"Flight 77" The White Plane (explosive new CIT release!)

[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

 

[anart]

Very interesting - thanks for the update. The 'Cindy' witness seemed especially convincing and seemed to have an eye for detail, and there is no way to confuse numbers on the tail with the huge double A logo of American Airlines.

 

[domi]

Hi Craig,

Excellent piece.

I am curious about the timing of the CNN piece at the end of video that appears to associate the white plane over the white house with "ludicrous" conspiracy theories.
Even though the idea of a flying command and control center is ridiculed, it makes sense to me.

Did it come out after you did the interviews with the white plane witnesses?

With respect to the windows that some witnesses saw on the white plane, I thought it was interesting that nobody saw any people but at least one witness described them as black. That just appears strange to me given how close they were to the plane.

 

[anart]

With respect to the windows that some witnesses saw on the white plane, I thought it was interesting that nobody saw any people but at least one witness described them as black. That just appears strange to me given how close they were to the plane.

I agree, that seemed to be a strong signal - the 'black windows' and that not one witness saw a face in a window. There was also the comment of, "I should have been able to see faces, it was that close" - very interesting.

 

[Joe]

Nice work Craig. I didn't really get an idea of what your conclusions were. What do you think this first white jet was? Was there any suggestion that it was not as big as a 757? Did you ask any of the eyewitnesses about the noise level? If you were to play a short video of a 757 doing a low fly past for the eyewitnesses, I wonder if they would confirm that they heard something of that nature from the plane they saw. A 757 a few hundred feet up is a pretty deafening experience.

On a separate point. It seems that it really was a presidential "doomsday plane" over the White House shortly after the first white jet was seen, but the question then is; who was on it? Bush was in Florida as late as 9.20, ruling him out. Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center as late as 9.30am making it rather unlikely that he could have been in the air over the white house just 20 minutes later.

Joe

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Hi Craig,

Excellent piece.

I am curious about the timing of the CNN piece at the end of video that appears to associate the white plane over the white house with "ludicrous" conspiracy theories.
Even though the idea of a flying command and control center is ridiculed, it makes sense to me.

Did it come out after you did the interviews with the white plane witnesses?

With respect to the windows that some witnesses saw on the white plane, I thought it was interesting that nobody saw any people but at least one witness described them as black. That just appears strange to me given how close they were to the plane.

We believe it is quite likely the CNN piece last month was in response to our research and the fact that we have been shaking the Arlington tree if you will for witnesses.

All of the interviews presented were obtained in November of last year.

But our investigation is ongoing.

I don't find it strange that they didn't see people.

This was clearly not flight 77 so there is no reason to believe that any people were on it.

Although I wouldn't even put it past the perps to use dummies.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Nice work Craig. I didn't really get an idea of what your conclusions were. What do you think this first white jet was? Was there any suggestion that it was not as big as a 757? Did you ask any of the eyewitnesses about the noise level? If you were to play a short video of a 757 doing a low fly past for the eyewitnesses, I wonder if they would confirm that they heard something of that nature from the plane they saw. A 757 a few hundred feet up is a pretty deafening experience.

On a separate point. It seems that it really was a presidential "doomsday plane" over the White House shortly after the first white jet was seen, but the question then is; who was on it? Bush was in Florida as late as 9.20, ruling him out. Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center as late as 9.30am making it rather unlikely that he could have been in the air over the white house just 20 minutes later.

Joe

There are no indications at all that it was anything but a twin engine passenger jet.

Whether it was really a 757 or perhaps a modified 737 of some sort we will never know.

Everyone describes it as quite loud and it was even easier to find people who simply heard the plane because of this.

But we were hyper-focused on finding people who saw it.

We can speculate a lot of reasons for the E4B from a technical stand-point but the psychological benefits of using it as a cover story are evident.

I'm not aware of any claims that Cheney was ever in the E4B.

Our belief is simply that the plane that flew low and fast over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was a decoy used in a psychological sleight of hand deception while all of the destruction to the building was caused with pre-planted explosives and additional planes "circling the area" were brought in as cover for the flyover.

 

[Joe]

sounds like a plausible theory, it seems they were pretty big on providing real time diversions and evidence that could later be used to back the official story. For this reason, we still like the idea that the plane that did the damage was smaller global hawk type craft carrying a missile and painted up with the AA colors.

Joe

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

For this reason, we still like the idea that the plane that did the damage was smaller global hawk type craft carrying a missile and painted up with the AA colors.

Joe

This has been ruled out because of a few very important reasons...

1. We know the light poles were staged because Lloyd's account is impossible and a global hawk would have likely broken up after hitting the poles and certainly after hitting the generator trailer.

2. If a missile created the C-ring hole it would have done at least some damage to the outer B-ring wall on the other side.

3. None of the citgo witnesses saw or heard ANYTHING on the south side at all.

4. The fact that they had a flyover on the north side makes having an additional craft on the south side very risky and illogical.

5. The ONLY evidence supporting any type of flying anything approaching the Pentagon is the government controlled, leaked, provided, and manipulated security video which is clearly invalid evidence.


The missile/global hawk stuff has kept us chasing our tails for years when the smoking gun was in the flight path.

The 2006 NTSB release of the FDR and the recent release of the RADES data demonstrates perfectly how they are scrambling to explain and confuse because we are focusing on this now.

Believe me, it's clear we have hit a nerve.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Plus it becomes hard to believe such a thing flew over the area when you go there and find random people on the street who ALL say they saw a twin engine passenger jet.

Quite honestly before I went there I was all for the global hawk/missile theory.

But genuine witnesses simply all tell a different story.

 

[Peam]

Our belief is simply that the plane that flew low and fast over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was a decoy used in a psychological sleight of hand deception while all of the destruction to the building was caused with pre-planted explosives and additional planes "circling the area" were brought in as cover for the flyover.

If you believe this plane flew over the pentagon and nothing actually hit it, you’ve done a lot of searching and found several witnesses to the approach. So in my mind the next logical step in your investigation would have been to search for witnesses to this plane leaving the area on the other side.
Surely there must be some, what with it’s low altitude and noise. Just wondering if you found any, or didn’t you think it was necessary to look for them for some reason?

(edit):- Please ignore this post. I now realise it's based on my difficulty of retaining in my head what I've already read.

 

[Darren]

5. The ONLY evidence supporting any type of flying anything approaching the Pentagon is the government controlled, leaked, provided, and manipulated security video which is clearly invalid evidence.

Hi Craig,

Just wondering - Are you saying that you think the security video is faked somehow (the white 'something'/smoke trail), or something else?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Craig, what is your thought about this picture with respect to your theory that it was explosives and not a drone craft that hit the Pentagon? It looks like it is part of the AA logo.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_91.jpg

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Our belief is simply that the plane that flew low and fast over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was a decoy used in a psychological sleight of hand deception while all of the destruction to the building was caused with pre-planted explosives and additional planes "circling the area" were brought in as cover for the flyover.

If you believe this plane flew over the pentagon and nothing actually hit it, you’ve done a lot of searching and found several witnesses to the approach. So in my mind the next logical step in your investigation would have been to search for witnesses to this plane leaving the area on the other side.
Surely there must be some, what with it’s low altitude and noise. Just wondering if you found any, or didn’t you think it was necessary to look for them for some reason?

(edit):- Please ignore this post. I now realise it's based on my difficulty of retaining in my head what I've already read.

That's ok it's a valid question.

Certainly we have tried but there isn't much at all on the other side of the building until you cross over the Potomac into DC. At that point none of the witnesses would be aware of the event until AFTER the explosion and even then they wouldn't have a good view of much of anything.

Scott Cook had one of the best possible views from the other side:

Here is the view from his office window:

Obviously he wouldn't be able to see much.

Planes are flying away from the Pentagon up river from Reagan National 24 hours a day every 3 minutes.

Even if people did see it fly away they would think they saw a different plane and that it was insignificant.

This is likely a big part of why the E4B and C-130 were called into the area to help sow confusion.

Any witnesses on the other side who happened to coincidently catch the explosion during the split second as it happened and saw a plane flying away would likely be too afraid to talk about it at this point or else convinced themselves they were hallucinating.

It's a lot easier to get a witness to be honest about what they saw if they don't understand the implications.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

5. The ONLY evidence supporting any type of flying anything approaching the Pentagon is the government controlled, leaked, provided, and manipulated security video which is clearly invalid evidence.

Hi Craig,

Just wondering - Are you saying that you think the security video is faked somehow (the white 'something'/smoke trail), or something else?

Absolutely.

It doesn't have to be completely faked but it was certainly manipulated.

The smoke trail (reported by zero witnesses) doesn't even cast a shadow while everything else does:

The thick squiggly one is only visible in one frame of one view.

There is zero logic in accepting this government controlled data as valid evidence.