| Viewing Single Post From: Actual C-130 Interaction With The Decoy Jet | |
|---|---|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 25 2008, 01:05 PM |
|
So would you say that Boon was not being honest?
But which one matches with the decoy jet being near Rosslyn in DRA, being over the monument or mall, being over the white house turning away, being 6 miles SE of the white house, allowing a witness on the river to see the plane approach from the east side of the Potomac, 6 miles SE of the white house?
Of course not, but which one makes more sense with a flight to MN or PA?
Yes you were.
No. No. He said "right over" the Tidal Basin. That is what he meant, "right over".
How do you know?
I believe Scott Cook is a genuine witness to the C-130 along with others. I think the C-130 had two purposes. 1. To make conspiracy theorists believe he was in on the operation by controlling the plane. 2. Tobe the final explanation for the "second plane", that certain suspect witnesses were careful to be ambiguous about in print, but when pressed for more details they revert to this C-130 path that does not seem to jive with what it did. If it veers away before the Pentagon, it gives the impression that it was controlling the plane which fuels the theories. The flyover/away is the only logical conclusion based on all the evidence. I believe there is a strong possibility that the flyover/away plane flew in a hard bank up river and made a 180 degree turn back west near the monument/WH area.
Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The C-130 was not a "Navy electronic warfare aircraft", so that would serve to fuel the conspiracy theories about it controlling the plane. According to Scott Cook it climbed to the north then was gone. Could he have missed the turn to the west? Was he traveling north and west away from Tidal Basin? But there is the possibility that the flyover/flyaway jet would have "went in a westernly" heading too. This account seems more like an account about the C-130 that "just happens to" give fuel to the theories. I'll let the reader decide which category that fits into.
Joel Sucherman WOULD NOT identify the plane, even after shown a picture. So he is not a witness to the C-130 per se. His flight path does not match the C-130's flight path according to the pilot and Scott cook.
He can't tell anything from his position at the Reagan Metro station platform. So if he did see the C-130 he would not be able to tell what it did. 30 seconds doesn't match the true timing of the C-130. Plus his brother-in-law has it following right behind the plane down at Seminary Rd and 395. No one else we spoke with saw the C-130 do this along the flight path. Then I also read this which is interesting... Spooky8 is a website owned by Bob King, author of a book by that same title, who claims that he was a bodyguard, law enforcement officer and part-time member of a paramilitary team that carried out "covert missions around the world" (at least until recently, when he became an author and screenwriter.) Cleveland's post is no longer available at the site. Cleveland doesn't tell us much about himself, other than that he works in a Government building and that he has "friends in intelligence". This post is one of only two which suggests that the C-130 was following the 757 at a similar (tree-top) altitude. http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_C130.htm
...aaaand where is your documentation for this video? Who filmed it? Where is the proof that this was filmed 15 seconds after impact? I can't see anything definitive in that video showing a C-130. And by the way, both flight paths WOULD NOT take the C-130 "right over this witness". He was on 395.
Nope.
Nope.
No the C-130 arrived a minute or more on the scene coming from the west. He said he could not see where or what had been impacted. He even said he "thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport." Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 25 2008, 05:20 PM.
|
 |
|
| Actual C-130 Interaction With The Decoy Jet · Pentagon | |
10:02 AM Feb 9
