CNN airs story about the Mystery Jet over Washington on 911 today 12/1/07

You guys are starting to get it.

The plane reported by ABC could NOT have been the E4B according to the officially released RADES data.

And you breezed over this post from the NORAD tapes of a plane southeast of the White House at 9:35!

That couldn't have been the E4B either AND it certainly could not have been AA77 as they are reporting since it completely contradicts the NTSB data.

In essence Scoggins and ABC were BOTH reporting the flyover/decoy jet.

We know this for sure now due to the new witness account we have obtained from the charter boat captain on the Potomac who has the plane coming from east of the Potomac and looped around to the Pentagon timed perfectly with the explosion.


Put together with Mineta's claim that FAA deputy director Monte Belger had the plane taking the "downriver approach" AS WELL AS the C-130 pilot's description of his own interaction with the plane and it's done.

We have proven the NTSB and RADES data fraudulent with MULTIPLE independently corroborated pieces of data.

ABC, Colin Scoggins from the NORAD tapes, Monte Belger, Lt. Col Steve O'Brien, and our new witness from the river.

It's huge and hour next presentation will blow it wide open.

Originally posted by CyberTruth
reply to post by Boone 870

 

Well it does seem to suggest there was another plane up there at about 9:36 near the Whitehouse - could still definitely be the E4B...

It could not have been the E4B according to the RADES data!

I'm telling you they have busted themselves big time with the release of that data holding them to their word.

The E4B was simply launched as cover for the decoy/flyaway jet which was also white and flew in the same airspace a couple of minutes prior.

The flyaway theory is not really just a theory.

It's better described as an alternative.

We know there was a plane. That has been proven.

Either it hit the building.....or it flew over.

With the north side evidence and all these fatal contradictions with the RADES and NTSB evidence, not to mention the incredible cover-up of video and the 911 calls it's clear which is the more likely choice.

Craig

How does the radar data contradict O'Brien's statements?

How does an aircraft 6 miles southeast of the White House and heading east out of the area two minutes before the impact add to a diversion?

OK here I go. Not everyone is going to like this one but.... It is SOP during anytime of possible threat to put multiple command and control aircraft airborne. I say multiple not meaning the same types. I am being vague here because I have to but....if this aircraft did have any control parameters as has been implied there are aircraft that can control from much further than overhead. Not even in a military operation do we ever use command and control a/c over an area of operation when they are being used for direction and control. It is deemed as a risk!
What you might be getting here from CNN is the above type of statement will come out with a more factual and informed statement (which I am not going to make) about the aircrafts role which will further debunk any controversial theory about it.
I am aware of certain SOP's that would lead me to beleive that this A/C had absolutley nothing to do with any type of attack on this soil.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Craig

How does the radar data contradict O'Brien's statements?

It shows a completely different flight path from what he describes.

The full details are available here but I'll give it to you in nutshell.

Here are the basics of where O'Brien says he flew:

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection"

Which would look like this:


However this is how the RADES data depicts him to make more sense with the NTSB data AND make it seem like he was a 2nd plane that flew over the building at the time of the attack:


This is NOTHING like anything O'Brien says.

I'm telling you Between O'Brien, Scoggins, Belger, ABC, and our new witness on the river they are finished.

There is way too much data proving the plane was over DC which DESTROYS the 84 RADES and NTSB data and exposes where the decoy jet really flew.

How does an aircraft 6 miles southeast of the White House and heading east out of the area two minutes before the impact add to a diversion?

Heh.

Add to the diversion?

That is what they are trying to divert FROM! The E4B and the C-130 were the diversions.

Don't you see? That IS the plane.

There is no other explanation. It couldn't have been the E4B because it hadn't taken off yet (according to RADES) and it certainly couldn't have been the C-130.

The plane crossed the river just south of the airport and looped around, flew over the Army Navy Country Club, the neighborhoods of Arlington, crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex, and banked north of the citgo timed perfectly with the explosion.

We have multiple sources of hard evidence for all of it.







[edit on 3-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I was just wondering,

Is there any footage or photos of that c130 anywhere from that day because I find it odd that all these photos and video's of the E4B are out there but I haven't seen any visual recordings of the c130.

Not looking for another conspiracy or anything but especially since that big bird went back towards Washington and the Pentagon(even according to the radar) after the Pentagon was hit - seems that some news agency would've gotten a pic or video of it..

Any help here?

The more I read into this, the more I think there's something not quite right about this E-4B aircraft.

I'm using as a point of reference Boon's video, a couple of well known photographs of aircraft flying over DC immediately following the Pentagon attack and a PDF file showing the E-4B's movements. Please just go with the flow meantime and let me know what you think.

Here's the official log of the movements of the E-4B ... the aircraft number tallies with that of the video which Boon has kindly provided. According to the official stats it reached 100ft altitude following take off at 13:43 hrs 45 seconds GMT (09.43 hrs 45 seconds EDT). This is a PDF file. My browser crashed just after I saved this file, however I'll dig the link out and post it shortly.

E-4B Movement Stats

According to Boon's video, the closest the E-4B got on it's first pass to DC city centre was approx 09:45 40 seconds ? By which point it had reached an altitude of 5,500 ft ?

Now, Linda Brookhart, Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, took the following photograph as she & her party were evacuated from the Old Executive Office Building. The White House itself was evacuated from 09:45 onwards so I assume she was too around about that time.

Is it possible Mrs Brookhart & her party evacuated their building and she caught this photograph as she hit the street ? If so, all kudos to her - she's the only person to catch the plane on its first pass. But it's a bit unlikely, nicht wahr ? Most people evacuating a building tend to assemble together, do a head count & wait for instructions. And only after that would you look to the skies & get the camera out.

Brookhart Photo
Brookhart Photo Close Up
edition.cnn.com...
www.rense.com...

Could that have been the E-4B on its first pass over DC ? To me, it looks higher than 5,500 ft but perhaps you guys have a better feel for its height than I. And it looks overhead too ... but the E-4B didn't fliy directly over where she was. I've spent an age trying to identify the building in the photograph, to no avail. More likely the E-4B's second pass over ?

The CNN video shows the E-4B banking to starboard. I read somewhere that the media had decamped to Lafayette Park, where this was filmed. To me it looks like the following picture/video was taken after the E-4B had made its first pass over DC and after it had turned southwards again. There's little point of reference but I reckon, from Boon's video & considering the angle from Lafayette Park, it would place it c. 09:49 onwards ? By which point it ought to have been at an altitude of 11,000 to 12,000 feet ?

CNN Photo

To me, as an ignorant observer, that aircraft now looks lower than in Mrs. Brookhart's earlier photograph. And again, as an ignorant observer, those photos just don't make any sense to me. They were taken from the same area and presumably only a minute or two apart ... but they look hugely different in terms of the angle & altitude.

It's a bit weird. Could there really have been another aircraft over DC that morning ?


Edit. Typo.

[edit on 3/12/07 by Niall197]

reply to post by Niall197


Well from what I could gather from the original CNN video on this thread - in the shot of the white Jet flying over the Capitol building which I believe faces east - it shows the plane moving in a westerly direction with a slight pitch to the north.

That shot of the jet banking through the trees does seem somehow lower but without some kind of landmark it seems impossible to tell which direction its going.

I also couldn't read that Pdf file with the movement stats you posted for some reason - must be my Mac or something.


[edit on 3-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

reply to post by CyberTruth


There should be a download link for the PDF file. That fileshare site is a bit of a mess I have to admit. If it's possibly a Mac issue I'll U2U the relevant parts of the PDF file.

As I watched Boon's video I was comparing it to the flight data, if that's any help

reply to post by Niall197


Yeah it's actually a .xls file which is for MS excel and my apple works can't seem to decipher it - If you still want to send me the data U2U that's fine I'd like to check it over.


[edit on 3-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

Sorry for the double post - I would have edited this into my last post but I had to sleep!!

Thanks for the data Niall,

Looks interesting - I see what you mean by the rapid ascent in altitude - might just be normal though - I certainly don't know much about those things.

Definitely something fishy about all the points made on this thread though -

We are definitely not being told something - there is no doubt from all the evidence that there was one air force plane and possibly two air force planes up over Washington before the explosion at the Pentagon.

I think that's what I find disturbing - coupled with the improbability of an AA77 being able to sneak into restricted DC air space - when they already should have been on alert - because of the WTC crashes.


[edit on 3-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

reply to post by Niall197


I'm having trouble with that file also, will you U2U that information to me?

reply to post by Boone 870

Here Boone - this is what Niall sent me - I'll just post it up for any one else who can't see it until he hopefully finds the original link.

Time Signal Height M3
13:43:45.245 Reinf 39.125 95.273 100 0310
13:43:57.085 Bcn 39.000 94.395 500 0310
13:44:20.860 Bcn 38.750 92.812 1,200 0310
13:44:32.700 Reinf 38.625 91.582 1,500 0310
13:44:44.645 Reinf 38.125 90.791 2,100 0310
13:44:56.485 Reinf 37.625 90.088 2,600 0310
13:45:08.438 Reinf 36.875 89.385 3,100 0310
13:45:20.275 Reinf 36.250 88.506 3,700 0310
13:45:32.220 Bcn 35.500 88.242 4,600 0310
13:45:44.055 Reinf 34.625 87.715 5,500 0310
13:45:55.035 Reinf 109.125 240.117 6,200 0310
13:45:56.005 Reinf 33.875 87.451 6,200 0310
13:46:06.950 Reinf 109.750 240.469 6,700 0310
13:46:07.950 Reinf 33.000 87.275 6,700 0310
13:46:19.785 Reinf 32.125 86.836 7,200 0310
13:46:31.610 Reinf 31.375 86.133 7,900 0310
13:46:43.190 Reinf 111.250 241.523 8,500 0310
13:46:43.505 Reinf 30.875 84.902 8,500 0310
13:46:55.035 Reinf 111.125 241.963 9,100 0310
13:46:55.425 Reinf 30.500 83.408 9,100 0310
13:47:07.185 Reinf 30.625 81.650 9,400 0310
13:47:07.210 Reinf 110.750 242.490 9,400 0310
13:47:19.130 Reinf 31.125 80.068 9,500 0310
13:47:25.280 Reinf 137.625 339.434 9,500 0310
13:47:30.945 Reinf 31.875 78.662 9,600 0310
13:47:37.260 Reinf 138.000 339.521 9,700 0310
13:47:42.810 Bcn 33.000 78.135 9,900 0310
13:47:43.180 Reinf 107.875 242.930 9,900 0310
13:47:54.735 Reinf 34.125 78.486 10,500 0310
13:47:55.080 Reinf 106.875 242.754 10,500 0310
13:48:30.575 Reinf 36.625 82.266 11,900 0310
13:48:31.135 Reinf 105.250 241.172 11,900 0310
13:48:37.280 Reinf 134.500 341.367 12,000 0310


[edit on 3-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Do you have the times for the communications between O'Brien and air traffic control?

It seems to me, that flight 77 had already made the right hand turn heading south and then west and was continuing around to the north when O'Brien first spotted him. Which would put him at O'Brien's 10 o'clock position and at a higher altitude than the C-130.

Your flight path depiction of the C-130 puts it directly over the mall. O'Brien said that they flew south of the mall and had a beautiful view of it.

"What happened to his beautiful view?", is one of the questions overlaid on your map of the official flight path. I don't quite understand that. He flew approximately 4 miles south of the mall which would give him a great view.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But bottom line this E4B was brought in simply to be visible on purpose so it could be confused later with THE plane that flew low and fast over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion at the building that also happened to be white.

Craig,

Are saying the building was white, or the airplane that flew low and fast over Arlington was white?

Your star witness (Lagasse) in "The Pentacon" was adamant that the airplane that flew low and fast over Arlington and the north side of the Citgo was an American Airlines jet. He described the distinctive polished stainless steel finish with red and blue striping.

Edward Paik saw a plane with "black and grey wings"

How can you expect people to accept your theories when you selectively accept or decline testimony from your witnesses based on whether they support or refute your claims?

Odd.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Do you have the times for the communications between O'Brien and air traffic control?

It seems to me, that flight 77 had already made the right hand turn heading south and then west and was continuing around to the north when O'Brien first spotted him. Which would put him at O'Brien's 10 o'clock position and at a higher altitude than the C-130.

Your flight path depiction of the C-130 puts it directly over the mall. O'Brien said that they flew south of the mall and had a beautiful view of it.

"What happened to his beautiful view?", is one of the questions overlaid on your map of the official flight path. I don't quite understand that. He flew approximately 4 miles south of the mall which would give him a great view.

O'Brien does not say he flew 4 miles south of the mall he says the jet was about 4 miles away.

He said he was on the "south side" of the mall.

Regardless he says he traveled "north and west" after taking off from Andrews and had a view of the mall.

ALL of that is irreconcilable with the RADES data.

We say "what happened to his beautiful view of the mall" in regards to the RADES data which has him nowhere near the mall.

Originally posted by darkbluesky



Craig,

Are saying the building was white, or the airplane that flew low and fast over Arlington was white?

Your star witness (Lagasse) in "The Pentacon" was adamant that the airplane that flew low and fast over Arlington and the north side of the Citgo was an American Airlines jet. He described the distinctive polished stainless steel finish with red and blue striping.

Edward Paik saw a plane with "black and grey wings"

How can you expect people to accept your theories when you selectively accept or decline testimony from your witnesses based on whether they support or refute your claims?

Odd.

Witnesses are never 100% accurate and since the color of the plane would be a difficult detail for some to remember during this 2 second event it's not surprising that some would be hazy on this.

Plus it is typical for eyewitnesses to embellish or deduce information which is exactly why corroboration is key.

We are not "selectively" or arbitrarily choosing information to support. We support the claims that we are able to get confirmed the most via independent corroboration.

That is not "odd" that is scientific.

More people told us the plane was white than any other color.

Paik was directly underneath the plane so "black wings" makes perfect sense with his point of view.

But Jamal, Mrs Hubbard, Veronica, Cindy Reyes, Chad Brooks, and Dawn Vignola all told us the plane was white.


The fact that so many said this leads us to believe that this is the correct claim.

The fact that so few described an American Airlines jet is also rather telling.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

O'Brien does not say he flew 4 miles south of the mall he says the jet was about 4 miles away.

I know that O'Brien didn't say he flew 4 miles south of the mall. But he did say that he flew south of the mall and your depiction of the flight path puts him directly over the mall.

Regardless he says he traveled "north and west" after taking off from Andrews and had a view of the mall.

North and west is a vague description. According to the radar data he did fly north and west, that's exactly what the radar data shows. If you look at the official flight path you can clearly see that he was within 5 miles of the mall for several minutes. Are you under the impression that he wouldn't be able to see the mall from 5 miles away at an altitude of 3000 feet?

ALL of that is irreconcilable with the RADES data.

How do you figure? He was flying an airplane not driving a car. It was a clear, cloudless day with unlimited visibility.

reply to post by CyberTruth


Apologies offered to CT & Boon for the crappy format of that flight data, I have little if no experience with Excel files .....

However I have tracked down the site where I found it (an online forum) here :
bluecollarrepublican.com... (click on 84th Rades Data)
which takes you to this download location here :
files-upload.com...

Apologies again for the snafus.

Niall

reply to post by Niall197


Thanks for the links.

No need to apologize about computer skills. My machine doesn't have Excel on it, so I went to the local computer shop to acquire the program and it was too expensive. They recommended another program and I purchased it and came straight home to download a file. Guess what? I still can't open the files.....