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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
In my opinion, people of truth refute lies no matter how many times they pop up. If it is true that you have refuted one's claims 100%, then refute them all over again. Stop posting time and time again "we've refuted you a hundred times already LOL" and refute him for the 101st time already if you've done it so much.




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Here's Alpo's shot of the video that CIT contends shows the C-130 where they want it to be.



Can anyone see the problem with this depiction? Spot it yet?

It's self debunking.....

Note the yellow line on the left photo goes to the far North corner of the Pentagon, not to the impact site. See the rest of the problem yet?

The two views are from TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES through the two parapets used for reference. The camera has MOVED SIGNIFICANTLY between the yellow line graphic and the video screen shot.

The smoke from the impact was blowing South. Note that the yellow line is WELL NORTH of the smoke column, NOT EVEN CLOSE. CIT would have you believe they are from the same perspective (camera position), but in the close up video screen shot the camera has moved significantly EAST along I395.

Here is the correct view....

Alpo's yellow line would look like this view through the parapets...



Alpo's yellow line is a view at least 10 seconds before the C-130 came into view far to the left of the screen. The green line shows the correct perspective of Alpo's close up view.



Deceptive? No doubt about it... Is it intentional or due to incompetence?

For more detailed information see Post # 69 at the following link...

forums.randi.org...

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:52 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.


WRONG! He is correct and you have been told numerous times already why. You are now simply babbling nonsense.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oh and just in case you forgot, the Tribby video, Looney images, and independent eyewitnesses also support Morningside One standard departure.


Funny stuff, absolutely hilarious! If it shows the Morning Side One Departure then why don't you draw a flight path illustrating this connecting all of the dots. I guarantee you will not answer this question simply because you can't.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We provide multiple sources of independent evidence.


No, you don't. All you have is a group of mistaken witnesses not supported by ANYTHING ELSE, but PROVEN WRONG with multiple sources.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You provide nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government professed with authority and confidence.


WRONG! The video and the photographs are not from the gubmint and they alone prove you wrong in spite of your deceptive attempts to distort the perspective. Each time you list this stuff as supporting you I'm going to show you for the FRAUDS you are.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


"Here's Alpo's shot of the video that CIT contends shows the C-130 where they want it to be."

!!!!!!!

As far as is known, a C-130 moves forward in the air.

The yellow line is simply pointing toward the flight path indicated by the red line.

The red line starts pretty much at the spot where the plane is seen in the photo.

Can't see any problems here.

Looks like a hopeless attempt to grasp at some fragile little innocent straw.

Pathetic really!



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 

\Wrong he insunates that the yellow line is the view the person get from the camera from his position. Also that flighpath he post is (red line) is completely wrong. Look at the impact point. Smoke was moving left of the impact point (from the cameramans perspective). If the plane FP was the red line it would be anywhere near the smoke. CIT is dead wrong here. And their own diagram proves it.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Nice Job. You should put where the smoke would be in that google earth picture. I tried last page but not sure how to post a regular size picture. It post as a thumbnail. Anyway, CIT C130's FP would be anwhere near the smoke when it was banking away from the pentagon. Which by its own pictures is clearly wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Nice Job. You should put where the smoke would be in that google earth picture. I tried last page but not sure how to post a regular size picture. It post as a thumbnail. Anyway, CIT C130's FP would be anwhere near the smoke when it was banking away from the pentagon. Which by its own pictures is clearly wrong.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by djeminy
 




Wrong he insunates that the yellow line is the view the person get from the camera from his position.



I think you're looking at this from a 'narrow-minded' point of view.
Either that, or you would have to have used 'tunnel vision', perhaps!

I would say that normal people would view a panoramic scene with at least a radius of 90 degree spread.



Also that flighpath he post is (red line) is completely wrong. Look at the impact point. Smoke was moving left of the impact point (from the cameramans perspective). If the plane FP was the red line it would be anywhere near the smoke. CIT is dead wrong here. And their own diagram proves it.


I think you're overlooking the fact that the C-130 was actually flying before the start of the red line. And it was also still flying after the end of the red line.
Otherwise it would have crashed to the ground at that particular spot - don't you think!!



[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


Sorry, you're wrong. The picture he shows is where the C130 has already turned. It is not begining to turn. It has already almost made its whole turn. Therefore, his arrow is completely wrong, because the smoke wouldnt be anywhere near it. His arrow is what is seen in the video. Maybe you should watch it before calling me narrow minded. Seeing I was the one who posted it in the first place on another thread. BTW, I havent over looked anything.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by djeminy
 


Sorry, you're wrong. The picture he shows is where the C130 has already turned. It is not begining to turn. It has already almost made its whole turn. Therefore, his arrow is completely wrong, because the smoke wouldnt be anywhere near it. His arrow is what is seen in the video. Maybe you should watch it before calling me narrow minded. Seeing I was the one who posted it in the first place on another thread. BTW, I havent over looked anything.


Where am I wrong?? Please quote!

What has the smoke got to do with the arrow??

Or rather, what has the arrow got to do with the smoke??

[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by djeminy
 


Sorry, you're wrong. The picture he shows is where the C130 has already turned. It is not begining to turn. It has already almost made its whole turn. Therefore, his arrow is completely wrong, because the smoke wouldnt be anywhere near it. His arrow is what is seen in the video. Maybe you should watch it before calling me narrow minded. Seeing I was the one who posted it in the first place on another thread. BTW, I havent over looked anything.


Where am I wrong?? Please quote!


Your entire conclusion is wrong. A graphic and a screen shot captures the C-130 at a specific point in time. They should both be from the same perspective (same camera view) unless you're trying to be deceptive. Deception is precisely what you see in the CIT graphic. The graphic is drawn from one perspective and the video screen shot is from another perspective making it appear that the C-130 is where they want it to be.

A properly drawn graphic correlated with a perspective from the same camera position clearly shows that the C-130 flew precisely on the RADES flight path.

If you are truly interested in understanding the correct analysis of this and also understand how CIT is being deceptive READ the thread I linked. It explains it in great detail that anyone should be able to understand.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this. 1) The C-130 flew the RADES flight path. 2) CIT is using DECEPTION in an attempt to salvage a fantasy.

CIT accuses the Gubmint and a host of others in some kind of imaginary "black ops military deception" for which there is no viable evidence, yet here is clear EVIDENCE that CIT is using DECEPTION to fool gullible viewers into buying their delusion. Bottom line - CIT is LYING about what the video and the photographs show. The truth is here in front of your eyes if you want to see it.....



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Spin, pseudo-skeptic spin!

Take whatever desperate measures you can to defend your faith in the government and commitment to permanent global war because it's clear a deception has been exposed.

Readers here are true skeptics and they will not fall for your authoritative ramblings and flat out denial of independent verifiable evidence while you present none whatsoever of your own.

Reheat called into a radio show I was on once, he sounds like a southern old guy at least in his 50's, probably older. Most likely retired. Right reheat?

So why do you suppose he dedicates every day of his golden years to anonymously arguing with people he thinks are "delusional" in a conspiracy discussion forum while he immaturely changes our real names like teenager on myspace would?

Think about these facts for a peak into the psyche of the type of individual we are dealing with here.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Now remember....there isn't a huge amount of difference from where the witnesses, video, and images have the C-130 banking compared to what the RADES data shows.

The APPROACH is really the killer since this was not caught on video or photographs but is corroborated by all the ANC witnesses and the pilot himself.

Plus.....reheat and his pseudo-skeptic community haven't even TOUCHED undertow's analysis of the Looney images.






Frankly the difference is close enough that it is understandable how the pseudo-skeptics are able to use the power of suggestion to manipulate you due to perception issues in order to blend the two and say it all matches the official data. But when looked at more closely and using landmarks, the RADES data starts to fall apart. Plus, even more obvious, the contradictions with the independent evidence we have regarding the approach and timing completely destroy the RADES data once and for all. We'll get into that in a bit.



Now on to the Bruce Looney images.....

Undertow of www.aa77fdr.com... studied the Bruce Looney photos from Ft McNair and, unlike the pseudo-skeptics, yet like the screen shot added to the Tribby video above, he actually used ground landmarks to figure out a more precise location of the plane.

Well okay. Here's what I think after studying these pictures.

They show a C-130 in 3 photos.
I have located his position as well as one of the buildings seen behind the tree line.

This GE map is marked up as follows:
Yellow Line - Camera spot
Yellow Circle - Bldg ID'd, white round top
L.Blue Line - duh
Red Lines - These are the approx view angle from the camer to the C130 seen in the pictures, actual distance from camera and altitude unknown.
Lower line - C130 is perpendicular to camera, imo most likely behind the plume.
Upper Line - C130 is traveling directly away from camera or nearly directly away.


Here is picture 160 (2nd in series) with a picture of the bldg I ID'd in the photo.
I have also taken picture 161 (1st C130 picture) and shrunk it's size to match photo 160, then pasted it over the top of the plume.
I took pic 162, cropped, resized , and transparent overlay it over the pic 160 as well. I added a black line under the C130 (?) in this picture.
pic 163 overlayed as well.
timestamps added to pieces.

This gives rough accurate composite of what it looked like I believe.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



What entire conclusion is wrong??? Do you mean about the entire yellow line! No, of course this conclusion isn't wrong.
As said earlier, here its you yourself who are deceptive and wrong.


The C-130 is captured at the scene by the video about 3 minutes after the explosion.

Sucherman claimed he saw the same plane leave the same scene 3 to 5 seconds after the explosion.

That you reheat, refuse to address this very obvious for all to see discrepancy with simple and easy to do honesty, shows us with all clarity it's in fact your not so good self that's into all sorts of falsehood and deception.

You behave as the typical guilty who talks too much; who blame others for the crimes and misdeeds he himself is guilty of.

You're far too transparent reheat. So easy to see through.

Its so sad, so very sad.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


You've made no effort whatsoever to contact him and you refuse to while continuing to spin his past claims to fit something he did not describe.


You keep failing to mention or address that the Communication Transcripts from Reagan TRACAN (RADAR) tell the complete story. Pssst - they don't agree with your story.

Here they are again reduced to just the conversation between TYSON (Reagan National TRACON) and Gopher 06 (the C-130).



aal77.com...



Blind faith that avoids hard evidence at all cost.


He says while looking into the mirror

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]


Let me get this straight...you just provided a document from the same folks who told CNN the following regarding the Doomsday Plane over DC?

"CNN acknowledges that, despite its identification, the absence of the aircraft from official investigations, together with the Pentagon's denial that it was a military plane and the insistence by the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA that they have no explanation for the incident, may continue to raise suspicions."

Not only that, from the same document you link to, the statement is "Air Force officials have no knowledge of the aircraft in question" in reference to the "doomsday" plane.

Now does this sound like our Air Force to you? Completely unaware that one of their E4-Bs in their arsenal is flying over the Capital? And yet you accept as truth a transcript from the same folks?


It appears to me that anything provided as "evidence" by the DOD/Govt. is questionable and needs to be independently verified before being accepted as fact, including a written transcript from audio recordings.



[edit on 10/30/2007 by Swing Dangler]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Spin, pseudo-skeptic spin!


No spin at all, just FACTS to expose your lies!

It is very noticeable that you DID NOT refute any of my exposure of your deception of the Tribby video graphic and screen shot. Very telling.

In fact, you launch into a personal attack, pure Ad Hominem directed toward me instead of addressing the issue of your fraudulent deception in order to avoid addressing the real issue at hand and to (you hope) set up a new attempt to defraud with the Looney photographs.

This is pure CIT in a nutshell.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


It's funny that you took the time to post that garbage and did not offer anything at all to refute what I said.

Why are you bringing up a CIT discredited witness to support a technical video?

That's truly funny. Unless you have something worthwhile to add, I will be ignoring your posts in the future.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


By this picture here

You can see the smoke well past the landmark shown above. The smoke looks to be blowing S.E of the impact point.
Now if you look at this picture

and place the smoke to where it was blowing, according to the landmark CIT shows in the first picture above, the turn the plane is making looks like it lines up with the RADES data to a T.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Obviously you didn't pay much attention to the analysis and have no clue what you are talking about as those images have nothing to do with each other.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Spin, pseudo-skeptic spin!


No spin at all, just FACTS to expose your lies!

It is very noticeable that you DID NOT refute any of my exposure of your deception of the Tribby video graphic and screen shot. Very telling.


YOU are the one lying.

He identified the C-130 in the image.

It's when it first comes in the scene.

Anybody can watch the video and pause it at that point and this can clearly be seen.

You are using predictable spin and flat out denial techniques to cause confusion because it's all you have.

That IS the C-130 and our analysis is accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join