Boone's excuse for Mineta's DRA flight path

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
3
4

Boone's excuse for Mineta's DRA flight path; selective reading is fundamental
Topic Started: Dec 15 2008, 10:25 PM (1,935 Views)
Boonedoggled	Dec 19 2008, 03:30 PM Post #26
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	If the "decoy plane" flew east of the river after flying in front of the C-130, why is there only a 30 second gap between the C-130 turning right and reporting the crash?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 19 2008, 03:41 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 19 2008, 03:30 PM If the "decoy plane" flew east of the river after flying in front of the C-130, why is there only a 30 second gap between the C-130 turning right and reporting the crash? True skeptics wouldn't automatically accept gov't supplied data as valid. The pilot admitted there were 3 radio calls before he even turned around. We know after he turned around he couldn't keep it in sight. We know it took him nearly 3 minutes to arrive over the scene. We know he was far enough away that he didn't know what or where had been hit.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 03:52 PM Post #28
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 19 2008, 03:41 PM We know he was far enough away that he didn't know what or where had been hit. THIS is key. This fact as told to us direct from O'Brien himself proves they lied about his account. It is ALWAYS implied if not outright stated that O'Brien actually watched it enter the building. He did not and could not even tell the explosion was coming from The Pentagon! He was that far away. The Pentagon is MASSIVE compared to a 757. The simple fact that he was that far away is extremely strong evidence that we are correct and the RADES data incorrect and CERTAINLY lends credence to the notion that the the impression he actually witnessed the plane hit the building was deliberately suggested and implied through the media. Lt Col Steve O'Brien "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 (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 04:06 PM Post #29
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	So the fact that O'Brien was too far away to tell the explosion came from the Pentagon coupled with the ANC witnesses kill this debate for intellectually honest skeptics. No true skeptic would deny corroborated independent evidence based on government data. How many times are you going to force yourself to suggest that all the witnesses hallucinated the same opposite of reality?
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Dec 19 2008, 05:01 PM Post #30
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Aldo The pilot admitted there were 3 radio calls before he even turned around. Actually, there were four radio calls. O'Brien acknowledged northbound traffic, 5 miles out at his 12 o'clock position then 1 minute and 30 seconds later, reported the crash north and west of the airfield. It was another 30 seconds before saying it crashed into the Pentagon. Quote: We know after he turned around he couldn't keep it in sight. That's not what he said, that's what you are inferring. I wonder why Mineta failed to mention the C-130 as it followed the unidentified aircraft down the river?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 19 2008, 05:10 PM Post #31
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 19 2008, 05:01 PM Aldo The pilot admitted there were 3 radio calls before he even turned around. Actually, there were four radio calls. O'Brien acknowledged northbound traffic, 5 miles out at his 12 o'clock position then 1 minute and 30 seconds later, reported the crash north and west of the airfield. It was another 30 seconds before saying it crashed into the Pentagon. Only if you have a propensity to have pure unadulterated faith in the government over independent verifiable evidence that proves they lied. Quote: Quote: We know after he turned around he couldn't keep it in sight. That's not what he said, that's what you are inferring. Yes it is what he said. I just quoted him saying it. Scroll up and read it and admit you are wrong. AGAIN. Granted his exact words were "difficult time keeping it in sight" but since he couldn't even see the Pentagon at the time of the explosion it should be obvious that at this point he had lost sight of the relatively tiny commercial looking aircraft. Quote: I wonder why Mineta failed to mention the C-130 as it followed the unidentified aircraft down the river? Because as O'Brien clearly describes.....he NEVER "followed" it. By the time he turned around it was too late. He saw the explosion but was too far away to tell it was coming from the Pentagon proving he never shadowed it, followed it, or saw it hit the building and was even too far way to see it flying away. A 757 would be an indistinguishable dot if you are too far away to see the Pentagon as O'Brien specifically said. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 19 2008, 05:13 PM.
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 19 2008, 05:19 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Whatever Boone, your Jedi Mind Tricks aren't going to work here. You keep "correcting" me with data that came out after our findings and because of our findings. You reinforcing it doesn't make it true. Why do you think the release of this radar data came funneled through one of the most obvious disinformation outlets out there, John Farmer, 7 yrs later? Because they absolutely had to now. Now they have to rely on the authoritative tone of people like you and Farmer to reinforce the data's validity and contents as if everything we have uncovered doesn't exist or matter. You stink like an op. Your logic is suspiciously flawed... continually. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 19 2008, 05:20 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


JackD	Dec 19 2008, 06:27 PM Post #33
Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	I think it one must be very careful when considering the source of data at the Pentagon -- whether witnessees like Fleischer and Mineta, or radar imagery, or FDR data, etc. Let's take Ari Fleischer-- press secretary & Neocon PR flack. What's his motivation? Fleischers' job is to give the official spin, obfuscate, protect his boss, etc. Why did he insist that there had been a possibly hostile plane (AA77?) that threatened DC, possibly the white house? Because Bush, his boss, had been told to stay away from DC, due to a credible threat. Fleischer's job is to convince the press that this story. therefore, he said "that's not the radar track we saw" when he was asked why the president stayed away even though the alleged AA77 did not circle the white house. What did Fleischer see? he didnt show us. Mineta: former Lockheed Martin director, deep mil-indus connections. What's Mineta's motivation? Is he 'coming clean' in front of the commission, or is his story about "50 miles out.... 30 miles out... orders still stand' part of the MO of the 9/11 commission of confusing, obfuscating, creating conflicting accounts, and covering up. I dont know. O'brien: She was Dulles ATC watching the TRACON approach radar. She saw a plane on a radar scope which, judging by its blip returns, was moving like a fighter jet, before it disappeared. What did she see? can we see it? Was the radar blip she watched from a real return, or a spoofed radar inject? 84th RADES radar evaluation data -- this Fort HIll Utah unit is specifically trained in NORAD and FAA radar systems, the ASRS-4 and military primary and secondary radar systems, and interpreting events after the fact (like re-examining tapes to figure out where an ultralight craft went down in the hills). What's their motivation? What did they see? did they create a true account, or modify it? Were the tapes they were looking at based on real radar returns, or spoofed radar injects> Commander O'brien, pilot of Gopher6 C130. What the hell was he doing taking off in the middle of an air emergency (the air threat conference call was already underway, NORAD was looking at up to three if not four hijacked planes by the time of his 9:25AM take off roll from Andrews AFB...). Is he being truthful? Why do his accouunts conflict a bit? he gets his paycheck from Rumsfeld, like everyone else. Motivated to toe the line? Alleged FDR data from AA77 -- tampered, manipulated, made up, altered? etc etc The conflicting accounts can never be reconciled, and it's hard to decide which one is 'true' in order to 'disprove' the others. One thing that emerges is that a cover-up of large proportions appears. But this is typical of covert operations, in which the plan is generally to keep the operational details as simple as is possible, and make the complexity out of the coverup. Much easier to pull off. In fact, create intentionlly false and salted trails, change stories, lie about irrelevant details, hold a cover-up commission, deny evidence, become a fake authority, etc. Kudos to those with the patience to sort through the mounds of crap to find the needle of truth.
Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Boonedoggled	Dec 19 2008, 07:33 PM Post #34
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Only if you have a propensity to have pure unadulterated faith in the government over independent verifiable evidence that proves they lied. You have O'Brien's contact information, forward a link to the recording and ask him to independently verify it. Quote: Scroll up and read it and admit you are wrong. AGAIN. I read it again, it still says the same thing. "Difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight." No mention of losing sight. Quote: Because as O'Brien clearly describes.....he NEVER "followed" it. By the time he turned around it was too late. He saw the explosion but was too far away to tell it was coming from the Pentagon proving he never shadowed it, followed it, or saw it hit the building and was even too far way to see it flying away. A 757 would be an indistinguishable dot if you are too far away to see the Pentagon as O'Brien specifically said. He was 7.5 miles west of the Pentagon when 77 impacted. He also stated that the aircraft crashed at his 12 o'clock position. Have you listened to the audio? Aldo Whatever Boone, your Jedi Mind Tricks aren't going to work here. Yoda is my mentor.
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Michal	Dec 20 2008, 03:41 AM Post #35
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Quote: He was 7.5 miles west of the Pentagon when 77 impacted. far enough to loose the sense (details) of the situation – you have got to admit it ... anyway your theory does not fit ... no matter what you do with it Edited by Michal, Dec 20 2008, 03:44 AM.
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 20 2008, 11:06 AM Post #36
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 19 2008, 07:33 PM I read it again, it still says the same thing. "Difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight." No mention of losing sight. Yes we know you are a selective reading intellectually dishonest liar. He says he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon. The Pentagon is massive compared to a tiny commercial jet. How does it feel to work every day of your life lying to cover up mass murder? Do you enjoy the sticky feeling of blood on your hands traitor? Quote: He was 7.5 miles west of the Pentagon when 77 impacted. He also stated that the aircraft crashed at his 12 o'clock position. Oh so now you are arguing that he could not see it? Funny how you pretend like you don't even notice how you are contradicting yourself.
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Michal	Dec 20 2008, 12:01 PM Post #37
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Quote: Oh so now you are arguing that he could not see it? I thought he meant the oposite Edited by Michal, Dec 20 2008, 12:01 PM.
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 20 2008, 12:29 PM Post #38
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Michal Dec 20 2008, 12:01 PM I thought he meant the oposite If he did then he is accusing O'Brien of being a liar.
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Dec 20 2008, 01:45 PM Post #39
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Yes we know you are a selective reading intellectually dishonest liar. He says he could not even tell the explosion was coming from the Pentagon. Craig, have you listened to the audio yet? http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/dca/1%20DCA%20108%20TYSON%201325-1348.mp3 O'Brien says that the plane crashed. Quote: Oh so now you are arguing that he could not see it? No. What are you talking about?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Michal	Dec 20 2008, 03:26 PM Post #40
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Boonedoggled Dec 20 2008, 01:45 PM No. What are you talking about? told you
Posts: 52 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 20 2008, 03:28 PM Post #41
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 20 2008, 01:45 PM Craig, have you listened to the audio yet? O'Brien says that the plane crashed. Yes I had listened to it. Notice how he does not identify it as an AA jet, only a "757" before he says it headed northeast to turn over DC skies in an unusual bank as described in later interviews. O'Brien thought it was having an in flight emergency. So OF COURSE he thought it crashed when he saw the explosion. Why wouldn't he? Notice how he DOES NOT say it crashed in the Pentagon. That's because, as he told us, he was too far away to tell. What don't you get here? He couldn't see the Pentagon. Therefore a commercial jet at tree top level would not be visible either. Stop playing stupid you liar. Quote: No. What are you talking about? Explain yourself liar. Is 7.5 miles too far away to see the Pentagon? If not then why did O'Brien say he could not tell if the explosion was coming from the Pentagon?
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Dec 20 2008, 04:52 PM Post #42
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig Notice how he does not identify it as an AA jet, only a "757" before he says it headed northeast to turn over DC skies in an unusual bank as described in later interviews. O'Brien thought it was having an in flight emergency. At 5 miles he is close enough to identify it as a 757, not a 737, not a 767, and then at 7.5 miles it magically disappears? He never said it was over DC skies. Nice try. Quote: That's because, as he told us, he was too far away to tell. What don't you get here? I get that part, Craig. Did he ever tell you if he lost sight of the aircraft? Why don't you post the e-mail exchanges in their entirety? Have you contacted him to ask whether or not the recordings were altered? I will get in touch with him if you want to pass along his contact info. Quote: If not then why did O'Brien say he could not tell if the explosion was coming from the Pentagon? This is really simple. He watched Flight 77 approach DC until it crashed. Since he is from Minnesota, he's probably not familiar with layout of the DC area and did not immediately recognize the area it crashed into. He continued to fly toward the impact site until he recognized the Pentagon. You are working the angle that O'Brien could not have seen the “NOC” or the "flyover," I'm not. I'm proving that the East of the Potomac/CIT Loop never happened. You still haven't explained how the "decoy jet" flew from northbound 5 miles in front of O'Brien to 6 miles east, 6 miles southeast, 6 miles southwest, NOC, and over Lane 1 of the south parking lot in 1 minute and 30 seconds.
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 20 2008, 07:50 PM Post #43
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 20 2008, 04:52 PM I'm proving that the East of the Potomac/CIT Loop never happened. You still haven't explained how the "decoy jet" flew from northbound 5 miles in front of O'Brien to 6 miles east, 6 miles southeast, 6 miles southwest, NOC, and over Lane 1 of the south parking lot in 1 minute and 30 seconds. You aren't "proving" anything because you have provided zero independent verifiable evidence. You are confidently asserting lies on the internet behind the comfort of an anonymous screenname. We have PROVEN with independent verifiable evidence that the C-130 flight path in the 84 RADES data is fraudulent. It's that simple. Plus O'Brien admitted he was too far away to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon so naturally it would be impossible to see the plane. He wasn't in the airspace until 3 minutes later as verified by Tribby with video evidence. You can't be honest and argue against these facts that prove a deception. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 20 2008, 07:54 PM.
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 20 2008, 09:46 PM Post #44
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Anthony Tribby and the ANC witnesses prove he wasn't in the airspace for 3 minutes. If the RADES data were true and O'Brien was only 7.5 miles away at the time of the explosion this means he would have only been going about 150 mph! Seems rather slow and lumbering given the circumstances and given the fact that a C-130 can go 370 mph. He couldn't see the Pentagon and it took him 3 minutes to get there because he was much further away and the RADES data is fraudulent as the ANC witnesses alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posts: 1,451 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Dec 22 2008, 09:32 PM Post #45
Posts: 1,967 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Boonedoggled Dec 19 2008, 07:33 PM I read it again, it still says the same thing. "Difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight." No mention of losing sight. O'Brien "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 (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
Posts: 1,967 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Boonedoggled	Jan 3 2009, 03:01 PM Post #46
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Craig, if Mineta/Belger was referring to Flight 77 as you believe, why were the fighters launched out of Andrews still looking for an "aircraft coming down the river" at 10:38, nearly 1 hour after it impacted the Pentagon? http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/dca/1%20DCA%2099%20KRANT%201430-1600%20UTC.mp3
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Bitterman	Jan 3 2009, 03:40 PM Post #47
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Asking Craig to comment on something as stupid as that, is like expecting YOU to address the real information which shows you to be a wee out of touch. Disregarding information because that puts you in your place doesn't do anything for your "arguments", if they could actually be called that. You're like a child with ADD who doesn't know when he's been beaten. You just move on to the next thing, oblivious to the facts at hand. Oblivious to the tripe you spew. WOW. Just please stop. If you're ACTUALLY a human being.....why don't you stop?
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Boonedoggled	Jan 3 2009, 05:06 PM Post #48
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08	Bitterman Jan 3 2009, 03:40 PM Asking Craig to comment on something as stupid as that, is like expecting YOU to address the real information which shows you to be a wee out of touch. Disregarding information because that puts you in your place doesn't do anything for your "arguments", if they could actually be called that. You're like a child with ADD who doesn't know when he's been beaten. You just move on to the next thing, oblivious to the facts at hand. Oblivious to the tripe you spew. WOW. Just please stop. If you're ACTUALLY a human being.....why don't you stop? Bitterman, would you like to contribute anything other than ad homs? Why would a F-16 be launched at 10:37 a.m. with instructions to check out the aircraft coming down the river if Flight 77 was the aircraft Mineta was referring to?
Posts: 228 Group: Members Member #51 Joined: 01/15/08


Bitterman	Jan 4 2009, 03:52 AM Post #49
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Again, what's really important here, is that the plane was NoC, and flew over the building. So, talk as much as you like about anything you like, but you're missing the point. Seriously, what is the point to ANYTHING you bring up? If its not to show how the NoC witnesses are false, then your "points" are just distractions. Which is where all the confrontation comes from I think. How old are you btw?
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Stundie	Jan 6 2009, 11:45 AM Post #50
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Boonedoggled Jan 3 2009, 03:01 PM Craig, if Mineta/Belger was referring to Flight 77 as you believe, why were the fighters launched out of Andrews still looking for an "aircraft coming down the river" at 10:38, nearly 1 hour after it impacted the Pentagon? http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/dca/1%20DCA%2099%20KRANT%201430-1600%20UTC.mp3 Boonedoggled...Did Mineta/Belger ever direct any of the fighters out of Andrews? I think you'll find the answer is no. Who knows what aircraft they were looking for but this as nothing to do with Mineta/Belger or the fact they were watching AA77. So if Mineta/Belger were reffering to UA93, why does Mineta state that they had "No information" on UA93 until after it was done. Also you never addressed my points in the other post. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=167303&t=182811 Because there is a major flaw in that you are taking Mineta quotes out of context and are missing vital information which shows that you are wrong. Edited by Stundie, Jan 6 2009, 11:47 AM.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


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


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

Pages:
1
2
3
4