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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

continued deceptions.

The first problem with your analysis is that Looney's photographs were taken from Ft. McNair, DC. The position you show for the photographer is NOT ON Ft McNair, it is NORTH of Ft McNair. So your perspective is WRONG from the very beginning.

The second deception is that Southern most red line is to the RIGHT (North) of the structure you identify, yet you label these lines as the viewing angle of the camera. Note that the viewing angle actually extends well to the left (South) of your identified structure. At this point it is easy to see that you are either intentionally lying or you are totally incompetent at analyzing the photographs.

The photographs show exactly what the Tribby video shows, the RADES path verified.

You need to stop the lying and twisting perspectives of the video and the photographs because I will expose every deception you attempt.

For further study of the Looney photographs see: Post # 24 and Post # 49.

forums.randi.org...

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Any reason other than that you are confused or that you want to change the subject that you are talking about the E4B when the subject under discussion is the C-130?

Originally posted by Reheat
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 some worthwhile to add, I will be ignoring your posts in the future.

My attempt to expose you as the one who are into deception and falsehood seems to have paid off. It is now clear that "honesty" is the furthest thing from your mind.

It is true that Sucherman is a CIT discredited witness.
The 'truly funny' part, if it has come to that, is really this: he is also a witness, not discredited, but supported by yourself.

This means that you're also a man with strange contradictions, in as much as you
support his claim of '3 to 5 seconds', while at the same time you support the video's
showing of approximately 3 minutes.

Surely you must have a funny strange feeling about this oddity, haven't you!

Hope that you consider this reply as 'worthwhile', of course.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Still no refutation other than "you are lying" of my analysis of your deceptions.

Cat got your tongue?

How do these images support the Morningside One Departure? Why don't you join up the flight paths and prove that? This is the second time I've asked for your evidence of that. Don't you think your fans need that in order to continue to support you in view of the exposure of your deceptions?

Surely they must be wondering how Gopher 06 was instructed and acknowledged a RIGHT TURN to a heading of 080 degrees to follow AA77 if either your flight path were correct or if the ANC people were correct.

If you don't post a flight path within an hour or so, I'll do a detailed analysis of that RIGHT TURN to a heading of 080 degrees and let you try to spin that to match your garbage.

BTW, I don't need to show how the video and photographs support ALL of the HARD EVIDENCE AVAILABLE, all I need to do is post the RADES data, the ATC summary transcrips and it's perfect.

Originally posted by djeminy
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.
[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

What plane did Sucherman see leave the scene seconds after the alleged impact? It certainly wasn't the C-130 minutes later. So which plane was it?
It sure sounds like a flyover to me.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by djeminy
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.
[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

What plane did Sucherman see leave the scene seconds after the alleged impact? It certainly wasn't the C-130 minutes later. So which plane was it?
It sure sounds like a flyover to me.

Hay CIT, Swing has finally found a flyover witness for you. It's Sucherman!

Bwhahahahahahahahah!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Any reason other than that you are confused or that you want to change the subject that you are talking about the E4B when the subject under discussion is the C-130?

I'm wondering why you use a transcript from a discredited document.

"Here this transcript is accurate and factual, oh and we know nothing about the E4B over DC skies on 9/11" as reported CNN.

So now that the transcript has been discredited, your left with?

Oh and what plane did Sucherman see peel off from the attack seconds after the blast? It sure isn't the C-130 now is it? That leaves AA77 or E4-B. And we can all agree it wasn't an E4-B.

By the way your debunking site of the NOC claim needs updated. Your missing about 10 more witnesses including the ATC at the Pentagon itself. Good luck with using numbers to discredit the people. It just doesn't work.

"Paper over people" would be a suitable name for the tactic your using.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Any reason other than that you are confused or that you want to change the subject that you are talking about the E4B when the subject under discussion is the C-130?

I'm wondering why you use a transcript from a discredited document.

"Here this transcript is accurate and factual, oh and we know nothing about the E4B over DC skies on 9/11" as reported CNN.

So now that the transcript has been discredited, your left with?

Uh Swing,

CNN discredits nothing at all from a second hand quote.

If you had bothered to look at the full transcript for which a link is posted you'll see Sword 31. Sword 31 was the E4B, so your declarations of a discredited transcript are NULL AND VOID.

Originally posted by Reheat
Sword 31 was the E4B, so your declarations of a discredited transcript are NULL AND VOID.

So i am still waiting for an explanation as to why the E-4B was flying around during the attacks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
Sword 31 was the E4B, so your declarations of a discredited transcript are NULL AND VOID.

So i am still waiting for an explanation as to why the E-4B was flying around during the attacks.

Guess you dont remember, however this was talked about almost a year ago. Actually you were one of the main participants. here is the thread, guess you forgot about it.E4B PLANE

Originally posted by tide88
Guess you dont remember, however this was talked about almost a year ago. Actually you were one of the main participants. here is the thread, guess you forgot about it

There was still no real good explanation for the E-4 to be there.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
Guess you dont remember, however this was talked about almost a year ago. Actually you were one of the main participants. here is the thread, guess you forgot about it

There was still no real good explanation for the E-4 to be there.

Yes I agree, but there were many scenarios given. Any of which may be true. However this has already been beat to a bush and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Originally posted by tide88
Yes I agree, but there were many scenarios given.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

But it does have something do with the thread, if the E-4 was flying around in the area.

CIT has had more than enough time to complete a flight path showing how their scenario of the decoy aircraft fits with their flight path of the C-130 and how they both fit with the video and photographic evidence.

Let's first look at the ATC summary transcript of the communication between TYSON (Reagan Approach Control) and Gopher 06 (C-130).



Full version available at:

aal77.com...

At 13:33 GMT (9:33 Local) Gopher 06 showed up on Radar just North of Andrews AFB. At 13:33:45 GMT (9:33:45 Local) Dulles Approach Control advised TYSON of a fast moving target 10 nm West of DCA (Reagan National VOR).

The C-130 was flying no faster than about 4 nm per minute. Consequently, it would take him ~ 2:30 - 2:40 to fly to a position about 1 nm south of DCA on a heading of 270 degrees MAGNETIC. At 13:36:16 Gopher 06 is issued "Traffic eleven o'clock, 5 nm northbound, fast moving, type and altitude unknown". 6 seconds later at 13:36:22 Gopher 06 acknowledged the traffic at his 12 o'clock. This corresponds exactly with O'Brien's statement.

"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

He does not mention Reagan National Airport (KDCA) probably because he can't see it. He is already passed KDCA and it was under the aircraft on the right side of the aircraft as he passed, but he had a perfect view of the Mall off to his right that he had also just passed.

So, the unknown aircraft had turned approximately 270 degrees of turn from a heading of ~ 090 degrees to a heading of ~ 360 degrees which takes 1:30 for a standard rate turn regardless of speed. It also moved from O'Briens 11 o'clock position to his 12 o'clock position after the advisory from TYSON.

Now, it had been 2:31 since the unknown aircraft was 10 West of DCA and it's now 5 West of O'Brien's C-130 headed North. So, from the advisory of 10 west of DCA to 5 west of O'Brien's C-130 would make the C-130 just slightly west of Reagan National Airport and the unknown (AA77) in the Western most portion of it's turn back toward the Pentagon.

Anyone is welcome to try and fit this scenario to CIT's fantasy C-130 flight path and the flight path of their "decoy aircraft" to a position East of the Potomac River. Their "decoy aircraft" would need to be flying at a SUPERSONIC SPEED to reach it's Western most position headed North and it COULD NOT ever being moving from LEFT TO RIGHT in the C-130's windscreen on their devised flight path even if it were flying such a fantastic supersonic speed. This is why CIT can not construct a flight path showing the relationship between the two aircraft because it is IMPOSSIBLE.

At 13:37:13 Gopher 06 was instructed to turn RIGHT to a heading of 080 (nearly due East) in order the follow the unknown aircraft (AA77). There are two things to note here. In CIT's scenario it would require a LEFT turn to follow the unknown aircraft. The heading of nearly DUE EAST contradicts the ANC people who said the C-130 was flying to the South East on an approximate heading of 135 degrees.

As if this is not enough already to TOTALLY DESTROY the addressed CIT delusions, there is NO WAY short of the most distorted pretzel in existence that they can show or rationally explain how the C-130 can fly their path and be in the position shown in the video and photographs. Even if an incredible pretzel would work, TIMING won't allow that.

The scenario I've outlined fits perfectly with the 84th RADES data, the Tribby video, the Looney photographs, the ATC summary transcript and L/C O'Brien's personal statements as opposed to CIT's hearsay, misinterpreted statements, deceptive analysis of both the video and photographs, and their reliance on 7 year after the fact mutually exclusive witness interviews.

Bottom line _ CIT's fantasy is destroyed!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]

Craig,
Darius Prather could see the letters "USAF" on the plane shown in the Tribby video? What eyesight, huh?

bc

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by djeminy
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.
[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

What plane did Sucherman see leave the scene seconds after the alleged impact? It certainly wasn't the C-130 minutes later. So which plane was it?
It sure sounds like a flyover to me.

Hay CIT, Swing has finally found a flyover witness for you. It's Sucherman!

Bwhahahahahahahahah!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Reheat]

So sorry, but no reheat.

If anybody has found "a new fly-over witness", then it must surely be yourself reheat.

For it is YOU who believe Suchermans claim of noticing a plane at the scene seconds
after the explosions.

CIT DO NOT believe Suchermans account for his 'sequence of events'.

You're laughing at yourself, and with rather good reason, one should think!

This "honesty thing" appears to be a huge problem for you, poor chap.

PS!
We can of course clearly see the absolute irony, and how amusing it could turn out to be, if Sucherman was telling the truth and thereby became a key witness in favour of CIT to the absolute detriment of the pseudo-sceptics.
But seriously, we got to be realistic. We think he was lying, poor sod!






[edit on 4-9-2008 by djeminy]

reply to post by biscuit cough


They saw it approach.

The Tribby video does not show the approach.

You don't know its exact altitude as it passed over them the first time from the northwest.

But what's your point?

Are you suggesting he is lying?

Obviously the youtube video from further away is nothing like what the plane would look like in real life as it passed directly over you.

What a ridiculous and pointless comparison.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I think CIT and their supporters are hoping this thread will just die and go away.

Yep, I would too if I were in your shoes. In fact, I'd be sorry that it was ever brought up in the first place.

Two threads on essentially the same subject and the CIT boys and their supporters have been exposed as FRAUDS with failed delusions.

What a shame! Guess it will just have to remain as comedy relief on life support in CT Forums, with not a chance of making it into a Court Room!

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat



More declarations of victory with authority with ZERO independent evidence.

People here see through your bullying tactics.

They don't fly.

Retired guys should find regular hobbies like fishing and stuff.

Not being an internet bully like his teenage grandson.

This thread is NOT going away nor do we want it to.