C-130 video confirms 84th RADES Data

[Reheat]

There is a new (to me) video of the Pentagon which shows the C-130. It appears to confirm the 84th RADES data. It is not a perfectly clear video, but that aircraft is quite obviously a C-130.

The C-130 comes into view @ 1:48, although you can only see it clearly in the close up view.

Distant view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4ja...eature=related

Close up view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj06...eature=related

RADES Data (shown with blue stick pins):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...rthandwest.jpg

Based upon my experience of witnessing literally hundreds of explosions from 250 # bombs up to 3000 # bombs (no the Pentagon impact was not a bomb, but similar) Mr. Tribby's video appears to have begun closer to 30 seconds after impact than to 1 minute after impact as he estimated. Note that the smoke and debris is still billowing when the video begins indicating closer to 30 seconds or less, rather than 1 minute following the initial explosion.

Next, when we can first see the C-130 @ 1:48 in the close up view video the aircraft is well into it's turn. I don't know the exact position of the Camera, but it appears to be ~ South of the Pentagon at the beginning and ~ East near the end. The camera is obviously virtually due East directly opposite the impact point at the time the C-130 appears. The C-130's body is near perpendicular to the camera when it first appears indicating it is well established in it's turn. Basing the turn on the RADES data it would have already turned ~ 100-120 degrees when it first comes into view.

Doing a little timing math starting from where the RADES data shows the beginning of the turn we find that the C-130 began it's turn ~ 1:38 after the NTSB calculated impact time of 9:37:45. The video began ~:30 + 1:48 = 2:18 after the explosion when the C-130 comes into view. BUT, the C-130 is well established in it's turn, very near perpendicular to the camera when it comes into view. If we estimate the C-130 has turned ~110-120 degrees the timing is near perfectly correlated with the RADES Data. The timing of the 84th RADES data is therefore correct.

The turn radius observed also confirms the 84th RADES data. The RADES Data shows a turn of ~ 150 degrees total for the C-130. At 300 KIAS (typical speed for a C-130) the turn radius would be 13,867'. That's over 2 miles for those who can't convert feet to miles. The aircraft in that video DID NOT turn from the NW approach indicated by the CIT ANC witnesses, it was much further South. It was well south of that position when it first comes into view and it's already well established in the turn. This proves the ANC witnesses were wrong about the C-130's approach angle.

The 84th RADES Data for the C-130 is correct. It also agrees with Lt Col O'Brien's account. One conspiracy theory down the tubes more to go!

Just to preempt Alpo. Someone can pass the word to him that I don't care what he says about Wheelhouse, Sucherman, or Roosevelt. Spin away, but he'll have a hard time convincing anyone knowledgeable that the RADES Data is wrong.

[Mangoose]

Another thing you can do to estimate the time Tribby began filming is compare the height and shape of the mushroom cloud with how it appears in the Pentagon CCTV and Doubletree videos, and determine how many seconds after impact that would be.

One other datum is the 9:39:10 time that Jim Miklacziewski on NBC gave his first report of the explosion at the Pentagon, having happened "moments ago". One witness from Crystal City said that when Miklacziewski said that in TV, he immediately turned to the window and saw a mushroom cloud rising up above the roofs of the intervening buildings. So even at 9:39 the smoke still had the shape of a mushroom cloud.

I do think that the 9:37:45 time is a bit too early for impact time, as it is based on the flight data recorder which did not record the last few seconds of the flight. So maybe 9:37:50-55 might be more precise.

[Mangoose]

You need to fix your third link, I think.

[ElMondoHummus]

Whoops. Reheat, the "close up" link and the "RADES data" one are the same. Mistake?

ETA: Blaaah... Mangoose beat me to it.

[Reheat]

Thanks for the tips. Excellent ideas. I'll look at those videos as I have time.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the impact time is a little early, but that's what I have to go with for now.....

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

You need to fix your third link, I think.

Oops, fixed it....

[Mangoose]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Doing a little timing math starting from where the RADES data shows the beginning of the turn we find that the C-130 began it's turn ~ 1:38 after the NTSB calculated impact time of 9:37:45.

Does this also take into account the fact that the clock in the RADES data was 25.3 seconds slow as the 9/11 Commission discovered? (see p. 4 in http://911files.info/foia_documents/..._documents.pdf)

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

Does this also take into account the fact that the clock in the RADES data was 25.3 seconds slow as the 9/11 Commission discovered? (see p. 4 in http://911files.info/foia_documents/..._documents.pdf)

Nope, didn't know that. That would balance out to zero if the filming begin at ~ 1 minute.

I did this as a kind of "back of the envelope exercise". I didn't spend very much time on it, so it is by no means perfect. I'm sure there will be other suggestions to use if I decide to do anything with it. It's not as if CIT needs further debunking, but everything helps.

Crips, your essay of a few day ago put them under the table. You really ought to put that in a permanent position rather than allowing it to languish here in a forgotten thread. Perhaps working with Mike W of 911 Myths to get a CIT section to go with the Aerodynamics analysis. It never hurts at all to have more than one angle.

[Mangoose]

I think it could maybe be fleshed out more and tightened up; I mainly wrote it to put into words what I've thought for these many months. Good job, btw, on the ATS board.

[Caustic Logic]

Reheat, great post and valuable research! I wrapped my brain around this a while back and found the same basic thing, but with no technical precision. The Tribby video matched the radar track in general shape and time of flight path. The main problem has been that it's not too clear, and dismissed by some as "a UFO," but no one can argue that it does just what the C-130 did. I just saw that cropped version - it's incredible. Finally we can see a C130.

For those who missed it, here it is again - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj06...eature=related
BTW - I have a friend with software to correct wobbly camerawork - maybe I can get him to look at this for another version... doubt it would make the plane any clearer but its path maybe

Anyway, just to add:

Quote:

Mr. Tribby's video appears to have begun closer to 30 seconds after impact than to 1 minute after impact as he estimated.

Indeed. Farmer and others have put it app. 15 sec, and by Mangoose's method, just visual and intuitive, I can only guess a bit higher, and offer a range of 10-30 sec.

Quote:

I don't know the exact position of the Camera, but it appears to be ~ South of the Pentagon at the beginning and ~ East near the end.

Agreed. I compared satellite images to the video and decided the exact spots - an arc from almost due south of impact to almost due east at the end.

And I second that Mangoose get his stuff up, it's great. There may still be some folks dumb enough to have believed CIT thus far but smart enough to learn.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Indeed. Farmer and others have put it app. 15 sec, and by Mangoose's method, just visual and intuitive, I can only guess a bit higher, and offer a range of 10-30 sec.

Quite frankly I could care less what Farmer guesses. I'll respect the opinion of those who have seen as many explosions as I have, not necessarily pundits that want to guess.

But, yes, I could agree with a shorter time. I didn't want to stretch it, but within 10-30 seconds is more reasonable than 1 minute.

I've looked at the DoubleTree Video and it doesn't help much. As the Tribby video begins, the smoke column and debris are still rising which means that stuff is still being propelled upward. Also, the wind has not affected the column as of yet. The size and shape of the column are not necessarily good criteria to use, but the fact that stuff is still being propelled upward is a key.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Agreed. I compared satellite images to the video and decided the exact spots - an arc from almost due south of impact to almost due east at the end.

I suspect someone will examine a highway sign to be more exact on the placement, but as it is, South to East is close enough for my conclusions at this point. The camera is obviously essentially directly opposite the impact point when the C-130 appears.

The timing issue has many small variables such as speed, bank angle, exactly where the turn began, whether or not they rolled out of the turn to have a look down, etc. But, the turn radius is a dead giveaway. The aircraft position was pretty close or even further South than the RADES data shows. That much is conclusive based upon what we see, so far.

[leonAzul]

Why talk about a mysterious C-130 at 1'48" without talking about the two birds that show up at 0'47" and 0'57"?

Is that evidence of collusion, or rather evidence of due diligence to collect evidence after a catastrophe?

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by leonAzul

Why talk about a mysterious C-130 at 1'48" without talking about the two birds that show up at 0'47" and 0'57"?

You might try a little Windex to clean your monitor. It works wonders on fly specs.....

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by leonAzul

Why talk about a mysterious C-130 at 1'48" without talking about the two birds that show up at 0'47" and 0'57"?

Is that evidence of collusion, or rather evidence of due diligence to collect evidence after a catastrophe?

I diligently examined your evidence, and discovered that both of those "birds" are attached to the ground by metal posts. I therefore judge that they are of little threat to national security. However, I agree that their presence adjacent to the highway does indicate some sort of collusion (most likely, between highway engineers, construction workers, and electricians).

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I diligently examined your evidence, and discovered that both of those "birds" are attached to the ground by metal posts. I therefore judge that they are of little threat to national security. However, I agree that their presence adjacent to the highway does indicate some sort of collusion (most likely, between highway engineers, construction workers, and electricians).

Nah, those posts are moving I tell you. It's the VDOT workers carrying the posts to be planted on the other side.

Don't you see the fertilizer bags lying nearby for the "planted" poles?

[16.5]

Well, Reheat, you got your foaming-at-the-mouth, barely literate screed of a response from Aldo and the boys over at LC.

He seems.... angry? Curious, if he really had something significant to say, you'd think he'd be able to communicate at a level above a 16 year You Tube commentor.

Funny, though, I thought Waldo stopped posting a LC after JFK would not throw another poster off the site despite Aldo's whining...

Anyway, at least this time Aldo got a couple of other peoiple to post in one of his threads. Sure they are his lapdogs, including Government Loyalist SPreston, but it sures beats his sad little lonely post begging for help on the ATS board.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Well, Reheat, you got your foaming-at-the-mouth, barely literate screed of a response from Aldo and the boys over at LC.

Let me know if they have anything worthwhile to say. Otherwise, I could care less.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Let me know if they have anything worthwhile to say. Otherwise, I could care less.

As to the bolded part, you and virtually every other person on earth.

As for substance, lets see.... I have it on good authority from SPreston that you are a "Government Loyalist" and he helpfully illustrated it with 73 pictures of Paik pointing straight South of the CITGO.

Edited to add: Oh yeah, SPRESTON also said that CIT is accomplishing nothing, but they'll have to hash that out over at the CIT TreeFort.

[Spektator]

Not completely OT, but the traffic visible makes it unlikely that a crew of government agents were out chainsawing the light poles. Someone would have seen them.

[Mangoose]

Well, you're right that the Doubletree video doesn't show that much --- clipping off most of the mushroom cloud. But I do notice one feature that may help fix the timing of the Tribby video. With the video starting at 0:10, at 0:28 (18 seconds into the video) we can see a second smaller smoke trail starting to the left of the major smoke plume, rising above the roof of the Pentagon. This is visible in the other videos. In the case of the Doubletree video, we can see this smaller trail appear over the Pentagon to the left of the main plume at 9:34:53 (as time-stamped). That is 43 seconds later than the explosion seen at 9:34:10. Similarly, with the Pentagon CCTV video (pentagon_gate_1.mpg), that smaller smoke trail (emanating from the generator trailer) rises above the roof of the Pentagon at about 40-43 seconds after impact.

Since the start of the Tribby video is about 18 seconds prior to the appearance of this smoke trail over the Pentagon roof, and since the explosion occurred about 43 seconds prior to this same event, that would suggest that the Tribby video starts about 25 seconds after the impact. That is pretty close to your own rough guestimation. I don't really have it pinned down precisely (owing to differences in perspective between the cameras with respect to the appearance of the smoke trail, and possibly minor synching differences between the one-frame-per-second videos), so I would expect some margin of error here, but I would doubt it would be more than 10 seconds. At least, that is my own observation of the videos.

If the above is correct, and if we use 9:37:55 as the probable time of impact, then the Tribby video would have started at about 9:38:20 and the C-130 came into view at about 9:40:08. The RADES data puts the plane closest to the Pentagon between 9:39:23 and 9:39:35. Since the clock was about 25 seconds slow, the actual radar time would have been between 9:39:48 and 9:40:00. That's pretty close.

[Reheat]

Outstanding observations, Mangoose! Just the type of thing needed to pin this down more.

I think we're up to 4-5 now who time this beginning at about 30 seconds, not 1 minute.

[Mangoose]

Hold on, I have some huge developments coming soon! Tribby wasn't the only one who had footage of the C-130.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

Hold on, I have some huge developments coming soon!

Oh Cripes, did Lyte hijack Mangoose's account?

/that was humor

[Mangoose]

Okay, so Bruce Looney was another person who captured images of the C-130 from a location at Fort Leslie McNair on the bank of the Washington Channel. The photos may be downloaded here:

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/159.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/160.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/161.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/162.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/163.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/164.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/165.pjpeg
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/files/166.pjpeg

The photos fortunately contain EXIF data, and so here are some details about them individually:

#159: 8:33:01 (approx. 45 seconds after impact acc. to Looney; no C-130 visible)
#160: 8:33:16 (no C-130 visible)
#161: 8:33:24 (first C-130 photo)
#162: 8:33:53 (second C-130 photo)
#163: 8:34:05 (third C-130 photo)
#164: 8:34:20 (fourth C-130 photo; C-130 barely visible in the distance)
#165: 8:34:55 (C-130 no longer visible)
#166: 8:35:49 (C-130 no longer visible)

The four frames with the plane are presented together here:



The photographer's estimate that the first photo (#159) was taken about 45 seconds after the explosion would put it at 9:38:40 and the time of photo #161 would correspond to 9:39:03 -- about a minute too soon. Maybe you might also be able to judge if the smoke column in #159 looks more congruent with a time about a minute and 45 seconds after the explosion than a time just 45 seconds after the explosion. If we assume #161 is roughly synchronous with about 1:48-1:55 in the Tribby video, and that this corresponds to 9:40:08 to 9:40:15, then the actual time of #159 would have been about 9:39:45 to 9:39:52. Anyway, the C-130 is not visible at all in #159 or #160, even though these were just seconds prior to #161, and this is explainable if the C-130 was approaching along the RADES flight path and its approach was blocked from view by the smoke column. It certainly is not visible to the right of the smoke column. Then it appears in the midst of the smoke column from the POV of the photographer and that caught his attention to make him zoom in on it in #161. It also appears to be banked to the left (similar to the Tribby video), and it appears to the right of the smoke column in the remaining three photos and the plane is viewed from the rear. All this suggests that the plane, once it became visible from Looney's vantage point, banked to take a course to west after flying north of the Pentagon.

I tried to put the images together in a single view, and it is very rough because it is clear the Looney's position changed between photos and I am sure a much more accurate rendition could be done -- nonetheless, I think it gives a rough picture of the flight path:



Comments welcome!

[Reheat]

Outstanding Mangoose!!!!!!!!

If the time of 45 second is correct for # 159 then the Tribby video begins at ~15-20 seconds, correct?

Note that the aircraft in # 161 is already near perpendicular to the camera and it is clearly approximately over Pentagon City.

Perhaps the reason the aircraft is not visible in the earlier photos is due to the smoke and also due to the head on view which is more difficult to see and to show on film. In # 161 we are now looking at a plan form view and in very light smoke so it's easily visible.

The aircraft is obviously on the cross leg of the RADES data depiction as noted below...



These are even better depictions to confirm the RADES data.

ETA: # 162, 163 and 164 are not properly over laid in the composite. However, those are not so important and I wouldn't recommend spending any more time doing that tedious work. The RADES data is solidly confirmed and I get these bad vibes about the word redundant.

[Mangoose]

Actually, as explained above, I don't think #159 was taken 45 seconds after impact, it was more like 1 minute 45 seconds. The EXIF data in the photos would not leave enough time between #159 and #161 if #159 was taken 45 seconds after impact, as the Tribby video proves that the duration of time was longer. The timing of 1 minute 45 seconds matches #161 with the moment when the C-130 was visible from the same position in the Tribby video.

Notice that the adjusted RADES time would have the plane over Pentagon City around 9:39:48 (taking that 25 second discrepency into account). Now, the time I earlier estimated #159 to have been taken (on the basis of the Tribby video) was given above as 9:39:45 to 9:39:52. I can't think of a better fit than that. And the position of the plane in #159 (SOUTH of the Pentagon, in the environs of Pentagon City) is completely inconsistent with CIT's so-called "actual C-130 flight path". The bank in the wings is also consistent with the RADES flight path. The next photo #162 was taken 29 seconds later and by then the plane was northwest of the Pentagon and had turned around with the rear of the plane facing the viewer. The time of #162 can thus be estimated as 9:40:14 to 9:40:21 and we can see that in the RADES data, it was at 9:40:00 that the plane was over Arlington Cemetary after passing over the Navy Annex. About 15-20 seconds later, it would have been a good deal to the west of Arlington Cemetary. I'm surprised how well this all fits together.

[Reheat]

Your # 160 in the second paragraph is mislabeled. That should be either #162 or 163 you're addressing.

Otherwise, I can not argue with any of your analysis.

This is about as solid as it's going to get. The RADES data is confirmed, again.

[Mangoose]

Typo fixed. Both the video and photos reinforce each other to validate the RADES flight path and timeline and demonstrate the perils of being guided solely by eyewitness evidence.

Waldo claiming the photos are faked in 4, 3, 2, 1....

[Mangoose]

BTW, do you have a map plot for the C-130's position around 9:40:19 (RADES clock)? That would correspond to where the plane should be in #164. I'm curious to know how far away that would have been (nearly a minute after #161).

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

BTW, do you have a map plot for the C-130's position around 9:40:19 (RADES clock)? That would correspond to where the plane should be in #164. I'm curious to know how far away that would have been (nearly a minute after #161).

I don't have the RADES plots for that, but I think Boone870 is working on that. A C-130 cruises at about 5 miles per minute, but he was climbing so a little less than that. From the # 161 position he continued on a ~350 degree true heading for roughly 5 seconds, turned to a heading of ~300 degrees true for 15 seconds, then a turn to ~290 degrees true. Adding up all of that, plus the time in the turns would put him no more than about 2.5-3 miles NW of the impact point at the Pentagon, probably about between Arlington Cemetery and the center of the City of Arlington. I'm basing this on the RADES data, not the video as it's difficult to see that later turn.

If Boone870 does the RADES plots one of us will post that.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Reheat

I don't have the RADES plots for that, but I think Boone870 is working on that. A C-130 cruises at about 5 miles per minute, but he was climbing so a little less than that. From the # 161 position he continued on a ~350 degree true heading for roughly 5 seconds, turned to a heading of ~300 degrees true for 15 seconds, then a turn to ~290 degrees true. Adding up all of that, plus the time in the turns would put him no more than about 2.5-3 miles NW of the impact point at the Pentagon, probably about between Arlington Cemetery and the center of the City of Arlington. I'm basing this on the RADES data, not the video as it's difficult to see that later turn.

If Boone870 does the RADES plots one of us will post that.

Poor SPreston is dumber than dirt! He spews the lie the RADES data is fake. What a dolt.

The C-130, he was at 2300 to 2200 feet when he was close to the Pentagon. He makes a single pass to report back to ATC. Before he was at 3500 feet approaching the Pentagon when asked to follow 77. What non pilots don't know, seeing 77 descend miles in front of you through your altitude is NOT NORMAL! The C-130 was visible in the sky when 77 impacts, he is only 2 minutes out. One witnesses had to calm down people when the C-130 was first seen from the highway, he figure it out right away (this is the only good from studying the lies and crap from 9/11 truth, you learn about people who had a clue, trying to help others@!)

Impact for RADES clock would be about 37:27 (based on speed from the last RADES point) , the impact for the FDR clock based on terrain matching to RADES data would be 37:49; That is 22 seconds off, give or take a second or two. Is this close to what other people are finding? (best estimate based on average speeds)

I match 37:35 from the FDR to the RADES point 37:12 for 24 seconds difference. OOPS…

So I have 22 seconds to 24 seconds difference in RADES time and FDR time. I need more money to do this, I am suppose to be putting in posts and curing the cement.

[Mangoose]

Compare this with the document of tower communications between the tower at National Airport and the C-130.

http://aal77.com/faa/pinnacle_docs.pdf (p. 6)

At 13:37:13 the C-130 was advised to take a heading 080 to follow the aircraft, and that corresponds to the RADES time of *9:36:48 (remember, 25 seconds slow of the actual time) just before the C-130 began to make its turn towards an east heading. Then the C-130 reported at 13:38:00 that the aircraft was down, and this fits well with the crash occurring at 9:37:55. At this point, the C-130 would have been where the return was received at RADES time of *9:37:36. I would guess that at this distance, the pilot could not yet tell exactly where the plane went down. Then at 13:38:26 (*9:38:01) he advised that the plane crashed into the Pentagon, so he was close enough to see this clearly at this point. After this, the C-130 is given a 270 heading at 13:38:47 (*9:38:22), but the pilot requested to do a fly around of the Pentagon first, which was approved at 13:39:00 (*9:38:35). At 13:39:16 (*9:38:51), the pilot advised that the plane had crashed into the west side of the Pentagon -- the most detailed observation yet. Going by the RADES data, the C-130 then reached Pentagon City at 13:39:48 (*9:39:23) and did its requested flyby. Presumably it then went on a heading of 270, as requested earlier. Finally, at 13:40:40 (*9:40:15), the C-130 was ordered to ascend to 11,000 feet and take a 330 heading (NNW). That again fits with the chronology I gave above.

So I think we now have four sets of overlapping and confirming data: 84RADES, the Tribby video, the 8 Bruce Looney photos, and the National airport communications with GOFER06.

[Mangoose]

Originally Posted by beachnut

So I have 22 seconds to 24 seconds difference in RADES time and FDR time.

As mentioned earlier, the 9/11 Commission found a 25.3 second discrepency between RADES time and actual time, and this has worked rather well with harmonizing RADES with both the Tribby video and the Looney stills. Moreover, I would estimate there were an additional 5-10 seconds between the last FDR time and impact. (I have been using 9:37:55 as a provisional guess of impact time)

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

As mentioned earlier, the 9/11 Commission found a 25.3 second discrepency between RADES time and actual time, and this has worked rather well with harmonizing RADES with both the Tribby video and the Looney stills. Moreover, I would estimate there were an additional 5-10 seconds between the last FDR time and impact. (I have been using 9:37:55 as a provisional guess of impact time)

I was trying to match altitude/RADALT to ground near the last RADES at 37:12, and then ran the FDR and RADES forward to impact. I come up with a two second difference in the impact time. The questions is to model the errors of the RADES data. What is the accuracy at the last point. But then there is also at least a one second error in my matching points back from impact. So getting 22 to 24 seconds based on backing up from the impact with RADES and FDR, is very close to the time offset the 9/11 commission found entirely independent of my piecewise reconstruction bs.

The Video stuff confirms the RADES and I have no idea why CIT does not understand "south of the Mall" is the RADES data! And this matches exactly what the pilot of the C-130 said, he could see the Mall, because the MALL is TWO (2) MILES LONG. CIT has to be the dumbest investigators in the world, the only people dumber; those who believe them.

good work with the video

[Pinch]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The Video stuff confirms the RADES and I have no idea why CIT does not understand "south of the Mall" is the RADES data! And this matches exactly what the pilot of the C-130 said, he could see the Mall, because the MALL is TWO (2) MILES LONG. CIT has to be the dumbest investigators in the world, the only people dumber; those who believe them.

Beachnut,

Good job with the video analysis.

I've lived in this area for nearly 10 years and have spent that time working at either the Pentagon, Crystal City or the Washington Navy Yard. I have flown into Andrews and have been there dozens of times on active and reserve navy business. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen aircraft on that Morningstar or Camp Springs departure, headed out to the west on radar vectors, SOUTH of the Anacostia River - which is exactly what Gopher 06 was doing.

A western departure SOUTH of the Anacostia is, of course and as you said, south of the Mall, and you can see dang near everything there is to see in the DC area - just as O'Brien said.

The trouble the buffoons at CIT and other twoofers have is that they take statements from people and apply them *110%* literally, so if O'Brien said he was flying "south of the mall" the new cover-girls Aldo and Craig interpret that as the C-130 dragging its starboard wingtip along Independence Blvd. Which is, of course, BS.

In addition, no departure controller anywhere would vector an aircraft so close to P-56.

Still, its fun to watch ol' Aldo go into a catatonic vapor-lock mode. Maybe he'll explode?

[Pinch]

And, I hasten to add, I have NEVER ever seen any aircraft -military or otherwise -fly the route the cover-girl CIT boys claim the C-130 flew. Simply ain't gonna and never gonna happen.

[Boone 870]

Below is an image of the CIT Fantasy Loop. Yellow represents the C-130's flight path.


I asked Craig, last December, why he depicted the C-130 making a left turn. He never responded with a reasonable answer.

Common sense would dictate that if an aircraft passes in front of you traveling from the left to the right, you would turn right to follow it. The ATC transcripts that Mangoose posted earlier proves this.

Also, Lynn Spencer (Touching History) says that Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien gave the controls to his copilot, Lt. Col. Schumacher, to make the right hand turn because O'Brien could no longer see Flight 77.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Boone 870

.......
I asked Craig, last December, why he depicted the C-130 making a left turn. He never responded with a reasonable answer.

Ranke and reasonable are an oxymoron.

Do you intend to do any more RADES analysis or plots?

I'm not sure it's needed, but based on your comment at ATS I though maybe you intended to do that.

In fact, I'm not sure more information is needed at this point to sew this up. It appears to me to be as solid as it can get. I've seen NO CREDIBLE argument yet, but I'm reasonably sure the fantasists will cry fake or some other such nonsense. At that point facts tend to become irrelevant to the argument and it becomes an insult exchange match with CIT which has become the standard fare with them.

If anyone has suggestions on the direction to go from this point, I'm sure it would be welcome by all concerned.

[Boone 870]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Ranke and reasonable are an oxymoron.

Do you intend to do any more RADES analysis or plots?

I'm not sure it's needed, but based on your comment at ATS I though maybe you intended to do that.

I'm going to try. Don't hold your breath though, my understanding of computers is less than your average 10-year-old.

Quote:

In fact, I'm not sure more information is needed at this point to sew this up. It appears to me to be as solid as it can get. I've seen NO CREDIBLE argument yet, but I'm reasonably sure the fantasists will cry fake or some other such nonsense. At that point facts tend to become irrelevant to the argument and it becomes an insult exchange match with CIT which has become the standard fare with them.

I agree.

Quote:

If anyone has suggestions on the direction to go from this point, I'm sure it would be welcome by all concerned.

There are questions and assumptions made by the truth movement, regarding the C-130, that I don't have solid answers for.

1. Why was the C-130 allowed to take off after the 9:25 national ground stop?

I don't find anything suspicious about it because there were other aircraft taking off before and after Gopher 06.http://aal77.com/faa/5%20ADW%201%20F...s%20Strips.pdf

When Ben Sliney ordered the ground stop at the FAA Command Center, they would've been more concerned with contacting civilian Centers, TRACONs, and Towers, not Air Force bases. I believe Rob has stated that Andrews tower would have known about the ground stop because departing traffic would need takeoff clearance from local departure control.

I'm not familiar with Class B airspace, or if Andrews falls under its regulations, but I believe that the tower would have cleared him for take off and then handed him off to the local departure control where he would pick up his IFR flight plan.

2. CIT's belief that C-130 flew just south of P56 airspace, right through the middle D.C.

As Pinch has pointed out, air traffic over that part of the city is rare. There are several rules regarding noise abatement in the DC area and the likelihood of a controller directing any airplane that close to the mall is slim, nevermind the standard departure procedures out of Andrews.

3. CIT believes that O'Brien is innocent and the perpetrators sent the C-130 over the Pentagon to be used as cover for any witnesses who saw a flyover.

For this part of the conspiracy to be true, someone other than O'Brien would have had to work up his flight plan and assign a departure time. Also, the civilian controller would've had to have been part of the conspiracy. To me, this seems very irrational and highly unlikely.

Any thoughts?

[EvanSent]

I am trying to understand why you are all avoiding the fact that the plane and the C-130 were both in or near DC skies...

It has been clearly established.

Reheat, Boone and Mangoose,

-Did Monte Belger report to Norman Mineta that the plane was coming DRA, and was somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, near the USA Today building? Did Mineta say the plane over passed the Pentagon, then turned around and came back in Yes or no? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Did Danielle O'Brien say that the plane overshot or missed the White House and that they came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them? Yes or no? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Did Ari Fleischer disagree with the SW of the pentagon/white house official flight path? Did he say "That is not the radar data that we have seen," adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."? Yes or no? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Did Col. Dawn Deskins say she lost radar contact "right over Washington"? Yes or no? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Did Colin Scoggins report, based on a visual from FAA headquarters in Washington DC, say that the plane was 6 mi SE of the white house? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Did the C-130 pilot report that he flew on the south side of the mall in the BBC interview? Did the BBC report him as flying over Washington DC? Did spokesman Kenneth McClellan state that the jet was heading into Washington at an unsual angle? Yes or no? Does this support a DC flight path, yes or no?

-Where did Stuart Artman see the plane?

-Where did Joe Hurst see the plane?

-Where did Clyde Vaughn see the plane?

-Where did Joseph Candelario see the plane?

-Where did Steve Chaconas see the plane?

-Did Steve Chaconas see the C-130? Why not? Have you contacted any of these witnesses?

-Did the ANC workers ALL see the C-130 come from the NW over the cemetery? Does this support the DC flight path for the C-130 and attack jet? Yes or no?