C-130 Flight Path video

For what it's worth I've just posted what I think is a pretty good compilation of mutually-supporting points of data regarding the path of the C-130 seen scoping out the Pentagon after the attack.

www.youtube.com...
Here's a clearer view of where real locations are on the radar screen - that din't come thriugh well in the video


I've compiled radar data, an amateur video, the pilot's account, and on-the-ground witnesses that confirm it passed the area about two minutes after the official impact time. It came in from the west, turned north somewhere short of the Pentagon, continued to turn in a 'complete 'turnaround' or U-turn and depart again to the west.

Pilot Steve O'Brien has himself reported he was advised “to get out of the area as quickly as possible,” and that he then presumed his previous westerly flight and started curving north back towards Minnesota. Before departing, “I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.”


This graphic is based on the radar data for "Golfer 06,' the C-130 as seen in animated form by Merco Bolletino. The departure is consistent with one of Andrews' standard departures.

The u-turn at the end is what is corroborated by eyewitness accounts, O'Brien's own account, and now also a video, taken by Anthony Tribby.
first frame of the video (inset - note smoke has not yet risen to the top of the screen) and app. location at the time.
Location at the time a dark shape emerges from behind the somke plume somewhere on the other side of the Pentagon. The camera sees this (the best it gets):

A UFO for sure. Let's identify it. It appears 1:45 after the first frame (see inset above).

I was hoping this might trigger some discussion during which I'd have an opportunity to ask Craig Ranke CIT about their C-130 findings. They read the evidence and its correlation differently; O'Brien's words 'north and west' and 'by the south side of the mall' can only mean this flight path or something very similar to it:



Compared to radar plots, fraudulent to CIT for defying the clear words of O'Brien, which show less north travel, a slight southward trend for the west part, and crossing the river well south of the mall.

BTW: the map rotation of 15 degrees CCW is accidental in both of these cases, CIT says. It makes the C-130 outbound path look more SW than it really is 255 degrees from north, whereas true west is 270.

This is where O'Brien's previous descriptions of the encounter with "Flight 77" comes back into play.

Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound. [...] I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection. [...] and as he moved to our 11:00 position, he started his turn and by the time he got to our 12:00 position right out the front of the aircraft, he was rolled up into about I would estimate 30-40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for a commercial airliner. [...] The 30-45 degree bank I described was always in reference to the AA flight during its initial pass across our flight path when it turned from a northerly heading to an eastbound heading.

This describes perfectly the C-130's interaction with "Flight 77" as shown on radar. But if this data is fraudulent, then the interaction might have happened elsewhere. So if the C-130 was just over the mall or barely south of it as CIT has decided must be the case, then O'Brien's account of seeing the airliner approaching from 10:00 left to 12:00 and beyond, curving west-north-east while descending, then this graphic must represent what happened - the plane he saw looped around north of the Capital.



If I'm reading this wrong I welcome any corrections from Craig or anyone who's hip enough to their works they can show me where they explain what they DO think O'Brien saw.

Craig stated once:

We were always stumped with how O'Brien's account didn't make sense with the 2006 NTSB flight path of AA77 until we talked with our newest witness who was on the Potomac River who reveals that the NTSB flight path is false and that the plane came from the EAST of the river and looped around north timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon!

link

So it was looping north and east of the C-130, which we've already decided could be no further south than shown above, 'timed perfectly' with the explosion a few miles to the southeast?

So did O'Brien see a different plane?

Or was he further south after all?

Or what?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Caustic Logic]

That's fair enough. I've let things get to me too much.

Let's just say then we've established that the words of the pilot are valid evidence, that is open to interpretation, and that there is some disagreement over how well the data sources besides this really do match those words and support each other.

I stand by a strong general correlation between O'Brien's words, radar returns, the Tribby video, and other witness accounts. But I haven't done a super-precise study and don't claim to have an all-encompassing grasp of all evidence. certainly don't rule out minor discrepancies, who knows, possibly fatal ones, if anyone would like to discuss them.

We have these aspects of the flight path:

1) The stretch from Andrews to the south side of the mall - how far north?
2) His interaction with the 757 - how far after crossing the river?
3) His distance at crash time -
4) His turn after passing over the Pentagon - did he do a U-turn or angle slightly over to the Tidal Basin near the mall?

I think we're all clear no one was 'shadowing' anyone... And I'll venture a solid guess of One or 1.5-2 minutes after depending how you define 'in the area.'

O'Brien also describes a 'distinctive silver finish', whereas 'the plane people saw tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon was white.' Hmmm... But that's not so much a flight path issue. Where O'Brien is said to be flying is another story, and its implications for the white plane and its connecting arc to the witnesses from the driving range up.

Sorry if that seemed incoherent. If you get it cool, if not, then maybe you don't need to.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Just a bump here for Caustic. Good research here... Im surprised you havent woken Rob from the Pilots 4 911 truth

I think Rob and I have a silent agreement not to bother each other. Maybe saying that will break the spell, who knows.

But as for the removed post, I presume so long as I keep it off-site itt's okay to link to my explanation of why I got kinda TOd at CIT over this issue:
FF post

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Rob? Silent? I highly doubt that.

Has Craig or Aldo question this work you put together?