C-130 video & photos disprove 84th RADES data while corroborating witnesses & pilot

Originally posted by tide88
Are you sure you are not mentally deficient?

NO, but i am sure you know nothing abot aircraft, and so immature you have to resort to insults.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Tide88 posted a very informative link in line with the current discussion. You'd do better to limit your comments to actually replying to the information presented and producing quality information to support your case if you disagree with it. I, for one, would be interested to see anything valid that counters that info.

This 'immature' business is getting a little hard to bear.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Thankyou. That is what ultima resorts to when he is proven wrong. Another one of his theories down the drain.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

This is compounded by the fact that they would NOT be vectored right into the approach corridor of Reagan.

Craig, you are wrong. Below is a video I shot from the Sheraton National Hotel on September 10, 2008. It is a C-130 flying the Camp Springs One departure while Reagan traffic was departing and landing to the north.

reply to post by Boone 870


Is that the only souvenir you brought back?

I guess you must have spent a lot of time in your hotel room staring out the window!


1. Prove this plane took off from Andrews.
2. Prove the exact location of the plane in relation to the ground.

Obviously you can do neither so your definitive declaration that this is a "Camp Springs One" departure is completely baseless.

However, even if you are correct this is STILL not the direction someone with a destination of Minnesota would be headed, STILL doesn't jive with O'Brien's statements, and is STILL proven to not be the approach of the C-130 on 9/11 as reported by all the eyewitnesses at ANC.


Oh and of course this has no bearing on the fact that the plane was on the north side of the citgo.

Did you hear how even the FAA/NORAD agrees with us?


Great view from the Sheraton though, isn't it?

Did you enjoy yourself at the Lynn Spencer lecture?


[edit on 14-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Is that the only souvenir you brought back?

Not quite.

The view from the hotel was great. If I would've known that the C-130 was departing, I could've videotaped the entire departure. Maybe next time.

Lynn Spencer was incredible. You should've seen her slap around the conspiracy theorists.

ETA: the audiotapes from DCA ATC will be available soon, what are you going to say when they match up with the RADES data?



[edit on 14-9-2008 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870
what are you going to say when they match up with the RADES data?

What are you going to do when i show a government document that states Flight 93 was intercepted?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boone 870
what are you going to say when they match up with the RADES data?

What are you going to do when i show a government document that states Flight 93 was intercepted?

Talk about completly posting something off topic. Give Throat you chiefs number yet? After all you offered it, now you are backing out?

My, my, you are impatient aren't you. I will at my convenience, but I want to watch you squirm first.

Thats the second time youve mentioned that, which makes it obvious you have a personal vendetta against Craig.

Thats counterproductive crap that belong on the Jr. High ball court.

Originally posted by tide88
Talk about completly posting something off topic. Give Throat you chiefs number yet?

Well see what happenes whan i post the document and he has to leave.

Originally posted by jprophet420

My, my, you are impatient aren't you. I will at my convenience, but I want to watch you squirm first.

Thats the second time youve mentioned that, which makes it obvious you have a personal vendetta against Craig.

I have a personal vendetta against ALL terrorists' apologists.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


So Ultima you are just going to ignore the EB4 data I posted or are you going to respond. You have brought it up on many threads and even started a thread about it. Now that I have answered you, you just go and ignore it.
Which is quite typical for you to do.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Swing, I'm going to answer your question one more time and then you are on ignore regarding this issue.
CNN, Liveleak, or any other Internet site is NOT PROOF that the E4B was in the P-56 area.
P-56 is quite small....

The question on the FOIA was regarding an aircraft in the Restricted Area (P-56) and the answer given was "we have no knowledge".
YOU interpret that as denying knowledge of the E4B. That is a very bad assumption. The AF has no knowledge of who or when anyone is in the P-56 area or if they have permission to be there or not.
The E4B is listed in the summary transcripts, so it is not being "hidden" as you imply. You can research the 84th RADES data and determine it's track if you want to satisfy your curiosity.
You are simply making unsubstantiated accusations which amounts to "hot air".
[edit on 9-9-2008 by Reheat]

You must play for the Dodgers. Your entire premise rests on a jet in restricted airspace over D.C. but yet offer no solution or fact as to what jet it was. I have via CNN as well as still photographs of the plane.

Lets analyze this restricted airspace using this map instead of your color by number picture.
911exposed.org...

Linda Brookhart photographed the plane outside the White House. How can we tell? Al-though her vantage point was not ideal–––Linda was standing in the street looking almost straight up when she snapped the shot–––nonetheless, a careful inspection shows that the plane is an E-4B.

Now explain to us again, why an E4-B was over the White House which is in restricted airspace and why the Air Force would deny knowledge of such a thing?
ABC anchor Peter Jennings picked up the story, and aired the following report sometime between 9:30 - 10:00 AM: “The White House, of course, is--is--is--has leapt to the forefront of people's concern this morning. And thereis a plane circling the White House at the moment. And they're clearing the grounds there....We've had incidents, as you know, in the past, several years ago where a small aircraft landed in the White House--in the White House garden and the pilot mentally deranged, as I recall at the time, was killed. But the White House is certainly, certainly been very heavily de-
fended. And this plane circling the White House adds to the trauma that
people are feeling today, but we have no idea precisely what that means.” "
Unless of course I'm mistaken and the White House is not in the restricted airspace.

And again explain why the Air Force is covering up this knowledge of their E4-B in their cover letter?

If it is not the E4-B in the photographs and in the CNN report then do tell what plane was it? You never gave us your 'expert' opinion on that.

And why if the War Games activity this plane was involved in do you think the Air Force did not admit it was in the restricted air space? As it appears and your buddy seems to agree that he E4-B was a part of the war games.

Come to think if of it, if the war games were the operation cover for 9/11 as it appears , I might try to cover up the war games as well by denying any knowledge of one of the major participants, the E4-B, circling over the White House.

Reheat you are now forced defend yet another contradiction in the official story:
Either The Air Force has no knowledge of the E4-B in restricted airspace over D.C. or the acceptance of the E4-B in restricted airspace dependent upon the transcripts. One or the other is a lie.

Now that we have established without a doubt that the Air Force lied about its knowledge of the E4-B in restricted air space, please speculate as to why they would do so?

I've suggested one explanation.

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Maybe they denied it because the exercise is TOP SECRET/CLASSIFIED.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by tide88]

double post

[edit on 16-9-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by jprophet420

My, my, you are impatient aren't you. I will at my convenience, but I want to watch you squirm first.

Thats the second time youve mentioned that, which makes it obvious you have a personal vendetta against Craig.

I have a personal vendetta against ALL terrorists' apologists.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Reheat]

Well just for the record a biased post in search for the truth is a 'win' for terrorists.

Weather Craig is right or not has nothing to do with that.

Also, the CIT has done a lot more work than you, and you savoring the time between being asked for information and posting it makes you an intentional with-holder of information. So while they spend more real world time and effort searching the truth, you spend time averting it with malicious intent.

And you expect me (or anyone) to take you seriously?

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Swing, the image you linked to is not P-56, it is the Class B airspace around Reagan National, Baltimore-Washington, and Dulles.

This is P-56:

Now, the question is, was the E-4B actually in P-56?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Swing, the image you linked to is not P-56, it is the Class B airspace around Reagan National, Baltimore-Washington, and Dulles.

This is P-56:

Now, the question is, was the E-4B actually in P-56?

Boone, Swing is obviously not willing to be educated. No matter how many times you tell him, he'll continue to ignore the issue.

Originally posted by tide88
So Ultima you are just going to ignore the EB4 data I posted or are you going to respond.

I have responded. I stated you know nothing about aircraft. I have not ignored the data, you just do not understand it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
So Ultima you are just going to ignore the EB4 data I posted or are you going to respond.

I have responded. I stated you know nothing about aircraft. I have not ignored the data, you just do not understand it.

Your response was I know nothing about aircraft? Now that is some response. You must be a real expert. Why dont you elaborate? You are the biggest fraud on this site. You do not know anything about anything. Which is quite obvious by your responses. I do not have to be an expert on aircraft to post a link explaining why the EB4 was in that area. Do you realize how stupid that last post makes you look? Probably not. Seeing you probably have an IQ in the 80's. Which is boarderline retarded!