Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: "flight 77" The White Plane
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > Pentagon
Craig Ranke CIT
CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.

It's clear the media is complicit in this operation and/or manipulated by the perpetrators so to accept what they report out of hand and keep turning back to the previously published eyewitness accounts as valid evidence can only push us farther from the truth.

Here we lift the veil of media deception to give you an inside look at how the operation was carried out.

Citizen Investigation Team presents:

"Flight 77" The White Plane

Ashoka
The Rades data shows a plane going over Washington D.C. and coming from the Andrews Air Force base, minutes after the attack. It's a serious candidate for being the E-4B.

The interesting thing is that this plane took off from Andrews at approximately 9:44 a.m



and went over D.C. between 9:45 and 9:46. So it may be the white Jet mentioned by John King

Link

But ABC reported of a white plane at 9:41 a.m.

link

So it may indeed be a report of the flyover jet (It took off 3 minutes later!)
Craig Ranke CIT
Exactly and all that is covered.


But.....

We should not automatically accept the government provided RADES data as valid.

It was likely released for the PURPOSE of supporting the notion that the E4B was in the area that quickly.

It doesn't matter though because one thing for sure is that we KNOW the E4B didn't fly tree-top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion as the genuine witnesses we present all report!
Aldo Marquis CIT
I would say that the white plane was reported at 9:40, since clearly was in route to Peter Jennings ear piece via their channels. So that could mean as early as 9:39 the info was out there on its way in.

We have to be careful with that RADES data, as that would mean if you accept one thing, you accept all of it.
Carl Bank
oops, sorry Craig! I didnt see this thread and posted it also in the lobby.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...9548&st=0&#last

No problemo: I will move it to the multimedia forum and embed the
video here in your initial post. Great ivestigative work!

respect: Carl
Craig Ranke CIT
Awesome!

The more posts the better!

salute.gif
pinnacle
What radar data is this based on? I have never seen anything covering the period after 9:37 am for Washington DC. I am still being told by the FAA that is not yet approved for release by the Department of Transportation.
Was any transponder data attached to this radar return?
Can you determine how close it came to the White House?
It seems to be north of the White House and Capitol outside of P-56
and the videos show the E-4B flying directly above the Capitol dome.
pinnacle
The link to 84th RADES data says


"white plane.xls (35 KB) Report abuse

Sorry. You can not download this file today. Download traffic for your country is empty."


Where exactly does the "government provided" RADES data come from?
How was it obtained? Is it from JSS radar or ARS radar?
How come the air force suddenly gives it out after saying it didn't exist?
This is very confusing.
We need more background on this.
rob balsamo
Good job guys!

thumbsup.gif
Ashoka
The Rades data was obtained by John Farmer trough a FOIA.

Cover letter.

I searched for possibile targets and found this plane. So I extrapolated the data and put it in an Excel Table

uploaded here

For the Rades data I think you can ask John

M3 is 0310 (it's the transponder code, isn't it?)
waterdancer
Being curious about what exactly was being flown over and not being familiar enough with Washington DC or the satellite image, I tried my hand at mapping Ashoka's image onto a Google Hybrid map. I used the first image below to compare with satellite/hybrid alternating maps to try to match things up as closely as I could. The Pentagon is indicated in blue @ the bottom. I call the minimum distance north of the WH and Capitol Buildings as being ~ 1.25 mi. give or take .05 mi. or so- right around 2 km, I think. It looks like it got slightly closer to the WH than to the Capitol. As far as I can tell, that plane never went into P-56A, judging by these boundaries (though I'm not sure how far east of the Capitol the border extends- Stanton Park, if that's what is meant is between 4th and 6th streets NE and Massachusetts and Maryland Ave's run up to it):
QUOTE
P-56A covers approximately the area west of the Lincoln Memorial (Rock Creek Park) to east of the Capitol (Stanton Square) and between Independence Ave. and K Street up to 18,000 feet.

http://www.iflyamerica.org/faa_fact_sheet.asp

ivanvedder
any pilot/atc familiar with andrews afb departure procedures? I find only this:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0710/NE3TO.PDF

Runway 01L/01R: TYSON ONE DEPARTURE: Turn left
track 270 within 3 DME of ADW VORTAC, expect
vectors to first fix, cross 8 DME West of ADW VORTAC
at and maintain 3000. Departure frequency-Potomac
TRACON (PCT) 118.95/257.2. RADAR vectors are
required no later than 10 NM from departure.


It seems to fit with initial "ashoka's white plane candidate" path (abeam coral hills,where left turn starts,is about 3nm from andrews), so it could be an aircraft following tyson 1 dep and then flying southbound with a right turn after receiving a vector/direct routing by ATC..

0310 should be transponder code
waterdancer
Quote from above document:
QUOTE
MILITARY USERS NOTE: Civil (nonstandard) take-off minima are published below. For military takeoff
minima, refer to appropriate service directives.


Dunno if this page gives any more useful info or not... most of the links seem to be bad on it.

http://www.lib.aero/arpt/US/US29095/US29095.html
Avenger
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 12 2007, 11:25 AM)
CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.

It's clear the media is complicit in this operation and/or manipulated by the perpetrators so to accept what they report out of hand and keep turning back to the previously published eyewitness accounts as valid evidence can only push us farther from the truth.

Here we lift the veil of media deception to give you an inside look at how the operation was carried out.

Citizen Investigation Team presents:

"Flight 77" The White Plane

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2604879952877158021&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Can you post pictures of the aerial view of the locations of your four witnesses? I see the pictures on the video but I don't know how post pictures from video or pdf. Is there some kind of software you need for that or something?

One more thing. Who was that person standing next to you when you were interviewing Veronica?
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Avenger @ Oct 17 2007, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 12 2007, 11:25 AM)
CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.

It's clear the media is complicit in this operation and/or manipulated by the perpetrators so to accept what they report out of hand and keep turning back to the previously published eyewitness accounts as valid evidence can only push us farther from the truth.

Here we lift the veil of media deception to give you an inside look at how the operation was carried out.

Citizen Investigation Team presents:

"Flight 77" The White Plane


Can you post pictures of the aerial view of the locations of your four witnesses? I see the pictures on the video but I don't know how post pictures from video or pdf. Is there some kind of software you need for that or something?

One more thing. Who was that person standing next to you when you were interviewing Veronica?

Here you go!

It's all about google earth and ms paint bro.

ghetto graphics!
laugh.gif



Download google earth. It's free and you can zoom in on anywhere.

Then you just screen shot it and copy it into paint.

The dude asking the questions on the Veronica interview is Russell!

He's the guy in the Lloyd interview too.

We found Veronica on our first trip with Russell and Dylan after Merc forced us all to canvass on the last day before we got detained at the Citgo.

I got all the other witnesses on my own during the second trip.
pinnacle
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.
Avenger
Ok, got it.



QUOTE
The dude asking the questions on the Veronica interview is Russell!

He's the guy in the Lloyd interview too.

I wonder how he feels about these four witnesses. Their placement of the plane is way off the official flight path. Especially Jamal.
amazed!
Pinnacle

Thank you sir, for taking action as you have done! I appreciate your actions in trying to establish the truth.
SPreston
QUOTE (Avenger @ Oct 19 2007, 09:42 PM)
Ok, got it.



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
The dude asking the questions on the Veronica interview is Russell!

He's the guy in the Lloyd interview too.

I wonder how he feels about these four witnesses. Their placement of the plane is way off the official flight path. Especially Jamal.

I wonder what Russell Pickering feels about himself. Must be a little tough looking into a mirror. nonono.gif
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Avenger @ Oct 20 2007, 01:42 AM)
I wonder how he feels about these four witnesses. Their placement of the plane is way off the official flight path. Especially Jamal.

Quite true.

Thomas Trappasso's account would have fit perfectly but Jamal's account shows us why we can't accept previously published deceptions.

Trappasso didn't even bother calling back to say he couldn't make it.

Russell is likely gearing up for pentagonresearch.20 that will focus on personally discrediting Aldo and Craig so he is too busy to comment on the evidence presented.
laugh.gif
Craig Ranke CIT
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
pinnacle
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.
dMz
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?
maturin42
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?
Craig Ranke CIT
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.
lunk
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
Craig Ranke CIT
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.
lunk
A complete work of fiction,
or was it real data from a flight recorder,
that was altered in only certain parameters?
Craig Ranke CIT
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.
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?
SPreston
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

Craig Ranke CIT
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".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.