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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cmh Reveals Flyover Witnesses *no Joke*, unfortunately 2nd hand

Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 20 2009, 01:37 PM
Post #1





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



In this newly released Center for Military History audio interview from 2001 we hear the account of an Arlington National Cemetery employee who was inside one of the maintenance buildings when the explosion happened so he personally didn't witness the plane. He gives a pretty good account of he C-130 BUT he also relays how people were confused about what had just happened and some were saying that the plane kept on going!!!!

I kid you not.

Download mp3 here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

QUOTE
Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.


The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.

Given what we know about the north side approach it would be intellectually dishonest to write this off as a simple anomaly, mistake, or a coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidence that everyone saw the plane on the north side proving this initial reaction that the plane "kept on going" correct.

The evidence is closing in on them.

We know that people saw the flyover.

This officially documented interview from 2001 reveals what people REALLY first reported before the propaganda set in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Jan 21 2009, 06:34 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 23-December 08
Member No.: 4,041



This is an amazing discovery Craig!!!!



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 20 2009, 12:37 PM) *
In this newly released Center for Military History audio interview from 2001 we hear the account of an Arlington National Cemetery employee who was inside one of the maintenance buildings when the explosion happened so he personally didn't witness the plane. He gives a pretty good account of he C-130 BUT he also relays how people were confused about what had just happened and some were saying that the plane kept on going!!!!

I kid you not.

Download mp3 here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3



The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.

Given what we know about the north side approach it would be intellectually dishonest to write this off as a simple anomaly, mistake, or a coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidence that everyone saw the plane on the north side proving this initial reaction that the plane "kept on going" correct.

The evidence is closing in on them.

We know that people saw the flyover.

This officially documented interview from 2001 reveals what people REALLY first reported before the propaganda set in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 21 2009, 07:52 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Amazing that you found that guy. Good work !!! handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 21 2009, 11:35 AM
Post #4





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



Thanks guys.

This new account can fairly be considered hard direct evidence that a flyover is what people in the critical area to witness the event immediately reported before the propaganda set in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 21 2009, 09:39 PM
Post #5





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



Ok folks we got a hold of this witness today.

As you can hear in the CMH interview his name did not get properly redacted and he spells it out as Erik Dihle.

Unfortunately he does not remember anything about the flyover witnesses.

Naturally he dismissed this in his mind back in 2001 after the propaganda set in as it would seem like an anomalous insignificant detail to him.


BUT......

Just as I thought he 100% confirms the northwest approach of the C-130 as reported by all the other ANC witnesses proving the 84 RADES data fraudulent and fully supporting our claims about the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the attack jet headed for DC skies.

This is HUGELY significant and 100% proves evidence tampering to facilitate the 2nd plane cover story and cover-up the east side approach of the attack jet.

Listen to interview here.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Jan 22 2009, 03:52 AM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 23-December 08
Member No.: 4,041



Excellent work again!

Quick question on this part of your post. O'Brien described a plane impacting the Pentagon,didn't he? Or did he explain about something else? I am confused on different statements he made, but I thought he settled with the f77 impacting the Pentagon. If not, he saw an attack jet head for the D.C. skies? My apologies in advance for going off topic or for backtracking and wasting time.

>>supporting our claims about the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the attack jet headed for DC skies.

Thanks,
Marc





QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 21 2009, 08:39 PM) *
Ok folks we got a hold of this witness today.

As you can hear in the CMH interview his name did not get properly redacted and he spells it out as Erik Dihle.

Unfortunately he does not remember anything about the flyover witnesses.

Naturally he dismissed this in his mind back in 2001 after the propaganda set in as it would seem like an anomalous insignificant detail to him.


BUT......

Just as I thought he 100% confirms the northwest approach of the C-130 as reported by all the other ANC witnesses proving the 84 RADES data fraudulent and fully supporting our claims about the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the attack jet headed for DC skies.

This is HUGELY significant and 100% proves evidence tampering to facilitate the 2nd plane cover story and cover-up the east side approach of the attack jet.

Listen to interview here.




This post has been edited by madtruth: Jan 22 2009, 05:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 22 2009, 11:27 AM
Post #7





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



QUOTE (madtruth @ Jan 22 2009, 08:52 AM) *
Excellent work again!

Quick question on this part of your post. O'Brien described a plane impacting the Pentagon,didn't he? Or did he explain about something else? I am confused on different statements he made, but I thought he settled with the f77 impacting the Pentagon. If not, he saw an attack jet head for the D.C. skies? My apologies in advance for going off topic or for backtracking and wasting time.

>>supporting our claims about the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the attack jet headed for DC skies.

Thanks,
Marc



It's not off topic at all.

All of the media reports regarding the C-130 and O'Brien either imply or state that he watched the plane enter the building.

But you never hear O'Brien himself state it.

So back in early 2007 when Aldo started deconstructing his statements to determine his true light path, Rob was able to get a hold of O'Brien direct via email.

O'Brien confirmed that he was too far away to even be able to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon!

He said:
QUOTE
"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.


If he can't see even see the Pentagon there is no way to see the plane which would be minuscule in comparison.

So we realized that the reports, added together with the proven false "shadowing" claims from alleged witness Keith Wheelhouse, were all meant to ambiguously serve as cover for the flyover.

Soon after we started uncovering how O'Brien's interaction with the attack jet proves that it flew over DC skies, they all of the sudden released the alleged radar data to bolster their story.

Sure enough the data showed something that did not jive with what O'Brien had been saying so of course he clammed up.

We would eventually go on to get the accounts from all these ANC guys proving that we were right about the C-130 while the RADES data and of course Keith Wheelhouse were wrong.

The details are all laid out in extreme detail in this full-length presentation:
The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

Or else in this 34 minute short:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Jan 22 2009, 07:18 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 23-December 08
Member No.: 4,041



You cleared up that question for me Craig,thanks.
I did watch both videos when you released them but I am going to watch them again tonight.





QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 22 2009, 10:27 AM) *
It's not off topic at all.

All of the media reports regarding the C-130 and O'Brien either imply or state that he watched the plane enter the building.

But you never hear O'Brien himself state it.

So back in early 2007 when Aldo started deconstructing his statements to determine his true light path, Rob was able to get a hold of O'Brien direct via email.

O'Brien confirmed that he was too far away to even be able to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon!

He said:


If he can't see even see the Pentagon there is no way to see the plane which would be minuscule in comparison.

So we realized that the reports, added together with the proven false "shadowing" claims from alleged witness Keith Wheelhouse, were all meant to ambiguously serve as cover for the flyover.

Soon after we started uncovering how O'Brien's interaction with the attack jet proves that it flew over DC skies, they all of the sudden released the alleged radar data to bolster their story.

Sure enough the data showed something that did not jive with what O'Brien had been saying so of course he clammed up.

We would eventually go on to get the accounts from all these ANC guys proving that we were right about the C-130 while the RADES data and of course Keith Wheelhouse were wrong.

The details are all laid out in extreme detail in this full-length presentation:
The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

Or else in this 34 minute short:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 22 2009, 07:35 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 22 2009, 08:27 AM) *
We would eventually go on to get the accounts from all these ANC guys proving that we were right about the C-130 while the RADES data and of course Keith Wheelhouse were wrong.

Hi Craig,

If you get some spare time, could you export a Google Earth .KMZ file with the C-130 RADES "locations" to save others a little time? I can't get the RADES RS3 to run on my newer computer to export the locations (well at least not with a C-130 "observer" data file loaded anyway).

TN and I hammered out a rough Google Earth export tutorial at:

Google Earth Howto, and a Bit on File Servers- split
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16090

Making a new folder in "My Places" appears to be the key thing there, then dragging the various "stickpins" into the folder and "save place as..."

Thank you,
d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 22 2009, 07:45 PM
Post #10





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



Here you go:

http://www.thepentacon.com/GOPHER6_84RADES.kmz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 22 2009, 08:08 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Thanks Craig, that was very helpful.

Those blue pins put the "GOPHER6" on close to the same RADES "AA77" "northeasterly" heading I found in the middle "reverse S turn", but about 1.5 minutes behind it.

If we hypothetically "guess" 400 knots groundspeed ~= 675.12 feet/sec, times 90 seconds ~= 60761 feet (or about 10 nautical miles behind "AA77"). How much would one see visually at 10 nm? That is of course if the RADES data could be trusted. wink.gif

300 knots ~= 506.34 fps, times 90 seconds ~= 45570.87 feet (or 7.5 nautical miles)... "GOPHER6" actually looks to be closer to about 84 seconds behind "AA77" but I think you can see what I'm getting at here.

EDIT: My RADES Spherical Law of Cosines velocity approximation has "AA77" averaging 265-350 knots after 09:30 EDT.

From post #6 on another thread, more on NTSB-reported and RADES-derived "AA77" speeds:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763025

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/18928

EDIT: to put a little perspective on this, the Pentagon roof is alleged to be 77 feet high. At 7 US statute miles, or 36960 US feet, this corresponds to an angle of atan (77/36960), or 0.119 degrees of angular Pentagon "height".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 22 2009, 08:18 PM
Post #12





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



Anthony Tribby and the ANC witnesses prove he wasn't in the airspace near the Pentagon for 3 minutes.

But the RADES data only has the C-130 about 7.5 miles away from the Pentagon at the time of the explosion.

If this was true it would mean he would have only been going about 150 mph!

Obviously that would be rather slow and lumbering given the circumstances and given the fact that a C-130 can go 370 mph.

After all he was supposed to be "shadowing" the 757.

The fact is he couldn't see the Pentagon and it took him 3 minutes to get there because he was much further away and the RADES data is fraudulent as the ANC witnesses alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 19th August 2019 - 08:33 AM