Dulles controllers on the "Flight77" loop

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Dulles controllers on the "Flight77" loop;
Topic Started: Mar 17 2009, 04:50 PM (779 Views)
Woody Box	Mar 17 2009, 04:50 PM Post #1
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08	I just detected a fascinating collection of hand-written notes from Dulles Controllers, written on 9/11 or the day after, and transcribed them on my blog. I have not thoroughly analyzed them, but definitely important and interesting. http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/dulles-airport-controllers-on-loop-of.html The original URL is: http://www.911workinggroup.org/foia/911%20COMMISSION%20REPORT%20DATA%20(redact)/5%20AWA%20928%20Documents%20and%20Data%20Douglas%20Gould%20hard%20drive%20REDACT.pdf You have to scroll down to page 145.
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 17 2009, 05:50 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Looks like they released the ones that could go either way. Especially if the decoy came from the same direction which we believe it did. Here is our most recent DC loop estimation: So Woody...have you heard our recent interview with Erik Dihle confirming the C-130 approach from the northwest AGAIN which of course supports our initial interepretation of O'Brien's account of the decoy jet on the DC approach? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1115035/1/#new
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 17 2009, 06:09 PM Post #3
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Woody, John Hendershot's conversation on the Critical Event Eastern Region Hotline was recorded and can be heard 52 minutes into this audio: http://www.aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/iad/1%20IAD%2027%20DEPARTURE%20DATA%201242%20-%201438%20UTC.mp3 Or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnS6BMI4VcE ETA: Here's a link to O'Brien's position on 9/11, it was also recorded. Link. The phone call to Washington occurs at 47:15. Edited by Boonedoggled, Mar 17 2009, 06:50 PM.
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 17 2009, 11:23 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Please. Why don't you quote them and make your point? Oh I know why because you don't have one. Out of all those hours of government sequestered, controlled, and provided audio you have NOTHING that refutes the FACT that the witnesses on the ground, namely Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle unanimously and independently PROVE northwest approach of the C-130 which in turn proves the attack jet flew over DC skies according to O'Brien. Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to write off the unanimous independent witnesses on the ground as simultaneously delusional in the exact same way? You have NOTHING to refute the below flight path that proves a deception and cover up on 9/11:
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 17 2009, 11:30 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	You see guys it's the same exact case again (like the citgo witnesses and the north side approach) but on a completely different level. You can accept the ambiguous insinuations of what was selectively released by the government at face value and suggest that it all SEEMS to match up with the official story or you can accept scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence that clearly and unequivocally contradicts their story on its face. The choice is clear.....do you choose to believe honest citizens, or government controlled data? True skeptics and honest truth seeking patriots don't even have to think about it. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 17 2009, 11:38 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Woody Box	Mar 18 2009, 03:35 PM Post #6
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08	First I'd like to say that it was not my intention at all to push a certain flight path version or to refute another. I detected these statements just two days ago and published them immediately because they are of historical value and maybe help to find out not only the true flight path, but also the mechanisms to suppress it. I said already I haven't analyzed the statements properly yet. To classify these statements as "government controlled data", Craig, is way too easy and neglects the chance to take them as a further jigsaw piece to disprove the NTSB flight loop. These data were generated on 9/11 or 9/12, are hidden in a huge file of a FAA investigator (Douglas Gould), were obtained and published by a 9/11 truth group from Bloomington, Indiana, and if an obscure researcher from Cologne, Germany, would not have taken his time to browse through the hundreds of files published by this group, they would probably sleep there undetected until the Last Judgment. I can't imagine that a government of control freaks would rely on these guys from Bloomington and Cologne to place important disinformation. Honestly, I am pretty proud that I detected this stuff. This being said, I have taken a closer look at the statements, and the result is curious and telling: While nearly all of the controllers seem to agree that the target didn't cross the Potomac and performed the loop exclusively west of the river, we have several versions of the specific shape of the loop, and none of them matches the nice official circular loop: http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/loop_official_koeppel_comp.jpg Compare: She leaned in my direction and asked if I have a primary target on my scope just south of Dulles. I scanned the scope and observed the same target. I told her I see it, ad it appears headed eastbound. At that point I yelled for the supervisor and told him we had a target headed eastbound towards the White House. I continued to watch the target move eastbound and then turned southbound. The target went a few miles south of DCA and then made a sharp turn northbound, back in the direction of DCA. I was continuing to give position reports to the supervisor. Shortly after he turned northbound. I no longer observed the target on radar. (William T. Howell) We have two turns - one from eastbound to southbound and a sharp one from southbound to northbound. No smooth loop. FM was alerted to a fast moving primary target by QZ ((Danielle O'Brien)), who was working the target 2 miles east of AML. The target proceeded to a point 1 mile west of Chrystal City and turned southwest to a point 5 miles northeast of DAA. It then made a right turn, 2 miles north of DAA, and proceeded northbound. 3 miles later the target turned northeastbound and shortly thereafter radar contact was lost. (James E. Walsh) We have three turns - eastbound to southwestbound, southwestbound to northbound, northbound to northeastbound. No smooth loop. I observed a primary target approximately 8 miles east of Manassas Airport moving eastbound at a high rate of speed. I advised the OS (other controllers were doing the same). The aircraft proceeded to a point approximately 8 miles southwest of P-56, made a right 360 degree turn, proceeded northeastbound and dropped from radar approximately 6 miles south-southwest of P-56. (Robert J. Brickley Jr.) The "right 360 degree turn" matches the official version here, but the distances don't fit. The official loop started 4 miles southwest of P-56, and if the plane really dropped from radar 6 miles SSW of P-56, Brickley's 360 loop must have happened east of the official one and implies a crossing of the Potomac. Then, the aircraft (target) turned south to parallel the North final to DCA as though it was entering a west downwind for Rw((Runway)) 1 at DCA. For a few miles, it continued south. Then, it made a right turn for a moment, it appeared as though it were turning towards a DCA departure being handed off to our High Sector. At that moment, I thought it may try to hit the dept. or perhaps it may be a U.S. fighter checking the area (since the observed target movement was still very fast). However, the target continued the right turn back to a NE heading - again, aimed, in my opinion, at P-56. (Robert Devery) Devery's handwriting is somewhat difficult to read, but apparently he saw the plane much closer to DCA (because the mentioning of Runway 1) than the official loop. And apparently he saw the plane flying straight south for a few miles. No smooth loop, again. I observed a primary target approximately 7 miles east of AML, heading eastbound, when the target was about 1 mile west of DCA it made a right turn heading southwestbound. When it was about 3 miles north of DAA it made a sharp turn northbound, when it was about 10 miles east of AML it made a sharp turn eastbound, the target then dropped off radar about 3 miles west of DCA. Equipment configuration was unknown to me. (Robert Utley) We have three turns - a very sharp one from eastbound to southwestbound, one from southwestbound to northbound, and a third from northbound to eastbound. No smooth loop The last position information - 10 miles east of Dulles (=10 miles west of the Pentagon) also deviates remarkably from the official version. Summary: Five controllers, five different loops, and not one of them matches the official loop. Superimposing the six loops on one diagram would look like a tangled clew. Bad memory is not an excuse for this information mess. The controllers made their statements one day after the attacks, and their figures are pretty precise. What happened? Interestingly, (nearly) all of these statements place the loop west of its actual position (if we believe Steve Chaconas). It really looks like the guys were told to "move" the loop they've seen westward. Why? The only reason I can imagine is that the perps feared that potential witnesses for the decoy jet east of the Potomac would be surprised that the white plane they observed was American 77. But that's not conclusive enough. Edited by Woody Box, Mar 18 2009, 03:42 PM.
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 18 2009, 05:06 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Woody Box Mar 18 2009, 03:35 PM First I'd like to say that it was not my intention at all to push a certain flight path version or to refute another. I detected these statements just two days ago and published them immediately because they are of historical value and maybe help to find out not only the true flight path, but also the mechanisms to suppress it. I said already I haven't analyzed the statements properly yet. I understood that as your intention. Quote: To classify these statements as "government controlled data", Craig, is way too easy and neglects the chance to take them as a further jigsaw piece to disprove the NTSB flight loop. These data were generated on 9/11 or 9/12, are hidden in a huge file of a FAA investigator (Douglas Gould), were obtained and published by a 9/11 truth group from Bloomington, Indiana, and if an obscure researcher from Cologne, Germany, would not have taken his time to browse through the hundreds of files published by this group, they would probably sleep there undetected until the Last Judgment. I never meant to dismiss them nor was I necessarily referring to these statements when I said that. I was referring to the audio that Boone cited as well as the NTSB, 84 RADES, and DCA alleged radar data. That being said these statements HAVE been government controlled and you seem to agree that there was likely influence and/or manipulation involved here impeding on their accuracy. The simple fact that you think they are irreconcilable with each other is a testament to that. Quote: I can't imagine that a government of control freaks would rely on these guys from Bloomington and Cologne to place important disinformation. Why not? It only becomes "important" when there is an imminent risk of the plot being exposed and public opinion turning against the propaganda. That is clearly not the case. Meanwhile they are much better off for disinfo to leak out over years via independent sources. That is what gives it automatic credibility as you seem to be attributing to it even while doubting the accuracy/legitimacy of the info. However that isn't to say that the statements aren't real. I tend to believe that pertinent information that definitively contradicts their story is removed/redacted while we are left to sort through only the inconclusive and ambiguous information that is left. Quote: Honestly, I am pretty proud that I detected this stuff. This being said, I have taken a closer look at the statements, and the result is curious and telling: Again....I wasn't trying to minimize this. I was merely trying to underscore the extreme level of purely independent direct hard evidence that exists proving the plane DID fly east of the river regardless of what can or can't be found in these statements. Quote: While nearly all of the controllers seem to agree that the target didn't cross the Potomac and performed the loop exclusively west of the river, we have several versions of the specific shape of the loop, and none of them matches the nice official circular loop: This I disagree with. There is nothing in the statements (that I have read or that you have quoted) that definitively rules out the notion that the plane crossed the Potomac. As I said....what's most likely is that the inconclusive information that can go either way wasn't redacted/removed while the more conclusive information was. Quote: Summary: Five controllers, five different loops, and not one of them matches the official loop. Superimposing the six loops on one diagram would look like a tangled clew. While I agree with most of your interpretation....it can always be written off as that. The statements simply aren't specific enough. The exact location of the loop and whether or not it crossed the river is not definitive in any of these statements. Quote: Bad memory is not an excuse for this information mess. The controllers made their statements one day after the attacks, and their figures are pretty precise. What happened? Interestingly, (nearly) all of these statements place the loop west of its actual position (if we believe Steve Chaconas). It really looks like the guys were told to "move" the loop they've seen westward. Why? The only reason I can imagine is that the perps feared that potential witnesses for the decoy jet east of the Potomac would be surprised that the white plane they observed was American 77. But that's not conclusive enough. Again.... Perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see where any of these statements definitively have the southbound portion of the "loop" west of the river. I think the most notable thing you have found here is the notion that they are describing separate sharp turns as opposed to one smooth continuous loop. I agree this is significant and that there is most likely something to this. Just like we have reason to believe the final NoC pass after the Navy Annex was a relatively slow moving, erratic, confusing, and difficult to describe bank (in stark contrast to the simple deliberate, controlled, and perfectly straight gradual descent as depicted and required) it now seems as though there is a decent amount of evidence contradicting a perfectly smooth loop. It would be great if we could get a hold of these guys but I have a feeling it would be near impossible to get them to talk unless they were completely oblivious to how what they witnessed contradicts the NTSB data. It's certainly worth a shot. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 18 2009, 05:47 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Woody Box	Mar 19 2009, 04:27 PM Post #8
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 18 2009, 05:06 PM Perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see where any of these statements definitively have the southbound portion of the "loop" west of the river. I think that Robert Utley (for instance) describes succinctly and precisely a loop exlusively west of DCA. Easy to illustrate it on a map. I observed a primary target approximately 7 miles east of AML, heading eastbound, when the target was about 1 mile west of DCA it made a right turn heading southwestbound. When it was about 3 miles north of DAA it made a sharp turn northbound, when it was about 10 miles east of AML it made a sharp turn eastbound, the target then dropped off radar about 3 miles west of DCA. Equipment configuration was unknown to me. The most interesting thing is, that Utley's statement is succinct, precise - and utterly wrong. The NTSB loop and the CIT loop have one thing in common: the plane was coming from southwest on its final one, two miles (disregarding the very last meters). But Utley's plane, being 10 miles east of AML (= Dulles Airport = 10 miles west of DCA), makes a "sharp turn eastbound" and drops off radar "3 miles west of DCA". In other words: Utley's plane is coming in from due west. Utley's path is completely different from every other path description, and I'm sure it is wrong. The thing that bugs me is that Utley's figures are so precise. These two things don't fit together. Why does he do that? It is also very important to note that all these statements (with one exception) were made one day after the attacks. Allow me a bold speculation: in the afternoon of 9/11, the Dulles controllers got a message from the Secret Service (there was indeed a hotline to the SS): "Dear controllers, you have to fulfill an unusual requirement: You all have observed Flight 77 crossing the Potomac, circling the White House and coming back over the river before hitting the Pentagon. This flight path may not get public for national security reasons. It may lead the attention to the E4B you observed a few minutes later, but the existence of this plane has to be kept hidden, again, for national security reasons. Please understand that no further explanation is possible. When asked by AAT-200 or other investigators about the final loop, place it southwest of the Pentagon so that it doesn't cross the Potomac." I stress this is speculation, because I have no better explanation for the fact that Utley and the other controllers (less distinctly) described a path west of the Potomac. And in this context Utley's absurd path deems to me to be kind of protest for being muzzled. I know, I'm speculating, but I'm just trying to make sense out of this riddle. Again, the fact that the real flight path was distorted on the very first day is intriguing. Someone felt the need to intervene as quick as possible. Interestingly, the only statement from 9/11 - from Todd Lewis - is the only one that implies a crossing of the Potomac (IMO). Was his statement not filtered yet?
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 19 2009, 04:36 PM Post #9
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Why don't you quote them and make your point? Todd Lewis : "... heading east at a high rate of speed. This or another controller said we need to call National Approach and warn them. This was done immediately over the handoff line. The target went just south of the White House then turned southeast..." William T. Howell : ''I continued to watch the target move eastbound and then turned southbound.'' James E. Walsh : "... who was working the target 2 miles east of AML. The target proceeded to a point 1 mile west of Chrystal City and turned southwest to a point 5 miles northeast of DAA." Roseanne McConnell : "... and saw it west of the White House. It was primary only and it appeared to be traveling at a very high rate of speed. It then started a right turn and came back towards DCA and the White House." Robert J. Brickley Jr. : "... moving eastbound at a high rate of speed. I advised the OS (other controllers were doing the same). The aircraft proceeded to a point approximately 8 miles southwest of P-56, made a right 360 degree turn..." Robert Devery : "Then, the aircraft (target) turned south to parallel the North final to DCA as though it was entering a west downwind for R((Runway)) 1 at DCA." Robert Utley : "... heading eastbound, when the target was about 1 mile west of DCA it made a right turn heading southwestbound." Every controller that states which direction Flight 77 turned, after approaching from the east, says that it made a right hand turn or a turn towards the south. This is completely irreconcilable with CIT's GOFER06/Decoy Jet Interaction Loop. O'Brien says that the aircraft was heading northbound when he first spotted it, how can this be possible if the decoy jet turned right?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 19 2009, 04:47 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	I've always maintained that a possible reason for this was the "potential embarrassment" of "Flight 77" flying over DC, prohibited airspace P-56, unhindered. This false explanation may get a lot of people in the habit of covering for the gov't on this flight path. But a more simple explanation though as far as these controllers go? They simply edited their accounts and after 8 years released them to support their bullshit path. Let's get in touch with these ATC's and see what they draw on a map. Independent verification is everything. Remember: -Joe Hurst, Joseph Candelario, Gen Clyde Vaughn, Stuart Artman saw the plane in DC skies. -Ari Fleischer admits there was another flight path that took the plane towards the white house and not well SW of it as the NTSB/RADES data attempts to depict. Quote: Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. [...] At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way. "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml -ATC Danielle O'Brien was sure the plane "over-shot" or over missed the White House. Quote: O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House. "I've been down to the Pentagon and stood on the hillside and imagined where, according to what I saw on the radar, that flight would have come from," she says. "And I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it." http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=124266&page=3 or http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822&page=1 -Col Deskins reports the radar terminating over Washington DC: Quote: Poster 22205: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8721198283922671798 IMPORTANT note at 15:20 minutes video time of the above clip: Colonel Deskins, a lady radar person (with air force uniform), from the New York Command Center (of norad) comes on: -and she very SPECIFICALLY describes the last maneuver of the plane. whats KEY in her exact quote is this (bolded): Quote: "we caught, on the radar scope, a few blips, maybe 7 or 8 (hands showing the spiral maneuver motion in correspondence with these radar dots), just enough to kinda go around in a half circle and then fade, eh - losing radar contact - RIGHT OVER um, WASHINGTON." -Colin Scoggins place the/an unidentified plane SE & east of the White House/Potomac. Quote: Scoggins: Just to report, be advised the aircraft is 4-6 miles SE (southeast) of the White House. Huntress: 6 miles SOUTHEAST of the White House? Scoggins: Yup Huntress: He's moving away? Apparently Colin Scoggins recieved this information based on a VISUAL from FAA HQ in Washington DC!!! “I was on aTELCON and there were people who were actually looking at their window and saw the plane, they were speaking it verbatim on the phone to the TELCON. So it was a visual encounter, I assume they were in FAA HQ on Independence AVE. I know one persons name who was there and according to a USA article on around 9/20/01 I have an idea who said it on the phone, and he is the same person that I received the Phantom 11 call on.” “I don't know what office window they were looking from, I've always felt it was FAA HQ […] I am 99 % sure that the statement was made by visual... Another account documenting a DC/East of Potomac flight path... Quote: I was in FOB-8 (FDA) about 3 blocks from the Capitol, watching CNN on my PC because I had been told by a colleague across the hall that a plane had hit the WTC. (Our Center runs CNN off a Netshow encoder 24/7 so we can get news on the network.) I watched the second plane hit the WTC and shortly after that my wife called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse. (The Whitehouse is in the same direction as the Pentagon from our location at the foot of Capitol Hill.) There were then many rumors spreading in the hallway that car bombs had gone off on the Hill and near the State Dept, supposedly smoke was showing there as well. We now know that the car bomb rumors were false. My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.) About that time, I suspected that there might be other hijacked aircraft targeting other buildings in the area (remember, we thought there might have been car bombs going off too at this point) so I walked across the hall to the lab of the colleague who initially told me the WTC had been hit by an aircraft. Looking out of the north facing 4th floor window, I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol. As it turned over NE DC, roughly Union Station I guess, and banked east, the sun hit the pale colored paint and I could see that it was an Air Force E-4 and not a commercial 747. It was going so slow, it appeared to hang in the air over the Hubert Humphrey (HHS) building (across the street from FOB-8). For a moment it crossed my mind that such an aircraft carries much more fuel and could do considerably more damage than the aircraft that had hit the WTC (at this time it was being reported that those aircraft were commuter planes, we didn't know for sure they were 767's, though the outline sure looked like it to me when I saw the second one disappear into the building on CNN). Us chemists were already thinking of fuel loads and explosive equivalents, combustion temperature, melting point of steel, etc. when we watched the first tower collapse. (I'm hazy in my recall of the exact time we watched this relative to the Pentagon crash.) http://forums.techguy.org/archive/index.php/t-72752.htm Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 19 2009, 04:52 PM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 19 2009, 05:38 PM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Mar 19 2009, 04:36 PM Every controller that states which direction Flight 77 turned, after approaching from the east, says that it made a right hand turn or a turn towards the south. This is completely irreconcilable with CIT's GOFER06/Decoy Jet Interaction Loop. Wrong that is exactly what we describe. Quote: O'Brien says that the aircraft was heading northbound when he first spotted it, how can this be possible if the decoy jet turned right? Easily since O'Brien admits he had "just passed the Mall" headed westbound. This however is completely irreconcilable with the 84 RADES data which would require the decoy craft to be traveling SOUTH when first visible by the C-130. To suggest it WOULDN'T be visible during this first pass crossing directly in front of him on a perfectly clear day is ridiculous. Particularly when O'Brien claims he had a "beautiful view of the mall". Sorry Boone but it is not logical to suggest he was not paying attention to air traffic directly in front of him because he was sight seeing national landmarks in a completely different direction from where he was allegedly headed. In fact if you are trying to suggest 9:35:37 is when he first saw it there isn't a reason on earth he would have missed it at 9:34:25 because the distance is about the same. Furthermore 9:35:37 is NOT "just passed the mall, westbound". It isn't anywhere near the mall or facing the mall AT ALL let alone a beautiful view of it or just passed it westbound. Besides boone......how do you explain the fact that ALL the ANC witnesses saw the C-130 approach from the northwest? Why do you dismiss independently corroborated witnesses as simultaneously delusional in the exact same way? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 19 2009, 06:08 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 19 2009, 05:54 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Woody Box Mar 19 2009, 04:27 PM I think that Robert Utley (for instance) describes succinctly and precisely a loop exlusively west of DCA. Easy to illustrate it on a map. I observed a primary target approximately 7 miles east of AML, heading eastbound, when the target was about 1 mile west of DCA it made a right turn heading southwestbound. When it was about 3 miles north of DAA it made a sharp turn northbound, when it was about 10 miles east of AML it made a sharp turn eastbound, the target then dropped off radar about 3 miles west of DCA. Equipment configuration was unknown to me. The most interesting thing is, that Utley's statement is succinct, precise - and utterly wrong. The NTSB loop and the CIT loop have one thing in common: the plane was coming from southwest on its final one, two miles (disregarding the very last meters). But Utley's plane, being 10 miles east of AML (= Dulles Airport = 10 miles west of DCA), makes a "sharp turn eastbound" and drops off radar "3 miles west of DCA". In other words: Utley's plane is coming in from due west. Utley's path is completely different from every other path description, and I'm sure it is wrong. The thing that bugs me is that Utley's figures are so precise. These two things don't fit together. Why does he do that? Ok yeah agreed. Very odd account indeed. Quote: It is also very important to note that all these statements (with one exception) were made one day after the attacks. Allow me a bold speculation: in the afternoon of 9/11, the Dulles controllers got a message from the Secret Service (there was indeed a hotline to the SS): "Dear controllers, you have to fulfill an unusual requirement: You all have observed Flight 77 crossing the Potomac, circling the White House and coming back over the river before hitting the Pentagon. This flight path may not get public for national security reasons. It may lead the attention to the E4B you observed a few minutes later, but the existence of this plane has to be kept hidden, again, for national security reasons. Please understand that no further explanation is possible. When asked by AAT-200 or other investigators about the final loop, place it southwest of the Pentagon so that it doesn't cross the Potomac." I stress this is speculation, because I have no better explanation for the fact that Utley and the other controllers (less distinctly) described a path west of the Potomac. And in this context Utley's absurd path deems to me to be kind of protest for being muzzled. I know, I'm speculating, but I'm just trying to make sense out of this riddle. I follow you and certainly that is a possibility. But if your speculation had a modicum of reality to it then it would clearly deem all of this as invalid manipulated government data. It doesn't matter HOW they manipulate it. Whether it was an order like you speculate, a redaction or complete removal of more incriminating notes, or straight up alteration of what exists......it becomes invalid evidence for where the plane really flew and only serves the same purpose of all disinfo.......obfuscation. Quote: Again, the fact that the real flight path was distorted on the very first day is intriguing. Someone felt the need to intervene as quick as possible. Interestingly, the only statement from 9/11 - from Todd Lewis - is the only one that implies a crossing of the Potomac (IMO). Was his statement not filtered yet? As you said it only "implies" it. The more ambiguous the better it serves their purposes. Contradictions are fine and even what they want. They want to blend the stories as much as possible and show that there are many unexplainable "anomalies" while deliberately creating the impression they are all within an acceptable margin of error even though it's obvious to real researchers that they are not. This is no doubt the same reason why the NTSB and FAA animations were released both showing a north of citgo approach. Know what I mean?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 19 2009, 06:01 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Bottom line Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle absolutely KILL this discussion and the official story. They are independent and honestly relaying what they remember while perfectly corroborating each other. Their accounts are definitive and we have them confirmed first-hand on-camera on-location. There is no way they could all be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way and they prove that we have been right all along about the C-130 flight path and the DC approach of the attack jet. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 19 2009, 06:05 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 19 2009, 10:23 PM Post #14
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Wrong that is exactly what we describe. No it's not. Your depiction of 77's flight path has it traveling northeast. This is not what O'Brien describes, nor does it match what the controller says to O'Brien. "Traffic at your 11 o'clock, northbound." You can use runway 1/33 at Reagan as a reference since you're having a difficult time understanding which way north is. Every controller describes 77 approaching from the East. You cannot turn from an eastbound heading to a northbound heading without making a left-hand turn, unless you're going to add another loop to your loop. Quote: To suggest it WOULDN'T be visible during this first pass crossing directly in front of him on a perfectly clear day is ridiculous. I never suggested that. Quote: Sorry Boone but it is not logical to suggest he was not paying attention to air traffic directly in front of him because he was sight seeing national landmarks in a completely different direction from where he was allegedly headed. In fact if you are trying to suggest 9:35:37 is when he first saw it there isn't a reason on earth he would have missed it at 9:34:25 because the distance is about the same. Why would you expect him to be able to see the decoy jet 6.5 miles away when it is your contention that the decoy jet would have been invisible (to Chaconas) at 4.5 miles away? Not to mention the air traffic controllers at Reagan that were 1.5 miles away. Quote: Furthermore 9:35:37 is NOT "just passed the mall, westbound". It isn't anywhere near the mall or facing the mall AT ALL let alone a beautiful view of it or just passed it westbound. O'Brien never said that he was facing the mall, that is your interpretation. You still haven't explained how he would've had a beautiful view of the mall if it was underneath him.
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 19 2009, 11:25 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Mar 19 2009, 10:23 PM Craig Wrong that is exactly what we describe. No it's not. Your depiction of 77's flight path has it traveling northeast. This is not what O'Brien describes, nor does it match what the controller says to O'Brien. "Traffic at your 11 o'clock, northbound." You can use runway 1/33 at Reagan as a reference since you're having a difficult time understanding which way north is. Every controller describes 77 approaching from the East. You cannot turn from an eastbound heading to a northbound heading without making a left-hand turn, unless you're going to add another loop to your loop. Aldo yelled at me for using that old crude estimate. I should have figured you would have deceptively used it to spin, twist, and confuse. Here is a more accurate estimate with a more gradual turn from the west that works with O'Brien and the ATC accounts: And look! That happens to be EXACTLY what National Geographic depicted as well! With C-130 Interaction: In fact I'd say that my estimate above should have a bit more of a pronounced yet still gradual approach from the south before the loop starts as VERY accurately represented by National Geographic. (in the full animation) How do you explain that Boone?? Hmmmm? Coincidence? Did National Geographic just happen to accidentally come to this conclusion that matches O'Brien and all the confirmed and corroborated ANC accounts perfectly? Quote: I never suggested that. Good then you understand his account of the attack jet approaching from his "left" is irreconcilable with the RADES data. Quote: Why would you expect him to be able to see the decoy jet 6.5 miles away when it is your contention that the decoy jet would have been invisible (to Chaconas) at 4.5 miles away? Not to mention the air traffic controllers at Reagan that were 1.5 miles away. HAHAHA! You're comparing visibility to someone on the ground to someone in a plane!! Surely you see what a completely idiotic (more likely deliberately deceptive) analogy that is. And OBVIOUSLY air traffic crossing in front of him would be ummm....well shall we say of legitimate concern to someone flying a plane? A bit more of a concern than sight seeing national landmarks like the Mall? Agreed? Did you not learn that lesson yet in your 35 hours of flight time? (This is ridiculous. This guy seriously deserves to be limited to posting in the "skeptics" section imho after such blatant dishonesty like that. It's a clear pattern with him.) Quote: You still haven't explained how he would've had a beautiful view of the mall if it was underneath him. Why would it be underneath him as he flew right towards it? And why would he use it as a landmark at all if he wasn't flying towards it (or past it heading westbound as he says) and was south of the airport headed southwest? And while you're at it why don't you please give a full explanation as to why all the confirmed first-hand ANC witness accounts independently corroborate each other and prove our interpretation of O'Brien's account 100% correct? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 19 2009, 11:45 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


A.L.Ex - N.E.T.A	Mar 20 2009, 08:52 AM Post #16
Posts: 45 Group: Members Member #854 Joined: 09/16/08	This is an American Airline planes coming in for a landing - note how much sloweer it is travelling than the ghost of Flight 77 and yet we still have trouble seeing what is written on the plane. Also note how much noise there is. (link being as we can't embed) = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shti4brylgw it's only 52-seconds long. Edit by JFK - embed video Edited by JFK, Mar 20 2009, 10:36 AM.
Posts: 45 Group: Members Member #854 Joined: 09/16/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 20 2009, 03:59 PM Post #17
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Here is a more accurate estimate with a more gradual turn from the west that works with O'Brien and the ATC accounts: Craig, that's even worse than the original. O'Brien says that the aircraft was at his 10 o'clock position on a "northerly” heading when he first spotted it crossing in front of him from left to right. Your latest creation depicts a head on convergence. It is irreconcilable with what O'Brien states. Use the below image for a reference when creating your amended flight path:
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 20 2009, 05:05 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Sorry boone but government controlled data is not independent verifiable evidence. Why are you dismissing the scientifically validated independent first-hand accounts from Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle? Why do you have such disdain for honest American citizens that you are willing to accuse them of all being simultaneously delusional based on what you were told by the government?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 20 2009, 05:42 PM Post #19
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	craig Sorry boone but government controlled data is not independent verifiable evidence. The accounts of Danielle O'Brien, Thomas Howell, and Lt. Col. O'Brien were not controlled by the government. In fact, Steve O'Brien's account was independently verified by The Pilots for Truth. Why do you always dismiss scientifically independently verified evidence when it contradicts your theory? Can Aldo address the discrepancies in CIT's loop?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 20 2009, 06:06 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	You are dodging the question. The ANC witness accounts are confirmed first-hand, on-location, on-camera, and are 100% definitive. Obviously you interpret the "O'Brien's" accounts differently but you can't get away with that with the ANC witnesses. How do you explain the scientifically validated independent first-hand accounts from Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Woody Box	Mar 22 2009, 05:22 PM Post #21
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08	After three days, here's how I see the controller statements now: http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/flight-77-loop-circular-triangular.html
Posts: 120 Group: Members Member #109 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 22 2009, 06:50 PM Post #22
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Woody Box Mar 22 2009, 05:22 PM After three days, here's how I see the controller statements now: http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/flight-77-loop-circular-triangular.html Nice breakdown. As usual what we see come from the government is anomalous and irreconcilable with their own story. It's like they simply decided to make it all one big irreconcilable mess. If nothing adds up then we end up back at square one. That's the best they can hope for.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 23 2009, 11:23 AM Post #23
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Mar 20 2009, 05:42 PM Can Aldo address the discrepancies in CIT's loop? Discrepancies? I don't see any discrepencies. I see Craig's crude estimate of what O'Brien describes and the actual flight path of the attack jet. I think the National Geographic flight path sums it up very well: Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 23 2009, 11:24 AM.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Mar 23 2009, 07:13 PM Post #24
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Aldo Discrepancies? I don't see any discrepencies. I see Craig's crude estimate of what O'Brien describes and the actual flight path of the attack jet. I think the National Geographic flight path sums it up very well: You don't see any discrepancies??? Would you care to point out on the National Geographic flight path where O'Brien spotted Flight 77, at his 10 o'clock, traveling northbound?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 24 2009, 09:12 AM Post #25
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boone, You are dodging the question. The ANC witness accounts are confirmed first-hand, on-location, on-camera, and are 100% definitive. How do you explain the scientifically validated independent first-hand accounts from Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2