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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
C-130 Video & Photos Disprove 84th Rades Data, while corroborating witnesses & pilot O'Brien

Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 3 2008, 12:47 AM
Post #1





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



(special thanks to Undertow for the inspiration and backbone of this important piece)


Ever since the release of our latest presentation The North Side Flyover, the pseudo-skeptics have chosen to ignore the implications of the fact that the north side witness count has exploded from 4 to 13, and have instead launched a furious (and way off base) diversion campaign to defend the official radar data flight path of the C-130, which is ALSO fatally contradicted by these new witnesses (as well as the pilot himself Lt. Col Steve O'Brien).

It's a fine case of people asserting something with authority over and over hoping it will stick but if you actually read what they are saying you can see there is nothing to definitively back up their claims. It's really just a bunch of unsupported smoke blowing.

And of course they are wrong.

I'll show why and back it up.


But before I get into details let's take a quick look at the back story surrounding us uncovering the anomalous C-130 flight path.


Way back in March of 2007, my partner Aldo Marquis posted a thread outlining how the C-130 pilot's statements regarding his flight path and interaction with the attack jet contradict the NTSB data.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=5665

Rob Balsamo conducted an email interview with the C-130 pilot Lt. Col Steve O'Brien around the same time.

In that interview, O'Brien reaffirmed what he had said in other interviews, and what Aldo had already posted, which is that he was headed westbound after having flown by the Mall when he first saw the attack jet.

QUOTE
"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien


This simple statement is fatal to the NTSB data thrusting O'Brien into the spotlight of evidence proving the official story false. A subpoena of O'Brien during a congressional inquiry could break the case wide open.

Aldo later sent an email to the public relations department to request a follow up interview with O'Brien in July 2007 to nail down the flight path details even more.

In August 2007 Aldo received a reply back from O'Brien who agreed to answer our follow up questions when he said something to the effect of "how can I be of assistance?"

Aldo proceeded to send an extremely detailed set of questions in order to nail down exactly where he flew and his interaction with the Pentagon attack jet.

At first, O'Brien said he was busy with training and would eventually get to it. Then after weeks of no reply, Aldo had simplified the questions and asked him to at least look at the attached flight path images. O'Brien said that his network was not allowing him to open the images. After making it even more simplified with links to the images, O'Brien stopped replying all together.

After numerous phone calls to public relations who said they kept trying to get O'Brien to respond to us, we still never saw a reply.

Then the 84th RADES alleged radar data of all the planes in the area from 9/11 was released on Oct 5th 2007.


From FOIA originator:
QUOTE
"On October 5, 2007 I received 4 CDís containing that data with a cover letter dated September 13, 2001 indicating it was prepared at the request of the FBI. The CDís contain multiple raw data files and projects specific to software provided by RADES.



So....within a few months after we publicly posted the anomalies in O'Brien's account in relation to the NTSB flight path of alleged "flight 77", as well as obtained direct confirmation from O'Brien regarding our interpretation..........O'Brien fell mysteriously silent and the alleged radar data was released showing something that simply did not match what he had been saying.



Have the pseudo-skeptics even bothered to try and get a hold of O'Brien?

Doubt it. They sure never claimed they did. Instead they confidently assert that the available photographs and video of the plane support the RADES data even though they don't provide a sufficient argument as to WHY.

They are simply stating it with authority while hoping you believe them. They are being as forceful as they can with this manufactured point as desperate spin against all of the new eyewitness accounts we provided proving us right, O'Brien right, and the 84 RADES data fraudulent.

They want you to reject independent verifiable evidence in favor of faith based government controlled and supplied data.

This is why they are called "pseudo-skeptics".


But let's get into this photographic and video evidence they are falsely using in defense of their faith.


Anthony Tribby video and Bruce Looney images


These images and video had been around for a while but the C-130 was indistinguishable and therefore could only be fairly called a "UFO" at that point.

Curiously, in July of this year (2008), Tribby released more of the video showing the craft more clearly so now we can speak with more confidence that it was in fact the C-130.

1. original video (was hosted on his site long before being uploaded to youtube)
2. close-up released in July 2008



Here is what notorious CIT obsessed detractor Caustic Logic determined about it's location based on the Tribby video back on Feb 12th 2008:


Now here is a screen cap of the Tribby video added with a landmark showing how CL was actually pretty correct for once!


This location of the C-130 banking away is too far east to match the RADES data but matches perfectly with what we were told by the witnesses in Arlington Cemetery as you can see in Part 1 of our new presentation The North Side Flyover.




Frankly the difference is close enough that it is understandable how the pseudo-skeptics are able to use the power of suggestion to manipulate you due to perception issues in order to blend the two and say it all matches the official data. But when looked at more closely and using landmarks, the RADES data starts to fall apart. Plus, even more obvious, the contradictions with the independent evidence we have regarding the approach and timing completely destroy the RADES data once and for all. We'll get into that in a bit.



Now on to the Bruce Looney images.....

Undertow of http://www.aa77fdr.com studied the Bruce Looney photos from Ft McNair and, unlike the pseudo-skeptics, yet like the screen shot added to the Tribby video above, he actually used ground landmarks to figure out a more precise location of the plane.
QUOTE
Well okay. Here's what I think after studying these pictures.

They show a C-130 in 3 photos.
I have located his position as well as one of the buildings seen behind the tree line.

This GE map is marked up as follows:
Yellow Line - Camera spot
Yellow Circle - Bldg ID'd, white round top
L.Blue Line - duh
Red Lines - These are the approx view angle from the camer to the C130 seen in the pictures, actual distance from camera and altitude unknown.
Lower line - C130 is perpendicular to camera, imo most likely behind the plume.
Upper Line - C130 is traveling directly away from camera or nearly directly away.


Here is picture 160 (2nd in series) with a picture of the bldg I ID'd in the photo.
I have also taken picture 161 (1st C130 picture) and shrunk it's size to match photo 160, then pasted it over the top of the plume.
I took pic 162, cropped, resized , and transparent overlay it over the pic 160 as well. I added a black line under the C130 (?) in this picture.
pic 163 overlayed as well.
timestamps added to pieces.

This gives rough accurate composite of what it looked like I believe.
(side note: Look how high it is! Do you really think our first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. could have mistaken that for a commercial airliner "just above the light poles"?? The flyover witness did NOT describe the C-130 no matter how many times the pseudo-skeptics confidently assert this nonsense to you just as we said they would.)

The fact that undertow actually used a landmark makes his analysis INFINITELY more credible and accurate than the pseudo-skeptics who simply state their belief as if it should automatically be accepted despite the obvious fact that perspective issues make determining the exact location virtually impossible.

You HAVE to use landmarks.


These shots show it flying away to the northwest (exactly where it came from), not the west as the fabricated RADES data shows...

http://www.aa77fdr.com/PentFtMcnair/162.jpg
http://www.aa77fdr.com/PentFtMcnair/163.jpg
http://www.aa77fdr.com/PentFtMcnair/164.jpg

So you see the video and photographs support the EYEWITNESSES (and O'Brien's statements) giving 4 separate independent sources contradicting the dubious government supplied 84 RADES data, that was conveniently released soon after we started aggressively inquiring direct with O'Brien about this clear anomaly.

But the contradictions don't end there!




Approach path and timing


The APPROACH of the C-130 is not caught on video or photographs.

But the eyewitnesses we present all saw it approach from the north west or from over Arlington Cemetery.



Crude estimation of the approach that they describe compared to completely opposite RADES approach:


This is absolutely fatal to the official data. This is the main reason the pseudo-skeptics are going so strong with the false assertion that the images and video support the data. They prefer to discredit the independent genuine witnesses who were there in order to defend this dubious government data at all costs.


The timing is important too....they describe it as coming in the scene well after the explosion, as much as a couple minutes later.

Of course this ALSO matches with what O'Brien and Tribby prove about the timing!

Tribby claims he didn't turn on his camera for "approximately one minute" after the explosion and you don't see the C-130 until 1:48 which means it was about 3:00 minutes later.

O'Brien straight up admitted that he was so far away from the Pentagon at the time of the attack that he could not even tell at first that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon!

QUOTE
"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."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien


Although he was ordered to turn around and follow the attack jet by the time he turned around it was too late. He never got a chance to follow it.

So once again the video and the pilot himself corroborate the witnesses.

Well......the genuine witnesses.

Before we got a hold of O'Brien and exposed all these details it was clear that the media and government were trying to ambiguously paint a picture that some sort of plane or jet closely followed or shadowed "Flight 77", which is eventually blended into and blamed on the C-130, that DID in fact attempt to follow the attack jet, but never got the chance to.

The fraudulent RADES data gives a mild impression of the C-130 following closely behind on the official story flight path, but the following suspect alleged witnesses were a bit more bold in their assertions of this well before the data was even released.

Keith Wheelhouse specifically claims the C-130 was "shadowing" the attack jet and veered away over the cemetery at the very last moment or during the explosion!

From exclusive November 2007 interview with CIT:


He was the only one who was so specific about this proven false claim (not even the fraudulent RADES data supports it) and there was a series of articles in local newspaper The Daily Press by reporter Terry Scanlon detailing Wheelhouse's anomalous account only days after the event. Again, our belief was that this ambiguous second plane/jet story was circulated to cover for the flyover/away, but eventually turned into the C-130 which was really in the area. We believe that once the event was sold, suspect witnesses would no longer need to worry about being questioned about this. However, if they were ever questioned again by independent investigators like CIT, they would have to carefully tailor their responses especially in light of the release of the RADES data.

So Keith Wheelhouse was able to perfectly relay to us the fraudulent C-130 flight path from the newly released official data, but he was not able to back out of his anomalous "shadowing" claim. Sure enough he dutifully stuck by it in our exclusive interview with him.

Strangely, in yet another "coincidence", out of the small handful of previously published "2nd plane" witnesses, a good portion were USA Today employees.

They were more ambiguous than Wheelhouse in their previous quotes about timing and type of plane (Vin Narayanan even called it a "jet"!). But when we got USA Today editor Joel Sucherman in the CIT hot seat we got him to nail down exactly when he allegedly saw the C-130 after the explosion. He told us "3 to 5 seconds"!

People can easily write off what Sucherman said to time distortion due to a traumatic event. But he was very lucid in the other details he alleges to have seen and was a major part of the mainstream media propaganda campaign to sell the official story immediately after the event. But remember, if we didn't press for details, he would have remained an ambiguous witness account to an alleged second plane (which he did not and would not even try to identify) peeling off immediately at the time of the alleged impact. As he was pressed for details, the second plane begins to turn into and starts to sound an awful lot like the C-130 while still remaining vague and ambiguous enough to continue to serve as cover for the flyover.



Frankly we find it suspicious that he would act so clueless as to what this 2nd plane was. Whether or not he could tell that it was a C-130, you would think that an editor for a major news outlet who was prominently featured as a witness to the event would have at least heard of or read reports of the C-130 after the fact. But when we interviewed him in 2006 he acted completely clueless as if he had no notion whatsoever about reports of Lt. Col Steve O'Brien and the C-130.

The Tribby video is the ultimate proof that these guys were not being honest about this 2nd plane being immediately in the scene.

It is not logical to suggest that such high profile "credible" alleged witnesses could mistake it as "shadowing" or coming in "3 to 5 seconds" later and "veering away" immediately after the explosion when the Tribby video, the pilot himself, and all the other witnesses completely contradict them.

But what's 100% clear is that by having ANY witnesses place the "2nd plane" there at the time of the explosion it helps serve as perfect cover for the flyover.

Details and exclusive interviews with Wheelhouse, Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan available in our short presentation The 2nd Plane Cover Story.

The pseudo-skeptics simply blow all of this off and confidently assert that the government data is right despite all of these clear anomalies.

They are once again forced to suggest that all of the witnesses were simultaneously remembering the opposite of reality in order to defend the official data.

They want you to simply believe them when they say everything matches perfectly with the official story and to dismiss all the independent evidence proving otherwise out of nothing but pure faith in the government.

Does that really make sense? Is that true "skepticism"?

The only witness who has the C-130 on the RADES flight path is Keith Wheelhouse but he is fully discredited with his "shadowing" claim that contradicts the data and isn't supported by anything else.

So the fact that we now have these 4 genuine new witnesses giving us clear corroborated accounts of the C-130 approach and bank away, and the fact that this is corroborated by the photos and video as well as O'Brien, should be enough for any intellectually honest person to realize that there are serious issues in regards to this mysterious "2nd plane" once again implicating a military deception.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Sep 3 2008, 12:47 AM
Post #2





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



Oh and did I mention that the Arlington Cemetery witnesses also saw the attack jet on the north side of the citgo?




Here is more overwhelming evidence that shows how the attack jet flew over DC skies on our proposed DC/East of Potomac flight flight path which also means the C-130 flew on the Morningside Departure/south of the mall flight path:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=116&st=0

So do you choose to believe the genuine independent witnesses who were NOT used as part of the propaganda campaign and are corroborated by video, images, and the pilot himself? Or do you choose to believe the dubious 2007 released government supplied 84 RADES data and radio transcripts that are not backed up by anything but the anonymous pseudo-skeptics online authoritatively stating over and over that they are valid?

Bottom line the C-130 pilot needs to be subpoenaed in a congressional hearing because he could easily put all of this to rest.

No doubt this is why the pseudo-skeptics didn't even bother trying to contact him and why if he ever resurfaces for another media interview that you won't hear a single word regarding his flight path.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
streetcar304
post Sep 3 2008, 08:27 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 8
Joined: 4-August 08
Member No.: 3,751



Captain Bob,

Can you have a little con-fab with Craig - a little one-on-one, perhaps, and explain to him that departure procedures from a military field such as Andrews Air Force Base are a strictly controlled element of flight and are not subject to dicking around with?

There is no published departure or departure procedure that would take an aircraft alongside P-56. Please explain that to him.

And could you explain to him that departure procedures from a military field such as Andrews Air Force Base are meant to be adhered to?

And while you are at it, can you explain to him that different departures are put in place for specific reasons and one of the big reasons is to get aircraft away from and keep them away from high traffic areas and, among other things, restricted and prohibited areas like P-56?

Poor soul...he doesn't understand all this aviation stuff and he really looks like a fool when he sticks to this Morningside 1 departure foolishness when that departure is for northern destinations. Camp Springs 1 is for flight plans headed out west, and that was the departure Gopher 06 left on. That is non-debatable. There were no NOTAMS that day restricting flight departures at Andrews, so any departure to the west would have been Camp Springs 1.

As such, an aircraft headed outbound on Camp Springs 1 would have been required, as per course rules and standard operating departure procedures, to turn left to a heading of 270 within 3 DME of the VORTAC, climb and maintain 3000', be at 3,000 by 8 DME and await further radar vectors and a higher cleared altitude. These procedures are non-debatable.

Funny how a standard Camp Springs departure mirrors exactly the RADES data. Imagine that! Real life imitating a radar track.

I'd appreciate it. The alternative is to keep letting him make an ass out of himself in this new and unique way. Either way the world is better off - either more at peace or more entertained, but we'd (the collective world) rather have a bit of peace from this nonsense for a bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 3 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Multiple personality disorder Pinch/Streetcar/Sweetpea/muskrat/Bill Paisley/,

Could you please ask a real pilot if he would expect to be assigned a DP crossing a morning arrival bank into another major hub? (let alone during an unprecedented ground stop causing much heavier arrival traffic). Or do you think a straight out departure for vectors would be more likely, considering it doesnt cross arrival corridors. I know you're a Top Gun Maverick wannabe who sings "Highway To The Danger Zone" every morning in your shower, but please, speak to a real pilot who actually flys these procedures in close proximity to heavy arrival and departure corridors. I have, and i also fly them (out of DCA as well as being based LGA). I know many of you wannabe's think that altitude separation is sufficient to be assigned a crossing DP during a morning arrival bank, but perhaps you're not aware that sometimes planes on arrival go on a missed approach. Even in VFR, i done it twice at my last airline. You know, like if they have a problem with the gear or something? A C-130 crossing your approach can really gum up the works on such an occasion. Then again, wannabe's like you probably never did an approach brief of bottom line's and backup's.


And since you're not aware where MN is in relation to ADW, i'll give you a little hint, it north. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
streetcar304
post Sep 8 2008, 05:43 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 8
Joined: 4-August 08
Member No.: 3,751



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 3 2008, 11:36 PM) *
And since you're not aware where MN is in relation to ADW, i'll give you a little hint, it north. wink.gif


THAT'S an interesting claim!

Wrong Way Corrigan has NOTHING on you, Captain Bob!

If you took off from Andrews AFB and flew directly to St Paul, MN, what direction would you fly? Hint: It ain't north. It ain't Northwest. It ain't even NNW. Its a heading of 302. ADW direct MSP is West/Northwest

And since you're not aware where MN is in relation to ADW, i'll give you a little hint, it north. wink.gif

Mod Edit: ad hom, personal attacks and lies removed.

I won't get into your comment on approaches and departures right now, but suffice it to say the Camp Springs departure procedures has an ADW departing aircraft at least 2k above any aircraft approaching DCA from any southern approach.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Sep 8 2008, 10:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 8 2008, 10:19 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



lol.. how did i know that was coming. The fact remains MN is north of west and not west as you initially tried to spin.

The fact also remains you cannot answer the question as to whether a pilot would expect to cross an arrivial corridor (even at 2K above the GS) during a heavy morning arrival bank into another major hub, let alone during an unprecedented ground stop. Every single pilot i have asked who are currently flying paying passengers has answered the question, unfortunaltely its not something suited for your extreme bias. Also, what makes you think im not flying paying pax 'anymore'? smile.gif

Your little jabs and ad homs and flat out lies, they were edited and you can enjoy your vacation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 8 2008, 11:34 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



I just put this together real quick for the laymen as real pilots already know the answer....



ok class, which departure is more likely for ADW-Shanksvile (to observe the smoking hole) - MSP? The Morningside One for vectors? Or the blue dots as reported by the Govt story crossing all that heavy traffic into DCA, not to mention crossing downwind legs (traffic pattern to the left of DCA in light green).

Pinch/sweetpea/streetcar/muskrat/Bill Paisley, you're such a tool. lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
simba
post Sep 8 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 39
Joined: 3-June 08
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 3,495



QUOTE
Pinch/sweetpea/streetcar/muskrat/Bill Paisley, you're such a tool. lol


They are still flying/testing with MS Flightsimulator '98 i think.... pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 8 2008, 05:27 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (simba @ Sep 8 2008, 05:02 PM) *
They are still flying/testing with MS Flightsimulator '98 i think.... pilotfly.gif



If Pinch/sweetpea/streetcar/muskrat/Bill Paisley is who he says he is....?

....its obvious why he has never flown civilian after being "Mav". Tools like him never make it past any airline interview. And when at the rare opportunity they do fall through the cracks and pass an airline interview?, not one crew wants to fly with such a character.

Its also clear he never flown a SID, 5+ legs per day.. .out of a hub surrounded by other major hubs...


All Pinch/Sweetpea/maskrat/streetcar/Bill Paisley is good for is attacking others to make himself feel superior and/or he is a paid "pentagon blogger".. Case in point, he registers numerous UserID's here just so he can engage others he thinks are nuts, yet always get schooled because no doubt he is a wannabe and washed out of airline interviews.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Sep 9 2008, 01:10 PM
Post #10


Citizen Investigator


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



Pinch,

Draw a line from Andrews to here: http://www.mnstpa.ang.af.mil/

Is that north and west? Yes or no?

He went by the south side of the mall which be in line with the departures which flew the same direction due to the wind direction...



You guys seem to love to link John Farmer's garbage but you can't see the problem in the interaction...


(From Farmer's animation using the RADES data)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
simba
post Sep 9 2008, 04:49 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 39
Joined: 3-June 08
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 3,495



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 8 2008, 11:27 PM) *
Its also clear he never flown a SID, 5+ legs per day.. .out of a hub surrounded by other major hubs...


I'm pretty sure that for him a SID must be "Standard Instrument Debunking" cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 12 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



I needed to get my CAD software setup again post-crash anyway, so I imported the reference picture (Undertow's in that quoted section, I think with the yellow and red lines). I scaled to the Pentagon walls at 921 feet long (actual size), and the dimensions are in US feet with angles in degrees to 2 decimal places.

All of the bearings should be relative to geographic North (except the one dimension wanted to grab "south" instead- just add 180 to the 75.90 degrees for 255.90 geographic bearing- from the camera to the white-domed reference location). It will be really easy for me to get those C-130 bearings now, but I wasn't sure if you wanted those relative to geo_N, or the camera location, or the Pentagon "impact" location, or...? Below are the thumbnails- much easier than trying to type a description. Hope you guys can use these, and let me know if you need something else.

Image overlay


Image w/bearings


Pent-all


Pent-brgs


Pent-dims LOS


Pentagram closeup


White domed reference building


Camera/observer closeup


EDIT: Oh yes, the orange line is the OGCT "approach line" referenced to the approx. "impact" location just south of the west wall's midpoint. This is the one over in post #7 at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10693640

"If I reverse the 61.2 degree "true track angle" heading and draw an "approach" line at 241.2 degrees from the approximate Pentagon impact location, I got the 1.5nm DME arc to intersect this "Pentagon approach line" at N38.867231 W77.066994"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 4 2009, 10:56 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



Just came across this little gem....

The following is an ATC strip assigned to the C-130.



Notice the "TL270" on the strip. That is a heading vector. Why would ATC note a heading vector if the Camp Springs One was assigned for departure and the Camp Springs already calls for 270 heading? Answer is, they wouldnt, they would only note a vector if assigned a departure which calls for vectors, The Morningside One, or no departure at all.

So, lets recap.

ANC witnesses place the C-130 approaching from the NW. O'Brien claims he passed "south of the mall" (not south of DCA), and the ATC strip notes a vector.

Camp Springs was not assigned to Gopher06 (for obvious reason explained ad nauseum on this forum, eg. morning rush hour into DCA). The govt story and those who make excuse for it have imploded once again. No wonder they wish to remain anonymous and create new internet userID's when their old ones are fully discredited.

(also note the 1333 in the lower right, i believe that is the wheels off time, several to many minutes after the national ground stop depending on which source you believe, Spencer or the State Dept)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 4 2009, 11:25 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



pinch-sock post in 5-4-3...

EDIT: Will it be "sweetcar" this time? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 4 2009, 11:33 AM
Post #15





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



Hi Rob!


QUOTE
Notice the "TL270" on the strip. That is a heading vector. Why would ATC note a heading vector in a clearance if the Camp Springs One was assigned for depature and the Camp Springs already calls for 270 heading? Answer is, they wouldnt, they would only note a vector if assigned a depature which calls for vectors, The Morningside One.


Nice example of how the "government evidence" or if you prefer "Farmer evidence" can be useful or helpful for a specific limited purpose or to show a specific thing. They can hardly deny the legitimacy of their own evidence or specific parts of it, but at the same time we don't have to concede the opposite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 4 2009, 11:37 AM
Post #16





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



Wow, excellent find.

The release of the 84 RADES data was a desperate reaction and it's coming back to bite them in the behinds real hard.

The amount of evidence for complete fabrication is overwhelming.

We plan to put together a piece breaking this all down and bringing attention to this extremely important proof of evidence fabrication.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jun 4 2009, 11:43 AM
Post #17


Citizen Investigator


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



I love it. Confirmation for that a**.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 4 2009, 11:51 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



I just verified in the RADES data- "2427" is the Mode 3 "squawk" for the C-130 Herc, and "ADW" is presumably Andrews AFB. That 270 bearing would be relative to magnetic North wouldn't it in this case, Rob?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 4 2009, 11:53 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 4 2009, 11:25 AM) *
pinch-sock post in 5-4-3...

EDIT: Will it be "sweetcar" this time? wink.gif


William "Pinch" Paisley and/or his numerous socks dont have the nads to post here anymore as he has already been completely discredited (of course he claims he is banned as his excuse for not posting here..lol).

From what i been told, he claims he actually saw Lagasse in Arlington and didnt even have the nads to confront him regarding what Lagasse bets his life on (the north approach). Not surprised...

Pinch is nothing but hot air. Im sure he is still spouting that our pilots who fly departures every day out of major hubs dont understand how to fly a departure procedure. Its clear why Pinch was assigned RIO and not driver (if such claims are even true...), and was never able to get a civilian airline job or FAA pilot certificate.

Hows that "Highway To The Danger Zone" Shower singing career going Pinch? laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 4 2009, 12:10 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 4 2009, 11:51 AM) *
I just verified in the RADES data- "2427" is the Mode 3 "squawk" for the C-130 Herc, and "ADW" is presumably Andrews AFB. That 270 bearing would be relative to magnetic North wouldn't it in this case, Rob?


yes1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 21st February 2020 - 02:47 AM