westbound.





[edit on 3-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Okay, this bickering is going too far.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
PM me your real name, I'll reply back with my phone number, call me and and talk to me like any normal honest human would, and I'll be happy to provide you with contact information.


It's in Reheat's ball court now. Reheat, CR gave you the opportunity to PM him your name, and he will give you his phone number. If you're afraid he's going to steal your name, the admins of ATS can view his location and find out where he's at, so there's no security issue if you both agreed. That way, Reheat can contact the man and figure out who the real liar is.


I don't think you get it. The ball has always been in CIT's court and remains so. Do catch up. CIT is finished:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here are just SOME of the officials who had indicated a flight path over DC and were ultimately thrown under the bus by the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data:


It's over, Bubba Craig. Find a new hobby. CIT is finished:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


1) Monte is guessing where the plane is.

2) The words that have been underlined were not spoken by ATC O'Brien. In fact, if you read the article she clearly says that the plane turned away between 3 and 4 miles from the White House. She never at any point says that the plane overshot the White House.


The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."

Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building.

"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.

From the same article you linked but obviously didn't read - abcnews.go.com...

Her account is supported by the RADES data.

3) If there indeed was a conspiracy, are you seriously suggesting that the White House Press Secretary wasn't in on it when just about every Government agency, man, woman and dog was?

And from the above quoted text it would appear that the White House was getting their information from ATC O'Brien's supervisor.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Okay, this bickering is going too far.

It's in Reheat's ball court now. Reheat, CR gave you the opportunity to PM him your name, and he will give you his phone number.


Huh? You are obviously very confused, probably intentionally. Either that or you don't read very well. I never asked for nor do I desire anyone's phone number. If I wanted one, I'd find it myself.

The lunacy here and the only bickering is that CIT (Ranke) refuses to acknowledge that the summary transcripts already show CONCLUSIVELY the location of the C-130 with reference to AA77. I don't need and neither should anyone else need O'Brien's word for that. It obvious and it's conclusive. The video and the photograph also prove the final portion of the C-130 path in the area of the Pentagon. It doesn't get much better in the way of proof.

Not only is the RADES data confirmed as correct, but there is NO WAY the communication between Reagan National TRACON and the C-130 will fit with either the fantasy C-130 flight path or the fantasy "decoy aircraft" that CIT is so proud of.

CIT is simply interested in prolonging the fantasy regardless of what is true or false. It doesn't matter how many times nor how conclusively the crap is proven wrong it's continued as if nothing happened. Just the same crap posted over and over again.

There is no longer any reason to debate and it was always silly from the very beginning. This is not a subject for debate it is a subject for Court or Congressional action if that were ever warranted.

O'Brien will never be subpoenaed simply because there is no need for it. No one needs to speak with him as the evidence is already in.

CIT is finished and they have been for quite some time. It exists simply on life support, life support perpetuated by FRAUDS.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator


1) Monte is guessing where the plane is


Ok so he just made it up completely out of the blue because you say so.

Have you tried calling Monte to ask him?

Didn't think so.

We did.

That's the difference between us.



2) The words that have been underlined were not spoken by ATC O'Brien. In fact, if you read the article she clearly says that the plane turned away between 3 and 4 miles from the White House. She never at any point says that the plane overshot the White House.



She IS quoted as indicating that they "They came over that Pentagon" and 2 different news outlets interpreted her account as over shooting the white house.

ABC and National Geographic.






3) If there indeed was a conspiracy, are you seriously suggesting that the White House Press Secretary wasn't in on it when just about every Government agency, man, woman and dog was?


I do not claim to know what level that ANYONE "in on it".

Whether or not Fleischer was "in on it" he was clearly thrown under the bus.

There is A LOT more evidence for the DC flight path blob.


This is why it was a commonly held belief in DC, and STILL is to this day.

Most people didn't pay attention to the NTSB data since its release got literally zero media:
Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout

Funny how that doesn't bother you one bit.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


More huffing and puffing with authority but no independent verifiable evidence.

We used LANDMARKS in the images/video to indicate the placement of the c-130.

You did no such thing and merely stated your claim with authority.

We provide independent corroborated evidence and you simply regurgitate what you are told by the government based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith.

That is the primary difference between us.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

That is the primary difference between us.


Reheat provided multi-sourced, independent evidence. You can't even provide any flyover eyewitnesses when asked to.

That is the difference and the reason why CIT is finished.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


We used LANDMARKS in the images/video to indicate the placement of the c-130.

You did no such thing and merely stated your claim with authority.


So, it's about me is it? Don't pretend you only read the first post in that thread. This one completely destroys Alpo's musings and others in the thread sew it up quite nicely.

forums.randi.org...

Post # 69

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Let’s put this thing to bed right now.

The Navy has a presence at Andrews AFB. There is a reserve EA-6B squadron there, VAQ-209. I contacted a former commanding officer of that unit whose name I was passed by a navy buddy of mine. I wanted to ask a few questions about departure procedures, and his answers jibed with my own recollection of flying out of there back in the early 90’s. Things like departure standards don’t change much over the years.

And no, I won’t be passing his name out. He doesn’t need anyone, especially the CIT Cover Girls or Captain Bob bothering him with their a) leading questions, b) their convoluted cherry-picking of comments c) their ignoring of important information or d) their intrusive and obnoxious manner.

I won’t be posting the departure plates here – Boone870 posted the Camp Springs plate farther back in this topic and you can view them
here.

The Morningside 1 departure is used for aircraft with filed flight plans taking them to northern destinations. Camp Springs 1 is used for western-oriented destinations. If you are headed south, your destination determines your departure instructions. For example, if you are headed to Langley AFB, 125 miles to the SSE of ADW, Morningside 1 is used with vectors to the east and then SSE. Other southern destinations use the Camp Springs departure.

Departure procedures out of Andrews are strictly controlled with aircraft adhering to ATC radar vectors for obvious reasons – P-56, DCA, IAD and the plethora of other aircraft that are transiting this region and the other restricted areas/aerodromes nearby (Quantico, Belvoir, etc). I’ve mentioned before that I have a fair amount of experience flying in and out of a high-density area (Grumman’s production facility out on Long Island at Calverton in the early 90’s) and have related that you are under ATC control for a long time so they know where you are, how fast you are going, exactly where you are going, all for density/flight separation/airspace control reasons.

Gopher 06, the call sign for the Minnesota ANG C-130 flown by Lt Col O’Brien and his crew, was headed back to their home base in Minnesota, located to the NW of Andrews, approximately 1000 miles away.

With that western destination, Gopher 06 would have been cleared on a Camp Springs 1 departure. Adhering to the departure instructions located on the departure plate as well as verbally when the DD-175 military flight plan was filed, they would have expected the following clearance and departure instructions:


Maintain runway heading, turn left to a heading of 270 within 3 miles of departure, climb and maintain 3000 feet within 8 miles of ADW VORTAC, expect radar vectors enroute.


Plotting out a Camp Springs departure on Google Earth shows this:



Taking the aircraft, as has been said time and time again, south of the Anacostia River to pass over the DCA approach corridor with plenty of vertical separation with aircraft heading into Reagan National from the south.

What O’Brien said is perfectly consistent with these published departure procedures and rules. It is the interpretation of his comments by the aeronautically challenged CIT Cover Girls and Captain Bob that is creating their confused positions.

The Camp Springs 1 departure takes the aircraft a little over 2.5 miles south of the mall. Anyone who has flown at all knows that you can get a great view of ANYTHING from 2.5 miles away.

In addition, another comment that has to be repeated ad nauseum and again is that no controller would *ever* vector *any* aircraft so close to P-56 such as what CIT claims happened. Simply doesn’t happen.

There's a reason why people don't talk to you a second or third time and it ain't the Dark Side - its your inability to be honest with them

[edit on 3-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You did no such thing and merely stated your claim with authority.

We provide independent corroborated evidence and you simply regurgitate what you are told by the government based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith.

That is the primary difference between us.


You have to know he is just like most of the believers on here, they are afraid to look for real evidence and live in a media fed fantasy world and only believe what the media tells them.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


We know because of the wind direction on 9/11 that they had incoming air traffic to Reagan coming from the south.

It is illogical to suggest they would send the C-130 right into that traffic.



You have provided no evidence and nothing you have said changes the fact that O'Brien said he had just passed the Mall headed westbound when he first saw the attack jet.

He would not use "south side of The Mall" as a point of reference for his location if he was on the south side of Reagan.



[edit on 3-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Thank God somebody is posting facts here.

How long must we put up with this nonsense before Craig Ranke CIT and his buddy Aldo get mad and leave?

Craig can't sell his lies on other message boards, so why did he think he could sell them here? This is the home of conspiracy debunking.

Craig, if you worked as hard at a career as you do spreading sensationalist yellow journalism you would be a rich man!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You did no such thing and merely stated your claim with authority.

We provide independent corroborated evidence and you simply regurgitate what you are told by the government based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith.

That is the primary difference between us.


You have to know he is just like most of the believers on here, they are afraid to look for real evidence and live in a media fed fantasy world and only believe what the media tells them.



That's what I love about Craigs threads, not only are they informative, and backed up by actual legwork (not just information, and "official" (yea right) documents that have been spoonfed to the public by the MSM, only to now be parroted here). They also bring out all the spooks,I mean look at the admitted Mason, or wannabe, above me, lol, and makes it easier for me to know who I should be wary of listening to on this board.

Again great "work" as always Craig, starred and flagged.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Lets see what witnesses state.

www.geocities.com...

Scott P. Cook
I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.... As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. 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.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We know because of the wind direction on 9/11 that they had incoming air traffic to Reagan coming from the south.

It is illogical to suggest they would send the C-130 right into that traffic.



You have provided no evidence and nothing you have said changes the fact that O'Brien said he had just passed the Mall headed westbound when he first saw the attack jet.

He would not use "south side of The Mall" as a point of reference for his location if he was on the south side of Reagan.



[edit on 3-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]


I have "provided no evidence". I just posted a detailed, procedure-specific, technical explanation of why the C-130 is flying on the track that the RADES data said it was - with all the information documented and backed up by personal experience, both my own as well as that of a retired Navy captain who was a former commanding officer of a squadron of navy jets that flew routinely out of Andrews AFB on the departure in question and Craig says I have "provided no evidence".

This cracks me up. Do you even read the posts people put up? Did you read the post I put up a few weeks ago that talked about what altitude approaching aircraft would be at on an approach from the south into DCA? There would be over 2,000 feet vertical separation between aircraft departing Andrews and aircraft approaching DCA. Those numbers weren't pulled out of my grommet - they came from the approach plates into DCA.

Did you read the part where the Camp Springs departure take the aircraft 2 and a half miles south of the Mall, a distance that would give a great view of the place?

Did you read the part (again) that said no controller would vector an aircraft so close to P-56?

Did you read the part about WHY Gopher 06 would have been on the Camp Springs vice Morningside departure?

Did you read the departure procedures for Camp Springs 1? Aircrew adhere to published procedures. If you don't you get in big doo-doo. Ask Captain Bob about that.

Did you read the post I put up that in 10 years of working between the Pentagon, Crystal City and the Wash Navy Yard I have NEVER ever seen any aircraft on the flight path you said the C-130 was on?

O'Brien would have taken off, turned left to a heading of 270 within 3 miles of the runway, climbed to 3000 feet and stayed on that 270 heading until told otherwise by controllers. He would NOT have been anywhere close to the Mall or anywhere near your flight path.

THIS is why these guys will *never ever* be taken seriously by anyone. Its like Last Comic Posting with the CIT Boys. Its beyond hilarious now. I feel like I'm explaining to someone why you can't fly to the sun and they just keep coming back with a "we'll go at night" response.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


It doesn't matter where YOU say the camp springs departure would take them.

The fraudulent RADES data shows him significantly south of Reagan headed more southwest which is not what you depicted in your image.




So your irrelevant departure path is NOT what the RADES data shows, and certainly not what O'Brien describes and it makes no sense that he would be vectored in that direction right into the Reagan approach traffic anyway.

Nor does it make sense that he would say he had just passed the mall headed westbound if he was headed south west south of Reagan.

You have presented no evidence.

You are merely authoritatively spouting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to feign like you know better because you work for the government when the fact is that you are IGNORING the evidence.

The photographs and video prove the RADES data fraudulent.

The eyewitnesses prove the RADES data fraudulent.

O'Brien proves the RADES data fraudulent.

I know you will never admit this and proceed to defend your boss based on nothing but faith and loyalty but you can't change the evidence.

The official 9/11 myth has been exposed.

Deal with it Pinch.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

It is illogical to suggest they would send the C-130 right into that traffic.


Craig, who are "they"?

If it is illogical, then why is there a standard departure procedure that sends traffic directly over the approach path at Reagan National?

Is 270° considered West?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join