|
sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/6/2007 5:19:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
go ahead name some verifiable or at least credible leaks.
In connection with the Pentagon? That is tough. What comes to mind are the exercises to prepare the Pentagon for the eventuality of a plane crashing onto it.
Null and void, I have been running excercises way more outlandish than that for pushing close to twenty years now. So out of your many thousands not one has slipped up in any substantial way of figured out just how much a media outlet would pay for the story?
In fact, I just looked it up, my first plane crash into office building excercise was dated May 1993. Thats MY first, not the first ever run by the company, let alone any that may have been run by government staffers or other companies own planning officers.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Identification of major surviving components, in conjunction with corroboration from eyewitnesses and the magic of radar lead to no other viable alternative
I have determined that a number of those witnesses are not credible. Also there is no record of this plane ever having taken off. I imagine that airplanes have serial numbers. In any case they are manufactured in a specific year. I imagine that it should be possible to identify this plane from the remains: this is plane so-and-so, built in 1994 and sold to whatever on a specific date. The trace elements in the aluminium itself must be a signature of its identity. What it comes down to, is that without this kind of independent evidence, this plane is unidentified.
Cite causes for determining witnesses not credible or not credible, unless of course your investigations have involved illegal activities.
As for the flight never taking off, I hate to say it but the FAA disagree with you. Along with the NTSB, Norad (NEADS), the airport staff, and countless others. I am also well aware of the claim you will make, and it holds no water, that database was never live as in a regular minute or hour based update and required confirmation from ground staff regarding departure and (non)arrival, and lets face it the busiest day ever for the FAA I can understand not updating quickly, especially as a criminal investigation would commence.
Without pre-crash samples of material it would be impossible to provide a 1-1 match with post crash, so unless somebody happened to keep a bit of hull handy around the service hangar (with suitable chain of evidence) your argument bites its own tail and can never prove anything of consequence.
quote:
I do not know about the volunteer search teams. I do know that guys came from all over the US to Florida to ensure that Bush won the presidency, so why not inside men from Tennessee?
How about that age old problem, conspiracy size? If two people know it aint a secret. So to send out briefing teams across the country to brief and prime volunteers, come on, you are past 10,000 now and getting into ridiculous numbers. Not to mention the truckers who delivered aircraft wreckage, the fire fighters, the construction workers, all the NTSB/FBI/every other idiot with a badge that went along every photographer, journalist, cameraman and passer by, and not one has come out or slipped up in a credible/verifiable way.This from a nation that cant even keep a blow job secret, sorry that really does stretch the bounds of credibilty.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Incorrect, using your own words you go where you want to go and ignore all contrary evidence
Indeed I go where I want to go. I ignore only that evidence that is false or not pertinent or suspect or that I am not qualified to judge and is not corroborated by a credible witness.
And by your own words accept without investigation the word of other witnesses, thats not an investigation, thats cherry picking.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Yup, look at all those bits, none from the avionics bay or cockpit were blown clear, just as I would expect given the front on direct collision. Null argument, as any avionics or flight control electronics found outside in such a way would be automatically very suspect due to that location.
Fight 175 had a remote control pod attached to one wing. One Pentagon witness testified that the C130 was equiped for electronic warfare. I expect that it would have been irretrievably destroyed. However, something may have survived.
Now if the plane was remotely controlled from the wing, cockpit instrumentation would not be necessary and perhaps even be absent from a graveyard plane. So now you are saying that it cannot be proven that the plane had any cockpit instruments?
A "poddite", sorry there goes any credibility you ever had.
Ask your self a simple question, based on the physical position of all the flight controls, instrumentation and electronics centres in a commercial jet and the physical space available within said hull, where oh where is the logic or neccessity for an external pod? Remember when the FAA crashed that old 707 to test anti-misting fuel additives way back in the mists of time? Any external pods? Nope and that had a full flight deck and cabin!
Assuming remote control was the case the remote pilot still needs some basic instrumentation, where is the best place to tap a feed for relaying to the remote station? All that is required is an external antenna (even that can be foregone with a powerful enough transmitter)
Also bearing in mind the confusion between a small commuter jet with wheels down and a 747 with gear up, differentiating one variant of a 130 from another, sorry not a credible witness, no cororboration, plenty contrary evidence. There goes your pentagon witness claiming some form of E 130 variant.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
If Timmerman was onboard that C130, how did he get to Washington in time to make the interview on CNN? Not a speculative answer, but a verifiable one.
Yes, how? I have taken a short look at that Pennsylvania crash and frankly doubt that the C130 was anywhere near. Indications are that that was a cover story. It is known that and when the C130 took off, but at least five of its crew members remain unidentified and it is unknown when and where it landed.
Unknown as in not cited anywhere, but a reasonable estimate bearing in mind the lack of comment otherwise is that it returned home to Minnesota. After all none of the crew making statements make comments about not returning home for another 3 days having been forced to land elsewhere, nor has anyone claimed that a mystery 130 spent a few days parked on their local airstrip.
Of course if you insist that O'brien was not near #93 you then have another mystery herky bird to trace. Why? when you have a flight crew you already believe crashed one jet thus trained and in a suitably equipped aircraft, why drag in another crew unneccessarily and widen the number of conspirators even further? That defies logic and is making work for yourself
quote:
Nope, most of the flight crew have refused to make any public statement, however they have made internal statements within the military, perhaps a FOIA request is what you need?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Post 331
That is six posts in the future. Is that when you will tell us who were part of the c130 crew?
Apologies, a typo, without the full context here means a bit of backreading, I shall do so if you wish
quote:
"The C-130, IIRC, usually has a crew of 4 (Pilot, Co-pilot, Engineer, and Loadmaster). So the entire crew is in on it, not just Mr. O'Brian."
Janes and af.mil
HC130P/N Three officers (pilot, co-pilot, navigator) and seven enlisted (flight engineer, airborne communications specialist, two loadmasters and three pararescuemen)
AC130H/U Five officers (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, fire control officer, electronic warfare officer) and eight enlisted (flight engineer, TV operator, infrared detection set operator, loadmaster, four aerial gunners)
C130E/H: Five (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
C130J/J-30: Three (two pilots and loadmaster)
EC130H (Compass Call) Thirteen (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer, electronic warfare officer, mission crew supervisor, four crypto logic linguists, high band operator, acquisition operator and an airborne maintenance technician.)
EC130J (Commando Solo) pilot, copilot, flight systems officer, mission systems officer; loadmaster, five electronic communications systems operators
MC130E (Combat Talon) two pilots, two navigators and an electronic warfare officer, flight engineer, radio operator and two loadmasters
MC130H: (Combat talon)two pilots, a navigator and electronic warfare officer, flight engineer and two loadmasters MC130P (Combat Shadow) Officers - pilot, co-pilot, right navigator and left navigator; enlisted - flight engineer, communications systems operator and two loadmasters
MC130W Seven (pilot, copilot, two navigators, flight engineer and two loadmasters)
WC130 Six; pilot, co-pilot, navigator, flight engineer, aerial reconnaissance weather officer and dropsonde system operator
Ironic really, If you had picked almost any number other than four it could have fitted some 130 variant (dont you just hate it when memory does that to you). Anyway, that covers every single 130 variant in current USAF/ANG service
quote:
"O'Brien said he had taken off with his crew of eight from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland at 9:30 a.m. on a routine flight to Minneapolis, unaware that two hijacked planes already had slammed into the World Trade Center."
Does that mean that there were nine people on board that c130? O'Brien and eight crew?
It is not inconcievable given the way many flights operate that there was a double flight crew and single loadmaster. Justification, long haul flight from Minnesota to Carribean, cargo drops there, long return flight, the loadmaster is superfluous for most of those miles and not subject to maximum hours the way flight deck crew are.
Alternative two, some ANG member was fed up of a northern september and took the chance to grab a stopover in the tropics or DC.
|
|
|
|
