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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, don't mention Scott Cook, you'll send Craig into hibernation.

He was, at one time, considered a "credible" witness by CIT. Once the Looney photos and Tribby video proved that the C-130 didn't fly "over the tidal basin", the CIT has remained suspiciously quiet about him.

Any thoughts Craig?




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Right on... these ostriches love to quote the murderers fraudulent and contradictory details, when people on the ground have a different thing to say.

Again, nicely done CIT.


All you need to do is look at the big picture.. WTC7 alone is enough to understand what went down that day... jeeez. How hard is it for people to comprehend anything else just as evil and disgusting like this happening due to govt.

[edit on 3/9/08 by GhostR1der]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, don't mention Scott Cook, you'll send Craig into hibernation.

He was, at one time, considered a "credible" witness by CIT. Once the Looney photos and Tribby video proved that the C-130 didn't fly "over the tidal basin", the CIT has remained suspiciously quiet about him.

Any thoughts Craig?



Sure I have some thoughts!

We initially touted him as a witness who contradicted the RADES data which is clearly true.

Now that we have additional evidence, namely the first-hand accounts from the ANC witnesses and the close-up version of the Tribby video that finally gives us the ability to identify it as a C-130.......Scott Cook's account is in serious question.

The RADES data has been shown to be contradicted in other ways....such as the approach from the northwest and the bank away being too far east as demonstrated in the OP.

Why do you suppose Cook has it ascending across the river over the Tidal Basin right in front of him when this clearly did not happen?

Hmmmm?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I really can't tell what's going on in this topic anymore. So much disinformation is being perpetrated, but I can't tell WHICH SIDE is the one doing the clouding up...or perhaps that's the purpose of this topic to begin with?

I'll leave it up to a known ATS expert to sift through the facts and figure out who's closer with the facts.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


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?



Boone,

The Reagan approach corridor is sometimes from the south, and sometimes from the north, depending on the winds.

No doubt the appropriate departure procedure out of Andrews is used accordingly so in this case, due to the winds on 9/11, the appropriate standard departure procedure would have been Morningside One.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


That's what they want and all that they can hope to achieve.

Just realize that I am presenting hard evidence that contradicts the official story and they are spinning this evidence to confuse you in defense of the official line.

Please watch our new 2 part presentation and it will really help get you up to speed:
www.thepentacon.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Well, they're saying the same of you, so I'm going to wait for more people to analyze both arguments before I reach any conclusion.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

This is sad, Craig. You're once credible witness is now questionable because you misinterpreted what he said, from the very beginning, and the only thing left is a direct contradiction to your fantasy flight path.


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.





Shall we put Scott Cook in the same category as Keith Wheelhouse, Lloyd England, Joel Sucherman, and Father McGraw?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity

Well, they're saying the same of you, so I'm going to wait for more people to analyze both arguments before I reach any conclusion.


No no.

They are not saying that I am defending the official story.

It's clear that I am presenting evidence against it and that THEY are defending it at all costs.

They are doing this based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

This is sad, Craig. You're once credible witness is now questionable because you misinterpreted what he said, from the very beginning, and the only thing left is a direct contradiction to your fantasy flight path.


Um no.

We did NOT misinterpret what he said.

His account STILL completely contradicts the RADES data and our interpretation of his account has not changed. He has it flying across the river over the Tidal Basin.

New evidence is what now puts his account in question.

Namely the independent corroborated ANC witnesses and the closer version of the Tribby video.

OF COURSE honest investigators change their opinion as evidence is discovered/revealed!




Shall we put Scott Cook in the same category as Keith Wheelhouse, Lloyd England, Joel Sucherman, and Father McGraw?


You tell me.

Do YOU believe Scott Cook is accurate?

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



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 
Craig, think about what you're saying before you post.

If traffic was departing to the south from Reagan National, it would also be departing to the south from Andrews. Just the same as if traffic was departing to the north. Therefore, if Reagan traffic is landing to the north, Andrews traffic is departing to the north and they would use Camp Springs One.

Craig, who are "they"?

Is 270° considered West?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone,

Traffic was approaching FROM the south on 9/11.



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



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Must not have sold any of your CD's, huh. Now that the old thread has basically come to an end, you are starting a new one? Even though about 10 pages of the C-130 flight path were discussed there. How much longer is ATS going to let you advertise your site here?

[edit on 3-9-2008 by tide88]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I know traffic was approaching from the south on 9/11. That is why the C-130 took off to the north on 9/11, it is the same reason he used the Camp Springs one departure. Aircraft land and take off into the wind.

As Pinch explained earlier, the departure procedure is determined by which direction they are heading. You cannot dismiss a standard departure procedure just because you want it to fit your conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

As Pinch explained earlier, the departure procedure is determined by which direction they are heading. You cannot dismiss a standard departure procedure just because you want it to fit your conspiracy.



I didn't.

YOU are dismissing a standard departure procedure that makes more sense with the pilot's statements and is more logical due to the true Reagan approach corridor on that day simply because you want it to fit with YOUR official conspiracy theory.

Oh and just in case you forgot, the Tribby video, Looney images, and independent eyewitnesses also support Morningside One standard departure.





We provide multiple sources of independent evidence.

You provide nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government professed with authority and confidence.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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]


Your point being that it is absurd for CIT to claim that there cannot be eyewitnesses to a flyover and therefore no data to construct a "flyaway" flight path.

Your support by illustrating CIT's absurd claims is appreciated.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

We provide multiple sources of independent evidence.


What you have presented has been soundly refuted. You are walking a thin line of misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony and have no credentials to hide behind the First Amendment.

It's past time to give up your charade, Craig. You only fool gullible 9/11 Truthers and you know it.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

YOU are dismissing a standard departure procedure that makes more sense with the pilot's statements and is more logical due to the true Reagan approach corridor on that day simply because you want it to fit with YOUR official conspiracy theory.


You're missing the point.

Andrews and Reagan are 10 miles apart.

The winds would be blowing from the same direction at both airports.

The traffic at both airports would be from south to north, not just on 9/11, but any day.

If your argument is that Camp Springs One is an illogical departure on 9/11, then it would be an illogical departure on any day with the winds blowing from the North because it puts departing Andrew's traffic over the Reagan approach corridor.

You cannot dismiss Camp Springs One as a departure route just because Reagan's traffic was landing to the north. If Reagan's traffic was landing to the south, Camp Springs One would not be used because air traffic does not depart down wind.

Camp Springs One and northbound Reagan traffic go hand in hand.

Do you understand?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

As Pinch explained earlier, the departure procedure is determined by which direction they are heading. You cannot dismiss a standard departure procedure just because you want it to fit your conspiracy.



I didn't.

YOU are dismissing a standard departure procedure that makes more sense with the pilot's statements and is more logical due to the true Reagan approach corridor on that day simply because you want it to fit with YOUR official conspiracy theory.

Oh and just in case you forgot, the Tribby video, Looney images, and independent eyewitnesses also support Morningside One standard departure.





We provide multiple sources of independent evidence.

You provide nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government professed with authority and confidence.


You flight path makes no sense in the above picture. Look at the picture here
< br /> The smoke path would be the black lines. That would line up with the OFP. For your flight path to work the smoke would have to be blowing the other way. Red marks impact point. Sorry for the small picture not sure how to get a regular size pic up, However you get the idea. Also as the smoke gets higher it would obviously move further left from the impact point. There the RADES data looks pretty spot on.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch
 


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


*I'm* not the one telling you what the departure procedures are for Camp Springs 1.....its the freaking DEPARTURE PLATE that is telling you what the procedures are. Let me say that again....*I'M* not saying turn left to a heading of 270 within 3 dme and climb to 8k by 8 dme...that is what the procedures say. Reading comprehension is a bit skosh there.


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


"Significantly" south of Reagan? You call a mile "significant"? You need to get one of Captain Bob's PffT hats - one with the wings on it. Perhaps that'll improve you aeronautical prowess. Map the two paths out on Google Earth and you'll find the standard Camp Springs departure that I mapped out (using standard compass headings - no correction for mag north or anything like that - when you add the 10 degrees west variation, the paths would match up perfectly) comes out to be less than 3/4 of a mile deviation between the two plotted flight paths.


So your irrelevant departure path is NOT what the RADES data shows


Sure does. I just proved it.


and certainly not what O'Brien describes


Sure does. Read my other post again - at 2.5 miles he'll have a GREAT view of the Mall.


and it makes no sense that he would be vectored in that direction right into the Reagan approach traffic anyway.


Sure does. Read my other post again. Andrews Camp Springs departures are crossing the Reagan National approaches at least 2000 feet above and most likely much higher. How do I know this? I can read an approach plate.



Andrews departing aircraft at 3000 feet or climbing when crossing the Potomac near Dangerfield Island, Reagan approach aircraft start their glideslope descent 3.5 miles farther south at 1600 feet. No conflict.


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.


What direction is "270"? No need to be precise. Just take a guess. Wild guess would work. I'll make it easy:

a) West
b) donkey
c) chicken
d) mule
e) south west south (whatever the hell direction THAT is)


You have presented no evidence.


None that YOU like. Too bad you aren't in charge.

Enough. You are way, WAY out of your league, Craig. Send Captain Bob over next time. At least he would understand what a departure plate is. And how to say SOUTH SOUTHWEST.

I think.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by pinch]




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join