The 9/11 Mystery Plane... Mystery Solved?

Remember this video?



Thanks to AAL77.com, air traffic control audio recordings and radar data have recently become available via the FOIA. I used that information to plot out the flight path with the corresponding audio of the mystery plane. Here are the results:



A few notes about the video:


1. Audio starts with the first transmission from the E-4B

2. VENUS77 departed six minutes after Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon

3. It did not fly through prohibited airspace

4. It was not "orbiting" Washington, DC





[edit on 30-11-2008 by Boone 870]

[edit on 11/30/08 by FredT]

Amazing use of YouTube for a pointless Title.

Now, I have no intent of clicking those arrows, but KUDOS my Friend.

You've convinced me based solely on your lack of words to explain what the hell you're talking about!!!!!

The 9/11 Mystery Plane by Mark Gaffney



A screen capture of the SEADS (84 RADES) radar data for the flight of AF1 from Sarasota and including VENUS77. The video segment runs from 13:48:02 until 15:33:15. Also included are the TX Air Guard fighters.

The turn south by VENUS77 appears to coincide with the departure of Air Force One from Sarasota.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by 911files]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by 911files]

reply to post by DooRight


DooRight, thanks for your opinion. The original title was supposed to read Mystery Solved??? “The 9/11 Mystery Plane" but part of the title was cut off when I posted the new thread topic. Maybe a mod can help me out and change the title back to what I originally wanted it to be.

Thanks for the video.

What do the light colored dots represent?

Did the F-16s come out of Ellington Field?

Those little dots are quality control signals. I should have filtered those out. Good job on your composite video by the way. I'll pull the data on the fighters and get the coordinates for their origin later this afternoon/evening. I recall that it was said there was credible threat to AF1. Since the E4B's are AF1 back-up's, I wonder if that is why the scramble to get them airborne. As you are aware, this one of three command-and-control type aircraft to come out of Andrews during the attack time frame. SWORD31 (E4B) and VENUS22 (Gulfstream) took off just before the Pentagon event.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by 911files]

More like "mystery ignored" and no new information uncovered.

The E4B took off from Andrews at 9:43 and the explosion at the Pentagon was around 9:38.

Check.

This means the E4B can not be used to explain the overwhelming evidence that THE Pentagon attack jet has been reported by multiple sources as flying over DC skies while circling around to the Pentagon fatally contradicting all official data.


At 9:41 Peter Jennings reported a plane circling the White House:


Mark Gaffney and many others have tried hopelessly to link this to the E4B even by going so far as to erroneously report that Jennings called it a "white" plane.

Listen to it and you will hear how Jennings did NOT call it a white plane so Gaffney (and many others) were either accidentally or deliberately making a false statement in this regard.

The evidence shows that the ONLY explanation for this report by Jennings and the plane that many others saw over DC minutes before the attack and BEFORE the E4B took off was that this was the actual north of citgo flyover jet that all the witnesses saw at the Pentagon timed perfectly with the explosion.

Independent witness Steve Chaconas confirms that this is where the attack jet approached from:

*SNIP* Please refer to this thread for the interview.

Previously unknown Pentagon witness proves NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent

So here is a rough estimate for the final loop of the attack jet as indicated by Steve Chaconas and multiple eyewitness accounts as well as official sources:


But the subsequent government cover-up provided a wealth of invalid data many years later showing something very different that is NOT supported by independent evidence:



Although it seems complicated it's actually quite simple. The E4B and the C-130 were both used ambiguously as cover for the flyover jet.

This is why they flew the attack jet in a different flight path than shown in the official data released many years after the event.

This way they have an ambiguous explanation that can be used to confuse people in an attempt to explain away the flyover.

Gaffney's new book does not come close to succeeding in lifting the fog. In fact he adds to the confusion by automatically accepting government provided data as fact, which only serves the purpose of the cover-up. They work to merge the independent evidence available exposing the true DC flight path of the attack jet BEFORE the attack with the evidence derived from the E4B that we know took off AFTER the attack.

For a comprehensive breakdown surrounding the evidence proving the DC approach and deliberate blending of reports with the E4B for obfuscation see this full length presentation:
The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

And this 37 minute short:
"Flight 77" The White Plane

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Mod edit: Removed redundant material and added link instead.

[edit on 12/4/2008 by Hal9000]

Good effort CIT, but I think you failed to note that there is more than one "mystery plane" being investigated. This thread is limited to the one that CNN did a special report on, VENUS77.

First, the media report. There were all kinds of media reports, including a fire on the Mall, car bomb at the State Department, a report that the Washington Monument was hit, and on-and-on. Just because the media made a report, does not mean something happened. The Jennings report is still being investigated by Gaffney and others.

As far as Chaconas, you are taking a recall of a fisherman on the Potomac given some 5 years after the attack as evidence of the flight path. This same witness did not notice a large 747 flying over his head from Andrews at 9:25 (SWORD31) at around 3000 feet. That 747 has been established by flight plan information, Reagan, Andrews and Dulles radar data, 84 RADES data, ATC radio transmissions and other data. Behind it was a C-130 (GOFER06), but he did not see it either. He also did not notice multiple commercial aircraft flying next to him on a northerly approach to Reagan. So it is difficult to say exactly what Chaconas saw which 5 years later he attempts to recall. It could have been any of a dozen or so planes flying over or next to him during that time frame.

The various accounts of a "white jet" are not suprising. When I was there watching planes fly over the Pentagon area on their way to Reagan, they all looked white. In the Chaconas video, you pointed out a "white jet" approaching Reagan as you were talking to him. Good try though.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by 911files]

reply to post by 911files


The DC approach evidence is not limited to Jennings and Chaconas. You've got Colin Scoggins, Kevin Naysypany, Monte Belger, Ari Fleischer, Steve O'Brien, and the other witnesses Gaffney talks about to contend with also.

ALL of them indicate a craft they believed to be the attack jet east of the river BEFORE the attack and therefore BEFORE the E4B took off.

Funny how you are quick to make excuses for evidence that contradicts the official story while simultaneously suggesting that the security video, 2006 NTSB data, and 2007 84 RADES data has all been manipulated!

Ever hear of the word "precedent"? If so let's see if you can explain the relevance here when considering your past claims of official data being "doctored".

The independent evidence is what it is and you are unable to use the government provided data to explain it because it is fraudulent as even you have claimed in the past.

What's utterly amazing is that you quite knowingly and therefore rather deliberately allowed Gaffney to print your proven false ridiculous essay as his "Afterword" that quite blatantly tried to associate a north side flyover with a 2nd E4B!


All based on the Arlington Cemetery witnesses, who we had already found and interviewed on camera for you.

Yet you play-acted as if their names were still unknown and like it wasn't clarified that they ALL perfectly described the C-130 in an approach direction FATAL to the fraudulent 84 RADES data.


You chose to forge ahead with your plans to suggest that they saw a mysterious "2nd plane" flying across the river to DC when you knew this wasn't the case.

That was extremely deceptive of you and it's sad that you would do Gaffney so wrong like that.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Once again, the topic is the CNN Mystery Plane, VENUS77. Please stay on topic and don't use this thread to promote a fantasy flght path not related to the topic.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The evidence shows that the ONLY explanation for this report by Jennings and the plane that many others saw over DC minutes before the attack and BEFORE the E4B took off was that this was the actual north of citgo flyover jet that all the witnesses saw at the Pentagon timed perfectly with the explosion.

You're confused. ALL of your eyewitness either saw or believe the jet hit the Pentagon.

There are no eyewitnesses that claimed to see anything else, including any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon low and fast.

reply to post by 911files


Yes this thread is about the E4B and I am calling you out on your knowingly false published statements about it in relation to the ANC witnesses.

YOU are the one who suggested the 2nd plane that Russell Roy describes was the E4B.

These are your words about the E4B that you knew were incorrect but let Gaffney publish anyway:

The witnesses at the ANC claim the plane turned back to the left towards the Washinggon DC area. Mark Gaffney and "Pinnacle" have documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area, which was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capital building. Further, Peter Jennings at 09:41, 2 1/2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.

page 296 of "The 911 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America"

The clear problem here is that you had already publicly acknowledged the on-camera interviews revealing the ANC witnesses' names proving this is NOT the direction they claimed the 2nd plane flew!

Agreed?

So you KNEW that there already WAS definitive evidence in this regard and that it is 100% clear they were describing both the banking north side flyover AND the C-30 that NEVER crossed the river to DC or even reached the Pentagon at all.

Obviously they were not talking about the E4B or the plane that Linda Brookhart photographed and you knew it before the book went to print.

You predictably did exactly what we said you would do (use the E4B as cover for the flyover) despite the fact that we had already foiled your plans by interviewing these witnesses in person proving your agenda to blend the accounts of the E4B and the flyover jet based on a false notion.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Although it seems complicated it's actually quite simple. The E4B and the C-130 were both used ambiguously as cover for the flyover jet.

Craig, are you seriously claiming that the military deceivers used a high-flying 747 to ambiguously cover for a low-flying 757, even though it did not approach the area until 9 minutes after the impact?

reply to post by Boone 870


Looks like the pseudo-truthers have been more aggressive with this but yes.

I don't have to claim it, the book proves it.

Read the quote from Gaffney's book above.

It's now a proven fact as this was BLATANTLY done by misrepresenting ANC witness Russell Roy's account while pretending he was still anonymous and his account wasn't confirmed on camera.

But yes, before this was done so blatantly in Gaffney's book we KNEW this was the entire purpose of the E4B as we predicted over a year ago in our presentation "Flight 77" The White Plane that we released a few weeks after the CNN E4B piece came out.

The E4B is being used as cover for the east of the river DC approach and the C-130 was used as cover for the flyover with false tales of "shadowing" etc.

Both were ambiguously used of course until we came around and exposed the details.

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. The topic here is the CNN plane, not the eyewitness and other anomalies at the Pentagon. The quote you posted is referring to my own observation that at the time of writing, that a lot more was to be learned. A lot more has been learned and this thread is about some of that. If you want to discuss fantasy flights and other things, start a thread about them. This thread is about one specific plane NOT associated with the Pentagon area...two different topics entirely.

reply to post by 911files


I did not misrepresent what you said, I quoted you direct from the book.

The book is brand new and your assertions were about the E4B which is what this thread is about.

You were aware of the evidence proving your assertions false before the book went to print.

Since you have now FINALLY admitted that your assertions have been proven false.....

1. When can we expect to see published retractions correcting your erroneous claims about the E4B?

2. Why did you let the erroneous claims go to print even though you knew they were erroneous before they went to print?

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.

These are questions CIT, not claims. There is no retraction to make since at this time the ANC Witnesses remain anomalous. You are the one making the association. We still don’t know the details behind Jennings report and some eyewitness accounts. What we have learned (posted at Gaffney’s site linked in my first post) since then is more than one “mystery plane” to account for and VENUS77 is definitely NOT the one they saw. I’m not sure what part of “without more definitive evidence” you don’t understand.

reply to post by 911files


The point is that there IS definitive evidence in this regard.

We definitively know Russel Roy's name.

We definitively know that the 2nd plane he describes was the C-130 since he described a propeller plane that came from the northwest, did not cross over the river, and turned around before the Pentagon.

Therefore we definitively know that he was NOT describing the CNN plane that Linda Brookhart photographed as you asserted with ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that this is not what he or any of the ANC or citgo witnesses described.

So you asserted something you knew to be false.

Why ask "questions" about something you know the evidence proves false?

Yep, just like the C-130 path you just asserted. Why do you keep asserting things that have been proven false? Or using witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon to assert that it flew over the Pentagon? Or calling a cab driver a liar and government agent because a pole went through his windshield and lodged in his backseat (as your own photos have clearly proved happened)? I will not respond to any more of your posts CIT simply because they go off topic and degrade into meaningless rants. Have a nice day.

reply to post by 911files


I am discussing your published assertions about the E4B in relation to the witnesses.

This thread is about the E4B.

You are the one trying to change the topic here to avoid discussing your own published claims in relation to the topic.

We reject all government controlled data and cite only independent verifiable evidence.

You contradict yourself by arguing against independent verifiable evidence with government controlled data that you have previously admitted was "manipulated" or "doctored".

There is no logic whatsoever in your approach to this investigation.

You have stated that the security video, NTSB data, and 84 RADES data have ALL been manipulated yet you continually use them to support the official narrative anyway.

If the government data is valid in any way whatsoever you would have already identified this alleged "2nd mystery plane".

So have you? If not why?



[edit on 1-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]