IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The C-130 Departed After National Groundstop, According to RADES Data coordinate

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Mar 20 2008, 06:03 PM
Post #1


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 21 2008, 01:33 AM
Post #2





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Looks like an instant vector westSOUTHwest without traveling north at all too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Mar 21 2008, 11:43 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



ok, i had proposed that a year ago, that Fat ALbert (the plane, not Pilot O'brien) should not have been allowed to take off, since Monty Belger's ground stop was going out at 9:25 -- alll commerical and non-essential military craft no take offs permitted, as the NATION WAS CLEARLY UNDER HOSTILE AIR ATTACK.

i was told that "C130 was already taxiing at that time, so it avoided the ground-stop"

interesting to learn.

the C130 story stinks to high heaven -- yeah, during the biggest air attack emergency since Pearl Harbor, and the only one in CONUS, the Tower is going to let a routine transfer flight back to Minnesota take off over the nation's capitol...

there is no valid reason to let this happen.

if O'brien is not WITTING to the plot, then he was USED like a wad of kleenex
"umm... hey... we need you to take off... ummm.. then turn and scout the pentagon like this... um.. after that... fly off course to Someret County... where UA92 crashed... "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 22 2008, 12:34 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (JackD @ Mar 21 2008, 11:43 PM) *
alll commerical and non-essential military craft no take offs permitted, as the NATION WAS CLEARLY UNDER HOSTILE AIR ATTACK.

i was told that "C130 was already taxiing at that time, so it avoided the ground-stop"



If the above is accurate, then there is a major problem with this issue. I have been taxiing out, only to be stuck at the hold short lines due to a ground stop at the destination many times, sometimes even returned to the gate due to prolonged ground stops. Just because one starts taxi, does not mean they will avoid a ground stop. Who told you that Jack?

The other thing is, why would they issue Camp Springs as the radar suggests, to cross approaching/landing traffic into Reagan? They wouldnt imo. They would issue the Morningside One which would depart him straight out to the north to receive vectors. Perhaps that is why it is called the Morningside One. It avoids morning rush hour into/out of DCA.

Does anyone know if DCA was accepting landing traffic after the ground stop? I think they were, especially corporate traffic. Wasnt an America West reported to have landed at DCA just moments after the strike at the pentagon? N644AW?

Aldo, try to get Woody over here, i think he has all the BTS reports for DCA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Mar 22 2008, 02:31 PM
Post #5


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 22 2008, 04:34 AM) *
If the above is accurate, then there is a major problem with this issue. I have been taxiing out, only to be stuck at the hold short lines due to a ground stop at the destination many times, sometimes even returned to the gate due to prolonged ground stops. Just because one starts taxi, does not mean they will avoid a ground stop. Who told you that Jack?

The other thing is, why would they issue Camp Springs as the radar suggests, to cross approaching/landing traffic into Reagan? They wouldnt imo. They would issue the Morningside One which would depart him straight out to the north to receive vectors. Perhaps that is why it is called the Morningside One. It avoids morning rush hour into/out of DCA.

Does anyone know if DCA was accepting landing traffic after the ground stop? I think they were, especially corporate traffic. Wasnt an America West reported to have landed at DCA just moments after the strike at the pentagon? N644AW?

Aldo, try to get Woody over here, i think he has all the BTS reports for DCA.



Will do Rob.

Yes our 'buddy' Boone over at LCF listed a few in an attempt to cast doubt on Steve Chaconas. So yes there were accepting landing traffic.

Great points you made though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Mar 24 2008, 01:51 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



I looked up my PMs, and think that information "the C130 was allowed to take off since
it was already taxiing --" was provided by a Troll on old forums.

Hence, ignore. it means nothing. read on here,
from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,174912,00.html


QUOTE
At 9:25, Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. The order, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff — civilian, military, or law enforcement. The Herndon command center coordinated the phone call to all major FAA sites, the airline reps in the room contacted all airlines, and so-called NOTAMS —notices to airmen — were also sent out. The FAA had stopped the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 24 2008, 02:05 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Yeah, i figured it might be a troll.

This is very interesting, even more so in that O'Brien should never have been able to get to Somerset either.

O'brien should have certainly been stopped at the hold short lines at the runway and returned to the ramp at ADW. If there were some reason he was able to get off the ground (which i dont see any reason as of now), he certainly should have never made it to Somerset. His flight was not essential military traffic, he was just going back home...

I think CIT is right when they say he is an unknowing dupe in an attempt to add credibility to the govt story version of events at Somerset and the pentagon, the two places which did not have ample clear camera footage as did NYC.


Thanks Jack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Mar 24 2008, 02:50 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



I thus challenge any OCT supporters to defend the rationale for O'Brien's C130 (callsign Gopher06)
being allowed to prep for take off, get clearance, taxi, take off.

Any US Mil pilots out here that can describe the timing & procedures for C-130 or other cargo
flights from place like Andrews AFB?

the side-by-side timeline of air events, air threat conf calls, FAA & norad activity, coupled with
what the C-130 plane & crew were doing might be illuminating.

I cannot fathom why this non-essential, slow moving, lumbering plane was allowed to take off at the time & day it did -- from the air base closest to DC, in the middle of a "new Pearl Harbor" -- and while a Combat Air Patrol was desperately being organized by air defense (scrambled, allegedly, from Langley VA).

Something ain't right about the C130 story, 8 ways to sunday.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Mar 25 2008, 10:28 AM
Post #9


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (JackD)
I thus challenge any OCT supporters to defend the rationale for O'Brien's C130 (callsign Gopher06)
being allowed to prep for take off, get clearance, taxi, take off.

Any US Mil pilots out here that can describe the timing & procedures for C-130 or other cargo
flights from place like Andrews AFB?

the side-by-side timeline of air events, air threat conf calls, FAA & norad activity, coupled with
what the C-130 plane & crew were doing might be illuminating.

I cannot fathom why this non-essential, slow moving, lumbering plane was allowed to take off at the time & day it did -- from the air base closest to DC, in the middle of a "new Pearl Harbor" -- and while a Combat Air Patrol was desperately being organized by air defense (scrambled, allegedly, from Langley VA).

Something ain't right about the C130 story, 8 ways to sunday.

Add to that the fact that the NORAD tapes place the decoy jet 6 miles southeast of Washington DC near Andrews AFB at 09:35:41 just after the C-130 took off, and surely were keeping track of the reports of missing and hijacked aircraft, and crashes into buildings, and Andrews ATC surely knew they had an unidentified aircraft off transponder overhead which had just violated P-56 air space and was STILL a threat, and should have been scrambling fighters instead of C-130s. Fighters could fly circles around a commercial aircraft and could shoot out an engine or disable an aircraft with their cannon alone. No air to air missiles needed. But Andrews F-16C and F-16D and Marine F-18 fighters were apparently all disarmed and not on alert. How can they possibly defend the P-56 Washington air space under those conditions? Wouldn't Andrews be especially alert since most of NORAD was off playing multiple wargames across country? Wouldn't that be a prime time to expect some sort of enemy attack? How is it that fighters are disarmed of their cannon ammo when on the ground and not on alert status? Is that standard procedure? Would it take over an hour to arm their cannons? Seems like the US Navy can arm their aircraft in minutes on the carriers. Is the US Air Force that more untrained or was this procedure specifically ordered to insure America could not be defended? Andrews is not even assigned to NORAD, so how could they not be on ready alert status?

Don't forget that NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold testified before Congress that he and his staff were above Washington orbiting during the Pentagon attack, ("in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time" here) most likely in the E4-B National Airborne Operations Center. Was Major General Arnold jamming radar signals so the decoy aircraft could not be easily tracked over Washington DC and banking around Reagan National? How come it was Boston Center which caught the decoy aircrat on their radars 6 miles southeast of the White House and not Reagan National or Dulles or Andrews AFB or Langley? They were being jammed? If Arnold was above the White House in an E4-B, then the decoy aircraft flew right by him. How come the powerful E4-B radars did not pick up the decoy aircraft with transponder off approaching from the west? How come Arnold did not immediately scramble fighters from Langley and other bases? Because he was on the other side?



QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Don't forget that NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold testified before Congress that he and his staff were above Washington orbiting during the Pentagon attack, ("in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time" here) most likely in the E4-B National Airborne Operations Center.

QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
This is a full 10 minutes later than the time Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott would give in their testimony; reality was a lot messier.
09:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for neads] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he's moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don't have a type aircraft, you don't know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We're over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.


This will turn out to be American 77, but since the hijackers turned the beacon off on this plane as well, no one will realize that until later. Depending on how you count, neads now has three reported possible hijackings from Boston (the phantom American 11 and two unidentified planes) as well as Washington Center's report that American 77 is lost.

Of these four vague and ultimately overlapping reports, the latest—word of a plane six miles from the White House—is the most urgent. The news sets off a frenzy.

09:36:23
NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!
MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?
HUCKABONE: We're gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—
MALE TECH: Six miles!
HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we're gonna do—
NASYPANY: We've got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.
FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run 'em straight in there?
NASYPANY: Take 'em and run 'em to the White House.
FOX: Go directly to Washington.
CITINO: We're going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.
HUCKABONE: Ma'am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.
NAVY A.T.C.: Quit 2-5, we're handing 'em off to Center right now.
HUCKABONE: Ma'am, we need to expedite that right now. We've gotta contact them on 2-3-4-6.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...8?currentPage=7
QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
"Six miles south, or west, or east of the White House is—it's seconds [away]," Nasypany told me later. "Airliners traveling at 400-plus knots, it's nothing. It's seconds away from that location."

The White House, then, is in immediate danger. Radar analysis in the following weeks will show that the plane abruptly veers away and turns toward the Pentagon, though the controllers at neads have no way of knowing this in the moment. Looking in the general capital area, one of the tracker techs thinks he spots the plane on radar, then just as quickly loses it.

09:37:56
MALE TECH: Right here, right here, right here. I got him. I got him.
NASYPANY: We just lost track. Get a Z-point [coordinate] on that.… O.K., we got guys lookin' at 'em. Hold on.… Where's Langley at? Where are the fighters?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...8?currentPage=8


This post has been edited by SPreston: Mar 25 2008, 10:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wibble
post May 3 2008, 01:59 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 3-May 08
Member No.: 3,271



What definate proof is there of the ATD of the C130 and the times that the Ground Stop information was at the ATC at the C130 departure airfield? Any NOTAMs woudl not have been seen by the crew as they would have outbrifed at least 1 hr before ETD.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2008, 04:54 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



As soon as a ground stop is implemented, a teletype is sent to all effected ATC facilities. The ground stop was effective for more than 5 mins prior to the C130 departure according to RADES data. Since the C130 was "non-essential" military, the ground controller and/or tower controller should have turned him around at or before he got to the hold short lines. Its happened to me plenty times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wibble
post May 3 2008, 05:18 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 3-May 08
Member No.: 3,271



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 3 2008, 03:54 PM) *
As soon as a ground stop is implemented, a teletype is sent to all effected ATC facilities. The ground stop was effective for more than 5 mins prior to the C130 departure according to RADES data. Since the C130 was "non-essential" military, the ground controller and/or tower controller should have turned him around at or before he got to the hold short lines. Its happened to me plenty times.


So assuming the message got to the ATC tower immediately, then some one saw it immediately and they then contacted the C130 immediately then maybe you have a point. It is certainly not unusual for a NOTAM or the such like not to be seen immediately. It happened to me plenty of times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2008, 05:25 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have never departed an airport only to find out a ground stop was issued prior to my departure. I'd like to know when you have and please provide supporting documents. Tail number, departure point, date and time of departure will help. Thanks!

The ground stop was effective 09:26. IIRC correctly, first radar contact on RADES was 09:33 for the C130. Subtract two minutes for roll and climb (im being generous here), and that plane should have been stopped at the hold short lines at 09:30 or prior. You are certainly welcome to disagree and make excuses for the govt story, but the facts and time speaks for itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wibble
post May 3 2008, 05:39 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 3-May 08
Member No.: 3,271



Have I stated that I or anyone has departed after a ground stop? Im far to you to have been alive for the last one as I sure you are to. What I said is it is certainly not uncommon for NOTAMs and the such like to be sat on a computer for a few minutes, and even hours before they are seen and proccessed.

The ground stop may have been effective at 09:26 but you have no proof to when that information reached the ATC Tower. Please provide it? Would that information have been sent direct to the tower or to operations? Do we 100% know this flight was not important? Or is that just speculation because it suites you?

The facts and times do not speak for themselves because you do not have a complete set of data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2008, 05:45 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Wibble @ May 3 2008, 05:39 PM) *
What I said is it is certainly not uncommon for NOTAMs and the such like to be sat on a computer for a few minutes, and even hours before they are seen and proccessed.



You are telling me a ground stop order will sit on the teletype for minutes or hours? You know how many computers and people would have had to miss it for your theory to be accurate? Clearance delivery, Ground, Tower, Departure control, Center, and perhaps everyone in the system due to the fact they all are speaking to each other on a regular basis when a departure is about to blast off.

OMG, why am i not surprised this guy doesnt even know if the NTSB "looked into UA93".

Again, please provide one example where an aircraft departed after ground stop was effective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wibble
post May 3 2008, 05:56 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 69
Joined: 3-May 08
Member No.: 3,271



So you are saying there is no possible way the "Ground Stop" message did not sit on a computer or telext for a couple of minutes? Because all those poeple you listed sit looking at the telex all day everyday? Have you ever worked in an airport? Do US military air bases have all those departments? A C130 getting airborne for simple flight is likely to be pretty self contained.


Why do you keep asking for an exaple of an aircraft departing after ground stop? I thought you were providing one?

Will you answer any questions?

This post has been edited by Wibble: May 3 2008, 05:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2008, 06:01 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Are you telling me all the facilities listed above "missed" the ground stop order? Is that what you are telling all the pilots who may read this forum?

QUOTE
Why do you keep asking for an exaple of an aircraft departing after ground stop? I thought you were providing one?


You made the claim you have departed after a ground stop. In fact you state "many times". Can you back up your claim? Are you ok Wibble?

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post May 3 2008, 09:48 PM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Wibble . . . .

You demand proof from us that the C-130 was deliberately allowed to depart after the ground stop and from the other side of your mouth speculate that maybe a telex informing the controllers of the stop was left lying unread on a telex for a few minutes.

I suppose that might have happened . . .

Surely you would welcome a new independent and proper investigation to clear this up (among other things). . . wouldn't you?

After all you might be proven right!

The bottom line here is that everyone wants a new investigation into every item where one person finds an inconsistency such as a take off after the stop and another such as you posits a possible explanation.

SO I'm calling on you to put up or shut up - do you want a new investigation into this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 3 2008, 11:35 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Wibble @ May 3 2008, 03:39 PM) *
Or is that just speculation because it suites you?


I'm gonna "speculate" here that I could hand Rob a [Sheraton] penthouse room key [containing a blonde, a brunette, a redhead, a wet bar, and a Puerto Rican] and it would "suite" him just fine... wink.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: May 3 2008, 11:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 4 2008, 12:49 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ May 3 2008, 11:35 PM) *
I'm gonna "speculate" here that I could hand Rob a [Sheraton] penthouse room key [containing a blonde, a brunette, a redhead, a wet bar, and a Puerto Rican] and it would "suite" him just fine... wink.gif



thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2019 - 05:05 PM