White Jet Analysis, Plane Seen Flying Over Pentagon/DC Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

But back to the topic....

We're supposed to be talking about the "white jet", I mean the E4B, I mean the E4Bs, I mean the decoy jet.......

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jun 29 2008, 11:16 PM

[911stealth]

Craig wrote: "The plane did not turn invisible."

In response to a 2006 quote by Reynolds:

"It would be easier to turn a plane "invisible" on a beautiful, cloudless day..."

Notice that Reynolds wrote it under "quote marks".

I meant Reynolds quotation in the sense I posted earlier:

"The military, since 9/11 and before, knows, not only how to turn aircraft "less visible", but to morph it, for example by changing its "colors" and other features at will."

Then, I argue that the E-4B, being the decoy jet, may have had such technology.

Now, why we think that exposing the Fakery on Hijacked Crashing Planes (either on the Pentagon, as you do, or on Shanksville, or on the WTC, as others do, through studying the TV 9/11 Plane Fakery) is the center of every serious 9/11 research?

[Of course, each one of us tends to think that the research we do is the most important of all (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) but please, genuine 9/11 researchers, try not to smear the genuine work of others (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) ]

Reynolds answered thus:

"Here is the big picture: the blood libel that young Arabs hijacked specific flights and crashed them into U.S. landmarks fuels the war on terror, a.k.a. the world domination project. Preserving the plane fiction is the perpetrators' Maginot line. Once we breach this fortification, a complete rout will swiftly follow. The public will find out that… the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder. Media are the enforcement arm, psy-ops, of the powers-that-be, the mind control engine, the propaganda matrix. Once their deception and treasonous collaboration come into bright sunlight for all to see, an unprecedented wave of anger will be unleashed against the killers, their media mouthpieces and their paymasters. The traitors will be "drowned" and America's reinvention will begin. This explains the intensity of the no plane debate."

For more, see:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...iner_crash_myth

Now, related to what I asked you before, related to people witnessing the decoy jet "flying away from the Pentagon", I went to look by myself for some answers at your board, then found this valuable:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=157

1 - Roosevelt Roberts:

You wrote "there can be no doubt that the plane he saw was AFTER the explosion since he was in his booth hanging up the phone DURING the explosion... Roberts also has an audio interview from 11/30/2001 at the Library of Congress where he claims the same thing that he told us."
http://www.thepentacon.com/Roberts.mp3
"...We have a couple more that we should have locked down soon then I'll put them all together."

2 - Harriet Anderson:

"We first heard there was a fire at the Pentagon and then there was a really low flying aircraft outside our window that nearly knocked out all the glass. It seemed to be heading straight for congress."

3 - Some Congressional Aides:

"Some congressional aides disputed Mica's account, saying they had indeed been warned by police on Tuesday morning that a plane was heading towards the Capitol -- but that this was after the Pentagon had been hit, so it could not have been the same plane."

The witnesses that saw a plane flying low before the attack, a very most important testimony: Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, John Mica of Florida, and Bob Hunt (who "talked to a number of average people")...

And then "mole": This witness's team leader saw the 757 over the mall. The witness himself saw the e-4..." Then "mole" wrote: "it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon."

I conclude this posting with what SPreston said:
"It could have been the exact same plane... combined accounts of the same plane which flew over DC twice; once before and once after the Pentagon explosions.

Like to see all those witnesses in your interesting interviews (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(edited to clarify the sense of it.)

This post has been edited by 911stealth: Jul 1 2008, 06:39 PM

[pinnacle]

For all doubters the FOIA letters and FAA docuemnts are now posted at the following link.

http://aal77.com/faa/pinnacle_docs.pdf

[Craig Ranke CIT]

For all doubters the FOIA letters and FAA documents are now posted at the following link.

http://aal77.com/faa/pinnacle_docs.pdf

Thanks.

Interesting that you are using Farmer as a liaison.

Now can you please answer the questions?

1. Can you please provide an image plotting out the flight path of the alleged 1st E4B like we have for the alleged C-130 and alleged 2nd E4B?

If not why?

2. Also if the alleged 2nd E4B is M3_0310 what does Farmer identify this alleged 1st E4B as?

3. In regards to the alleged C-130 flight path, what is your opinion on the authenticity of what we are seeing in the RADES data versus what the witnesses and C-130 pilot describe?


Thanks.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Pinnacle,

Can I ask what you think happened at the Pentagon, since you won't respond to my other post?

[pinnacle]

I don't know what happened at the Pentagon and have not focussed on that.
I am more interested t in the various military aircraft that were near the Pentagon before, during and after the
attack which might have either launched a missile or remote-controlled an aircraft.
I just got an email from the FAA FOIA division saying they have processed
my latest request for Andrews Air Force base records and will be sending the information in the next few days.
This might shed some light on the Pentagon attack.
Up until now I have been unable to get any information on the aircraft with the M3_0310 transponder code
despite the fact it identified itself as a military plane and is clearly visible in the RADES records.
It was not in contact with Reagan Tyson departure control as all the other military planes were.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Pinnacle,

Any reason you are avoiding my questions?

1. Can you please provide an image plotting out the flight path of the alleged 1st E4B like we have for the alleged C-130 and alleged 2nd E4B?

If not why?

2. Also if the alleged 2nd E4B is M3_0310 what does Farmer identify this alleged 1st E4B as?

3. In regards to the alleged C-130 flight path, what is your opinion on the authenticity of what we are seeing in the RADES data versus what the witnesses and C-130 pilot describe?

[pinnacle]

John Farmer has all the images of the SWORD 31 flightpath.
I still have no capability to generate any graphics from the RADES data myself.
The flight progress strip for SWORD 31 clearly shows the transponder code of this aircraft as M3_0512.
I am waiting for more information before coming to any conclusions about the C-130.
There should be some new data on this soon.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

John Farmer has all the images of the SWORD 31 flightpath.
I still have no capability to generate any graphics from the RADES data myself.
The flight progress strip for SWORD 31 clearly shows the transponder code of this aircraft as M3_0512.
I am waiting for more information before coming to any conclusions about the C-130.
There should be some new data on this soon.

M3_0512

Ok got it.

Thanks for finally answering. What took you so long? Haven't you asked Farmer to make you an image with the coordinates making up the flight path? If not why?

Yes there will be A LOT more data on the C-130 very soon.

Of course data we provide is independent, verifiable data.

Not government controlled, sequestered data provided for by the suspect.

hint: it proves the government controlled and sequestered data provided for by the suspect fraudulent.

[pinnacle]

The transponder information was posted on 911files.com a week ago.
All of the graphics will be in the book which will be available in a few weeks.

[pinnacle]

Actually my post of July 9 contained a direct link to the documents that describe two aircraft that took off from Andrews, GOPHER 06 and USAF SWORD 31, a Boeing 747-200, and gave their transponder numbers.
SWORD 31 must be either an E-4B or the substitute Air Force One since their are only 6
747-200s in the Air Force inventory. Either one taking off at 9:26 am seems
to indicate something involving high level White House or Pentagon officials was going on
even though the entire US government was supposedly paralyzed during this time
and the "exercises" we keep hearing about had been halted and switched to "real world".
Lots of activity at Andrews in a 17 minute period for a facility that could not send up a single fighter jet.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

So Pinnacle,

Let me get this straight. Your whole gig here is to provide us with undocumented correspondence and FOIA material that has been sequestered, controlled, and released by the suspect essentially-most of which you never provided any documentation for. On top of that, you seem to be hinting around that you believe in a wild conspiracy theory regarding a plane controlling the alleged impact plane or missile, when you have absolutely NO independent, verifiable evidence to support this. Let's just get this in the open. There was one attack jet and one C-130. The C-130 was seen about a minute or so after the explosion and an E4B was seen in *Washington DC*-NOT ARLINGTON- shortly after the event, correct? Do you concur?

I also find it VERY interesting that you and a "gentleman" who went by Waterbender ( a former detractor of PFT and CIT) were contacting Linda Brookhart at almost the exact same time via e-mail. Yet, Waterbender shortly disappears and then you start posting on PFT roughly around the same time. This has been something that has been at the back of my mind for quite a while.

I find it very troubling that you are anonymous and have been anonymous for quite a while. Can you explain why that is and elaborate on what it is you are doing exactly? If I understand correctly, you are working on a book or a documentary right?.If I am not mistaken, I believe Waterbender was doing the same thing. So the coincidences keep mounting.

I am on guard, because I feel you are slipping in another layer of let's just call it "misinformation" for now. You seem to be heading down a path that has been debunked and was actually the original conspiracy theory/disinfo that was put out there to cover up for the flyover...a plane(apparently another E4B and not the C-130 to you) controlling the attack jet or missile which is what hits the Pentagon, while the controlling craft veers away.

You've been eerily silent about what the witnesses we've interviewed have seen and the data we have compiled. At this point you have all but admitted that what they all saw is irrelevant while you pursue your own private theory, while incorporating gov't supplied data to subtley support it.

That is very unsettling.

Where is the disclosure? The openess? Aren't we all researchers here trying to solve what happened? We have only been private on boards but are very open with other researchers with first and last names who we can speak with on the phone. We have given them details that aren't easily obtained on the forums. You have been very secretive (just as Waterbender was) about your "research" and seem to treat it as proprietary information meant for your personal gain through a book or documentary, rather than vital data that can be used to help brainstorm and put things together.

Both John Farmer and Mark Gaffney have demonstrated an inordinate amount of subterfuge and confusion with their "work", and yet here you are-working closely with both of them. Again, very unsettling.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jul 25 2008, 01:13 PM

[pinnacle]

I have been investigating the E-4B for more than two and a half years long before I ever heard of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
I obviously got CNN to broadcast the first real revelation about the E-4B on national television. I also got a member of congress to at least ask some questions about this, although he has refused to follow-up on what he now knows to have been
misleading responses from air force and FAA officials.
David Ray Griffin is writing the forword to the book and is referencing my material as he did in his last book
9/11 Contradictions.
Is it your contention that Griffin is a "disinformation" agent?
I have no not put forth any theory about any of this other than that their was a great deal of high level air force activity involving one or more
E-4Bs during the period of the attacks and that activity is still be covered-up.
I am still waiting for more information.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I have been investigating the E-4B for more than two and a half years long before I ever heard of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
I obviously got CNN to broadcast the first real revelation about the E-4B on national television. I also got a member of congress to at least ask some questions about this, although he has refused to follow-up on what he now knows to have been
misleading responses from air force and FAA officials.
David Ray Griffin is writing the forword to the book and is referencing my material as he did in his last book
9/11 Contradictions.
Is it your contention that Griffin is a "disinformation" agent?
I have no not put forth any theory about any of this other than that their was a great deal of high level air force activity involving one or more
E-4Bs during the period of the attacks and that activity is still be covered-up.
I am still waiting for more information.

Ok Pinnacle.

I already see where this is going on and your evasive behavior is only a greater indication of what is going on.

No I don't believe Griffin is a disinformation, 1 reason being I know who he is and what he looks like. You are just an anonymous internet persona I am growing even more suspicious of.

But apparently we are both "still waiting for more information".

[Craig Ranke CIT]

1. We didn't call you disinfo. Your behavior (avoidance of questions, lack of disclosure of info, ambiguity, & anonymity) is suspect so we are asking you to address this.

2. DRG referenced our work as well and we don't think he is disinfo.

3. DRG referenced Russell Pickering's work more heavily than yours or ours and Pickering quit the movement because his 9/11 research was reduced to his obsession with irrational attacks against us. Of course the information that DRG cited from Pickering was the good stuff but that does not mean he wasn't "disinfo" or that DRG is.

4. You are aligned with Farmer and he, like Pickering, has not only shown himself to be dedicated to attacking us personally but has been shown to be irrational, illogical, and deceptive while straight up lying about us and our research and contradicting himself with his own research.

Are you referring to DRG writing a forward for YOUR book or Gaffney's upcoming book? '

Do you plan to actually publish a book as "Pinnacle"?

Your alignment with Gaffney is also suspect as he has privately attacked us and asserted a wild unsupported lunatic conspiracy theory as a means to avoid the implications of the evidence we present.

Both John Farmer and Mark Gaffney have demonstrated an inordinate amount of subterfuge and confusion with their "work" while initiating unprovoked hostility towards us and our work and yet here you are working closely with both of them.

You've always been civil but your close association with them and their wild conspiracy theories that are clearly being used to confuse and explain away what we have uncovered automatically makes you suspect.

These guys are over the top.

Their behavior towards us as well as P4T has not been the least bit rational or logical and Farmer has been very public about it. Do you agree or do you think he has acted appropriately towards us and P4T?

[pinnacle]

I thought this forum was about the "white jet" not attacking the people who post here.
Why do I have to get the third degree from you when all I have done is post factual information?
I don't see why it matters what I think if the information is accurate or what obligates me to answer any questions about anything.
I did get a CD-rom from the FAA today containing Andrews records confirming some of my suspicions and I have sent this information to David Ray Griffin.
I see no point if posting any of it here since my information is obviously not considered reliable.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I thought this forum was about the "white jet" not attacking the people who post here.

This "forum" is about the Pentagon attack and although this thread is about the "white jet" the POINT here is that ONE OF these "white jets" is clearly being morphed into the north side flyover jet by your associates John Farmer and Mark Gaffney.

Agreed or disagreed?
(Please answer the damn question for once!)

Why do I have to get the third degree from you when all I have done is post factual information?

Because your associates Farmer and Gaffney have made it their priority to attack us personally while pushing a wild conspiracy theory of a 2nd E4B flying on the north side of the citgo while "AA77" hit the building as reported.

Agreed or disagreed?
(Please answer the damn question for once!)

I don't see why it matters what I think if the information is accurate or what obligates me to answer any questions about anything.
I did get a CD-rom from the FAA today containing Andrews records confirming some of my suspicions and I have sent this information to David Ray Griffin.
I see no point if posting any of it here since my information is obviously not considered reliable.

You weren't posting it anyway.

You weren't posting anything anyway other than your unsupported conjecture that has only fueled people like Farmer and Gaffney to attack us personally and of course the hard evidence we present that you suspiciously refuse to comment on.

Please feel free to post any "information" (i.e. evidence) that you want.

Unsupported claims and conjecture will be scrutinized openly particularly due to your dubious associations outside of this board.

Of course answering questions and being forthcoming with the evidence, your beliefs, and your identity goes a long way and would be a welcome change.

Go figure.

[SwingDangler]

Craig wrote: “Who is "we" and who are you?”

R: We are: http://www.geocities.com/chrisbornag "About Real Aircraft and False Aircraft"
However, at the time of sending that article, I didn't knew anything about the C.I.T.'s interviews, only about E-4B, C-130 and about multiple smaller devices used to monitor the 9/11 operation, like the next ones, with more detail now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0T2UVOFeooperation in few months from now.

B) We all know that the perps. used a lot of false witnesses on 9/11 with a complicit media airing lies and deception. Now, even more and more experts are realizing that "planes hitting the WTC" were works of deception, like Joseph Keith, Ret. Aerospace Engineer explains here: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...bpage1=joes_law

Craig wrote (edited in to compact the context): "white... this is an often corroborated color... But... we have heard other colors from witnesses such as "gray", "silver", "two tone", "tan bottom", and "bronze" as well."

Your joking right? CGI birds or birds with no wings or missiles, or bird UAV's?? Who conned you into this line of research?
1. Your own Youtube of the 'birds' paused at 3:11 shows the alleged 'fake missile bird' with its wings extended. Did you ever consider the bird was gliding into view?
2. Here is another video of 100's of birds at once. Count how many birds don't have
'wings' in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6815781973393100875

Please don't crowd the forums of those researching the facts of 9/11. At least you let the "viewer" decide in the end. Since it is my decision, I believe it was a flock of real birds.

[JackD]

any news from Mr Gaffney?

[911stealth]

Dear SwingDangler:

Well, I don't know who ElPiper is, I just liked his observations that took on some of my early work. Then I did some footage findings on TVFakery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0iYj-46JWQ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3HuRIWI5y0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXS3o7Y0lK8 However, on the topic of Holograms and on the topic of survey military orbs I really don't know what I'm talking about. well, that's supposed to be a secretive technology as many many others are. So, why should I know all the details? It just doesn't seem logical that a "CGI" itself misses out of a sudden a wing as seen in those "Gamma Press - FOX TV" and "PAX-TV - CNN" compiled images! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x9UaYoaym0 I started by myself scanning the 9/11 footage on 2006 and discovered the first white jet (E-4B) on the Discovery Channel... I posted it in archive.org but by now it has been erased, I posted it at YT at my earlier chrisbornag account and was also deleted, I re-posted it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWbKYM2zUc , and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs , just before the Anderson Cooper airing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHOx5_rBM0 , then I found recently the full footage of which I posted some stills here last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYGMXlrv-PQ Let's see how long those valuable pieces of footage last there. Maybe some of the readers here are "washing out" the hard evidence?

"The 9/11 Mystery Plane" now, with more Gaffney's detailed research, we are learning that are rather: "The 9/11 Mystery PlaneS" (Two E-4B: venus77 and Sword 31, the C20-Gulfstream Venus 22, and more...) I also found a distant white jet at 11:52 AM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyb-xD5-TVw

JackD:

You may want to see the interesting research by Mark H. Gaffney blog: http://the911mysteryplane.com , that I think complements the interesting field work by Ranke and Aldo.

I like the work of all of them, study by yourself and take the best from each one. It is very very sad that almost all the different 9/11 researchers are fighting all the time against each other. Many times it looks like a Cointel going after a Researcher...

By the way, I think I found the C20-Gulfstream (Venus 22): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KhSqArVyg

And am very aware of the statement made by Lt. Robert Medairos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiT8n1bCXYo (linked there the immediate and remote context. In the immediate context you learn that apart of the decoy plane, three other planes are clandestine, most securely from the same Military Air Force as the E-4Bs, the C-130 and the C20-Gulfstream.)

Also discovered the lie by Steve McCoy, who was corrected by Derek Spector: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9pW2jXJWU

The last question I have is: Dear Pinnacle, Mark, Aldo, Ranke, Balsamo, Shure, etc... Have you identified exactly who was driving the Pentagon Police car seen in the Pentagon survey cameras?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxyPwa2xpxk

If so, could you be kind as to post such research?

Good bye and thanks all for your productive research again!

Now I can leave in peace.

Christian Bornag.