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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

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.


Nice job. A second hand quote? Apparently it was from an Air Force Official as the information is found in the document you are using!
You chose the media report when in fact the cover letter itself states the Air Force states they have no knowledge of the "white jet"!

I will type verbatim the lie: Air Force Officials have no knowledge of the aircraft in question.: Source-Karen L. Cook. Lt. Col. USAF

The aircraft in question of course was the unidentified aircraft flying in restricted airspace over D.C. which has now been identified via the CNN report and others as an E4B


Why do you think the Air Force lied about the E4B in the cover letter?

How can you claim that the transcript is not discredited when the opening statement is a blatant lie!!?? This of course brings into question the entire accuracy and legitimacy of the entire transcript!

Why do you think a written transcript was provided for the C-130 actions which entailed only observations of the alleged jet instead of the audio tape itself? When NORAD audio tapes were released to the public?

I can offer a few suggestions if you wish.


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




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


As Pinch explained earlier, the departure procedure is determined by which direction they are heading.


If the departure procedure was determined solely on which direction Lt Col Steve O'Brien and his crew were heading it's 100% clear they would have used the Morningside One departure since they were headed north and west to Minnesota, but we also know they flew over Shanksville.

This is compounded by the fact that they would NOT be vectored right into the approach corridor of Reagan.



Clearly Morningside One is the most logical standard departure choice no matter how you look at it.




Here is what a real pilot with a real name that you can look up in the FAA database has to say about your silly notion that they would vector him right into the Reagan approach traffic:



Could you please ask a real pilot if he would expect to be assigned a DP crossing a morning arrival bank into another major hub? (let alone during an unprecedented ground stop causing much heavier arrival traffic). Or do you think a straight out departure for vectors would be more likely, considering it doesnt cross arrival corridors.

[...]

speak to a real pilot who actually flys these procedures in close proximity to heavy arrival and departure corridors. I have, and i also fly them (out of DCA as well as being based LGA). I know many of you wannabe's think that altitude separation is sufficient to be assigned a crossing DP during a morning arrival bank, but perhaps you're not aware that sometimes planes on arrival go on a missed approach. Even in VFR, i done it twice at my last airline. You know, like if they have a problem with the gear or something? A C-130 crossing your approach can really gum up the works on such an occasion. Then again, wannabe's like you probably never did an approach brief of bottom line's and backup's."

-Rob Balsamo


Standard departure procedure, all indicators, statements direct from the C-130 pilot, eyewitnesses, as well as photographic and video evidence all prove the RADES data fraudulent.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Nice job. A second hand quote? Apparently it was from an Air Force Official as the information is found in the document you are using!
You chose the media report when in fact the cover letter itself states the Air Force states they have no knowledge of the "white jet"!

I will type verbatim the lie: Air Force Officials have no knowledge of the aircraft in question.: Source-Karen L. Cook. Lt. Col. USAF

The aircraft in question of course was the unidentified aircraft flying in restricted airspace over D.C. which has now been identified via the CNN report and others as an E4B


You obviously need a lesson in reading comprehension.

The FOIA request was for the aircraft in RESTRICTED AIRSPACE above Washington, DC. You INTREPRET this as the "white jet" and/or as the E4B. How in the world do you know these are the same? Was the E4B in Restricted Airspace? I dare say it wasn't and you have no proof that it was in restricted airspace.

I dare say that if the request was for information on the E4B, the answer may have been different. In fact, the AF Lt Col answered the question which tells me that the E4B was, in fact, not in restricted airspace. She obviously had no idea if another aircraft was in restricted airspace or not and answered the question accordingly.

The E4B is listed in the summary transcript, so nothing is hidden or mysterious about it at all. Your quest to prove what you want the document to say has FAILED.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It's hilarious that you parrot Capt BoB as a real pilot. He is simply a troofer just as you are and that's why he's as deluded as you are.

If you will look at Gopher 06's clearance the first point on J-518 after the SID was the BUFFR Intersection. Why don't you get Capt BoB to look that up and then explain how that fits with his "troofer logic.

You are WRONG and you have LIED to make it all fit. You LIED on the video analysis and you posted a LIE on the photographic analysis.

Subtract your LIES and this thread is DEAD.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The E4B is listed in the summary transcript, so nothing is hidden or mysterious about it at all. Your quest to prove what you want the document to say has FAILED.


I am still waiting for an explanation of what the E-4B was doing flying around during the attacks?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Nice job. A second hand quote? Apparently it was from an Air Force Official as the information is found in the document you are using!
You chose the media report when in fact the cover letter itself states the Air Force states they have no knowledge of the "white jet"!

I will type verbatim the lie: Air Force Officials have no knowledge of the aircraft in question.: Source-Karen L. Cook. Lt. Col. USAF

The aircraft in question of course was the unidentified aircraft flying in restricted airspace over D.C. which has now been identified via the CNN report and others as an E4B


You obviously need a lesson in reading comprehension.

The FOIA request was for the aircraft in RESTRICTED AIRSPACE above Washington, DC. You INTREPRET this as the "white jet" and/or as the E4B. How in the world do you know these are the same? Was the E4B in Restricted Airspace? I dare say it wasn't and you have no proof that it was in restricted airspace.

I dare say that if the request was for information on the E4B, the answer may have been different. In fact, the AF Lt Col answered the question which tells me that the E4B was, in fact, not in restricted airspace. She obviously had no idea if another aircraft was in restricted airspace or not and answered the question accordingly.

The E4B is listed in the summary transcript, so nothing is hidden or mysterious about it at all. Your quest to prove what you want the document to say has FAILED.


LOL! Do tell, what other jets, white, blue, silver, or pink, or any other color were seen and video taped over the restricted skies of DC as reported by CNN as being in restricted air space? The only jet it could have been was the E4-B as identified by CNN? Unless of course you want to tell us it was a different jet.
For your memory: www.liveleak.com...

What other jets were observed by the secret service over the skies of D.C. between 9:30 and 10:00 am?

What was the jet over the skies of DC that has been identified as an E4-B as reported by CNN?
Passenger jet? Good Year Blimp? C-130? A fly over plane? UFO? Flight 77?

Remember, the same jet that the good Lt. Col. stated the Air Force had no knowledge about.

"The morning of 9/11, CNN reported a mystery jet plane flying above Washington, DC. At 9:54 a.m., correspondent John King, who was standing near the White House, reported that about ten minutes earlier (hence, around 9:44 a.m.), there was "a white jet circling overhead." He added: "Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to b More..believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell." Shortly after, another CNN correspondent, Kate Snow, also reported having seen a plane, "circling over the Capitol" building at around the same time. She said: "Now whether that may have been an Air Force plane, it's unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol."


It was the E4-B. It was the only jet circling the D.C. and it may have been one of 4 E4-Bs 3 of which were taking part in the Global Guardian exercise.

Now tell me again why the Air Force lied about the knowledge of this jet and why you think the typed transcripts should be believed?

And do tell, why do you think the Air Force didn't release audio tapes like NORAD did?

Or keep dodging....



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
The E4B is listed in the summary transcript, so nothing is hidden or mysterious about it at all. Your quest to prove what you want the document to say has FAILED.


I am still waiting for an explanation of what the E-4B was doing flying around during the attacks?



Check out the article at this site: www.liveleak.com...

It gives a pretty damning reason why they were flying around the skies, including the one over D.C. Wargames, baby! The operational cover for an inside job.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Swing, I'm going to answer your question one more time and then you are on ignore regarding this issue.

CNN, Liveleak, or any other Internet site is NOT PROOF that the E4B was in the P-56 area.

P-56 is quite small....



The question on the FOIA was regarding an aircraft in the Restricted Area (P-56) and the answer given was "we have no knowledge".

YOU interpret that as denying knowledge of the E4B. That is a very bad assumption. The AF has no knowledge of who or when anyone is in the P-56 area or if they have permission to be there or not.

The E4B is listed in the summary transcripts, so it is not being "hidden" as you imply. You can research the 84th RADES data and determine it's track if you want to satisfy your curiosity.

You are simply making unsubstantiated accusations which amounts to "hot air".


[edit on 9-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Seriously Craig lots of shows on TV this week WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE who witnessed PLANE DEBRIS and bodies, etc.
Watch those TV shows CRAIG and MAKE A LIST and start interviewing those people.
BTW when you interview them let me know how they react when you tell them that all that crazy DNA, body parts, and debris was planted.
I doubt you will ever interview any of those people because that would put a halt to your fantasy.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Do you have any clue how often the military conducts "war games" as you put it?
Although I doubt that many military personnel refer to them as "games".
Only the ignorant would think this.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You are simply making unsubstantiated accusations which amounts to "hot air".


Then please gives us a good reason why the E-4B was flying around that day during the attacks.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBobert
Do you have any clue how often the military conducts "war games" as you put it?


YES, i do,, do you know?

Can you tell us what the E-4B was doing flying around during the attacks?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
You are simply making unsubstantiated accusations which amounts to "hot air".


Then please gives us a good reason why the E-4B was flying around that day during the attacks.



the E-4B located outside Washington has “only just taken off” at the time the Pentagon is hit (which is at 9:37 a.m.). Verton says the aircraft is then “immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center.” [Verton, 2003, pp. 144] Minutes after the Pentagon attack, an unidentified four-engine jet plane is seen circling above the White House (see (9:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001). CNN later suggests this is an E-4B, so it is possible it is the same plane as is launched from the airfield outside Washington. [CNN, 9/12/2007] For the whole story about the 3 e-4b's airborne that day follow this link E-4bs Military exercise



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Guess you are just going to ignore my post above. Yes I am talking to you Ultima. Although it doesnt surprise me in the least bit. You have done this countless times.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
Guess you are just going to ignore my post above. Yes I am talking to you Ultima. Although it doesnt surprise me in the least bit. You have done this countless times.


NO, just busy doing research to find the truth.

Its jsut too bad the exercise the E-4B was on was cancelled and the planes called back.

So that still does not answer the question, what was it dong flying around during the attack?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
Guess you are just going to ignore my post above. Yes I am talking to you Ultima. Although it doesnt surprise me in the least bit. You have done this countless times.


NO, just busy doing research to find the truth.

Its jsut too bad the exercise the E-4B was on was cancelled and the planes called back.

So that still does not answer the question, what was it dong flying around during the attack?


Wow, you obviously didnt read the link that I posted above.

Verton says the aircraft is then “immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center.”
Is that a good enough reason for it to be airborne. The plane took off from an unspecified airfield outside washington d.c. hence the reason it was flying around DC.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88 Is that a good enough reason for it to be airborne.


No not really, not when there was no reason for them to be up for a local exercise.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88 Is that a good enough reason for it to be airborne.


No not really, not when there was no reason for them to be up for a local exercise.


This is obviously way beyond you comprehension. It explains it all in the link above. You asked for a reason I gave. It was an exercise. An exercise that is conducted every year. An exercise that includes all three planes. I am not surprised you can't understand. After all, all of your post pretty much make no sense what so ever. IT is funny how you look for a conspiracy on every little detail on that day. Everything to you that happened on that day is a conspiracy and you have no proof or evidence to back it up. Can't wait till Jan 2009 when you can't post here anymore. It will make these discussions so much better.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by tide88]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
This is obviously way beyond you comprehension.


No it is very obvious that you know nothing about aircraft and what an E-4B is used for and why it would not be used just for a local exercise.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Again it wasnt being used for a local exercise. It was a national exercise. They diverted it after the attacks on the pentagon. Then it was used as a command center. It is all explained in the link I provided. I seriously hope you are not really an NSA analyst.

Verton says the aircraft is then “immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual NATIONAL AIRBORNE ORPERATIONS CENTER
You get it now. It was being used as part of a NATIONAL EXERCISE. It just took off from a airport outside D.C. that is why it was in the area. Are you sure you are not mentally deficient?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by tide88]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join