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.

 

CIT had it wrong.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
CIT has been claiming, for almost a year, that the 84th RADES data is fake. They came to this conclusion after misinterpreting the C-130 pilot's words:


"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.


Here is their interpretation:


As far as I know, this simple misunderstanding is the only evidence that supports their interpretation of the C-130's flight path.


Below, I will list several pieces of evidence to counter their beliefs and maybe it will help everyone understand why they are wrong.

1) 84th RADES flight path of Gopher 06 and Flight 77.




2)

Variation: 10W (1995)

Andrews Air Force Base has a 10° West magnetic variation. This explains why the C-130 appears to be flying slightly south of West in the RADES data. airnav.com...



3) Camp Springs One, is a standard departure route out of Andrews Air Force Base. Source.




4) ATC summary transcript between Washington Departure and Gopher 06.
aal77.com



5) Actual air traffic control recordings between Washington Departure and Gopher 06. aal77.com -click the link that says ''1 DCA 108 TYSON 1325-1348.mp3''

The air traffic controller tells Gopher 06 to "turn right".

As you can see, the C-130 made a right hand turn to follow Flight 77 instead of a left-hand turn as CIT has depicted and that matches the RADES data, proving the CIT fantasy loop wrong.


There is more evidence to prove that they have it wrong, but I think this should suffice.




[edit on 16-9-2008 by Boone 870]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
*Shakes his head*

What a sad state of affairs, that anyone at all would require this much detail in order to be convinced that an obvious collision between a jumbo jet and one of the world's largest buildings took place.


To those whom the above post pertains to: Just FYI, the Flintstones is not a documentary, either. Shocking, really, I know.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Here's a copy of the analysis of this communication I previously did based on the summary transcripts. Those transcripts are now verified by the actual recordings of the communication.

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 nm West of DCA and it's now 5 nm West of O'Brien's C-130 headed North. So, from the advisory of 10 nm west of DCA to 5 nm 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 be moving from LEFT TO RIGHT in the C-130's windscreen on their fantasy 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.

The question now becomes how many times and in how many ways does the CIT garbage need to be proven wrong before everyone gets the idea that their crap is a FRAUD?


[edit on 17-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
1. This does nothing whatsoever to refute the north side approach which is what we cite as definitive proof of a military deception.

2. It doesn't matter one bit whether O'Brien turned right or left when he "turned back east" to try and follow it as he claimed.

3. We provide corroborated independent verifiable evidence PROVING the C-130 did not approach as shown in the RADES data.



You have provided ZERO independent evidence.

Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to dismiss all the witnesses on the street of being delusional in the exact same way?

Is your trust in the government really that unwavering?

Why?

Faith based claims do not refute independent evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Craig, what is your take regarding the ATC recordings?

Do you believe that they have been manipulated?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

1. This does nothing whatsoever to refute the north side approach which is what we cite as definitive proof of a military deception.


...Our interlocuter perhaps does not know what making a positive claim means?

Since you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, it is up to you to provide the data / evidence that supports this claim. It is not up to anyone to provide evidence to refute an unsubstantiated claim.

Moreover, if your claim contradicts a principle that is already well-established, the burden is also upon you as the claimant to demonstrate why your argument is the stronger of the two.


3. We provide corroborated independent verifiable evidence PROVING the C-130 did not approach as shown in the RADES data.


You have not.

For starters, eyewitness testimony is never solid evidence. People often get things wrong at the immediate scene of an incident; corroborating testimony is good evidence if it isn't contradicted by physical evidence - which, in this case, it most certainly is.

Secondly, you interview was conducted in such a way as to create a bias. You did not ask open-ended questions, and suggested positive or negative answers to the people you interviewed. This is not good science.

Lastly, your argument is a special pleading fallacy. You affirm that the corroboration of the position of the aircraft must be correct, but the further corroboration of the fate of the aircraft (that it hit the building) must not, and you do so without a clear reason. To call this approach scientific at all is ridiculous.


Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to dismiss all the witnesses on the street of being delusional in the exact same way?


I don't live in your country, and I certainly have zero faith in that laughable 'administration' running it. Moreover, you're conflating the term 'mistaken' (or perhaps 'misled' would be the more appropriate term here) with 'delusional' in order to make sound observations look inflammatory. There's nothing insulting about telling someone that they were wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Haven't listened to them.

However we'll never know if they were manipulated but it's certainly possible.

What I do know is that you can not fairly accept government controlled and supplied information as a means to rule out government involvement in 9/11.

That would be illogical and demonstrate a confirmation bias or inherent and unwavering faith in what you are told.

Particularly when there is so much independent verifiable evidence to the contrary.



[edit on 17-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin R Brown
 


Ok masterdebator.

Whatever you say.



I provide evidence, you have provided none.

You subscribe to spin, semantic arguments, and pure faith in what you are told by the USG while I provide hard evidence proving their story false.

That is the already crystal clear difference between us.

See ya 'round but it won't be this thread.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Ok masterdebator.

Whatever you say.


...And this would be an ad hominem attack (which I was under the impression were against the rules here?)


I provide evidence, you have provided none.

You subscribe to spin, semantic arguments, and pure faith in what you are told by the USG while I provide hard evidence proving their story false.


Logical fallacies have nothing to do with semantics. Physical aircraft wreckage, human remains and radar reports are not 'blind faith', and are evidence, and that is what I'm putting forward here. If you can demonstrate how your claim explains-away the physical evidence, please, enlighten me.


That is the already crystal clear difference between us.


I agree. One of us is using good evidence and sound reasoning (myself), and the other is not (yourself).



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
This is the first time I have commented on this subject.

I havn`t a reason to doubt the eye witnesses that saw the plane on the left side of the gas station (left as in,if you were at the station looking at the pentagon) as opposed to the right side as the flight path data is said to show.

Coupled with that,the only video evidence of the plane hitting the building (as quick as it is) shows it hitting at a 90 degree angle (or close enough to) which would be correct if the flight path was from the left of the station,not a 45 degree angle (or there abouts) from the flight path data.

I have no idea what all this means,what it doesn`t mean is that it means a fly over deception happened as claimed by CIT based on one witness that says he saw a plane ten seconds after the impact.

Imagine for a second a plane at low altitude (100ft) doing 400 odd mph the distance it would travel at low altitude in ten seconds,this only lonely witness to a commercial plane after the impact said he saw the plane which was in the parking lot area ten seconds after the impact.If CIT or other are suggesting that explosives or a missile was used for the explosion and a fly over occured,then all the other witnesses CIT interviewed would have seen and heard the explosion whilst viewing the plane they saw still on its way in on its flight path toward or above the annex building,for this one witness to be correct.

Where there would have been many people witness a fly over.

I hope thats clear enough to follow?

To make my belief as clear as crystal,a fly over deception based on CIT`s thoughts to me are ludicrous.Though as I said have no reason to doubt the witness`s that saw the plane pass the gas station on the left.

I`ll leave it to the rest of you guys/gals who are up to speed on all of this,just wanted to add my 0.02.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. This does nothing whatsoever to refute the north side approach which is what we cite as definitive proof of a military deception.


It does prove that CIT's "East of the Potomac" approach for AA77 is a crock of bologna. It also proves that all of the ANC people were wrong about the C-130 approach path to the Pentagon. It also proves your C-130 path from Andrews is wrong.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
2. It doesn't matter one bit whether O'Brien turned right or left when he "turned back east" to try and follow it as he claimed.


Oh, but it does matter. It proves your entire fantasy regarding the C-130 path WRONG. If the C-130 flew "East" as you say here that proves your ANC witnesses wrong. It would have needed to fly SE (heading about 135 degrees) in order to approach as the ANC people said. Also, it's departure instructions from the Pentagon area prove it's approach path. All of this proves the 84th RADES data correct.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
3. We provide corroborated independent verifiable evidence PROVING the C-130 did not approach as shown in the RADES data.


But, this has been proven WRONG by these ATC Communications, Tribby Video, Looney photographs, ADW Radar Records, and DCA Radar Records.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to dismiss all the witnesses on the street of being delusional in the exact same way?


Since when are the Tribby Video and Looney Photographs from the Government? These items VERIFY the Government "story".

YOU have tried to manipulate analysis of these two photographic records to make your fantasy work and have been caught doing it. You have had to LIE to try and make them fit. Where is similar evidence that the Government has lied in any of this? The only evidence of lies is by CIT.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Is your trust in the government really that unwavering?


There is ZERO evidence that the Government has falsified anything. It all fits together perfectly and correlates with the non-Government supplied photographic evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence all over the place that CIT has LIED.

CIT are the proven liars here, not the Government supplied evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Haven't listened to them.
You should, it demonstrates how wrong you are.



However we'll never know if they were manipulated but it's certainly possible.
Actually, you're wrong. Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien could clear it up with one simple e-mail. Do you still have his contact information?



What I do know is that you can not fairly accept government controlled and supplied information as a means to rule out government involvement in 9/11.
But it's alright to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory?



That would be illogical and demonstrate a confirmation bias or inherent and unwavering faith in what you are told.
Demonstrating confirmation bias is exactly what you have done. After you interviewed your witnesses, you could have shown them the NTSB and RADES data and explained how they contradict the excepted flight paths to see if their stories changed.

Did you do that?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
On the point about the fly-over. if a few cameras caught a plane (or something) hist the pentagon, wouldn't more cameras catch a plane doing a fly-by of the capitol building?

I am sure that there would be dozens of people that would swear they saw a low flyover even after they heard the explosion.


Also, if a commercial jet liner was flying at 100' and tried to ascend after that it would have to use significant thrust, which would most likely cause other disruptions like broken windows and scared school children (given the time of the strike).



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
OOPS!
This is a little off topic, but I starred the op without really knowing the info.
I'm not 'mechanically inclined' too much!
Sorry!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This is bound to be 'old hat' but I played with the FDR data and backtracked the flight path of AA77 from the Pentagon to just prior to the commencement of the turn (approx final 4 minutes) based on computed ground speed and bearing in 1 second increments. It has been corrected to a true north reference and the units are statute miles referenced to the impact point (0,0).



Where did the idea of AA77 flying a path that took it east of the river come from?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 

I see

Quite a saga there but it reads like fiction to me. AA77 never flew east of the river - there'd be no covering it up if it did.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin R Brown
*Shakes his head*

What a sad state of affairs, that anyone at all would require this much detail in order to be convinced that an obvious collision between a jumbo jet and one of the world's largest buildings took place.


To those whom the above post pertains to: Just FYI, the Flintstones is not a documentary, either. Shocking, really, I know.



Hmm, it s obvious that the facts are being covered up for some reason. I wonder what the reason is?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


What facts are being covered up?

The C-130 pilot has given his account to several media outlets. We have the RADES data and air traffic control recording.

All of the information, combined, proves without a doubt that the C-130 flew where the government said it did and CIT is wrong.`




top topics



 
3

log in

join