IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"flight 77" The White Plane, (New CIT release!)

Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 19 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #21





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (pinnacle @ Oct 19 2007, 05:50 PM)
I would think CNN decided to cover the E-4B story because of my many emails and letters to them on the subject in June and July of 2007.
As soon as I discovered the video in the CNN Image Source archives I alerted Mark Gaffney and he managed to get a copy of the video and arranged to
use three images from the video in is article for Journal of 9/11 Studies
which was posted in August of 2007.
I is reasonable to believe that had a lot to do with CNN deciding to broadcast the video.

No doubt.

You tipped them off that us "conspiracy theorists" were on to them so they took the bait and made a pathetic attempt at "damage control" that exposed them even more!

Good work!
thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pinnacle
post Oct 22 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 276
Joined: 14-November 06
Member No.: 242



Both Mark Gaffney and David Ray Griffin have books forthcoming that will
feature coverage of the E-4B story and I have more inquiries in the works on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 1 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Ashoka @ Oct 13 2007, 01:22 AM) *
M3 is 0310 (it's the transponder code, isn't it?)

So 0310 is the Mode 3 code for our "white plane" or E4B in question then? Does anyone know of any other Mode 3 codes that would be relevant in the USAF RADES data?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Nov 14 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #24





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Gaffney's book dismisses the flyover scenario because it can't account for the light pole damage. I have not finished the book, but on P. 24 the following passage left me slackjawed:

QUOTE
"While I am open to the liklihood of explosions, because witnesses reported the smell of cordite, I view the fly-over scenario as implausible because it cannot explain the broken light poles in the approach path."

- The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America

So far the book is excellent except for that particular klinker. There may be others. Has Gaffney been in touch with the P49T research on the FDR? Does he realize that the damage path and light poles are in tension with the government's own data?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 14 2008, 01:07 AM
Post #25





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Nov 14 2008, 05:05 AM) *
Gaffney's book dismisses the flyover scenario because it can't account for the light pole damage. I have not finished the book, but on P. 24 the following passage left me slackjawed:


- The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America

So far the book is excellent except for that particular klinker. There may be others. Has Gaffney been in touch with the P49T research on the FDR? Does he realize that the damage path and light poles are in tension with the government's own data?


Wait until you read the Afterword written by John Farmer.

We have proof that it is deliberate disinformation and Gaffney refused to take responsibility for it while putting all blame on Farmer.

While there is plenty of accurate information in the book in general, Gaffney's basic default acceptance of government provided data as factual or legitimate evidence in any way shows a clear biased towards the official narrative.

We had lengthy discussions via email with Gaffney before and after the book went to print and he has only shown himself to be irrational and illogical with a propensity to mix wild conjecture and completely unsupported conspiracy theory with the official narrative regarding some sort of definite impact of a 2nd or perhaps even 3rd plane.

He basically tried to argue that there was a north side flyover timed with an explosion that looped back around and THEN hit the building.

I kid you not.

I plan to publish a scathing review but frankly it just hasn't been a priority yet.

My feeling is that the sole purpose of this book is to obfuscate and cover up the evidence of the DC approach of the attack jet with false tales of multiple E4B's.

You really posted this in the right thread because our "Flight 77 the white plane" movie is basically us demonstrating how the media (and now pseudo-movement via Gaffney and Farmer) is using the mysterious E4B('s) as cover for the attack jet.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 14 2008, 01:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 14 2008, 02:27 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



OK, I finally got it.
The mysterious white plane, seen and videoed, after the explosions,
at the pentagon, was the same plane that everyone thought hit the pentagon.

...and probably the same plane that the FDR data was taken from.

sorry, sometimes I'm so slow to catch on

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 14 2008, 11:20 AM
Post #27





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 14 2008, 06:27 AM) *
...and probably the same plane that the FDR data was taken from.



No since no E4B flew over Arlington at all this would not make sense.

The 2006 released NTSB data has been prove a sloppy fraudulent effort.

There is no reason to assume it came from any real plane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 14 2008, 11:37 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



A complete work of fiction,
or was it real data from a flight recorder,
that was altered in only certain parameters?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 14 2008, 12:47 PM
Post #29





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 14 2008, 03:37 PM) *
A complete work of fiction,
or was it real data from a flight recorder,
that was altered in only certain parameters?


The data does not match the physical evidence or the eyewitnesses in any way so the only conclusion is that it is a complete work of fiction.

Whether they used a real plane to create it during some sort of exercise or "drill" weeks or months before the event or whatever is certainly a possibility but it's an immaterial consideration that can never be proven and of course doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 16 2008, 05:33 AM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



So, the FDR data wasn't altered data from the real FDR
on the actual plane that everyone saw
flying toward the pentagon on 9/11?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Nov 16 2008, 08:02 AM
Post #31


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (lunk)
So, the FDR data wasn't altered data from the real FDR
on the actual plane that everyone saw
flying toward the pentagon on 9/11?

It could not have been taken from the real FDR of the decoy aircraft because it does not show that aircraft crossing the Potomac to the east and back across the Potomac and circling around Reagan, which is what that aircraft did.

The real flight path east of Potomac (approximate)



The fake flight path west of Potomac

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 16 2008, 02:18 PM
Post #32





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 16 2008, 10:33 AM) *
So, the FDR data wasn't altered data from the real FDR
on the actual plane that everyone saw
flying toward the pentagon on 9/11?



SPreston hit the nail on the head.

The 2006 released NTSB data has nothing whatsoever to do with the north side approach Pentagon attack decoy jet.

I think we should all stop calling it "the FDR".

Using proper terminology is important in helping people understand this complex crime.

It should either be called the "2006 released NTSB data" or else the "alleged FDR information".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th November 2019 - 08:58 AM