| 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
| C130 Arrives on Scene Nearly 3 minutes After Event; Definitely not the plane Roosevelt saw | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 13 2008, 12:26 PM (1,483 Views) | |
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 13 2008, 12:26 PM Post #1 |
|
According to Anthony Tribby, his video was shot 1 minute after the alleged "impact" of the attack jet. On his video he actually captures the C-130 doing its approach (@ 1:48 according to Tribby) and turn @ 1:55 in the video that means the C-130 was there about 3 minutes after. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo&feature=related Close-up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ&feature=related Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr was at the loading docks and experienced the explosion (which he thought was the impact) inside. He details lights flickering and pieces of ceiling falling. He then takes about "7 steps" out to the edge of the east end of the loading dock in South Parking lot and sees a "silver commercial aircraft liner w/jet engines (not propellors)" traveling from the 27 side or from "where the 'first plane' hit" traveling east towards DC. He said it was very low, he estimated 50 ft to less than 100 ft over the South Parking lot area, he said it was banking and coming around to the mall entrance side. Most importantly he described it like a 'pilot who missed the landing zone target and was coming back around'. Roosevelt saw the flyover plane. Download our independently confirmed interview with him here: http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts As you can tell from the tribby video. This is NOT what Roosevelt is describing. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 13 2008, 12:41 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 13 2008, 12:49 PM Post #2 |
|
Remember Wheelhouse's shadowing claim... And Sucherman's plane there 3-5 seconds after the event, after we pressed him to be more specific?  Bringing a "second" plane close to the scene and being ambiguous about it is the name of the game. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 13 2008, 03:23 PM Post #3 |
Patriotic American
|
Assuming the C-130, with Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien piloting, at a cruising speed of 374 mph flying east towards the Pentagon far behind the decoy aircraft and assuming a straight line flight path from the west for the C-130, the aircraft would have been 15.45 miles from the Pentagon at the time of the explosion and resulting high column of smoke which caught the attention of the video camera operator driving his car north on I-395. 374 / 60 = 6.23 mpm x 2.48 min = 15.45 miles distant before start of turn over Arlington Cemetary Or assuming a speed of only 300 mph 300 / 60 = 5 mpm x 2.48 min = 12.4 miles distant before start of turn over Arlington Cemetary Mystery plane appears from about 1:48 to 2:14 Mystery plane closeup  http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_specs.asp |
|
|
|
| JackD | Aug 15 2008, 04:44 PM Post #4 |
|
Great analysis and estimate on timing of C-130. one small off-topic point. note how the first column of smoke appears like a mushroom cloud a bit of a ball at the top -- and all grey. then, at film point about 0:45 there is black smoke coming up -- as if something oily or rubbery is now burning. there seemed to be a lot of black smoke at the front of pentagon from trailer area, as if it really ignited 2ndary to initial event, providing a big inky "smudge pot" of smoke. |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Aug 18 2008, 12:18 AM Post #5 |
|
For the sake of people who don't care enough.......I know the truth. We know the truth. I won't be bullshitted. Fuck that. If in a world of unlimited possibilities..........here we are......and I will fight. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 25 2008, 11:53 PM Post #6 |
|
so ummmm........ what f-ing plane are you two guys talking about again?  great vid. now there is no way for duh-bunkers to keep using that false claim that the c130 pilot saw the actual impact. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 26 2008, 03:01 AM Post #7 |
|
i was reading over at the loyalist site and they seem to believe this somehow authenticates the rades data...... but what they don't come to grips is : 1) this proves O'Brien didn't see the impact 2) this proves the c130 wasn't what roosevelt saw 3) this proves the c130 wasn't what sucherman saw 4) this proves the c130 wasn't what wheelhouse saw 5) this proves the c130 wasn't what chaconas saw am i forgetting anyone? i still can't figure out why they're all high fiving and jerking each other off over there......lol Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Aug 26 2008, 03:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 27 2008, 07:09 AM Post #8 |
|
i can't figure out why the duh-bunkers don't want to touch those 5 questions..... any ideas? 
|
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 27 2008, 10:14 AM Post #9 |
|
Oh IS it now?
Since SPreston is in the habit of correcting his posts, perhaps we can ask him nicely to correct the speed error he has and recalculate his numbers? Yo! Captain Bob! Over at PffT! Can you help him out here? What is the FAA max speed allowable below 10,000 feet? Hint: It ain't 374 mph (325 knots) Someone tell Captain Bob he should try and pick his flunkies with a bit more attention to their aeronautical acumen. And you, JFK, shouldn't let them post on issues about which they know absolutely nothing. Its a tad embarrassing, wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 27 2008, 03:51 PM Post #10 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Ummm. Pinch? Sweet Pea? Bill Paisley? Streetcar Named Desire? Whatever moniker you are going by today, the US with the CIC coward hiding out behind a bunch of children in Florida, was under attack with no leadership whatsoever at the helm and at the mercy of whomever was attacking us, and lying assholes like you were too busy splitting hairs to worry about defending America. Since O'Brien had been ordered to follow the decoy aircraft and provide a heads up, perhaps he did not give a damn at the time for whatever the FAA had to say, and hightailed his ass after the decoy aircraft. What were they going to do; shoot him down? Would you obey the speed limit if your wife or child was dying? I sure the hell would not. Were those fighter jocks putt-putting along at minimum speed instead of defending America also worried about the FAA? Was it you Pinch Paisley on the radio telling them to slow down or you were going to write them up? Screw you lying assholes from the Amazing Randi Magic Show. I also gave an estimate at 300 mph. Regardless, the C-130 got to the area nearest the Pentagon two to three minutes after the Hollywood Special Effects explosions, and O'Brien was 12+ miles from the Pentagon at the time of the Hollywood Special Effects explosions, and that same C-130 came from the west to the north of the Navy Annex and not from the southwest as you lying assholes claim, and Reheat's 84 RADES data has been proven a fraud for multiple reasons.
|
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 28 2008, 02:12 PM Post #11 |
|
You certainly are an angry little man. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Aug 28 2008, 02:39 PM Post #12 |
|
Indded, I shouldn't let you post here, and at the rate you are progressing I predict you will wear out your welcome in about 5 more posts. 
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 28 2008, 03:29 PM Post #13 |
|
dear streetcar/pinch/bill paisely/obsessed neonazicon troll, 1) did O'Brien see the impact? 2) what plane did roosevelt see seconds after impact past the impact point? 3) what plane did sucherman see peeling off "3-5 seconds" after impact? 4) what plane did wheelhouse see "shadowing" the 757? 5) what plane did chaconas see come from the east? 6) what "jet" did vin see flying away after the alleged 757 impact? |
|
|
|
| Boonedoggled | Aug 28 2008, 06:45 PM Post #14 |
|
Yes Gopher 06 Gopher 06 Gopher 06 I don't know, yet. Who's Vin? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 28 2008, 06:52 PM Post #15 |
|
1) so when o'brien says he didn't see the impact and didn't even know it was the pentagon that was hit at first he was lying? 2) are you calling the video showing "gopher 6" arriving minutes later tvfakery? where is the evidence that seconds after the explosion "gopher 6" is over the south parking lot at about 100' off the ground? 3) evidence "gopher 6" was over the pentagon flying away "3-5 seconds" after the explosion? 4) get back to me when you do. 5) Vin Narayanan |
|
|
|
| Boonedoggled | Aug 28 2008, 10:10 PM Post #16 |
|
O'Brien didn't see the impact? That's new. No. From his perspective, just like Scott Cook. 50 to 100 feet is laughable, but you know this already. Sucherman never said that the C-130 was over the Pentagon. I will. Ahh... the Vin that saw an American 757 hit the Pentagon. I would say that he is mistaken about it being a jet just like Donald Carter. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 28 2008, 10:49 PM Post #17 |
|
1) no, its not new. perhaps you're new? 2) officer roosevelt saw a silver commercial airliners over the south parking lot after hearing it allegedly hit the building. he was 7 steps away from the doc door. he ran over and drew his gun. about 3 -5 seconds to run 7 steps? what plane did roosevelt see over the south parking lot seconds after the alleged impact and what proof do you have to support your claim? 3) i know he didn't. he saw a plane peel away "3-5 seconds" after the alleged impact. what plane was it? 4) i have a feeling its gonna be a long time. 5) vin is mistaken that he saw a jet flying away????? 6) what plane did wheelhouse see? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 29 2008, 06:32 AM Post #18 |
|
thats for the duh-bunkers...... |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 29 2008, 11:19 AM Post #19 |
|
1) Yes. Every account says they saw the fireball. It was a few seconds later that they realized the location: The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 6/17/2004] Quoting Lt Col O'Brien's official statement: “The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge… Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon. …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. He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. (Quoting Lt Col O'Brien) Wikipedia: O'Brien saw a fireball, and initially believed the aircraft had hit the ground, but then saw the west side of the Pentagon. He reported to the control tower, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir". Minnesota ANG pages: "A few minutes later, O'Brien and his crew witnessed the nation under attack without realizing it. "We saw a fireball on the ground from jet fuel exploding and then saw the silhouette of the Pentagon through the haze of smoke," said O'Brien. 2) If Roberts DID see an aircraft, it would have been the C-130 since it was the only other plane in the area at the time. And, you need to clarify the time Roberts saw the aircraft. Was it at 0911 or 0912, as per his 2001 recorded testimony? Or was it 5 or 10 seconds after the impact time, as per Aldo and Craig's interview, which would have made it approximately 0940? His testimony, in both recorded pieces, is pretty confusing. 3) Sucherman would have seen the C-130. The time difference can be attributed to catastrophic event time compression which occurs quite often with these sorts of events. 4) Wheelhouse saw the C-130. See above for reasoning behind time differences. 5) I have no doubt Chaconas saw the C-130 crossing over the Potomac at approximately 3,000 feet initially headed on radar vectors from the departure froM Andrews. 6) Narayanan saw the C-130 since it was the only other plane in the area at the time. Questions? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 29 2008, 11:36 AM Post #20 |
|
No, he saw a fireball. Not an impact, sir. In an e-mail he said... I remember it being a clear day in the DC area, but I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. 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. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport. It was a few more seconds on our eastbound heading before I saw that the aircraft had impacted the west side of the Pentagon. "...and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport." So he he saw it "impact" but he thought it must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National? That doesn't sound like he saw an "impact" only. What is a few seconds? 30? 60? 120?
Oh come on, it was weeks after 9/11 who the hell was discussing the EXACT time of impact, except researchers years later? He said it was immediate. 10 second tops. 7 STEPS FROM THE BOOTH. It was 50 to less than 100 ft over South parking. It looked like a plane that had missed the landing zone and was banking back around. It was a commercial aircraft "liner" with jet engines. He had a choice between propellors and jet engines. He saw jet engines.
Really? You have proof he was on the highway? You actually believe 7-8 USA Today editors and reporters were stuck on that highway at that exact moment in that exact position to see the plane and alleged impact? You have proof of this? Vin Narayanan said he was on 110 on the other side of the Pentagon.
No he saw it 2/3 to a mile out near the Navy Annex. Actually he saw BOTH of them together. How is this possible considering the video and witnesses we have of a C-130 approaching from the northwest 3 minutes later?
The only problem is he saw a commercial aircraft jet. Sorry.
You have proof he was on the highway? Besides, he claims it was a jet he saw. Don't forget there was an E4B over in DC. Confusion confusion.
Not anymore. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 29 2008, 11:42 AM Post #21 |
|
Streetcar, Did you ever figure out how the plane hit 5 light poles, the most problematic of which hits a cab that does not scratch the hood, show up low and level over the lawn as seen in the gate cam video, hit the fence and generator with its right wing, enter into the first floor causing the direction damage as outlined in the ASCE report all while approaching from the north side of the Citgo and pulling up into an ascent right before the Pentagon?   Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 29 2008, 12:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 29 2008, 02:57 PM Post #22 |
|
Well, for starters your own witnesses (Lagasse, Boger, Turcois, Brooks, Stephens) all said the aircraft hit the building (in fact, they all say they saw it hit the building). The documented damage to the building, extrapolated back along a projected flight path, shows that it was AA 77, the 757, that not only caused the damage but knocked over the light poles, light poles, incidentaly, that are designed to break off when a 3,500 lb car traveling at 50 mph hits it - a 180,000 airliner traveling at 500 mph wouldn't even blink in knocking those poles down. If the aircraft hit the building (as your witnesses say) in the manner the damage proves, then it could not have possibly been flying "north" of the gas station, correct? Therefore, their description of the flight path of the aircraft on it a pproach are in error, a common occurance in eyewitnesses to catastrophic events. I trust you'll correct all this "north of the gas station" nonsence? Just going by your eyewitnesses. You guys did some good work tracking down these people who actually saw the impact. Well done! |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Aug 29 2008, 03:12 PM Post #23 |
|
Well since it they ALL saw it approach on the north side of the Citgo, we know they DID NOT see an impact. They deduced one. Because the two events are mutually exclusive and a north of the Citgo plane CAN NOT hit. But you already know that don't you?
What documented damage? Show me the documentation on the light poles. Show me the documentation on the trailer? You are talking out of your ass trying throw some gobbledygook at the wall to see if it sticks. It doesn't. It never has. It is why you are here EVERYDAY and on every other f----- forum we have been on. You have proof it was Flight 77?
Stupid. Stop the circles, you'll get dizzy. There is NOTHING. NOTHING. I repeat NOTHING that proves it flew on the south side and knocked down light poles or hit a generator trailer. Physical evidence only exists in physical form. I went there and forensically documented the flight path. You conspiracy theorists sit there and stare at photos of the light poles and are convinced of a fabricated flight path. Think about it.
Ok troll. This is all just game for you. Why don't you "correct" this nonsense? How come you people are so scared to contact the witnesses and confront them about this. Reinforcing this joke of a case with some weak ass jedi mind trick attempts ain't changin shit, partner.
God did you read what you actually wrote? You sound like the 100 other dummies who have come in here and just to simply say the opposite. Duh, they saw it impact but they are wrong about the north side approach. You guys know ur fucked right? You know how stupid you look right going in these idiotic circles right? You know we are still winning right? pssst... they saw it on the north side, therefore it negates an impact. Other than that, if you keep up with this shit you'd be a troll and one that is close to being banned I would assume. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Aug 31 2008, 12:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Aug 29 2008, 03:47 PM Post #24 |
|
EXACTLY. If you saw a plane fly over you, towards the pentegon,then see a big fireball, smokeball, etc. without acually seeing the pure impact....yea you'd probably "deduce" impact. Then you get the media "telling you" what happened. e.g. USCIA Today reporters all over the scene. Then you get a few frames from a gate camera to "prove" it....insert huge PHFFFFT! Is that a plane in those gate camera video frames Streetcar?, is it? you must think its a plane. sidenote....has anyone taken that kind of security camera. and tried to catch a plane flying by at different speeds from certain distance? just to see what it would look like.... |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 31 2008, 07:30 PM Post #25 |
|
Are those "deductions" from the witnesses, as in "I deduced the impact", or are they your interpretation of what they saw? Lagasse's email to Dick Eastman sure doesn't sound like he "deduced" the impact. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
1:23 PM May 21