Flight 93 - That Pesky C-130

Not sure if anyone who visits this forum wants to talk about this, but I'd appreciate the input from those who do.

Most will remember the C-130 that was spotted near Flight 93's impact point right after the crash. There are two interviews with the pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien.

The first was in the Star-Tribune on 9/11/02, archived here. O'Brien describes himself as on-course for Minneapolis, when he looks "down at a blackened, smoldering field". This makes sense from a timeline perspective, and we've done the math before here: at top speed, and leaving the Pentagon right after it was hit, the Herc couldn't quite make it to the PA crash site in time.

But in the second article (in "On Guard"), the story is told that another airman "seated near one of the rear windows" sees the "big cloud of smoke" first, implying that the C-130 had already passed the impact on its way to MN.

Which is it? If the pilot saw it, it would either have to be pretty far ahead of them (given the height of the cockpit windows), or the aircraft would have had to have been nose-down. Why would an aircraft heading for home be descending sharply if they didn't know about the fourth crash?

Or, alternately, if the man in the rear was the first to see the smoke, how did the Herc get from the Pentagon to an area past 93's impact point so quickly?

Pilots, and other big-brained type "A"s please check in. :)

eom

really looking for answers. As an ATC, I occasionally visil the 9/11 board to se what's going on over there. There's no doubt that there are some things about 9/11 that are open to question. Unfortunately, many of them are perception issues (like this one) that may never be answered.

After seeing his other postings, both here and in DU1, I can say that Robb isn't trying to stir the pot....he's asking honest questions.

Those who are still alive and connected to let us have some peace. Not trying to be critical here, some paople are just trying to move on.

I respect that. But please don't assume that anyone asking questions must have no connection to those on the flight. I made a promise to keep at this until I'm convinced there's no "there" there.

But, sincerely, I respect your position on this.

to open out a previously aired question.

According to
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

How then would radar show a height of 7,000 feet? With no transponder, with not even a positive identification of the aircraft, that information would simply not be available, would it? All they'd have was "literally a blip and nothing more", as indeed was reported here:
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm

The confusion may be explained to some extent by sloppy reporting but the "7,000" must have come from somewhere. Wouldn't just make it up, would they?

So if then that estimate came from the C130's observations, is it not then doubly odd that those articles (and many many others around at the time) made no mention at all of that aircraft?

:freak:

If (as may reasonably be surmised) there was some sort of gagging order in place, what then would there be to hide, and why anyway if the C130 had only been involved by chance during a routine flight?

Odd also, don't you think, that the story was that "The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on."?

Once again, how would it would be so clear from radar alone?

:shrug:

And what then about "We thought there was a problem with the airplane, because the plane was going much faster than it should have been," ... "we were thinking this was an airplane in distress that had crashed, nothing more," as reported by Lieutenant. Col. Joe Divito, the C130 Navigator?

Can something "clear" be just a matter of perception or is there a distinct stench of B.S. to all this?

The administration prefers that the 9-11 events not be looked into too intensely.

We should all respect that, and concentrate on winning the war on terror.

See for instance my previous thoughts, e.g. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3096&mesg_id=3216&page=

looking forward from a rear window

:tinfoilhat:

seems to be out of action.

Is the text otherwise available?

Thanks for the other link, BTW; I'd already dowloaded a copy from the original source of the article but had thought it was no longer online at all.

Glad I printed it; here's a Google cache.

Most (if not all recent) C-130s have a low set of windows on either side of the cockpit the essentially look "down". Some also have lower forward windows.

What would be the conspiracy theory alternative? That they shot down the plane? Or knew that it was going to be shot down?

I recall that the plane had an ID number, 'Golfer 06'.

Can't remember right now where that information came from but I do remember browsing around to check it out.

Suitable information did not appear to be readily available online.

I did discover though that a comprehensive listing of military C130s had been available online before 9/11 but in the mean time it had been removed.

that this C-130 managed to be on the scene in Washington and then in Pa for both crashes. I thought all planes were ordered down?

Why would the AF not have kept that C-130 on patrol around Washington? Granted, it had no armaments, but wouldn't the AF want some kind of potential blocking aircraft keeping protection on Washington?

"wouldn't the AF want some kind of potential blocking aircraft keeping protection on Washington?"

How the H--- could the "Pearl Harbor" take place with BLOCKING aircraft in the way?

:-)

You know what would be really interesting? What kind of rigging that plane has. Love to see that plane's flight/maintanence log for the 3 months up to 9/11, (and just after)...........