zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 The White Plane Over Washington D.c., Finally identified
dylan avery
Posted: Jan 10 2007, 09:50 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 11 2007, 02:20 AM)
Dylan, I wasn't trying to argue with you.

I've been trying to be cool with you.

I've also been trying to contact you.

Why are you drawing this line in the sand dude?

It's water under the bridge as far as we're concerned.

We desperately need to know if it is ok to use the Lloyd clip (you can use the recording Craig has if you want), the white plane girl (Veronica-we have our own, but it's not as eventful), a piece of Edward, and the McGraw interview.

I know you told us we could use it for our presentation, but that was before we decided that presentation had to be in documentary form.

I promise you dude, we will not misrepresent you or LTW.

I can assure you that this is your best move. This documentary will be so thorough and so complete, and it will be the first WTF! smoking gun proof to start the ball rolling, towards an investigation into WHO and not IF.

Think about how awkward it's going to be when this stuff comes out and we see you at functions, man.

Let's dead this nonsense and keep things cool.

What are these functions you speak of? Since when is 9/11 about celebrity?

My problem is the way you couldn't keep personal politics out of the forum and embark on a character assassination campaign towards Russell.

You called and left anonymous voicemails on his phone, playing clips of your eyewitnesses. What are you, in high school again?

And I know how you have and continue to talk shit about me behind my back. That doesn't bother me.

All I was saying above is that I cannot fathom why they would fly a two-engine plane painted up like an E4-B over Arlington and the Pentagon, so they could later call it a 757. Explain to me the logic, and I'll retract my statement.

I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. I just don't agree with the way you've conducted yourself.

You want a thorough and "so complete" documentary? How about the one we've been writing for the past three months, with David Ray Griffin's assistance? The one we've triple-checked our references on? Somehow I have trouble believing that convincing people that a plane flew over the Pentagon as opposed to into it is going to have any effect on the general public's opinion as to what happened on 9/11. Maybe that makes me crazy.
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 09:26 AM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 10 2007, 09:08 PM)
Yes, it was identified a while ago through pilotsfor911truth.com

Interestingly, one of our new witnesses describes this plane exactly, with the exception that it has 2 engines not 4.

White, one blue stripe, 3-4 numbers on the tail fin.

2007 is going to be an interesting year.

ACTUALLY it was identified back in july on the old loose change site. i know this because i was the one who started the discussion of it. jdx later took the info and incorrectly argued that it was an e-6. see here :

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=9796&st=0

he does atleast give me credit for finding the links originally. the discussion occured before pilots for 911 truth was even up and running, but thanks for directing the credit towards you guys. i appreciate that.

i cant remember exactly who first posted the idea of it being an e4-b but it was directly after dylan had posted some of his footage of the aircraft in which you can see the hump.

i also had an e-mail exchange with linda brookhart, the woman who took the photograph of the plane prior to the pentagon being hit, just after the white house was evacuated.she expressed her opinion that it was likely to be a military plane and also described her exchanges with the fbi and a relative who was a high ranking military officer. she was told by all of them to stop asking questions and to drop the subject.

and just for the record i had suggested back then that the plane had been airborne for the days wargames. but at that time was unable to find verifiable evidence that it was, other than the photos and videos. im starting to wonder if this microphone is even on.

in my opinion the e4b is where cheney was getting his minute by minute countdown while in the white bunker.

there are still seperate accounts of the white 2 engine plane that resembled a fokker. it has been described as having 2 engines in the rear and i cant recall ever seeing a description of the engines being on the wings.

and there is ALSO the matter of the low flying aircraft flying east 6 miles southeast of the white house at 9:35:41. this heading and location put it on a direct course to andrews AFB.
Top
Arrowhead
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 10:04 AM


Unregistered









Bush flew to Offutt AFB on 9/11, coincidentally. What else goes on there one wonders?
Top
That One Dood
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 10:59 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 213
Member No.: 853
Joined: 3-November 06



QUOTE
What are these functions you speak of?  Since when is 9/11 about celebrity?


Look man, you know what I meant. I meant the conferences/symposiums. I don't want to do this. I didn't want to be in the spotlight. I wanted to be behind the scenes. That's why I was trying to work for you to help produce an earth shattering documentary. You weren't feeling it.

QUOTE
My problem is the way you couldn't keep personal politics out of the forum and embark on a character assassination campaign towards Russell.


Dude, you never chimed in. You DEFINITELY didn't follow along. So I don't think you're qualified to comment on it. He did the same thing to us which is what spawned the susbsequent reaction.

QUOTE
You called and left anonymous voicemails on his phone, playing clips of your eyewitnesses.  What are you, in high school again?


Wrong. I heard him pick up played the clip to see what he'd do. It was a test and a way of reaching out. He had the opportunity to call me back then and I was hoping he would. Hell he had the opportunity to call before then. He could have said, 'Ok, maybe I was wrong, let me call Merc or Lyte and end this conflict.' I did it to chill him out on his campaign against us. But he did what I expected. He posted it publically and tried to use it against us. I thought it was funny, and I was hoping we could all have a good laugh about it in the end. But no.

QUOTE
And I know how you have and continue to talk shit about me behind my back.  That doesn't bother me. 


Dude, if you would answer your phone. I can answer any questions you may have about what I've said or haven't said.

QUOTE
All I was saying above is that I cannot fathom why they would fly a two-engine plane painted up like an E4-B over Arlington and the Pentagon, so they could later call it a 757.  Explain to me the logic, and I'll retract my statement. 


Well, it would kinda look like an AA or could brushed off by skeptics when they heard "white" they say it's the sun hitting it, and that could be the case. And it could not. The blue stripe=blue stripe of AA. Regardless, when it comes out the other side it could be blended into the identity of this mysterious e4b plane.

QUOTE
I'm not drawing any lines in the sand.  I just don't agree with the way you've conducted yourself.


Well, a lot of people feel the same about you and Russell. But isn't all of that irrelevant compared to the gravity of the situation?

QUOTE
You want a thorough and "so complete" documentary?  How about the one we've been writing for the past three months, with David Ray Griffin's assistance?  The one we've triple-checked our references on? 


Well is it going to contain a smoking gun that 100% PROVES 9/11 was an inside job? Because that's what we intended our work to result in if it took us that way. We are dead serious about contacting Arlington Police, Pentagon Police, Reps Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney, Fox, Cnn, ABC, CBS, NBC...anyone who will listen to us.

We too have been in contact with David Ray Griffin, he is including the evidence we obtained in his book.


QUOTE
Somehow I have trouble believing that convincing people that a plane flew over the Pentagon as opposed to into it is going to have any effect on the general public's opinion as to what happened on 9/11.  Maybe that makes me crazy.


Dylan,

Perhaps you don't get it yet.

If the plane is on the North side of the Citgo it HAD TO fly over...there is no alternative. It *could not* have hit the poles and it definitely could have not caused the damage we see to the trailer/wall and the damage inside which ONLY lines ups EXCLUSIVELY with a plane traveling from the Southwest or SOUTH of the Citgo leading up to the C-ring exit hole.

It was poorly simulated damage, Dylan

This plane is doing some crazy stuff man, I'm telling you man, we've been busy. We've been talking to A LOT of people. Again, I remind you I offered my services before this all got ugly man. As a matter of fact, this should have been something we handled in person or on the phone.

Again, we are, no I am, extending the olive branch.

Do you want to talk or do you want to just wait for our evidence, as you put it?
Top
That One Dood
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 11:06 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 213
Member No.: 853
Joined: 3-November 06



QUOTE (water_bender @ Jan 11 2007, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 10 2007, 09:08 PM)
Yes, it was identified a while ago through pilotsfor911truth.com

Interestingly, one of our new witnesses describes this plane exactly, with the exception that it has 2 engines not 4.

White, one blue stripe, 3-4 numbers on the tail fin.

2007 is going to be an interesting year.

ACTUALLY it was identified back in july on the old loose change site. i know this because i was the one who started the discussion of it. jdx later took the info and incorrectly argued that it was an e-6. see here :

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=9796&st=0

he does atleast give me credit for finding the links originally. the discussion occured before pilots for 911 truth was even up and running, but thanks for directing the credit towards you guys. i appreciate that.

i cant remember exactly who first posted the idea of it being an e4-b but it was directly after dylan had posted some of his footage of the aircraft in which you can see the hump.

i also had an e-mail exchange with linda brookhart, the woman who took the photograph of the plane prior to the pentagon being hit, just after the white house was evacuated.she expressed her opinion that it was likely to be a military plane and also described her exchanges with the fbi and a relative who was a high ranking military officer. she was told by all of them to stop asking questions and to drop the subject.

and just for the record i had suggested back then that the plane had been airborne for the days wargames. but at that time was unable to find verifiable evidence that it was, other than the photos and videos. im starting to wonder if this microphone is even on.

in my opinion the e4b is where cheney was getting his minute by minute countdown while in the white bunker.

there are still seperate accounts of the white 2 engine plane that resembled a fokker. it has been described as having 2 engines in the rear and i cant recall ever seeing a description of the engines being on the wings.

and there is ALSO the matter of the low flying aircraft flying east 6 miles southeast of the white house at 9:35:41. this heading and location put it on a direct course to andrews AFB.

You know you are right, and I meant to actually correct it.

But I thougt it was finalized on pilots.

My bad.
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 04:50 PM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 11 2007, 04:06 PM)
QUOTE (water_bender @ Jan 11 2007, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 10 2007, 09:08 PM)
Yes, it was identified a while ago through pilotsfor911truth.com

Interestingly, one of our new witnesses describes this plane exactly, with the exception that it has 2 engines not 4.

White, one blue stripe, 3-4 numbers on the tail fin.

2007 is going to be an interesting year.

ACTUALLY it was identified back in july on the old loose change site. i know this because i was the one who started the discussion of it. jdx later took the info and incorrectly argued that it was an e-6. see here :

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=9796&st=0

he does atleast give me credit for finding the links originally. the discussion occured before pilots for 911 truth was even up and running, but thanks for directing the credit towards you guys. i appreciate that.

i cant remember exactly who first posted the idea of it being an e4-b but it was directly after dylan had posted some of his footage of the aircraft in which you can see the hump.

i also had an e-mail exchange with linda brookhart, the woman who took the photograph of the plane prior to the pentagon being hit, just after the white house was evacuated.she expressed her opinion that it was likely to be a military plane and also described her exchanges with the fbi and a relative who was a high ranking military officer. she was told by all of them to stop asking questions and to drop the subject.

and just for the record i had suggested back then that the plane had been airborne for the days wargames. but at that time was unable to find verifiable evidence that it was, other than the photos and videos. im starting to wonder if this microphone is even on.

in my opinion the e4b is where cheney was getting his minute by minute countdown while in the white bunker.

there are still seperate accounts of the white 2 engine plane that resembled a fokker. it has been described as having 2 engines in the rear and i cant recall ever seeing a description of the engines being on the wings.

and there is ALSO the matter of the low flying aircraft flying east 6 miles southeast of the white house at 9:35:41. this heading and location put it on a direct course to andrews AFB.

You know you are right, and I meant to actually correct it.

But I thougt it was finalized on pilots.

My bad.

not a big deal. thank you for the acknowledgement though :D sorry if i came across pissy, i was taking out irritation with another situtation out on the keyboard.

Top
animal
Posted: Jan 11 2007, 11:27 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (dylan avery @ Jan 10 2007, 08:19 PM)
Remember that white plane that everyone was always curious about over Washington, D.C?  The one that we all wanted to find the original source footage for?  The one I used in the 2nd Edition?

I finally got my hands on the original AP footage.  And that, coupled with the earlier footage that was released in a Discovery Channel documentary that shows a side shot, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the plane flying over Washington, D.C. was an E-4B Doomsday Plane.

These E4-Bs were participating in Global Guardian, and this one was 1 out of 3 that were circling the airspace that morning.  They remained airborne even after Global Guardian was cancelled.

I'm going through my footage right now, just thought I'd mention it.  If you guys really want I can upload a small Quicktime of it.  It's just a much longer version of the shot that's already out there.

Right now I'm going through the complete unedited bin Laden footage.  I'm about 24 minutes in, and he makes this weird reference to a dream he had about a soccer game against the Americans, and their players were pilots...something...

Just thought I'd let you guys know.

http://www.loosechange911.com/download/whi...ne_pentagon.mp4
MPEG-4 Quicktime

That airplane on the video over DC looks like an Airbus A340. The swept wing matches the A340 Airbus. Hard to get a good clean look at it.

Wouldn't a NEOCON plane would be at 25,000 and above when on patrol?
Top
Wartrac
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 04:17 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 228
Member No.: 1,374
Joined: 3-January 07



I may be a little lost here. What is significant about the sighting of the E-4B if in fact that's what it was?

Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:05 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,252
Member No.: 240
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (Wartrac @ Jan 12 2007, 09:17 PM)
I may be a little lost here.  What is significant about the sighting of the E-4B if in fact that's what it was?


All details in regards to 9/11 MUST be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb.

And when they are a whole bunch of little critters keep crawling out.



We will be releasing an eyewitness study on the Pentagon soon that presents 5 eyewitnesses to the plane who describe it as "white".

One specifically says white with blue stripes.

In addition to this we have smoking gun testimony from 3 eyewitnesses at the citgo station who all swear on their lives that the plane flew on the north side making it impossible to have hit the light poles.

Because of this we believe the plane flew over the building.

Since the "white" claim has been corroborated 5 times we believe the flyover plane was likely painted to have some characteristics of an AA jet but was also painted so it's identitiy would be blended with the E-4B or E-6 or whatever it was as well as the C-130 to anyone who might have seen it flyover.

Yes it seems complicated but the plan is actually quite simple once it's revealed.

Top
TriedandTrue
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:16 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 44
Member No.: 1,465
Joined: 8-January 07



QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 12 2007, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE (Wartrac @ Jan 12 2007, 09:17 PM)
I may be a little lost here.  What is significant about the sighting of the E-4B if in fact thats what it was?


All details in regards to 9/11 MUST be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb.

And when they are a whole bunch of little critters keep crawling out.



We will be releasing an eyewitness study on the Pentagon soon that presents 5 eyewitnesses to the plane who describe it as white.

One specifically says white with blue stripes.

In addition to this we have smoking gun testimony from 3 eyewitnesses at the citgo station who all swear on their lives that the plane flew on the north side making it impossible to have hit the light poles.

Because of this we believe the plane flew over the building.

Since the white claim has been corroborated 5 times we believe the flyover plane was likely painted to have some characteristics of an AA jet but was also painted so its identitiy would be blended with the E-4B or E-6 or whatever it was as well as the C-130 to anyone who might have seen it flyover.

Yes it seems complicated but the plan is actually quite simple once its revealed.

Well, personally, I dont care how many witnesses you get 5 years later that say the plane flew North of the Citco.

Its 5 years later. NOBODY is going to put any credence in that. Especially if that is what you are saying PROVES the plan couldnt have hit the Pentagon.

Give me witnesses that saw the flyover. More witnesses that said where it went.

And, refute or explain all of the physical evidence at ther Pentagon.

I think youre delusional.
Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:48 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,252
Member No.: 240
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Jan 11 2007, 02:50 AM)
QUOTE (That One Dood @ Jan 11 2007, 02:20 AM)
Dylan, I wasn't trying to argue with you.

I've been trying to be cool with you.

I've also been trying to contact you.

Why are you drawing this line in the sand dude?

It's water under the bridge as far as we're concerned.

We desperately need to know if it is ok to use the Lloyd clip (you can use the recording Craig has if you want), the white plane girl (Veronica-we have our own, but it's not as eventful), a piece of Edward, and the McGraw interview.

I know you told us we could use it for our presentation, but that was before we decided that presentation had to be in documentary form.

I promise you dude, we will not misrepresent you or LTW.

I can assure you that this is your best move. This documentary will be so thorough and so complete, and it will be the first WTF! smoking gun proof to start the ball rolling, towards an investigation into WHO and not IF.

Think about how awkward it's going to be when this stuff comes out and we see you at functions, man.

Let's dead this nonsense and keep things cool.

What are these functions you speak of? Since when is 9/11 about celebrity?

My problem is the way you couldn't keep personal politics out of the forum and embark on a character assassination campaign towards Russell.

You called and left anonymous voicemails on his phone, playing clips of your eyewitnesses. What are you, in high school again?

And I know how you have and continue to talk shit about me behind my back. That doesn't bother me.

All I was saying above is that I cannot fathom why they would fly a two-engine plane painted up like an E4-B over Arlington and the Pentagon, so they could later call it a 757. Explain to me the logic, and I'll retract my statement.

I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. I just don't agree with the way you've conducted yourself.

You want a thorough and "so complete" documentary? How about the one we've been writing for the past three months, with David Ray Griffin's assistance? The one we've triple-checked our references on? Somehow I have trouble believing that convincing people that a plane flew over the Pentagon as opposed to into it is going to have any effect on the general public's opinion as to what happened on 9/11. Maybe that makes me crazy.

Hi Dylan,

I saw Merc's apology to you and I saw how you accepted it and I must say that I am very glad.

For the record I have NEVER had beef with you of any sort and I would like to say that I feel it's important that we keep an open dialogue about information that we have obtained.

To backtrack for one moment in response to your post here I would simply like to say that it was Russell who attacked us with a "character assasination" campaign and we merely responded.

We wanted to talk to him in private about the specific details of the evidence but he refused and decided to slander us on the jref forums as well as here instead. Merc playing the clip of one of the witnesses for him over the phone was his "gangsta" way of getting him to listen anyway. Obviously there was no harm in that.

Regardless that is water under the bridge as I refuse to let petty disputes cloud the main goal here which is exposing 9/11 truth.

I really want you (and everyone) to understand the gravity of the testimony we have obtained.

Remember when we were detained by the feds for recording 30 seconds of footage from the citgo station?

Well we now have over an hour and a half of footage of testimony from 4 witnesses all filmed on the citgo property.

3 of them are eyewitnesses to the plane and ALL 3 of them claim the same thing.

That it flew on the north side.

There is no way they could all be wrong.

The testimony is so detailed, so strong, and so corroborated that NOBODY will be able to doubt it without calling them all insane.

Beyond the 3 witnesses at the citgo were are presenting 10 more accounts that we have obtained including Lloyd, Father McGraw, and Veronica (provided you are cool with it).

Many of them were either in or near the neighborhood where Veronica was but we even have a couple of route 27 witnesses.

5 described the plane as white.

We are not trying to keep details from you.

The only reason we have kept the names of the witnesses confidential until we release the testimony is so they won't be harrassed by jref'ers.

Just as we offered to Russell you are welcome to call us to discuss details in private.

Merc has tried calling you and I have tried emailing you so now we are reaching out publically.


As Merc said we have also been in discussions with David Ray Griffin and this data will be presented in his new book.


So consider this an open apology from myself as well just in case there happened to be some words uttered on this forum to Russell or anyone that were not in the best of taste.

And consider it an open invitation for you to contact us to discuss further details about what we will be presenting this month.

In the mean time check out the launch of our website which is where everyone will be able to view our documentary for free as soon as possible.

www.ThePentaCon.com


Sincerely,
Craig aka Lyte Trip





Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:50 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,252
Member No.: 240
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (TriedandTrue @ Jan 13 2007, 02:16 AM)

I think youre delusional.

You won't when you see the testimony.
Top
niro
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:53 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Member No.: 818
Joined: 31-October 06



Seriously you guys arnt doing 9/11 truth movement any favours with attacking of each other espically high profile supporters like ur selves leave all personal attacks and indifferences too "behind scenes" like over phone and etc. All this arguing could be used against u's espically if you most well known support cant even agree with one another and are attacking each other over very public forums. Cool off guys...
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 09:56 PM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (animal @ Jan 12 2007, 04:27 AM)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Jan 10 2007, 08:19 PM)
Remember that white plane that everyone was always curious about over Washington, D.C?  The one that we all wanted to find the original source footage for?  The one I used in the 2nd Edition?

I finally got my hands on the original AP footage.  And that, coupled with the earlier footage that was released in a Discovery Channel documentary that shows a side shot, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the plane flying over Washington, D.C. was an E-4B Doomsday Plane.

These E4-Bs were participating in Global Guardian, and this one was 1 out of 3 that were circling the airspace that morning.  They remained airborne even after Global Guardian was cancelled.

I'm going through my footage right now, just thought I'd mention it.  If you guys really want I can upload a small Quicktime of it.  It's just a much longer version of the shot that's already out there.

Right now I'm going through the complete unedited bin Laden footage.  I'm about 24 minutes in, and he makes this weird reference to a dream he had about a soccer game against the Americans, and their players were pilots...something...

Just thought I'd let you guys know.

http://www.loosechange911.com/download/whi...ne_pentagon.mp4
MPEG-4 Quicktime

That airplane on the video over DC looks like an Airbus A340. The swept wing matches the A340 Airbus. Hard to get a good clean look at it.

Wouldn't a NEOCON plane would be at 25,000 and above when on patrol?

we already have confirmation that it was an e4b, aside from that the faa had cleared the washington airspace long before the plane was spotted. also there are other videos and other photographic evidence that confirm its shape. and no US carriers use an airbus340, and neither does the military. so if it were an airbus 340 it would be flown by a non military, non-us carrier, in an airspace that had been cleared of all civilian and supposedly military aircraft. given that set of facts im sticking with e4-b.

what becomes significant about this plane being an e4-b is that we have been told that the c-130 that had taken off from andrews airforce base was the only aircraft any where near flight 77. also siginificant are the capabilities of the e-4b. its part of the command and control structure of the military and the executive branch of the government. this aircraft has radar capabilities, is open to all channels and forms of communications and is described as being the 'flying pentagon'. this plane would be aware of and tracking any and all planes within a 50 mile radius.
could it have done anything about an attack? not likely, it has no weapons capabilities. though it is one of these airplanes that is being fit with an air to ground laser. no i do not believe that this particular e-4b had a laser on it. this does show us however that the administration is again lying about an aspect of 9-11, and gathering information that would have been available to this aircraft would help determine what happened that day.
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 10:06 PM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 13 2007, 02:05 AM)
QUOTE (Wartrac @ Jan 12 2007, 09:17 PM)
I may be a little lost here.  What is significant about the sighting of the E-4B if in fact that's what it was?


All details in regards to 9/11 MUST be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb.

And when they are a whole bunch of little critters keep crawling out.



We will be releasing an eyewitness study on the Pentagon soon that presents 5 eyewitnesses to the plane who describe it as "white".

One specifically says white with blue stripes.

In addition to this we have smoking gun testimony from 3 eyewitnesses at the citgo station who all swear on their lives that the plane flew on the north side making it impossible to have hit the light poles.

Because of this we believe the plane flew over the building.

Since the "white" claim has been corroborated 5 times we believe the flyover plane was likely painted to have some characteristics of an AA jet but was also painted so it's identitiy would be blended with the E-4B or E-6 or whatever it was as well as the C-130 to anyone who might have seen it flyover.

Yes it seems complicated but the plan is actually quite simple once it's revealed.

ok, one thing id like to say and make clear, the white jet, the e-4b is not the same jet that you and merc are describing. the flight path of the e4-b and the flight path of your plane are totally different. the e4-b came from the direction of the white house, flew towards the pentagon and then around the area of arlington national turned and headed north. this would in no way be the plane that flew over the school and also has 2 more engines than the one you guys describe. if everyones accounts are correct there may have been no less than 4 planes in the imediate airspace that day, 'flight 77', the c-130, the e-4b and your plane. interestingly enough i have found a reference from the NEACP transcripts that indicates there was also a low flying aircraft flying on an easterly heading at 9:35:41 6 1/2 miles southeast of the whitehouse. IF the attack on thepentagon happened earlier than claimed, 32 or 34 after as evidenced by the wall clocks or the doubletree video, then this might just be your aircraft.

Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 10:12 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,252
Member No.: 240
Joined: 19-October 06



Thanks for the clarification water_bender and I will say that we are in absolute agreement.

They are definitely not the same craft as the plane that the witnesses describe was a 2 engine passenger jet.

We are simply claiming that evidence suggests that the passenger jet may have been painted to look similar to the E-6 and that perhaps ALL of the additional planes were called in to blend with the identity of the passenger flyover jet for deliberate confusion.

This way if anyone called to report the flyover jet they would just be told that it was the E-6 or the C-130.
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 10:33 PM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 13 2007, 03:12 AM)
Thanks for the clarification water_bender and I will say that we are in absolute agreement.

They are definitely not the same craft as the plane that the witnesses describe was a 2 engine passenger jet.

We are simply claiming that evidence suggests that the passenger jet may have been painted to look similar to the E-6 and that perhaps ALL of the additional planes were called in to blend with the identity of the passenger flyover jet for deliberate confusion.

This way if anyone called to report the flyover jet they would just be told that it was the E-6 or the C-130.

sorry i had misread your original post. i do think that it was an e-4b however rather than an e-6. especially considering that there are now confirmed reports that is was there for the days wargames.
Top
Lyte Trip
Posted: Jan 12 2007, 10:45 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 2,252
Member No.: 240
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (water_bender @ Jan 13 2007, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 13 2007, 03:12 AM)
Thanks for the clarification water_bender and I will say that we are in absolute agreement.

They are definitely not the same craft as the plane that the witnesses describe was a 2 engine passenger jet.

We are simply claiming that evidence suggests that the passenger jet may have been painted to look similar to the E-6 and that perhaps ALL of the additional planes were called in to blend with the identity of the passenger flyover jet for deliberate confusion.

This way if anyone called to report the flyover jet they would just be told that it was the E-6 or the C-130.

sorry i had misread your original post. i do think that it was an e-4b however rather than an e-6. especially considering that there are now confirmed reports that is was there for the days wargames.

I'm just used to calling it an E-6 but I don't doubt that you're right.
Top
TriedandTrue
Posted: Jan 13 2007, 06:08 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 44
Member No.: 1,465
Joined: 8-January 07



QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 12 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE (TriedandTrue @ Jan 13 2007, 02:16 AM)

I think youre delusional.

You wont when you see the testimony.

Im sure your witnesses will be more compelling than this man.

I am a Pentagon survivor, I held airplane parts in my hand that day as I did my small bit of service. I talked to people *at the time* who spoke of reading the airline name from the side of the aircraft as it crashed into our building. I am a just-retired AF Lt Colonel, with 25 years of service at retirement. I have served at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, and the US Air Force Academy, in addition to being an ICBM commander. I held, at my retirement, a TS/SCI clearance. I say there was an airplane, I saw it.

Am I a liar?

Lt Col Hal Bidlack, Ph.D.
USAF Retired

note: I do not, as a rule, post on this forum any more, but I can not allow this assault on the honor of the people we lost that day to go unchallenged.
Top
water_bender
Posted: Jan 13 2007, 10:16 AM


they cut off my legs now im an aputee god damn you


Group: Members
Posts: 927
Member No.: 1,225
Joined: 19-December 06



QUOTE (TriedandTrue @ Jan 13 2007, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Jan 12 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE (TriedandTrue @ Jan 13 2007, 02:16 AM)

I think youre delusional.

You wont when you see the testimony.

Im sure your witnesses will be more compelling than this man.

I am a Pentagon survivor, I held airplane parts in my hand that day as I did my small bit of service. I talked to people *at the time* who spoke of reading the airline name from the side of the aircraft as it crashed into our building. I am a just-retired AF Lt Colonel, with 25 years of service at retirement. I have served at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, and the US Air Force Academy, in addition to being an ICBM commander. I held, at my retirement, a TS/SCI clearance. I say there was an airplane, I saw it.

Am I a liar?

Lt Col Hal Bidlack, Ph.D.
USAF Retired

note: I do not, as a rule, post on this forum any more, but I can not allow this assault on the honor of the people we lost that day to go unchallenged.

Hmmm.... with all those military connections and his level of clearance doesnt seem like it would be very hard to convince that man that it is in the national interest to lie. men used to taking orders all their lives dont really end the habit upon retirement. and supposing he is telling the truth, how does that disprove anything said here? so he saw A plane. so he held A plane part. so did lots of people. are you trying to tell me he knows for a fact that the piece he held was from flight 77 the american airlines boeing 757, sn n644aa?


no explain to me how in the hell searching for the truth is dishonoring anyone? we all still acknowledge that there we deaths. alot of them. and that they are tragic. we still want the murders caught. you seem complacent to accept a bogus and incorrect conviction. if you want to find someone guilty of dishonoring them maybe you should go look in the mirror.

and whats the testimony of a single eye witness do for anything? even three, though compelling, surely cant be used as a cornerstone to base all your beleifs on.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now

Topic OptionsPages: (3) 1 [2] 3 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0417 seconds · Archive