Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Pentagon _ White Jet Analysis

Posted by: BoneZ Oct 21 2006, 11:47 AM

delete


edit by rb Jan 30, 2008:

It appears "BoneZ" became a bit disgruntled with the fact we removed him from mod status and chose to delete his work in this thread on Jan 29, 2008. (Click http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10699 for more information)

BoneZ research in this thread focused on -- and primarily established -- identification of the "White Plane" as an E-4B.



It is pretty well known now type of aircraft. So it isnt much of a loss.

The most important work in this thread has been done, and is being done, by "pinnacle" and others. This thread still retains its value regardless of BoneZ attempts at spite.

We apologize for any confusion and we are thankful BoneZ did not delete other members posts as he has done in other circumstance(s).

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 21 2006, 11:52 AM

cheers.gif thumbsup.gif

Switching the link on the pilotsfor911truth pentagon page now...

Posted by: JackD Nov 19 2006, 09:14 PM

boneZ -- very good summary of the White Plane analysis.

funny how no one in the press is talking about this massive plane which was pver the capitol that day...
hmmm...

Posted by: Robyn623 Nov 19 2006, 10:03 PM

This is a very interesting subject that I would love to read more about. Those planes look so weird that they almost look fake. (I don't think they are fake, they just look it.)

Posted by: BoneZ Nov 20 2006, 07:36 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 20 2006, 02:14 AM)
boneZ -- very good summary of the White Plane analysis.

funny how no one in the press is talking about this massive plane which was pver the capitol that day...
hmmm...

Welcome Jack, bout time you made it here. biggrin.gif

Posted by: georgie101 Nov 23 2006, 06:14 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 20 2006, 02:14 AM)
funny how no one in the press is talking about this massive plane which was pver the capitol that day...
hmmm...

it is strange, by the time this plane flew by the pentagon, surley nearly all other aircraft would have been grounded.
and it wasn't shot down, so obvoiusly it posed no threat, so i'm assuming the people in charge knew what and why the plane was there.

it's another piece they have tried to brush under the carpet.

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 27 2006, 05:44 PM

I have a letter from the US Air Force stating that they have "no knowledge" of the
White Jet that flew over Washington in restricted airspace between 9:30 and 10:00
am on September 11, 2001.
Several months ago I filed a FOIA request with the FAA for data on this aircraft
based on my communications with eyewitnesses who saw and photographed this plane as the White House was being evacuated, and recordings from NBC news describing this plane on the air.
My FOIA is still stalled due to a subpoena for all 9/11 records for a court case.
I also have a pending request to Discovery Channel for details about the video of an E-4B supposedly shot on 9/11 near the Pentagon.
The Vigilant Guardian exercise involved three E-4Bs but all were supposedly in airspace over Nebraska since they are designed to stay far from target areas and at high altitude for safety.
Interestingly there was a report of a White Jet over Kansas later that day after all planes had been grounded which could have been this plane.
It makes no sense to put an E-4B low and slow over the
White House and Pentagon when it's whole purpose is take control after the
ground based command centers have been destroyed.
Why risk being a big white target for a hijacked airliner to crash into and take out 300 million dollars worth of electronics gear?
In the 35mm film image it appears to have front flaps extended for extra slow flying. The video also appears to be quite slow for a plane of this size over a populated area.
This plane was up to something that has been kept secret for five years.
Since there is plenty of documentary evidence for this plane, I think it's
presence and the subsequent cover-up should be a major focus of all 9/11 investigations.

Posted by: Robyn623 Nov 27 2006, 09:48 PM

Welcome, pinnacle! Interesting post. I find it strange that they claim to have no knowledge of this plane that was in restricted air space!

Posted by: georgie101 Nov 28 2006, 04:48 AM

thanks for shedding some light pinnacle.
i can't believe they are saying have no knowledge of this plane.

Posted by: BoneZ Nov 29 2006, 06:48 PM

Welcome pinnacle, glad you made it! biggrin.gif

Posted by: behind Dec 9 2006, 12:06 PM

Yes. This white plane is mysterious.

But I just notice this witness:

Vaughn said "I was scanning the air" as he was sitting in his car.

"There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank," he said. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern."

Georgetown is a sector of the District of Columbia jammed with shops and restaurants - it is one of the city's most vital tourist draws. Commercial aircraft that are either approaching or departing from nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport do not fly over Georgetown, and rather trace their flight route over the nearby Potomac River, which separates the district from South Arlington, Virginia, location of the Pentagon.

A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the craft's impact.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/pentagon.terrorism/

As I understand his words... then the plane was "banked to the left"

The white plane is banked to the left.

(but maybe I am misunderstanding his words)

Posted by: JackD Dec 12 2006, 06:10 PM

The E4B, as BoneZ and WaterDancer and others point out, carries the nuclear missile launch codes.

Among other things.

The purpose of this plane is unknown. Was it playing in the war games? Was it coincidence (!) ?

Was it a symbolic demonstration to the 'white house' that "we have the launch codes, do what we say to launch the 'clash of civilizations' -- or we will proceed."

(see Webster Tarpley -- and consider why Bush had to race to Offutt AFB, where these E4B, and the strategic command, is located)

Jack

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 12 2006, 07:59 PM

If the E-4B was "innocently" in restricted airspace during a terrorist attack than why has it been covered up for five years?

Posted by: JackD Dec 12 2006, 08:53 PM

Rardon of Indiana found the MISSING PIECE to the 9/11 White Jet Timeline PUZZLE. He sent a CNN video exposing the WHITE JET PRESENCE over the White House environs. Previously the WHITE JET was seen and/or caught on video in the other 9/11 locations, but not Washington, D.C., orchestrating the most heinous mass murder in American History. The online transcripts for that CNN broadcast are found at

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

Advance the 01 in the url to get later transcripts.

About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell. They've evacuated the entire White House staff and the old executive office, as well as some townhouses that are government offices.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html

KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:

About a half hour ago, the Capitol building itself was evacuated. It was a little bit chaotic. Everyone was running out of the building. People ran a couple of blocks away. Now have been pushed back by security. We're within two blocks of the Capitol. I did see a plane, about a half hour ago, circling over the Capitol. Now whether that may have been a Air Force plane, it's unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.05.html


This screen capture from a CNN video caught the White Jet in the Pentagon airspace violating the national shutdown of aircraft at 9:25:

see photo at
http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/Pentagonhelicopter.htm



OTHER WHITE JET WITNESS REPORTS:


1) Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a
second plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/15/01]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/attacks/0915_01.html


2) Meseidy Rodriguez confirms "it was a mid size plane". His brother inlaw
also saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in
Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right
behind it.
http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.akamai.com/920/nation/091101-5s.ram

3) Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a
"second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly
different angle."
[Daily Press, 9/15/01]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html


4) Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130, two others aren't
certain. [Daily Press, 9/15/01] Wheelhouse "believes IT FLEW DIRECTLY ABOVE THE AMERICAN AIRLINES (AS AT THE NORTH TOWER!), as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon." As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west. [Daily
Press, 9/14/01]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/dailypress091401.html
[NOTE: WHEELHOUSE JUST MAY BE FULL OF **(#] I DEFER TO MERC AND RUSSEL.


5) USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says,
"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second
jet hovering in the skies."
[USA Today, 9/17/01]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm


6) USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane. [eWeek, 9/13/01].
Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that
point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to manouver out of the air
space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. (Audio)
http://play.rbn.com/?url=usat/usat/g2demand/010911sucherman.ra&v


7) An unnamed worker at Arlington national cemetery "said a mysterious
second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the
Pentagon."
[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/01]
http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm

Posted by: behind Dec 12 2006, 10:14 PM

So, you have just been looking at the witness too !!!

What a coincidedence biggrin.gif

Well... it is a small world.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 13 2006, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ Dec 12 2006, 11:10 PM)
Was it playing in the war games? Was it coincidence (!) ?

According to the following document, 3 of the 4 E-4B's were playing in the wargames:

Page 166 in the following link explains about a drill being operated on 9/11 called Global Guardian and how the E-4B's were used in those drills:

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/20050722transcript.pdf

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 14 2006, 07:45 PM

I sent a copy of the letter from the US air force that denies the existence of the
white plane over the White House at 9:42 am to CNN just to see if they
have any journalistic curiousity about why the air force would be unaware of
a plane that was described on the air by their own reporters and caused the Secret Service to evacuate the Capitol of the United States.
That fact alone ought to be headline news.
I don't expect them to respond.
They have certainly avoided the issue for the past five years.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 15 2006, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 15 2006, 12:45 AM)
I sent a copy of the letter from the US air force that denies the existence of the
white plane over the White House at 9:42 am to CNN just to see if they
have any journalistic curiousity about why the air force would be unaware of
a plane that was described on the air by their own reporters and caused the Secret Service to evacuate the Capitol of the United States.
That fact alone ought to be headline news.
I don't expect them to respond.
They have certainly avoided the issue for the past five years.

Excellent! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: JackD Dec 18 2006, 05:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGSwve_BU9I&eurl=

apparently the "white plane" was clearly visible from White House. So what was the purpose of the white plane? friend, or foe? a message?

(identified as c-130, or stealth, in the above youtube link -- i'm with BoneZ -- it was a special E4B 747...)

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 20 2006, 02:33 PM

Check out the new Doubletree videos that show an "object" circling the Pentagon at
9:23 am.
This is hard to make out but appears to be a white plane making a right banking turn.
There is a flash of white as the sun hits the wing then we see the shadowed underside
as it flies back across frame.
The White Plane leaves, then Flight 77 hits at 9:38 am, than CNN, BBC, and Telemundo video shows the white plane is over the White House at 9:43 am. and then the ABC video shows the white plane again near the Pentagon at 9:50 am.
Lots of hard evidence and no "journalists" asking a single question.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 20 2006, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 20 2006, 07:33 PM)
Check out the new Doubletree videos that show an "object" circling the Pentagon at
9:23 am.
This is hard to make out but appears to be a white plane making a right banking turn.
There is a flash of white as the sun hits the wing then we see the shadowed underside
as it flies back across frame.
The White Plane leaves, then Flight 77 hits at 9:38 am, than CNN, BBC, and Telemundo video shows the white plane is over the White House at 9:43 am. and then the ABC video shows the white plane again near the Pentagon at 9:50 am.
Lots of hard evidence and no "journalists" asking a single question.

Maybe the E-4B was the command and control aircraft that commanded/controlled whatever hit the pentagon? Seems logical. dunno.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 20 2006, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 20 2006, 02:33 PM)
The White Plane leaves, then Flight 77 hits at 9:38 am,

"Flight 77" is never positively identified either on radar, FDR, eyewitnesses or parts that it impacted the pentagon. So im not sure why people keep saying "Flight 77 impacted the pentagon".


Until it is positively identified as American Airlines Flight 77, all we know is that there was an unidentified aircraft in the area and conflicts within the govt story as to whether or not it hit the pentagon.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 21 2006, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 20 2006, 11:36 PM)
QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 20 2006, 02:33 PM)

The White Plane leaves, then Flight 77 hits at 9:38 am,

"Flight 77" is never positively identified either on radar, FDR, eyewitnesses or parts that it impacted the pentagon. So im not sure why people keep saying "Flight 77 impacted the pentagon".

I believe pinnacle is just quoting the official story as to what time FL.77 allegedly hit the pentagon.

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 21 2006, 06:19 PM

yeah. i know.. im just giving him a hard time.. dont mind me.. wink.gif

cheers.gif

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 21 2006, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 21 2006, 11:19 PM)
yeah. i know.. im just giving him a hard time.. dont mind me.. wink.gif

cheers.gif

Alrighty then! laugh.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 21 2006, 06:32 PM

I am not an expert on the "missile" theory so I just
use the official version of "flight 77", whatever it actually was,
hitting the Pentagon. The thing that interests me are the bizarre manuvers of the white plane all over the scene of the crime for an extended period of time that has escaped most investigators entirely despite a great deal of evidence and witnesses.
For all we know this plane could have been in New York during the WTC strike and flown to Washington in about a half hour at full speed of 600 mph. It apparently
approached along the same southern route as the "phantom flight 11" which triggered the Langley fighter scramble.
Also the F-16 pilots heard a radio call at 9:33 warning "all aircraft" to stay 30 miles from Washington or be shot down. Nobody has identified who made that call.
Could it have been made by the "white plane" itself? They had enough radio gear to run a nuclear war from the air.
It could have fired a missile, it could have remote controlled an actual airliner, it, could have relayed all the cell phone calls and projected fake radar targets, it could do almost anything with a crew of 114 electronics experts on board
and 260 million bucks in advanced radar and radio equipment.
Interestingly Rumsfeld flew the E-4B when he went to Iraq but Gates apparently
only gets to use a C-17. At least I did not see an E-4B in the news coverage of
Gates in Iraq today.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 21 2006, 08:33 PM

All very interesting pinnacle! So many questions and not enough answers. :ph43r:

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 22 2006, 01:44 PM

In Air Force publications before 9/11 the E-4B was often held up as a model of "24 hour worldwide government communications in time of war", It has enough electrical generating capacity to power a small city of 15,000 people.
It has satellite dishes for instant communication anywhere on earth.
It has a five mile long wire antenna that deploys out the tail for communicating with submerged nuclear submarines.
A plane with these amazing capabilities surely could have told NORAD and the National Military Command Center where to direct those fighters from Langley that were heading for Baltimore as it flew over Washington D.C. if it was interested in actually defending Washington.
Yet according to the 9/11 Commission nobody in the White House or the Pentagon had any knowledge that an E-4B was anywhere near Washington during this "crisis", and instead sent a propellor driven C-130 to chase a jet airliner
when the E-4B was already in the area and could fly faster than the 757.
Presumably the E-4B has some kind of defensive missiles that it might have used to shoot down Flight 77 so the fact that it did nothing only adds to the perfectly reasonable speculation that it was facilitating the attack and not trying top prevent it.

Posted by: UnderTow Dec 22 2006, 01:48 PM

Quoted for Effect:

Yet according to the 9/11 Commission nobody in the White House or the Pentagon had any knowledge that an E-4B was anywhere near Washington during this "crisis", and instead sent a propellor driven C-130 to chase a jet airliner when the E-4B was already in the area and could fly faster than the 757.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 22 2006, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Dec 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
In Air Force publications before 9/11 the E-4B was often held up as a model of "24 hour worldwide government communications in time of war", It has enough electrical generating capacity to power a small city of 15,000 people.
It has satellite dishes for instant communication anywhere on earth.
It has a five mile long wire antenna that deploys out the tail for communicating with submerged nuclear submarines.
A plane with these amazing capabilities surely could have told NORAD and the National Military Command Center where to direct those fighters from Langley that were heading for Baltimore as it flew over Washington D.C. if it was interested in actually defending Washington.
Yet according to the 9/11 Commission nobody in the White House or the Pentagon had any knowledge that an E-4B was anywhere near Washington during this "crisis", and instead sent a propellor driven C-130 to chase a jet airliner
when the E-4B was already in the area and could fly faster than the 757.
Presumably the E-4B has some kind of defensive missiles that it might have used to shoot down Flight 77 so the fact that it did nothing only adds to the perfectly reasonable speculation that it was facilitating the attack and not trying top prevent it.

Very good information pinnacle. I am very pleased that you are a member here and sharing this info with us. thumbsup.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 27 2006, 07:09 PM

Welcome to all our guests from ....

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=100955

And yes.. its an E4B, not Air Force One (gee.. you would think a Military photo forum would know how to visually ID an aircraft...lol)

Cheers!

Posted by: behind Dec 27 2006, 08:42 PM

And as Bonez point out in his first post in the thread the planes were involved in wargames 9/11.
...
"Because of Global Guardian, three special military command aircraft with sophisticated communications equipment, based at Offutt, are up in the air the morning of 9/11. These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency. The Federal Advisory Committee (whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft) is aboard one of these Doomsday planes, being brought to Offutt to observe the exercise.
Just as at Barksdale media accounts indicate Global Guardian was cancelled at Offutt shortly after the second WTC tower was hit (at 9 03) with staff swiching to "real world mode" (Department of Defense, 1/9/02)

However, even after Global Guardian was called off, all three E-4Bs remained airborne. (Omaha World-Herald 2/27/02)"
(Page 166-167)

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/20050722transcript.pdf

Posted by: Freedomlover911 Dec 28 2006, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (behind @ Dec 9 2006, 12:06 PM)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/pentagon.terrorism/

Also mentioned in this link is that 33 uniformed sailors and 9 civilian Navy contractors were killed in the attack. I was watching one of the many 911 documentaries a couple of weeks ago when I heard something that is rarely mentioned. The person being interviewed (I think it was the BYU physics prof from "Scholars for 911 Truth") said that on Monday September 10th, Rumsfeld was in front of Congressional members to inform them that 2.3 TRILLION dollars had come up "missing" from the Pentagon. The BYU prof also said that it was Naval intelligence going after the missing loot and that these dead sailors burned up with all of their evidence when the west wing was "torpedoed".

Yet another facet and motive methinks. I surmise that the Pentagon WAS NOT an original target for the evildoers, but "killing two birds with one stone" may have been the order of the day. Everyone in the world knows that it would have been impossible for anything other than a military "friendly" that could have approached the Pentagon. The airliner story doesn't wash no matter how you slice it.

Soooo, where's the missing dough? Another link to CNNs archives shows a list of the victims which includes accountants, analyists, information systems techs, and a host of other job descriptions that seem to collude with a group of investigators. See: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/pentagon.victims.html

THIS is an investigation I would like to see proceed. Follow the money, right?

One of the many links I found about this story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/620276/posts

CBS first reported the story, but has removed all mention of it from their archives.

Posted by: BoneZ Dec 28 2006, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 28 2006, 12:09 AM)
Welcome to all our guests from ....

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=100955

And yes.. its an E4B, not Air Force One (gee.. you would think a Military photo forum would know how to visually ID an aircraft...lol)

Cheers!

It's amazing that that thread was closed without further discussion.... nonono.gif

Posted by: behind Dec 28 2006, 09:44 PM



Yes. It is amazing.

Posted by: UnderTow Dec 29 2006, 12:28 AM

Can't go stalling the GWOT now..

And I was actually thinking about posting a simple message there as well.

Posted by: jo56 Jan 1 2007, 12:01 PM

Some more informative links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4

Quote:

"Recent Developments

In January 2006 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the entire E-4B fleet will be retired starting in 2009. One aircraft will be eliminated from inventory each year, with the last aircraft to be retired in 2012. They may be replaced by two Boeing C-32's upgraded to provide broadcasting capabilities for the president in the event of nuclear war or a national emergency."


E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/e4b/

E-4B "Doomsday" Planes:

http://www.piedmontcommunities.us/servlet/go_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01336001151082232802523157&PG=01336001151082442707849122

http://www.piedmontcommunities.us/servlet/go_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01336001151082232802523157&PG=01336001151082424089681429

http://www.piedmontcommunities.us/servlet/go_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01336001151082232802523157&PG=01336001151082232802594144


Aviation Enthusiasts:

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/e-4b.htm

E-4 mission is identified as NEACP (National Emergency Airborne Command Post):

http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/e4b_neacp.htm

Fact Sheet:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_media.asp?fsID=99

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 1 2007, 01:13 PM

Great stuff jo! cheers.gif

Posted by: jo56 Jan 1 2007, 08:58 PM

thumbsup.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 2 2007, 12:11 PM

I find it very interesting that the topic of the "white jet" has now gotten nearly three thousand
views, many more than most other topics.
Are we onto something here?
Are people in Washington reading about this?
Will the FAA ever resume processing of my FOIA request for the records on this aircraft?

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 2 2007, 07:44 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 2 2007, 05:11 PM)
I find it very interesting that the topic of the "white jet" has now gotten nearly three thousand
views, many more than most other topics.

Very interesting! I never payed attention.

QUOTE
Are we onto something here?

Asbolutely!

QUOTE
Are people in Washington reading about this?

I'm sure they are.

QUOTE
Will the FAA ever resume processing of my FOIA request for the records on this aircraft?

I wouldn't hold my breath. biggrin.gif

cheers.gif

Posted by: JackD Jan 3 2007, 01:32 AM

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx

see above thread for previous speculation on white-plane

WaterBender, BoneZ, Pinnacle, etc; thanks for keeping the heat on the "white plane" issue.

BoneZ/WaterBender etc visual analysis seems to strongly indicate that this white plane was a 747 E4B.

See also the paper at
http://www.journalof911studies.com
about a DIFFERENT white jet (with dark, blue? tail) seen by Dianne Sawyer and others in New York in between the time of 1st and 2nd impacts.


THe overall theme is the same at each 9/11 site: unidentified large aircraft, seen or mentioned by eyewitnesses and/or news accounts, but never followed up on.
http://://journalof911studies.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 3 2007, 12:42 PM

The other "white jet" in New York could be a 757 with a blue tail and blue engine nacelles.
Has anyone compared it to pictures of Dick Cheney's 757 which has a similar color scheme?
Time for more FOIA requests to the FAA to find out who was flying in that area at 9:50 am on
9/11.
Pilot's for Truth should have a FOIA page devoted to these kind of targeted requests.
If the "drills" on 9/11 were inside US airspace there would have to be FAA knowledge of what was going on and what planes were part of the exercise.
NORAD defers to the FAA on all domestic flight operations so FAA would have to know which
E-4B was flying where in US airspace and which other aircraft were part of the drills.
Remember when they did Amalgam Virgo in June 2001 NORAD had to get special
clearances from the FAA to fly the target vehicles in US airspace.
All of these records should be obtained if possible to show the pattern of operation between FAA and NORAD.

Posted by: Merc Jan 3 2007, 12:53 PM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 3 2007, 12:44 AM)
QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 2 2007, 05:11 PM)
I find it very interesting that the topic of the "white jet" has now gotten nearly three thousand
views, many more than most other topics.

Very interesting! I never payed attention.

QUOTE
Are we onto something here?

Asbolutely!

QUOTE
Are people in Washington reading about this?

I'm sure they are.

QUOTE
Will the FAA ever resume processing of my FOIA request for the records on this aircraft?

I wouldn't hold my breath. biggrin.gif

cheers.gif

Trust me guys...the white jet topic is about to get REAL interesting real quick. Especially the white jet with the blue stripe. yes1.gif

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 3 2007, 03:32 PM

QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 3 2007, 05:53 PM)
Trust me guys...the white jet topic is about to get REAL interesting real quick. Especially the white jet with the blue stripe. yes1.gif

Can't wait to see what you got for us Merc. biggrin.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 4 2007, 02:45 PM

I have been seeing more videos of New York and some show a white plane near the World Trade Center as Flight 175 crashed into it. It is to far to tell if it is an E-4B but it moves in parallel with the 767 and flies past the WTC as the smoke cloud is rising.
It is very odd that so many white aircraft were flying near the various attack events that day.
It is also strange that the 9/11 Commission makes no mention of these white aircraft or interviewed their crews.

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 4 2007, 03:43 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 4 2007, 07:45 PM)
I have been seeing more videos of New York and some show a white plane near the World Trade Center as Flight 175 crashed into it. It is to far to tell if it is an E-4B but it moves in parallel with the 767 and flies past the WTC as the smoke cloud is rising.
It is very odd that so many white aircraft were flying near the various attack events that day.
It is also strange that the 9/11 Commission makes no mention of these white aircraft or interviewed their crews.

The white jet at the WTC that flew by as FL175 hit, definitely was not an E-4B. That jet was a different color and markings.

Posted by: jo56 Jan 4 2007, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 4 2007, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 4 2007, 07:45 PM)
I have been seeing more videos of New York  and  some  show a white plane near the World Trade Center as Flight 175 crashed into it. It is to far to tell if it is an E-4B but  it moves in parallel with the 767 and flies past the WTC as the smoke cloud is rising.
It  is very odd that so many white aircraft were flying near the various attack events that day.
It is also strange that the 9/11 Commission makes no mention of these white  aircraft or  interviewed their crews.

The white jet at the WTC that flew by as FL175 hit, definitely was not an E-4B. That jet was a different color and markings.


Then was it the retrofitted Skywarrior? These planes apparently were retrofitted secretly for some purpose right before 911. Where were they used? to crash into the buildings?


Are you thinking the other white plane was Cheney's plane commandeering the attack?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 5 2007, 12:18 PM

There seem to be more than one white plane in various videos. One flies by at about 8:50 am
and another is seen at 9:05 am . It is hard to make out much detail other than a white object
from these images except for the twin engine plane with the dark tail.
None of the investigations make any references to these aircraft or provide any radar data showing exactly where they were and what sort of manuvers they might have been performing at this critical time. The omission of this kind of information is what raises so many suspicions and the refusal of government agencies to answer any questions about this only makes it
more aggravating.
These may all be perfectly innocent aircraft but if that is so why can we get no information about them when they are documented on video and time stamped transcripts?
It is ridiculous for people to label as "conspiracy theorists" anyone who asks questions about
documented facts like this. Asking questions about the evidence is supposedly what this country is all about.
It is startling to compare the 18,000 page Warren Commission Report and supporting 26 volumes of evidence and hundreds of photographs which re-enacted many aspects of the Kennedy assassination and still left many unanswered questions with the paltry 567 page 9/11 Commission Report which excluded almost every significant issue of the case from even being considered and never examined any images of the events at all.

Posted by: Merc Jan 7 2007, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 3 2007, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 3 2007, 05:53 PM)
Trust me guys...the white jet topic is about to get REAL interesting real quick. Especially the white jet with the blue stripe.  yes1.gif

Can't wait to see what you got for us Merc. biggrin.gif

You're going to love one particular witness, Bonez.

But it has only 2 engines, not 4.

Do you have the full clip of the discovery channel?

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 8 2007, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 8 2007, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 3 2007, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 3 2007, 05:53 PM)
Trust me guys...the white jet topic is about to get REAL interesting real quick. Especially the white jet with the blue stripe.  yes1.gif

Can't wait to see what you got for us Merc. biggrin.gif

You're going to love one particular witness, Bonez.

But it has only 2 engines, not 4.

Do you have the full clip of the discovery channel?

The clip of the Discovery Channel shot can be seen at 1:44 in this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/v/gGSwve_BU9I

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 9 2007, 01:30 PM

The Discovery Channel plane has a 747 cockpit hump and the characteristics E-4B
teardrop shaped satellite communications dome so I don't see how it
could be a "two engine" aircraft. I think the angle is such that we only see
one of the engines on the right wing. All other videos of the "white jet" clearly show
all four engines from below.
So far the time of the "white jet" fly over has been corroborated as being 9:41 to 9:43 am by live newscasts from Peter Jennings on ABC, Katie Couric on NBC, and reporters John King and Kate Snow on CNN yet it's total exclusion from the 9/11 Commission "official" timeline remains uninvestigated by all of these news organizations.

Posted by: Merc Jan 9 2007, 02:35 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 9 2007, 06:30 PM)
The Discovery Channel plane has a 747 cockpit hump and the characteristics E-4B
teardrop shaped satellite communications dome so I don't see how it
could be a "two engine" aircraft. I think the angle is such that we only see
one of the engines on the right wing. All other videos of the "white jet" clearly show
all four engines from below.
So far the time of the "white jet" fly over has been corroborated as being 9:41 to 9:43 am by live newscasts from Peter Jennings on ABC, Katie Couric on NBC, and reporters John King and Kate Snow on CNN yet it's total exclusion from the 9/11 Commission "official" timeline remains uninvestigated by all of these news organizations.

Yes, I know.

But ALL the witnesses we spoke with said the plane had only two engines.

And almost all of them said white.

One said white, with a blue stripe, with 3-4 numbers on the tail. And two engines.
Said it did not look like an American Airlines. This was above tree top level over the area of 13th/poe next to Columbia Pike.

So again, if they were blending and blaming identites, then a two-engine, blue striped, white plane, with numbers on the tail would be blended into the e4b shown in the discovery channel.

Remember the flyover would have/could have put it over DC, which is where the e4 was also seen.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 9 2007, 05:40 PM

The eyewitness I have been in contact with said that everyone at first assumed the
"white jet" was Flight 77 and but after they realized Flight 77 was a two engine silver plane they began to think the white jet was actually some kind of decoy.
Interestingly all news media recreations of flight 77 immediately after 9/11
incorrectly showed it circling the White House which is why so many white jet
witnesses though that they had seen Flight 77.
Years later when the NTSB radar study was finally released it was
clear that Flight 77 never entered Washington DC airspace at all.
But by then the "official story" had been published by the 9/11 Commission and nobody bothered asking any more questions.
On September 19, 2001 CBS reported that White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that a plane had threatened the White House and that they had radar records to prove it.
I wonder why we have never seen the radar records he was talking about?

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 9 2007, 07:46 PM

QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 9 2007, 07:35 PM)
One said white, with a blue stripe, with 3-4 numbers on the tail. And two engines.

The description sounds just like the E-4B, except the 2-engines part. I would just say that the witness might not have saw all 4 engines or maybe the jet was at an angle that the witness only saw 2 of the engines. Who knows. We're never going to get every single little detail correct.

Posted by: Merc Jan 10 2007, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (BoneZ @ Jan 10 2007, 12:46 AM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Jan 9 2007, 07:35 PM)
One said white, with a blue stripe, with 3-4 numbers on the tail. And two engines.

The description sounds just like the E-4B, except the 2-engines part. I would just say that the witness might not have saw all 4 engines or maybe the jet was at an angle that the witness only saw 2 of the engines. Who knows. We're never going to get every single little detail correct.

No you don't get it.

It had two engines.

Other people who were under it saw two.

Posted by: Merc Jan 10 2007, 01:33 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 9 2007, 10:40 PM)
The eyewitness I have been in contact with said that everyone at first assumed the
"white jet" was Flight 77 and but after they realized Flight 77 was a two engine silver plane they began to think the white jet was actually some kind of decoy.
Interestingly all news media recreations of flight 77 immediately after 9/11
incorrectly showed it circling the White House which is why so many white jet
witnesses though that they had seen Flight 77.
Years later when the NTSB radar study was finally released it was
clear that Flight 77 never entered Washington DC airspace at all.
But by then the "official story" had been published by the 9/11 Commission and nobody bothered asking any more questions.
On September 19, 2001 CBS reported that White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that a plane had threatened the White House and that they had radar records to prove it.
I wonder why we have never seen the radar records he was talking about?

Succinctly put.

We are actually covering this exact thing, Pinnacle.

Whereabouts did your witness see the white four engine plane?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 10 2007, 12:29 PM

The witness I have been in contact with saw the White Plane while being evacuated
from the Old Executive Office Building on the White House grounds at 9:40 am.
My FOIA request to the FAA overs all air traffic over Washington DC from 9:30 am to 10:00am
on September 11, 2001.
The Department of the Air Force in the Pentagon has already sent me letter claiming they have no knowledge of this aircraft which in itself is strange since the Air Force 84TH Radar Evaluation Squadron did the offical analysis of all FAA radar records for the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission and they could not possibly miss a huge four engine plane flying in P-56 prohibited airspace.
I have sent this information to several journalists and they always discount the white jet as being an "ordinary aircraft" accidentally flying into the most restricted airspace on earth in
the middle of a terrorist attack as if that would not in itself be a huge news story.
Yet they have no explanation for the fact that this "ordinary" airplane has not been identified for more than five years, the air force has "no knowledge" of it and do not think the
fact that this entire "white jet incident" is not included in the 9/11 Commission Report is
worth investigating at all. I find their disinterested attitude incomprehensible considering the enormous implications of this unusually well-documented white plane mystery.

Posted by: Merc Jan 10 2007, 02:02 PM

Is your witness Linda Brookhart?

Posted by: jo56 Jan 10 2007, 06:09 PM

I've read that the Skywarrior had 2 engines. Isn't that right?

It was a slow flying plane which matched the speed of the plane that day.

Just things i've heard on various videos.

Posted by: Merc Jan 11 2007, 12:13 PM

There was no skywarrior

Posted by: JackD Jan 11 2007, 09:37 PM

right.

The A-3 hypothesis has been thoroughly analyzed ,checked, rechecked, and dismissed as 'unlikely to have been either the impact, or flyover craft'

Even though Barbara Honegger, Karl Schwarz and Dylan Avery have cited the possibility.



"good ideas must, perforce, give way to better"

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 12 2007, 02:45 PM

Linda Brookhart sent me a detailed discription of the evacuation of the
Executive Office Building and the circumstances under which she took the
35mm photo of the "white jet".
She was there with a group of 26 people and many others were also being evacuated at the time. The Secret Service uniformed guards apparently
were aware of a plane heading for the White House although the evacuation started when suppsedly NORAD was still in a state of confusion.
This is what makes the white plane so suspicious.
Who knew in advance that Washington was the target and why send an unarmed plane if this was some sort of "defensive" operation as some people have claimed?

Posted by: Merc Jan 12 2007, 06:42 PM

So she saw it at 9:40?

Heading what direction?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 12 2007, 08:01 PM

She is not sure of the exact time but it was before smoke from the Pentagon
became visible.
The Peter Jennings report of a "plane circling the White House" was at exactly 9:40 am. The John King CNN report was 9:42 am.
At least one video has a 9:43 am time reference in the frame so I would have to say she is pretty close on the time.
The plane appears from the photo to be heading south east over the White House grounds.

Posted by: Merc Jan 15 2007, 10:37 AM

Well, I don't know then.

Could have just been the spook plane, letting everyone know who was in charge.

It still could have served to confuse people.

Posted by: woody Jan 15 2007, 12:06 PM

Having dealt with the plane over the White House for a short time, too, here are my 2 cents:

I believe that Merc's plane and pinnacle's plane are indeed different. I'm convinced of a Pentagon flyover maneuver, but I don't think it was the White House plane (too late, as pinnacle already said).

Here's another account, trying to "explain away" the White House plane:

An example of the impact this confusion
caused can be seen in the activities of
DCFEMS dispatch. About the same time
Arlington County requested a box alarm
from DCFEMS for the Pentagon, the Secret
Service called to report that a plane had
crashed into the White House, and a box
alarm was dispatched there.

D.C.’s Engine 16 and Truck 3 are first-due
to the White House. Normally, they greet the
uniformed Secret Service officer at a closed
access gate. When they arrived on Sept. 11,
the access gate stood wide open. Next to this
gate, the media conduct their talking head
shots, using the White House as a background.

Responding crews knew something
was up because they observed tripods and
stepladders typically used by camera operators
abandoned on the hill. As Engine 16
and Truck 3 pulled up, a uniformed officer
waved them off, telling them, “Get the f---
outta here! There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House.


http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf



This sounds very much like the plane observed by Linda Brookhart. But the report's claim that the plane took off from Reagan Airport and was allowed to enter restricted airspace to avoid Flight 77 is pure BS. After 9:25, no plane at the East Coast was allowed to take off. I'm too lazy to check the BTS database, but I'm sure it will confirm this. Also, like pinnacle said, the plane was headed Southeast, i.e. direction Reagan Airport, so it was probably not coming from there...

I think there's a good possibility that the plane landed at Reagan (the airport was hastily evacuated minutes before). But I have no clue which purpose it served.

Looking forward for your masterpiece, Merc! cheers.gif

And by the way, which size was the plane observed by your witnesses? Any details?

Posted by: Merc Jan 15 2007, 12:19 PM

QUOTE (woody @ Jan 15 2007, 05:06 PM)
Having dealt with the plane over the White House for a short time, too, here are my 2 cents:

I believe that Merc's plane and pinnacle's plane are indeed different. I'm convinced of a Pentagon flyover maneuver, but I don't think it was the White House plane (too late, as pinnacle already said).

Here's another account, trying to "explain away" the White House plane:

An example of the impact this confusion
caused can be seen in the activities of
DCFEMS dispatch. About the same time
Arlington County requested a box alarm
from DCFEMS for the Pentagon, the Secret
Service called to report that a plane had
crashed into the White House, and a box
alarm was dispatched there.

D.C.’s Engine 16 and Truck 3 are first-due
to the White House. Normally, they greet the
uniformed Secret Service officer at a closed
access gate. When they arrived on Sept. 11,
the access gate stood wide open. Next to this
gate, the media conduct their talking head
shots, using the White House as a background.

Responding crews knew something
was up because they observed tripods and
stepladders typically used by camera operators
abandoned on the hill. As Engine 16
and Truck 3 pulled up, a uniformed officer
waved them off, telling them, “Get the f---
outta here! There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House.


http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf



This sounds very much like the plane observed by Linda Brookhart. But the report's claim that the plane took off from Reagan Airport and was allowed to enter restricted airspace to avoid Flight 77 is pure BS. After 9:25, no plane at the East Coast was allowed to take off. I'm too lazy to check the BTS database, but I'm sure it will confirm this. Also, like pinnacle said, the plane was headed Southeast, i.e. direction Reagan Airport, so it was probably not coming from there...

I think there's a good possibility that the plane landed at Reagan (the airport was hastily evacuated minutes before). But I have no clue which purpose it served.

Looking forward for your masterpiece, Merc!  cheers.gif

And by the way, which size was the plane observed by your witnesses? Any details?

Hey Woody!

How goes it bud?

That is an amazing find. I wish I could have found that before we wrote the script.

Let's not also forget N644AW landing at Reagan at 9:39 am.

I can't wait to show guys our masterpiece.

Hey BTW, check your PM box.

EDIT: Oops, forgot, all the witnesses describe it as 757/767 size, Woody.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 16 2007, 01:31 PM

Remember I have a letter from the US Air Force stating no aircraft entered P-56 prohibited airspace over the White House between 9:30 am and 10:00 am on September 11,2001.
Since the air force conducted all the radar analysis for the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission
they would certainly be aware of an airliner flying near the White House at 9:40 am
and there would be no reason to deny such a widely reported incident unless the plane was
not just an ordinary civilian aircraft.
In fact if such a thing happened we would expect television news to interview everyone on that plane as a big human interest story. Yet not person has ever come forward to say they
were "diverted" over the White House on 9/11.
Besides this plane was reported as "circling" the White House and flew slowly as if observing what was happening on the ground and then flew directly over the Capitol dome at about 9:45 am.
It did not behave as it would have if it were trying to avoid a collision.
All the reporters who observed it considered it to be a "government aircraft of some kind" but
to this day they do not know what kind and have not made any effort to find out.

Posted by: Merc Jan 16 2007, 01:40 PM

Pinnacle, can we have a copy of that letter for the movie.

I just finished our white plane section.

Posted by: UnderTow Jan 16 2007, 01:58 PM

Be carefull of the wording as well.
Not to be over analytical, but saying nothing entered the airspace between those times does not mean something wasn't already there.

It could have been on station at 9:15 and therefore did not enter P space between 9:30-10:00 b/c it was already in P space.

They could also simply narrow thier statement by saying civilian aircraft as opposed to any and all aircraft. Civilian, Military, or otherwise.

Slow day, so I felt like posting smile.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 16 2007, 02:57 PM

I sent them the Brookhart photo taken at 9:40 and the NBC audio clip of the reporter who said he saw "a big white jet flying in an unusual pattern near the White House."
They claim they have "no knowledge of the aircraft in question" which would seem to cover
both military and civilian.
Since all take offs were halted at 9:26 it seems that by 9:40 there would not be any
planes still in the air over Washington. Then there was also that 9:33 am radio warning ordering all aircraft to stay at least 30 miles away from Washington.
Of course if it were actually true that the air force has no records of the white plane that
should be big news in itself since apparently it was responsible for the evacuation
of the White House and Capitol and one would expect the air force to be more knowledgable
of air defense threats than civilian agencies like the FAA.
Interestingly the air force advised me to continue to seek records from the Federal Aviation
Administration on this so they are no actually claiming such a plane did not exist, just that
they don't have any information about it.

Posted by: Merc Jan 16 2007, 08:15 PM

Pinnacle,

Could we get a copy of the letter and where did you learn about the alert to stay away from Washington @ 9:33?

Posted by: JackD Jan 17 2007, 12:13 AM

THe white plane with bubble on top (looking glass) and the odd spot underneath tail (possibly created by the juncture of the two blue AF stripes on either side meeting below tail) is likely ID'd (by BoneZ and WaterDancer months ago) as a special E4B craft.

Perhaps you could send the letter to Offutt AFB and Andrews AFB public relations people particularly, inquiring if any E4B craft took off from their runways on 9/10 or 9/11 -- or if E4B support crew were stationed at Andrews.

Another place to send request is to Hill AFB in Utah -- they are home to the 84th RADES squadron -- who are the radar techs who do all recreations. They can find the likely place an ultralight craft went down -- or JFK jr's plane.. and were extensively involved in 9/11 radar reconstructions.


The 747- E4B is made to stay in air for weeks at a time with constant refueling - may have launched long before 9/11.

Repeating from earlier in thread, if you are just now joining in:
what is the purpose of the odd looking 747 E4B craft?

E4B should be in air as part of the nuclear drill aspect of Global Guardian. The airborne command post for these exercises would include one or more E4B craft -- in order to test communications and control.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-guardian.htm

US StratCom is responsible for nuclear launch and C3 issues. other exercises linking to GG are Crown Vigilance, Amalgam Warrior and Apollo Guardian. it is unclear if any of those were taking place around the week of 9/11 -- but some exercises may be classified, in addition to the ones we know about.

That would be a somewhat inocuous explanation for E4B presence. Part of a nuke/ccommunication/testing the system war game/drill.

What is odd is that NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT.

if there's nothing to hide.... why not just be upfront about it?


stop here if you don't like speculations:
--------------
Webster Tarpley's idea is that the presence of this plane tells European, Chinese, Russian powers that WE ARE READY TO GO BALLISTIC if you do not accept our soon-to-be-announced 'war of civilizations' === it puts the russians in a defensive posture. Part of the "invisibile government" calling the shots --- which creates a win-win situation for Bush/CHeney. Bush must acquiesce to the secret govt demands, but gets a free card to play.

US Nuclear launch code CinC is based at Barksdale LA and Offutt AFB in Nebraska.

Check and see where Bush flew on 9/11 when he left Florida.....

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 17 2007, 12:42 PM

I have made inquiries to FAA, NORAD, Air Combat Command, etc.,
over the past year but only the inquiry to the Secretary of the Air Force through my Congressman's office has gotten a response because it went directly through the Legislative Liaison Office.
My purpose in doing this is to use it in a film project I have been working on
for more that two years so I would like to keep all official documents for presentation in that film
which would include computer animations of various events.
I have also been in contact with various news organizations who reported the white plane but never followed up on it. The "journalistic amnesia" aspect of this is something that I find extremely interesting.
I know that 84th RADES did the radar analysis of 9/11 so it seems strange that that the US Air Force has told me they "know nothing" about the white plane but that FAA might have some information that 84th RADES does not. That simply makes no sense.
If a "civilian airliner" was diverted over the White House that should certainly be visible
in the radar track data 84th RADES analyzed for Flight 77 and they would have radio
communications recordings of this incident.
If it was an E-4B on a legitimate training mission why would NORAD, the White House and the National Military Command Center not have known it was there and included it in the famous "air threat conference"?
It is supposed to be an "airborne communications center" after all.

Posted by: Merc Jan 17 2007, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 17 2007, 05:42 PM)
My purpose in doing this is to use it in a film project I have been working on for more that two years so I would like to keep all official documents for presentation in that film

Oh, ok, got it.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 17 2007, 02:31 PM

The 9:33 radio warning to all aircaft to avoid Washington or be shot down was
reported by BBC news and is in the 9/11 Complete Timeline.
According to the BBC Major Dean Eckmann, who was piloting one of the F-16s
that scrambled from Langley Air Force Base, heard the radio warning but did not know who was
transmitting it and under what authority.
The white plane apparently had vanished from Washington DC just about the time the Langley fighters showed up.
If it was an E-4B why leave just as your defensive jets arrive?
Obviously a plane like the E-4B with enormous electronic communications and onboard power generating capabilities could account for all kinds of radio, cellphone and radar anomalies that happened that day.

Posted by: Merc Jan 17 2007, 03:42 PM

Cool thanks Pinn.

Check this out, this was from an e-mail, I got from witness Scott Cook a while back...

QUOTE
Any large plane like a B-52 or the Kneecap plane would have been very out of place and noticeable.  And there's Occam's Razor again - if you're
carrying out a surreptitious plot, why involve a huge, bright white
747 in full view of everybody in town?  All Washingtonians know what
the Kneecap plane looks like.  It makes no sense.


You know, the part of the narrative that I always thought would set
off the crazies (that would be us smile.gif ) was the mention of the unmarked white jet landing at Reagan later in the day with an F-16 escort.  It wasn't until after I
posted the story that I heard about the mysterious unmarked white jet
said to have been involved in the UA93 crash. But I guess even they
realize that it make no sense for a government jet on a secret mission
to land in broad daylight at a major commercial airport.



It is also mentioned on his site...

QUOTE
About 12:30, I saw some activity in the air and went over to the window. A small private jet, white with no markings, was making a landing at Reagan from the south, and flying just off his left wing was an F-16. The private jet touched down and taxied to the terminal, and the F-16 kicked in his afterburner and leapt up, making a sharp turn to the west.

http://www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 17 2007, 05:44 PM

What exactly does Scott Cook think is in all those videos and photos if not a
"bright white 747"?
It obviously was seen and reported by dozens of witnesses
including network news reporters who were assigned to Washington and had probably seen the E-4B many times themselves.
Rumsfeld used to use an E-4B as a personnel jet when he went overseas and reporters often went along for the ride.
I notice that Kate Snow, who is filling in for Charles Gibson anchoring the ABC
World News this week, had herself seen the white plane and reported it when she was a CNN Capitol Hill reporter on 9/11.
None of the reporters identified it as an E-4B specifically but all seemed to think it was an Air Force or government plane so they must have recognized it to some degree.

Posted by: Merc Jan 17 2007, 06:21 PM

Oh no, that was in relation to it being "flight 77" the flyover plane. I didn't include the whole quote. My bad.

He originally called it a "small plane", but in his e-mail he seems to link it to the "bright white 757". That was my only point.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 17 2007, 06:53 PM

There were so many planes in that "cleared airspace" that day that it gets confusing.
I have seen video of what could be a smaller white plane near the Pentagon. It is just hard to tell what you are seeing.
But the E-4B or whatever it was is definitely the "big white jet" described
flying slowly and seen in the videos.
In fact in the still picture it appears that the front flaps are extended which would have allowed even a slower flight.
I wonder if the slow circular flight path would indicate that the wire antenna was extended out the tail for electronic spoofing operations?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 18 2007, 07:55 PM

Speak of the devil.
About an hour ago I saw a "big white four engine jet" fly over headed for Edwards Air Force Base.
I checked it on Airport Monitor and saw it was an "unidentified military aircraft"
flying at 26,500 feet.
Could it be an E-4B?
Even better could it be the 9/11 Washington DC E-4B?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 25 2007, 12:48 PM

Strange how the White Plane topic jumped up by 3000 views in a couple of weeks and now has had very few views for the past several days.
I am still trying top get more information about radio and cellphone interference
in Washington DC on 9/11 that may be further evidence of the presence of
the E-4B using it's 15,000 watt power generator for some kind of electronic
warfare operation.
I have sent letters and emails to the the FAA regarding the status of my FOIA
requests for Washington DC air traffic records on 9/11 but so far no response.
Also no reply from ABC News, NBC News, CNN, Discovery Channel or Fox News concerning their transcripts and videos of the White Plane.

Posted by: BoneZ Jan 25 2007, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 25 2007, 05:48 PM)
Also no reply from ABC News, NBC News, CNN, Discovery Channel or Fox News concerning their transcripts and videos of the White Plane.

Hope you're not holding your breath! [laugh] whistle.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 25 2007, 05:43 PM

The FAA is telling me they have gotten more subpoenas for 9/11 records which have effectively stopped all FOIA requests for any 9/11 information.
I wonder who is filing all of these subpoenas?

Posted by: gideon524 Jan 25 2007, 08:10 PM

Damn...

Guess there goes my FOIA to the NTSB and FBI for the CVR audio from UA93.

Hey pinnacle, what did your 9/11 skeptic buddies have to say about the picture of that plane over the Capitol I posted?

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 26 2007, 12:56 PM

Everyone dismisses the video as being taken at a later time that day,
but cannot explain when this would have happened.
Of course they also dismiss the transcripts of reporters describing this as happening at 9:45 am well before any air force planes arrived over Washington
according to 9/11 Commission.
What amazes me is that there is no reporter who saw Flight 77 at all and no images of it yet we are expected to believe it existed and this well documented four engine jet is simply ignored by everyone including the news organizations who reported it at the time.
I am not sure if the subpoenas are going to other agencies but thje FAA is definitely not processing any FOIAs for 9/11 data at this time, which seems to undermine the whole point of having FOIA in the first place.
You would think they could have a seperate process for legal cases and for
FOIA since this situation not only prevents private citizens from getting information but shuts down journalists, historians and other researchers who are supposed to
have a constitutional right to ask questions of the government.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 26 2007, 07:33 PM

I may have spoken to soon, or somebody in Washington may be reading this page.
I just got an email from the head FAA FOIA guy. He says I will be getting
an update next week on my FOIA request. I don't know what exactly they mean by update but any information on this whole situation would be interesting since he made no mention of any subpoenas being in the way.
Do you think that if Bush's poll numbers go low enough some of these federal agencies might feel free to start talking?

Posted by: pinnacle Feb 9 2007, 08:00 PM

Funny how, after 4000 views in a short time, nobody has been viewing this page for the past several days. What happened?

Posted by: pinnacle Feb 13 2007, 04:14 PM

I got the official notification from the FAA.
There are "no records" of any aircraft flying over Washington DC
near the White House or Capitol Building on September 11, 2001
between 9:00 am and 10:00 am .
This is really strange because the three Langley fighters got there at
9:50 am and apparently were invisible to radar.
I was not given any radar images for this time period so I guess we have to take their word for it.
This means that ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, and everybody else was hallucinating
a four engine white jet that showed up on video but did not actually exist,
while the Pentagon was hit by a 757 that did not show up on video. At least we now know nothing funny was going on.

Posted by: Merc Feb 13 2007, 04:29 PM

Paste a scan of the FAA's reply please.

Posted by: pinnacle Feb 13 2007, 05:29 PM

I don't have a scanner.
Also I am trying to keep this and all other official documents for use in the film.
I have FOIAs pending to other government agencies about this.

Posted by: Pier69 Feb 26 2007, 12:52 PM

QUOTE
Page 166 in the following link explains about a drill being operated on 9/11 called Global Guardian and how the E-4B's were used in those drills:

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/20050722transcript.pdf


Please guys...This link has been removed thumbdown.gif

Someone of you has download it?

Tnx.

Pier

Posted by: pinnacle Feb 26 2007, 01:17 PM

According to procedure at least one E-4B should have been near the President in Florida on 9/11 and it should have functioned as a relay station for communications from Air Force One.
Bush had lots of communication problems that day.
In the 1980s Reagan parked the E-4B at March Air Force base when he was in Santa Barbara. Thousands of people complained of radio interference from
the powerful E-4B transmitters. Again think of the radio problems on 9/11.
Bush flew to Offutt where the other three E-4Bs were in case he needed to
change planes but if one was already
in Washington why not just fly him to Langley, which is a forward base for
ACC, and make the switch?

Posted by: behind Feb 26 2007, 01:24 PM

"Because of Global Guardian, three special military command aircraft with sophisticated communications equipment, based at Offutt, are up in the air the morning of 9/11. These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency. The Federal Advisory Committee (whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft) is aboard one of these Doomsday planes, being brought to Offutt to observe the exercise.
Just as at Barksdale media accounts indicate Global Guardian was cancelled at Offutt shortly after the second WTC tower was hit (at 9 03) with staff swiching to "real world mode" (Department of Defense, 1/9/02)

However, even after Global Guardian was called off, all three E-4Bs remained airborne. (Omaha World-Herald 2/27/02)"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=global_guardian

http://www.vt911.org/McKinneyReport20050722transcript.pdf (p.166)

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 1 2007, 04:53 PM

I have received a communication from one of the network news
White House correspondents who reported the "big white jet" on 9/11.
He confirms that he recognized it as the "Doomsday Plane"
and that it did fly low and slow around the White House.
I have inquires in with two other network correspondents who saw the
"white plane" with their own eyes but have not heard from them yet.
These people spent years in Washington and knew what they were looking at.

Posted by: johndoeX Mar 1 2007, 04:55 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Mar 1 2007, 04:53 PM)
I have received a communication from one of the network news
White House correspondents who reported the "big white jet" on 9/11.
He confirms that he recognized it as the "Doomsday Plane"
and that it did fly low and slow around the White House.
I have inquires in with two other network correspondents who saw the
"white plane" with their own eyes but have not heard from them yet.
These people spent years in Washington and knew what they were looking at.

thumbsup.gif salute.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 5 2007, 07:59 PM

I just looked at the radar images from the TWA Flight 800 investigation and noticed that the military aircraft, such as the P3, that were in the area
did not have a transponder turned on and were just primary returns on the FAA
radars. They show up just as well as the transponder targets.
Presumably any military planes in the air on 9/11 would also have
no transponders further confusing the issue of who was a hijack.
The white plane may also be just an unidentified blip in the FAA radar scans I have been trying to get with no success.

Posted by: Ashoka Mar 12 2007, 04:34 PM

just found while watching some CNN footage from archive.org.....

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1fj45_cnnwhite-plane-circling-the-white-h

The most documented "non existent" plane in the history

Ashoka

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 12 2007, 07:01 PM

Instead of contacting congressman and senators to investigate 9/11
anomalies like the white plane why not contact the news media people who all reported this thing and ask them why they have never followed-up on such an important story?
This is Pulitzer Prize material for any journalist who is willing to dig into it.
My first series of letters to NBC, ABC, CBS , CNN and Fox got no reply but I was just one letter writer. White Jet analysis has gotten many more page views
than any other topic so it should be possible to get at least a few hundred emails to these people.

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 23 2007, 05:01 PM

It is really interesting that White Jet Analysis continues to get so many viewings yet very few new postings. I wonder who is reading all this?
I just wanted to say that I had checked through a number of enormous
9/11 "archive" sights which seem to be completely unaware of the many audio and video news reports of the infamous "white plane" and have no pictures of it whatsoever.
Not one document or "personal story" from any of the hundreds of eyewitnesses. Funny how this subject continues to be very effectively suppressed everywhere except on this website.
Still waiting on FOIA information from multiple sources.
Stay tuned.

Posted by: UnderTow Mar 23 2007, 06:26 PM

Hats off Pinnacle. Dont' worry, some times it just takes time.
Several years in my personal FOIA case.

Posted by: johndoeX Mar 23 2007, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Mar 23 2007, 06:01 PM)
It is really interesting that White Jet Analysis continues to get so many viewings yet very few new postings. I wonder who is reading all this?

Its linked at the main website...


You and BoneZ did/are doing a great job on this analysis.

Posted by: Ashoka Mar 24 2007, 07:39 AM

Report: white plane circling the White House

http://static-06.dailymotion.com/dyn/preview/160x120/2555636.jpg?20070323141923

http://static-02.dailymotion.com/dyn/preview/160x120/2404229.jpg?20070312223119

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1j3m9_white-plane-over-white-house-nbc

This one is very interesting :-)

Ashoka

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 24 2007, 11:33 PM

For some reason I cannot view the NBC video. Can you describe it?
Is it the report over a cellphone to Katie Couric?
Do they show the plane? Is their any time reference?
Is it described as "a government plane of some kind."?

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 24 2007, 11:51 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Mar 25 2007, 04:33 AM)
For some reason I cannot view the NBC video. Can you describe it?
Is it the report over a cellphone to Katie Couric?
Do they show the plane? Is their any time reference?
Is it described as "a government plane of some kind."?

Pinnacle, all I can get is the video, not audio so I can't help much, but the NBC footage is "Live EDT" World Trade Center New York City with both towers standing. Hence, broadcast sometime before 9:58 AM. Nothing shown in the video except the towers.

Posted by: Ashoka Mar 25 2007, 05:53 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Mar 24 2007, 11:33 PM)
For some reason I cannot view the NBC video. Can you describe it?
Is it the report over a cellphone to Katie Couric?
Do they show the plane? Is their any time reference?
Is it described as "a government plane of some kind."?

White plane broadcast timing

NBC

The segment is from this http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036 at about 1:10 so it's been broadcasted at 9:55 a.m. and it's Bob Kur speaking

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1j3m9_white-plane-over-white-house-nbc

(maybe you can't listen to audio because it was set to minimum.. in either case I've uploaded the segment http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=2c74f5c42b0663dbd1c5a43268a05d049f2e08e6

He talks about seeing the plane after the evacuation of the White House and describes it as “a white plane, a large jet”, “a government plane of some kind”



CNN

The first segment is from this http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110929-1011 and starts at about 9:53/9:54 am (John King speaking)

http://dailymotion.alice.it/Ashoka_lc/video/x1fj45_cnnwhite-plane-circling-the-white-h

Video uploaded http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=a38a98ea88e7ac43e31ddf9c2cb9cf80f8506ed9

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html
Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.

About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.

It is out of sight now, best we can tell


Ten minutes ago.. so it's about 9:43/9:44

The second segment is from http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053 and starts at about 10:16 a.m.E.T.[/url]

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1je6g_cnn-a-white-jet-circling-the-capito

Video uploaded http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=90d525daeefcc99f54b5dd8ae0d5d1c1b41d8c96

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.05.html
I am a couple blocks away from the Capitol right now. I can tell you about a half hour ago, the Capitol building itself was evacuated. It was a little bit chaotic. Everyone was running out of the building. People ran a couple of blocks away. Now have now been pushed back by security. We're within two blocks of the Capitol.

I did see a plane, about a half hour ago, circling over the Capitol. Now whether that may have been a Air Force plane, it's unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol.


Half hour ago so it's about 9:45/9:46



ABC News

http://dailymotion.alice.it/Ashoka_lc/video/x1irxw_abc-white-plane-circling-white-hous

Video uploaded http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=b671fcf65255d77bb6c585355e961018d0913c8c

There is a plane circling the White House at the moment and they're clearing the grounds there

The time is 9:41 E.T. (8:41 C.T.)


Ashoka

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 28 2007, 04:25 PM

It is very interesting that all of these reports put the start of the evacuation of the White House before 9:40 am when the "official" timeline has it at about 9:50 am.
Linda Brookhart says she took her picture of the "white jet" before the
Pentagon was hit and she and her group of 26 people had already walked about half a block after being escorted out of the Old Executive Office Building by the Uniformed Secret Service Guards and being told that a plane was heading for the White House.
These real time reports all seem to agree with her on this since nobody reporting at this time had any awareness that the Pentagon had been hit yet even though the smoke would have been clearly visible to all the White House reporters with cell phones standing in Lafayette Park.
How did the Uniformed Secret Service guards know that a plane was headed their way when they are in the public area of the White House and not in the bunker with
Vice President Cheney where the communications equipment is located?
At this time even NORAD supposedly did not have this information.
Why did the 9./11 Commission never ask them?

Posted by: pinnacle Mar 30 2007, 04:26 PM

A story should be appearing soon with quotes from Linda Brookhart about her White Plane photo. It may include information from some of the network news reporters to saw the White Plane as well.
The United States Secret Service informs me they are processing my FOIA request for all records of the White Plane incident that were generated by Secret Service personnel. Still no word from FAA on the radar scans of Washington DC airspace.
The White Jet circles like a big white vulture. It cannot be ignored forever
by the mainstream media because they themselves put it on the record.
Operation ECONCOM will not work.
As Justice Robert Jackson said
"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."

Posted by: behind Apr 5 2007, 11:32 AM

Article on Rense.com

The 911 Mystery Plane

http://rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 5 2007, 01:43 PM

The reason I am confident that the "white jet" is the smoking gun of the 9/11 cover-up is the fact than none of the "usual suspect" debunkers I have sent this information to in the past year has offered any explanation for this aircraft, or any aircraft, being in restricted airspace at 9:40 am on 9/11.
In fact most don't even respond or in any way acknowledge that I contacted them.
If this were a tin foil hat kind of thing they would love to make a big deal out of it, but it is obviously real and unexplanable in the context of a "surprise
attack" and a "confused" US air force. And of course the official denials only make it more significant.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 10 2007, 12:37 PM

Just wanted to update that the May 1, 2001 Operational Reporting Order
changes included the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center as
one of the recipents of any FLASH--OPREP-3 --PINNACLE FRONT BURNER
report of a hijacking which means the E-4B was considered equal to the
National Military Command Center in importance.
If the order was carried out the E-4B would have known of the first
hijack at about 8:42 am and everyone in the chain of command should have know
within seconds since the entire purpose of the E-4B's existence was worldwide
instant communications.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 14 2007, 10:56 PM

The website of the 1ST AIRBORNE COMMAND AND CONTROL SQUADRON,
who exclusively fly the four E-4B NAOC aircraft, has been removed from the internet.
I wonder what that means?
Questions submitted to their parent organization, the 55th Reconnasisance Wing, have gotten no reponse. They will not confirm the written statement
of November 8, 2006 from the Congressional Inquiry Division of the Department of the Air Force in the Pentagon.
Why?

Posted by: waterdancer Apr 15 2007, 09:05 AM

Pinnacle posted recently that

QUOTE
The website of the 1ST AIRBORNE COMMAND AND CONTROL SQUADRON,
who exclusively fly the four E-4B NAOC aircraft, has been removed from the internet.


So, I did some digging around in the internet archives.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010916083504/www.offutt.af.mil/55thWing/55OG/1ACCS/1accs.htm found http://web.archive.org/web/*sr_1nr_10000/http://www.offutt.af.mil/55thWing/*- http://web.archive.org/web/20010306185818/http://www.offutt.af.mil/organizations/55og/1accs/1accsweb.htm shows pre-9/11.
Not much there, either way. Apparently, it was available at least through http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.offutt.af.mil/55thWing/55OG/1ACCS/1accs.htm, and no doubt longer...

Here are a couple of the best pics I found of two of the four E4-B aircraft- I don't have any pics which I can clearly identify as being the other two planes- tail #s 31677 and 50125. If you want more images you can use the tail # links provided to google some- http://www.google.com/search?q=40787+e4b&hl=en&start=10&sa=N http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/4/4/6/0174644.jpg and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=31676+e4b&btnG=Search http://www1.airpics.com/avimg/big/99363.jpg
(update- this looks to me like tail # 31676 again archived http://www.webcitation.org/5Pbb7D9hL


Oh, yeah. One other thing- Cynthia McKinney's 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later (the huge 305 page .pdf) is 404. Archived http://www.webcitation.org/5KKtt3Dcf though. Back 'em up early and often folks. The McKinney document never made it into the internet archive.

Edited to correct tail #50125 (I had read that it was #20125, but it is clearly not- see http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?)showtopic=483&st=252 for pic

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 16 2007, 12:27 PM

Very interesting. Why so many pages archived immediately after 9/11?
Also why did the page get removed at all? Did the air force suddenly decide these guys were not supposed to get any more publicity?
My first FOIA request to the FAA on this subject was just days before the last posted 1st ACCS webpage in May of 2006.
FAA still won't give me the radar records I requested at the time.
Also many videos of the "white plane" began appearing on the internet at this time and maybe the air force did not want it to be to easy for people to verify that the white plane looks like the E-4B and start asking questions as I have tried to do without any reply from the 55th Wing's "chief of community relations", who supposedly is there for the express purpose of answering questions from the public.
Copies of the archived 1st ACCS page and the dates of the postings will go in with all the other stuff for my ever-growing congressional information package.
It all adds to the big picture on this. Pelosi, Waxman, Kucinich etc. will all get this
material.
I think it is significant that Popular Mechanics has still not tried to debunk the
"white plane". They know there is to much evidence.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 17 2007, 12:33 PM

The CNN "white plane whitewash" was carried out very quickly after 9/11.
On September 17, 2001 they had already removed all references to the
flyover of the four engine E-4B "doomsday plane",
reported by both CNN White House correspondent John King and CNN Capitol correspondent Kate Snow, from their timeline of 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

Listen to John King and Kate Snow on this website.

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/sept11.section.html

King describes the evacuation of the White House but of course makes no mention of the huge white jet circling overhead that he reported at the time . Same for Kate Snow who said she saw the plane fly over the Capitol dome and that it was the cause of the evacuation.

So far CNN has not responded to any questions about this revision of history
which their own reporters witnessed with their own eyes.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 23 2007, 03:07 PM

I notice that taxpayer dollars are used to support the U S State Department website that debunks 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and I also notice they rely on Popular Mechanics as a source of debunking information.
I have sent a lot of facts about the White Jet story to both the State Department and Popular Mechanics but neither is willing to even try and debunk it.
In fact both refuse to respond in any way just like CNN and the Air Force.
The White Jet continues to confound official explanations at every turn.
I really want these paid debunkers to give us their lame account of what the White Jet was doing in restricted airspace on 9/11. What are they afraid of?



http://usinfo.state.gov/media/media_resources/misinformation.html.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 24 2007, 05:43 PM

Get this.
The State Department "Counter-Misinformation" division has finally replied to my
emails.
They have pages dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiacy theories and denegrating United States Citizens who dare question the official version of 9/11,
and promoting Popular Mechanics Magazine as a reliable source of 9/11 information.
But in response to the "white jet" to information I sent I was told by a
"counter-misinformation officer".


"US law does not permit employees of the bureau of the State Department in which I work to respond to queries from within the United States."

So people have full time government jobs debunking 9/11 and the targets of the debunking are not allowed to defend themselves or even ask any questions
of this one-sided misinformation operation.
Isn't this blatantly unAmerican?
Why isn't the news media making a big deal out of this kind of
Orwellian taxpayer-funded government propaganda?

Posted by: georgie101 Apr 25 2007, 03:14 AM

Pretty damned disgusting really.
Time and tax payers money spent for debunking 9/11.
Not enough time and money spent on actually investigating it in the first place.

Posted by: UnderTow Apr 25 2007, 08:14 AM

"US law does not permit employees of the bureau of the State Department in which I work to respond to queries from within the United States."


blink.gif blink.gif

What kind of bizaroo sh*t is this?

What law? What bureau?

And is he saying if he moved to another country he would have the Freedom to respond, but b/c he's in the US, he can't?

Holy retards...

Posted by: waterdancer Apr 25 2007, 09:01 AM

Maybe he can respond to some international queries on the issue, perhaps?

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 25 2007, 12:46 PM

If we could have someone outside of the United States send a questions they could answer it, but not from the people who they are debunking and who are paying for the State Department in the first place since we are merely United States citizens and apparently are not allowed to ask any questions of the
"Counter-Misinformation Officers" in the Ministry of Truth.
I informed Dr. Stephen Jones that the state department is criticizing him on an official website and that he is not allowed to defend himself or even question
why this is being done by a government agency.
I also notice that Loose Change gets a very heavy attack by the State Department on it's own webpage posted on March 30, 2007 and the producers, who are called "amateurish with faulty reasoning", are also not allowed to respond in anyway.
All of this one-sided attack on US citizens paid for by your tax dollars.
My Congressman, who helped me with my 9/11 FOIA requests, sits on the House Appropriations Committee that funds the State Department.
Karen Hugnes just testified before his committee last week on how wonderful the "Counter-Misinformation Program" was in showing the world how
great democracy is.
Yeah right.
Some democracy when the government bashes it's own citizens publicly and refuses to allow any questions to be asked.
What a wonderful example of "open govenrment" to show the world.
I intend to send him all of this garbage and ask why he is allowing this to be done to US citizens since the State Department is effectively calling him an irrational conspiracy theorist for helping me make inquiries of the US Air Force, FAA, etc. that the State Department condemns as "irresponsible and unpatriotic."
Then they tout Popular Mechanics as the ultimate "reliable source" of 9/11 information.
If I were him I would vote to shut this State Department debunking operation down in a minute.

Posted by: Ashoka Apr 25 2007, 01:18 PM

QUOTE
If we could have someone outside of the United States send a questions they could answer it, but not from the people who they are debunking and who are paying for the State Department in the first place since we are merely United States citizens and apparently are not allowed to ask any questions of the
"Counter-Misinformation Officers" in the Ministry of Truth.


I'm Italian, like Pier69 and Ivanvedder... so If I can help... just explain what I have to do

Ashoka

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 25 2007, 01:50 PM

I would suggest asking them to debunk the White Jet sightings and photos since nobody at Popular Mechanics is willing to even acknowledge any of it let alone debunk it.
I really want to hear what kind of explanantion they come up with and compare it to the documents I have from several official sources.
I would also like to hear them debunk the NORAD intercept policy and the
Standing Rules of Engagement that were in effect on 9/11 but not followed.
Also why no OPREP-3 PINNACLE report was sent immediately at the first
notice of a hijacking as required by standing orders.
Explanations of any of these would be interesting to hear.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 26 2007, 12:40 PM

Since the "Counter-Misinformation Officer" at the State Department
has an entire webpage devoted to debunking Loose Change, a film made by US citizens inside the United States, I decided to look up his film experience
on the Internet Movie Database. After all if the State Department is going to
use tax payer money to play the role of film critics attacking the content of
films made by US filmakers they should have some movie industry experience wouldn't you think?
Of course the "Counter-Misinformation Officer's" name does not even appear in the IMDB which makes it hard to understand what right he has to attack the skills of the Loose Change filmakers.
I on the other hand found about 96 film and television credits under my own name, and while I don't agree with all the claims made in Loose Change I certainly do not feel I have a right to disparage what a documentary filmaker presents for us as citizens of a supposedly free country to consider.
Apparently the US State Department does not agree and uses the force of government to attack AMERICAN documentary filmakers even though it has no film production experience on which make any judgements and label Loose Change as "amateurish". All this coming from a guy who has never even made a toilet paper commercial, which by the way I have.

Posted by: pinnacle Apr 27 2007, 12:41 PM

I just ran across a VERY INTERESTING piece of information relative to the
NORAD intercept cabilities in place on 9/11.

The 1999 Air National Guard Outstanding Airman of the year was
honored for his superb operational expertise and situational awareness in the co-ordination of aircraft control responsibilities while conducting EFFECTIVE INTERCEPT MISSIONS!

He was responsible for tracking aircraft WITHIN THE WESTERN AIR DEFENSE SECTOR AIRSPACE ( the Mississippi to the west coast) and directing INTERCEPTORS including during exercises such as FELIX SPADE 98-12.
These "exercises" include no-notice penetrations by simulated enemy aircraft
requiring SCRAMBLE/INTERCEPTS!

How did Popular Mechanics miss this one?
How come the 9/11 Commission never talked to this guy?
What do these people not undertand about the word INTERCEPT?

Posted by: winnybar Apr 29 2007, 10:48 PM

I have investigated the White Jet seen in all 9/11 locations by witnesses and/or the camera. Three times in NYC on 9/11. It was the orchestrator of 9/11. It flew in formation with the airliner drone that hit the North Tower, made a flyby with the South Tower drone just in case that drone missed the South Tower guidance could be reinstituted to bring it around for another try, and the White Jet made another flyby just as the North Tower was demolished by remote control of the White Jet.

After the South Tower flyby it headed to DC to guide the A3 Skywarrior near to the Pentagon where a waiting helicopter over the Pentagon picked up the final guidance for the Pentagon Hit. Another US Navy helicopter was situated similarly over the South Tower to make the final guidance of the drone into the South Tower. An engine went through the South Tower seen in many videos and landed in a NYC street. It was identified as a Boeing 737 engine by military experts and our team.

After the Pentagon guidance of an A3 Skywarrior the White Jet flew off to Shanksville and ignited a bomb aboard alleged Flight UA 93 to bring that drone to the ground where it was blown to pieces. Another A3 Skywarrior is believed to have been substitued for Flight 93. Both A3 Skywarriors used the Aircraft Carrier George Washington anchored of Long Island on 9/11 not lifting a finger to defend America.Our latest article has a full archive for those who want to get up to snuff on 9/11: CBC Video Exposes 9/11
Secrets At The South Tower
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911CBCSouthTower1.htm

Posted by: pinnacle May 3 2007, 05:01 PM

It is now more than 30 working days since the FAA sent me a letter
saying they would process my appeal for Dulles and Reagan airport radar records of Washington DC airspace between 9:30 am and 10:00 am on 9/11.
They have sent me nothing and according to the FOIA appeal rules
after 30 days I can assume the appeal has been denied because they are not required to inform me of that fact.
No reason has been given for this denial of access to critical radar records
of the 9/11 attacks, and since the Air Force and FAA both claim there was no aircraft in airspace near the White House at the time in question one can only assume the radar records must contradict what they are saying, otherwise why refuse to release radar records that would confirm their statements and show nothing but empty airspace?

Posted by: BoneZ May 3 2007, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (winnybar)
...the white jet...flew in formation with the airliner drone that hit the North Tower, made a flyby with the South Tower drone...

The white jet seen in DC was an E-4B which is a 747. There's no possible way that the E-4B flew in formation with both planes that hit the towers. A 747 is much larger than the jets that hit the towers. It's a massive passenger jet and it would've easily shown up in the videos much more so than the jets that hit the towers themselves.

I only recall seeing one white jet going by the towers way back in the distance as the south tower was struck and that white jet was not an E-4B. It was from Delta Airlines or something like that. The E-4B's that were airborne on 9/11 were more than likely involved in 9/11 in one fashion or another, but they absolutely weren't flying formation with any other aircraft.

Posted by: winnybar May 3 2007, 08:15 PM

The FBI received a photo of the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 taken by a tourist visiting DC. The BBC showed a video taken by another tourist from Arlington National Cemetery across from the Pentagon that has the definitive view of the Pentagon aircraft, an A3 Skywarrior. Google 9/11 A3 Skywarrior

Both BBC video and the tourist photo were taken from underneath. Naturally the engines are underneath the aircraft and should appear below the wings. In the tourist photo the engines appear to be above the wings. Also the vertical tail stabilizer shouldn't be seen from an underneath view. However the tourist photo shows the tail stabilizer clearly. We think somebody has altered the tourist photo. We put our explanation on a webpage:
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/FakedA3Photo1.htm

Posted by: BoneZ May 3 2007, 08:22 PM

Did you see the pic and video of the Discovery channel video of the white jet? Clearly an E-4B which has blue stripes on either side that meet up at the rear of the aircraft to form the blue dot you see in the other photos/videos. The photos and video's are of an E-4B and nothing else. You're beating a dead horse here....... cheers.gif

Posted by: pinnacle May 4 2007, 10:46 AM

I have sent the Fox Video image, which is the one used by Discovery Channel, of the side view of the E-4B showing the satellite communications hump, flying over Lafayette Park, to the 55th Surveillance Wing several times since January of 2007 and asked them to confirm or deny that it is one of the four E-4B aircraft. Surely they would know where their own planes were on 9/11.
They refuse to respond or acknowledge receipt of the image in any way.
Yet when I asked questions about other subjects they responded in a few hours
and made no reference to my E-4B inquiry.
This is very interesting because their superior officers in the Pentagon have stated categorically that no US Air Force aircraft was in airspace near the White House
between 9:30 am and 10:00 am on 9/11, so you would think that
the 55th Wing would have to confirm what the Pentagon said in writing to my Congressman as a result of an official inquiry.
Yet they will not do so.

Posted by: JackD May 4 2007, 11:41 AM

Water Bender - BoneyZ -- Pinnacle -- and Mark Gaffney -- Here's a copy of the Journal of 9/11 studies (http://journalof911studies.com paper written last year -- describing a blue-tailed twin engined white jet (NOT a 747) -- seen immediately before, and after, the WTC2 attack -- disappeared into the "memory hole" even though Dianne Sawyer testified to it live..

JackD of pilots for truth identfied this plane, tentatively, as a 767-200 tanker with factory colors (white body, blue tail) -- other attempts to identify it as Delta commercial failed (Delta denies its plane was in this airspace on 9/11)

--- like the E4B, why is no one admitting this plane was there?
Certainly, like the E4B, we can guess it was not al-qada flying these mystery white jets....


http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_4_Jet.pdf



QUOTE
Journal of 9/11 Studies 28 June 2006/Volume 1
The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks
Scholars for 9/11 Truth*
No mention of a large, commercial-class aircraft loitering in the restricted airspace of lower
Manhattan during the strikes on the WTC towers will be found in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It does not appear in any version of the Official Story. It is largely unknown even in critical
studies of 9/11. Yet substantial evidence exists to support its presence coincident with the
attacks, actually orbiting in close proximity to the towers for several minutes while the North
Tower burned and the South Tower was struck. Photography, video footage and eyewitness
accounts, including FDNY transcripts and mainstream media audio, confirm this fact.
Why is this significant? Let us consider the commercial air traffic on a typical Tuesday morning
over New York City. There are three major airports servicing the city: La Guardia and JFK
International to the east, and Newark International across the Hudson to the west. Normal
holding patterns for these airports do not intersect the borough of Manhattan at any point. Lower
Manhattan is, and was on the morning of 9/11/01, a low-altitude flight-restricted (no fly) zone
for commercial jets, as designated by the FAA, for the obvious reason that heavy, fast-moving
aircraft and tall buildings pose mutual hazards. Air traffic near the WTC towers was doubly
restricted, with a minimum ceiling extending two thousand feet above the towers (3,300 feet)
within a radius of one nautical mile, excepting only police aviation without special permit. These
were the VFR (visual flight rules) parameters in effect on the morning of 9/11. Once WTC1 was
hit, the black smoke plume expanding southeast from the tower would pose an additional threat
to navigation.
No avoidance warning from Air Traffic Control would be necessary, as no rational commercial
pilot (no matter how curious) would risk his aircraft, crew or passengers in a "fly-by" of the
burning North Tower. But in this anonymous Camera Planet segment we see a large, twin-jet
aircraft (757/767-class) doing just that at approximately 8:58am (assuming the time signature is
uncorrected by one hour), five minutes before WTC2 will be struck. Even disregarding the
indicated time, as WTC1 is burning and WTC2 is not, the segment is clearly recorded between
8:46am and 9:03am. Note this white aircraft with dark engines and vertical stabilizer is not the
aircraft that will impact WTC2.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/911.wtc.yet.another.plane.wmv
This still from the video isolates the aircraft:
Journal of 9/11 Studies 29 June 2006/Volume 1
According to the 9/11 Commission, two F-15s were scrambled from Otis Air Force Base at
8:46am (some 33 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with AA11), and were inbound to
NYC at high speed, presumably to intercept suspicious airliners. Presumably commercial flights
in NY airspace would be alerted to this danger. Yet this aircraft cruises slowly near the stricken
North Tower, seemingly unconcerned its behavior makes it a logical target for these fighters. Of
course, the absurdly late scramble and non-arrival of the F-15s is a serious problem for the
official narrative, which remains obscured by contradictory accounts from the FAA, NORAD,
NEADS, the news media and the pilots themselves. (The Commission has these fighters finally
arriving for Combat Air Patrol over NYC at 9:25am, after being vectored into a holding pattern
off Long Island.)
At least one photograph captures this aircraft (or one with a similar profile) in the interval
between the tower strikes, flying another pass almost directly above WTC2 at an altitude of
approximately 2,000 feet, judging by its size and position relative to the smoke plume, to which
it appears recklessly close:
Journal of 9/11 Studies 30 June 2006/Volume 1
At 9:03am, "UA175" approaches from the south at an improbably high speed and impacts the
South Tower. CNN aired this "amateur video" of the event, which captures (without notice by
Aaron Brown or Paula Zahn) what is evidently the same jet seen in the Camera Planet segment,
making a similar northwest pass (but farther west, approximately over Battery Park) as the South
Tower hit occurs.
www.areadownload.com/video/wtc/WTC%20-%20Amateur%20Video%2004.mpg
This still from the video isolates the aircraft as "UA175" rips through the South Tower:
At 9:04am, Diane Sawyer of ABC News made remarks on-air about the "circling" jet she and her
colleagues "all saw" prior to the second strike. She admits she "just assumed" it was the same
one that struck the South Tower.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.plane.circling.around.wmv
Of interest with respect to this "mystery jet" is the phenomenon, acknowledged but unexplained
by the Commission, of the "phantom Flight 11". At 9:21am, after both towers had been hit, and
long after "AA11" had struck the North Tower, Boston flight control, relaying information from
FAA headquarters, informed NEADS that "AA11" was still in the air and heading south, perhaps
to Washington, DC. Were they tracking this "third aircraft"?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/flight11/911.wtc.the.real.flight.11.ng.wmv
Notable in this context are reports by FDNY personnel that they received a warning about a third
aircraft. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, in an interview with Firehouse Magazine in April 2002,
explained "We had a report from OEM that there was possibility of a third plane coming in."
Even more intriguing, in the Naudets' documentary 9/11,a firefighter is filmed explaining what
caused the collapse of the South Tower: "The FBI thinks it was a third plane."
Much research has focused on the details and effects of various military exercises apparently
underway on 9/11, especially "live-fly" NORAD drills designed to mimic multiple terrorist
aircraft attacks on high-profile US targets. One NORAD drill, "Vigilant Guardian", is admitted
by the Commission to have been in progress but is dismissed in a footnote as being unrelated to
Journal of 9/11 Studies 31 June 2006/Volume 1
the hijacking scenario and as posing no impediment to defensive response, despite the welldocumented
confusion among NORAD personnel as to whether the attacks were "real world or
exercise", the presence of artificial radar "injects" on their screens, and the recognition of as
many as eleven simultaneous potential hijackings.
Was the "third jet" an actor in such an exercise? Was it meant to confuse defensive
response? Was it monitoring (or controlling) the attacks? Was it a back-up in the event of a
miss on the towers? Was it one of these? www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90
If it is a civil aircraft, records of its take-off and landing must exist. A FOIA request to the
FAA should be filed. If it is military, it is automatically suspect. Any proper investigation of
9/11 must account for this aircraft.
Grateful acknowledgment is made to Brian P. Duncan and Robert E. Moore, Esq. for their
research in support of this study.
* Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received
threats against himself and his family for having written this article. The source of these threats
has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should "go away". He has
withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot "go away". It has already been widely
read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this
organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats. Since the author has nothing
to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope
others will pursue its leads.

Posted by: JackD May 4 2007, 11:47 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ May 4 2007, 10:46 AM)
.....i have sent image of E-4B showing the satellite communications hump, flying over Lafayette Park, to the 55th Surveillance Wing several times since January of 2007 and asked them to confirm or deny that it is one of the four E-4B aircraft. Surely they would know where their own planes were on 9/11.......

Pinnacle
the 55th wing is 'based' in Offutt AFB, Omaha, NB, but it maintains crew in many bases -- including Andrews AFB.

The 4 E4Bs are often forward deployed towards theaters of interested -- apparently Pacific, sometimes (Korea) -- and Andrews AFB --

maybe a question to ask is WHERE were 55th personnel stationed, actually the mechanic and support crew that specifically supports the E4B (128th?) -- wherever it goes -- it takes a huge number of ground crews to support its missions.

Try to FOIA that.
Understandable that USAF would not readily acknowlege WHERE nuclear-launch comm-control platform like E4B were stationed -- due to security concerns -- but I believe once i saw one circle over Miramar NAS in southern california. so they do travel....

Posted by: pinnacle May 4 2007, 12:23 PM

All four E-4Bs are based at Offutt.
However Air Combat Command is based at Langley in Virginia and the E-4Bs can also use Langley as a forward
base for east coast operations.
They have not kept one of the E-4Bs based at Andrews since the Clinton administration although they would use Andrews for special trips such as Rumsfeld made often.
My question did not concern where the plane was based but simply if
one of the four E-4Bs did or did not fly over Washington DC on the morning of September 11, 2001 so it would not reveal anything about E-4B operations but
only the specific flight records for the 30 minute period of 9:30 am to 10:00 am on September 11, 2001.
Since this has never happened since then it does not seem necessary to keep it a secret and in the interests of historical accuracy the American people have a right to know what the 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron and the National Airborne Operations Center were doing while the only air attack on the continental US in history was actually taking place.
Even if the E-4B was not seen and photographed this would be a perfectly reasonable question since 9/11 was exactly the kind of disaster situation the
E-4B NAOC was supposed to "take control" over in the event of total chaos on the ground.
Yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions the E-4B at all nor do they address it's role as a FEMA communications hub in time of disaster while telling us how bad communications were between the goverment agencies and Air Force One in Florida.

Posted by: pinnacle May 9 2007, 10:50 AM

I just talked to the FOIA division of the US Secret Service.
They are "responding" to my request in the next few days.
I don't know what if anything I will get but this a lot faster than the FAA who have been stonewalling for a year. My Secret Service request was made only about ten weeks ago.
I asked for everything they have including written reports, radio transcripts, logs, radar, photos, videos of "white plane" near the White House 9:30 am to 10:00 am on 9/11.
It will be interesting to see how their information compares to what the US Air Force and the FAA have said about this.

Posted by: pinnacle May 17 2007, 04:22 PM

I recently learned about the Naval Space War Center's Tigerwall air defense system at the White House which apparently was operational in September 2000.
My FOIA would include all Tigerwall video, sensor, and geographic display data
obtained on 9/11 between 9:30 am and 10:00 am and should therefore include all aircraft within sensor range of the Tigerwall system such as the C-130 and
any other planes or helicopters, and Flight 77 whatever it actually was.
The Secret Service Technical Security Division had the cameras upgraded before 9/11.

Posted by: JackD May 17 2007, 07:36 PM

right on, Pinnacle.

Pls note that C-130 piloted by O'brien allegedly took off about 9:25-27am ---

perhaps ENTERING DC airspace BEFORE 9:30, but they MUST have still been INSIDE the airspace at that time, unless they are lying about takeoffs.


can you req or FOIA andrews AFB about all takeoffs and landings that morning>? filed flight plans? the C-130 was on a non-military mission, returning to minnesota base, I think.

Merc?

Posted by: pinnacle May 23 2007, 12:45 PM

I got the official word from the Secret Service.
They have "no records" of any aircraft near the White House on 9/11 between 9:30am and 10:00am.
Even though both John King and Kate Snow on CNN made a point of describing the "concern" of secret service personnel when the "white jet" flew over and circled they do not have a single record of any secret service personnel ever seeing such an aircraft.
This apparently means that the Tigerwall system also produced no records
of the white jet.
Yet still the FAA refuses to release the radar data that would show
P-56 fro 9:37 am to 10:00 am when all of the news media were reporting
this non-existant aircraft.

Posted by: amazed! May 23 2007, 10:04 PM

You guys have all worked hard to discover the truth, and I thank you for your efforts.

The government is the proverbial Gate Keeper on the matter of evidence. That is why so much video evidence was confiscated that day before the sun set. They control the evidence, nobody "unauthorized" gets their hands on it. Very simple, and very efficient.

When new evidence not in the posssession of the government is discovered, we get a break.

Somewhere here at PFT is a side profile shot of the A-3 and it certainly does resemble the profile of the image from the Pentagon parking lot camera.

Posted by: ivanvedder May 25 2007, 07:25 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ May 23 2007, 06:45 PM)
They have "no records" of any aircraft near the White House on 9/11 between 9:30am and 10:00am.
 


http://911files.info/blog/?p=213

maybe we will have some fresh news soon...
let's go Pier..

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 5 2007, 04:59 PM

I just got an email from CNN Atlanta.
They confirm that they have video of the "Evacuation of the White House on 9/11" that includes what they calmly refer to as "long shot of plane flying above".
This is the clear side view of the E-4B with the satellite hump visible.
It is real 9/11 raw news footage.
This would seem to be incontrovertible proof that the E-4B really was
over Washington while the attack was underway and that it has been covered-up to this day.
How much more evidence does it take to get the news media to ask questions about this?

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 7 2007, 06:41 PM

After reading the official Air Force account of 9/11 in the book Air War Over America I contacted First Air Force headquarters in Florida whose Public Affairs
Office was the publisher.
They said they will answer questions about the book.
I immediately asked why the book makes no mention of the role of the E-4B aircraft on 9/11 and why one was apparently not accompanying Air Force One to Florida that day as was the usual procedure.

Posted by: UnderTow Jun 8 2007, 08:23 AM

spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif

GO PINNACLE GO !!!!

spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif

Posted by: Cary Jun 8 2007, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jun 7 2007, 05:41 PM)
After reading the official Air Force account of 9/11 in the book Air War Over America I contacted First Air Force headquarters in Florida whose Public Affairs
Office was the publisher.
They said they will answer questions about the book.
I immediately asked why the book makes no mention of the role of the E-4B aircraft on 9/11 and why one was apparently not accompanying Air Force One to Florida that day as was the usual procedure.

So what was their response pinnacle?

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 8 2007, 10:58 AM

So far no response from First Air Force. I guess I asked to many questions.
No response yet from 55th Wing either, however I did get a letter from the FAA
saying they are still processing my appeal for radar records of Dulles
airport on 9/11 during the time that CNN was shooting video of the E-4B
over the White House.
CNN is supposed to get back to me next week with more details on the video
shot in Washington and exact time codes. I am trying to get in contact with the cameraman who actually took this footage and if possible get any additional footage of the E-4B that might exist.

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 12 2007, 04:18 PM

Well First Air Force finally got back to me and basically refused to answer any questions. They say the 9/11 Report is the "definitive" version of 9/11. Yeah right.
I had to go though two Public Affairs people to find out that the public is not allowed to ask them anything.
Also no reply yet from CNN on the E-4B video. Again you wonder what these guys are in business for if they don't want people inquiring about their news videos.
The White Jet seems to raise all kinds of concerns in people. Even the debunkers still won't touch it.

Posted by: BoneZ Jun 12 2007, 06:33 PM

And this thread is up to almost 10,000 views!!! :ph43r:

Posted by: johndoeX Jun 12 2007, 08:08 PM

thumbsup.gif salute.gif

Posted by: JackD Jun 13 2007, 02:04 PM

Pinnacle you're a bulldog.

summary

White Jet, identified as E4B -- used for nuclear launch and more
is

1) based in Omaha at Offutt AFB
2) frequently forward-based all over globe, such as Andrews AFB (55th does have personnel at Andrews)
3) it's the personal transport of the SecDef when he travels (in case of nuclear emergency) -- therefore often in DC area
4) One E4B took off from Dayton Wright-Pat on day of 9/11 -- destination unknown.
5) Brent Scowcroft, former SecDef, was on board one of the E4B (unknown which, why don't we ask...)
6) spotted by civilians and the SS over the white house at ? 9:50am ?

What was E4B doing on 9/11?

either friendly or hostile or some category we don't understand (military coup?)
note that on the DAY OF 9/11, the WhiteHouse and others were reacting to events NOT as if there were a foreign terror attack, but as if there were some coup from within the US Govt and military. Read Bush's speeches carefully.
ignore what the media was transmitting about binladen. just follow the Bush /Cheney actions.

if E4B FRIENDLY --
the USAF should have said "we got our nuclear launch bird up in a defensive posture to a major attack --- it's just SOP -- so go away Pinnacle"

they do not.

if E4B hostile?

the USAF should clam up completely, and deny, deny, lie, and stonewall. citizens and military people should NOT know about possible mutinous or coup-faction entities.

if E4B was doing something else -- playing a role in Global Guardian nuke-strike war games, or doing complex electronic warfare/jamming, or disabling the Pentagon's own Anti-missile batteries -- we can only speculate -- the proper Pentagon response would be in between 1 and 2 -- some lies seeded in with a truthy basis.

Andrews AFB should be able to answer whether that particular E4B took off from Andrews that day --- and if scowcroft was on it.

Since you and I paid the $400 million or so for this aircraft, I think you could make a case that we should be able to ask questions about it's use on 9/11 --
seems only fair in a free and open society like the one we should be living in.

JackD

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 13 2007, 03:06 PM

I definitely think the refusal to even acknowledge the receipt of my emails by 55th Wing after they invited me to ask questions is evidence that
the E-4B was not performing under the normal military chain of command on 9/11.
I told them about the E-4B video, which I now know was shot by the CNN
Washingon bureau, but even that did not prompt any response.
In the case of First Air Force I got a reply that basically said nothing again after being invited to ask my questions.
The First Air Force guy did at least admit that lots of documents contradict the
air force version of what happened on 9/11, but then offered no explanations for the contradictions as if the people of the United States are not owed a
complete explanation for any of this.
We sure have a lot of Public Affairs people at these air force facilities who apparently are never required to actually provide the public with any information.
I am keeping in touch with my own Congressman on all of this and I have also
been in contact with the National Security Archive at George Washington University
who will be providing input to Congressman Henry Waxman in his FOIA hearings.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 13 2007, 09:23 PM

If they ever did admit the presence of the E-4, the excuse would be that Vigilant Guardian was operating that day. The gullible mainstream media is already in on this, and it ain't gonna change. thumbdown.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 14 2007, 12:25 PM

If the E-4B was supposed to be part of Vigilant Guardian there was never any reason to cover it up. They would have just said so. In fact the air force would have used that fact to prove that they were not as asleep at the switch as they appeared to be by sending the jet fighters in the wrong direction.
Instead they refuse to acknowlege any use of the E-4B on 9/11.
Also the reporters who saw the E-4B still refuse to talk about it in the media.
Why keep quiet if the E-4B if it was just part of an innocent exercise?
Other reporters I have contacted who did not see the E-4B vehemently deny that it was anywhere near Washington DC that day. They do not think it would have ever flown there during an exercise in which supposedly Washington was targeted by Russian bombers when it's purpose is to survive such an attack by staying
as far away as possible from the target areas and at very high altitude
to use it's antennas to command the nuclear retaliation.

Posted by: JackD Jun 15 2007, 11:41 AM

re-posted from before.

Possibilties (as defined by Ashoka and Pinnacle inquiries)

1) E4B flight was a FRIENDLY --

-- predicted response from Public Affairs
PART OF 9/11 DEFENSE: "we got our nuclear launch bird up in a defensive posture to a major attack --- it's just SOP "\

OR


2) E4B part of pre-planned war game/terror drill


predicted response/hangout "the E4B was a player in Global Guardian (or vigilant guardian, vigilant warrior, amalgam warrior, apollo guardian, crown vigilance...) " and, gosh, when the 9/11 attacks started we quickly switched from 'wargame' to real-life situation"

3) if E4B was hostile or 'rogue'
(not responding to chain-of-command, or obeying a different command center)

Wow. I don't know if there's a hang-out for this. My suspicion is that you'd get a run-around, stonewall, lies, misdirection, or best of all, silence. Pinnacle, what are you getting so far?
-----------------------

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 15 2007, 12:17 PM

Since the E-4B is part of the National Command System it should have been alerted at the same time, which should have been no later than 8:42 am
under Joint Chiefs, Air Force and NORAD operational reporting orders, as the National Military Command Center and Site-R at Raven Rock Pennsylvania and therefore would have been in contact with NMCC during all "air threat conferences" no matter where it was at the time. Yet it is totally excluded from all timelines of 9/11 and the various conferences and there is no acknowledgment of it being anywhere near Washington so the people at the NMCC seem not to have
had any control of it at all.
Than there is the question of why it was not in Florida with Bush as a back-up Air Force One which is one of it's missions. It is after all supposedly under the
control of National Command Authority which normally would be Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld at that time. Yet Bush was on Air Force One and Cheney and Rumsfeld were on the ground so who was giving the orders on the E-4B?

Posted by: JackD Jun 18 2007, 07:27 PM

Peter Schoomaker and Brent Scowcroft?

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 19 2007, 11:01 AM

Today marks the one year anniversary of my Freedom of Information Request
to the FAA for radar records of Washington DC 9:30 am to 10:00 am on 9/11.
Still no records. So much for an informed citizenry.
Also I have still gotten no further information from CNN regarding the
video which they shot of a "plane flying above the White House"
on 9/11 during the evacuation at 9:40 am.
It is as if the government and the news media are a single two-headed monster
seeking to keep us all in the dark while some unknown power directs our fate.

Posted by: painter Jun 19 2007, 11:09 AM

For what it is worth, keep in mind that COG (Continuity of Government) was in effect during 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmu5daHO7ZQ

Posted by: amazed! Jun 19 2007, 09:19 PM

Well we know it was a USAF aircraft. We would like to know EXACTLY what it was doing, but that information will not be forthcoming unless somebody onboard suddenly has a change of heart.

Whatever story they choose to disseminate, their ass is covered and nobody can prove otherwise.

Yeah, it would be nice to know EXACTLY what it was doing. :ph43r:

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 20 2007, 11:24 AM

This Saturday Whitley Streiber is interviewing David Ray Griffin on his
webcast of Dreamland. He told me me he will bring up the issue of the
"white jet". He has a copy of the letter I got from the US Air Force
stating they had "no knowledge of the aircraft in question" and the CNN
Image Source catalog full page listing of the "White House Evacuation" video images of the "plane flying above the White House" on September 11, 2001.

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 21 2007, 06:57 PM

I have had a chance to view the CNN E-4B footage several times and
it is much better than any other 9/11 footage I have ever seen.
The CNN camera crew appears to have been on the corner of Pennsylvania Ave. and Jackson Place. The first shot looks north showing the E-4B circling in a northeast direction very small in frame over the buildings.
The next shot we are zoomed much closed and tracking the E-4B with a
very smooth camera pan and minimal shaking. This is an excellent shot of the plane
slowly banking right and turning with sun highlights reflecting off of it.
This sequence lasts a good fifteen seconds and there is no doubt what we are looking at with the satellite communications pod catching the morning sunlight.
This video is so good Boeing could use it for televisions commercials.
Thumbs up for the anonymous CNN Washnington bureau cameraperson who shot this great smoking gun video. They should have gotten an Emmy for this.
To bad it has not been shown for nearly six years.
How come all the 9/11 documentary film makers out there have never
used this incredible footage? It speaks for itself.
This dramatic "Plane flying above White House" on 9/11 video and the letters I have gotten denying all knowledge of this plane from the Air Force, FAA, Secret Service, NORAD, First Air Force etc. would make a really great television commercial for an honest political candidate or party if any actually existed.
Why is no politician interested in this? I have sent this information to them all and they don't care. The same goes for all the talk show hosts and all the newspapers.
I thought talk radio was supposed to be fearless and they won't touch it.
None of the other 9/11 Truth websites seem interested either which is really disturbing.
We must all say a prayer of thanks for the CNN Washington bureau mystery camera operator who had the presence of mind to shoot the E-4B as skillfully as possible for the historic record and of course for Linda Brookhart and her Pentax camera without whom this whole story might never have come to light.

Posted by: BoneZ Jun 21 2007, 07:20 PM

Great job pinnacle. Were you able to obtain copies of the CNN footage? I would love to get copies. biggrin.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 25 2007, 11:31 AM

So far I have only seen the CNN video on the CNN Image Source website
which requires registration.
Actually there two videos of the "White House Evacuation" that show the E-4B.
You have to serach for the phrase "White House Evacuation" and then scroll to the page for 9/11 since there have been many evacuations since then.
Look for video shot by CNN-WX that is the Washington bureau.
Check the thumbnails and you can't miss the familiar E-4B shot as it flies toward a tree.
The documentation is amazing. Every shot involves the White House and Lafayette Park during the evacuation. Numerous guards and police are visible everywhere so they all must have seen the E-4B themselves yet none have come forward to talk about this.
The camera position appears to be on the corner of Pennsylvania Ave. and Jackson Place about 300 feet northwest of the White House. Obviously this
is well inside restricted airspace even though the US Air Force, FAA and Secret Service all claim to have no records of this. One shot even shows the sercret service on the White House roof with a telescope. But they told me they saw nothing.

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 27 2007, 12:58 PM

I tried to view the CNN video again today and started at keyframe 48.
There is another shot of the E-4B!!
The camera shows people and cars on Jackson Street then zooms up to get a fantastic shot of the E-4B from behind as it is flying due north and banking right. This is a great shot and then it zooms back again to prove it is flying above Jackson Street just north of the White House.
This is incredible stuff. I have never seen this angle on the E-4B anywhere.
It seems to be at fairly low altitude and you see good detail even as it is moving away from camera.
The total E-4B video is over 20 seconds long.
How the multitude of 9/11 "experts" continue to be oblivious to this
dramatic video of an air force command and control plane, whose presence has
been denied in writing by the US air force and the US Secret Service, sauntering all over the sky in the very midst of the 9/11 attack, is a real mystery.

Posted by: johndoeX Jun 27 2007, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jun 27 2007, 01:58 PM)
How the multitude of 9/11 "experts" continue to be oblivious to this
dramatic video of an air force command and control plane, whose presence has
been denied in writing by the US air force and the US Secret Service, sauntering all over the sky in the very midst of the 9/11 attack, is a real mystery.

We're not oblivious to it thanks to you pinnacle! Excellent work and thank you so much!

If you would like to write up an article inclusive with pictures and video.. i can make a seperate page at the main site for you. Let me know. You can email me as well and i'll give you my number so we can both work on getting this issue the exposure it deserves..

Once again. .great job!
Rob

Posted by: JackD Jun 27 2007, 08:48 PM

The official silence on the E4B sitings would indicate it is making the PTB highly uncomfortable. THat, or it's just that no one has gone in Merc style and asked the SService or guards... or WH employees, other than Linda B.


suspicion:
E4B was hostile or 'rogue'
(not responding to chain-of-command, or obeying a different command center, not the NMCC....)

Pinnacle, get in touch with Tarpley on GCN radio, he goes on Thursdays I think, and this stuff is waaaay up his alley.

Posted by: pinnacle Jun 29 2007, 10:44 AM

I have gotten a letter from the FAA saying that they are going to process my original June 19, 2006 FOIA request for radar records from Dulles that would show the flightpath of the E-4B and any other aircraft, or missiles, that may have been in the Washington DC area during the Pentagon attack.
If they do provide full radar images without any blacked out areas it could be very interesting.

Posted by: UnderTow Jun 29 2007, 10:49 AM

From my understanding they should provide you with spreadsheet data which will have to be analyzed.

I've seen a screenshot of it before but can't recall at the moment where.

Excellent work my friend, keep up the pressure.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 30 2007, 02:36 PM

Can't remember exactly which thread it was, but just saw a video here today with some congressman reading about a 15 minute deal, to the members of the 911 Commission seated before him, and among many other thiings, he noted that indeed some agency or the other launched the airborne command center, and that's the airplane we're talking about here.

Posted by: BoneZ Jun 30 2007, 05:19 PM

Pinnacle, show your congressman and Air Force this video with the other CNN videos of the plane flying through the air and see what they have to say this time. Senator Dayton talks about the Airborne National Command Center (E-4B) in the air commanding fighter jets. It's about 3/4 the way through the video here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7533

cheers.gif

Posted by: JackD Jul 2 2007, 11:54 AM

to avoid confusions, specify:

Note that an Airborne Command Center E4B was also witnessed taking off from Wright Patterson AFB on 9/11.

A reference from mark Dayton or others is good -- gives you a place to start asking confirmatory questions.

Note also that there were two OTHER airborne USAF planes, AWACs, allegedly, circling DC and Florida, per orders of NORAD's Larry Arnold. It is unclear if they were for war games purposes (global guardian or crown vigilance, apparently a mid atlantic air defense drill )
-- or ?

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 2 2007, 12:04 PM

The problem is that I have signed official letters from the Air Force, the FAA and the Secret Service that totally deny all knowledge of any aircraft flying near the White House on 9/11 between 9:30 and 10:00 am even though I told them all about the videos and the eyewitness reporting by CNN, NBC news and ABC news.
So where is Dayton getting this information from?
Why the official denials if this is public knowledge?
I have sent my congressman lots of photos and emails from Linda Brookhart
and other eyewitnesses and I sent him the link to the CNN video.
I don't know if he has actually seen the video but I certainly intend to keep after him to watch it.
If the E-4B was over Washington "commanding" fighter jets than why were
the jets 150 miles away flying in the wrong direction? It makes no sense.
Why did the E-4B leave within minutes after the Penatgon attack and
before the fighters even got there? It has the ability to fly indefinitely so why disappear from the scene in the midst of a crisis situation.
I don't buy the idea of a "benign" mission for the E-4B on 9/11.

Posted by: BoneZ Jul 2 2007, 03:06 PM

Another question to ask is why the E-4B was flying so low over DC. Maybe it's time to get ahold of Senator Dayton himself to see how he knew about the E-4B being airborne.

Posted by: waterdancer Jul 3 2007, 12:30 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Jul 2 2007, 04:54 PM)
It is unclear if they were for war games purposes (global guardian or crown vigilance, apparently a mid atlantic air defense drill )
-- or ?

"some months earlier" and "exercise scenario" make the war game aspect (which one? If I had to guess I'd say http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=amalgam_warrior) seem pretty clear to me:
QUOTE
I had set up an arrangement with their wing commander at Tinker some months earlier for us to divert their AWACS off a normal training mission to go into an exercise scenario simulating an attack on the United States.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/jan_02/defense/

I'd say chances are at least fair that http://www.stthomas.edu/aquin/archive/041202/anaconda.html was the Washington DC AWACS

Posted by: JackD Jul 3 2007, 08:09 PM

Good quote, WaterD.

Thus, attention should be drawn to the fact that the 4 engined white plane seen in the video is identified as a 747-400 "E4B" plane, there may also have been AWACs in the region.

And if that's the case, AWACs have sophisticated airborne radars that "see" everything, even lowflying objects -- as well as being able to jam other radar and com systems.

But don't let anyone get the two types of planes confused.

747 - based E4B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4B

707 - based AWACs with radome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWACS

No one claimed to have seen an AWACs over DC, that I know.

However, the Larry Arnold quote attests that perhaps an AWACs was deployed over DC -- they typically fly at high altitude. as does the E4B. odd to see one so low, except after take off.
Note that the E4B can live at Andrews AFB, 12 miles from the Pentagon/whitehouse -- and the 55th wing (part of it) is deployed there, based out of Offut AFB in NE.


--------------------------
Any time you are having fighters or AWACs in the sky for long periods of time, , like, a war game or drill you need refueling.
Tinker AFB in Oklahoma is home to "Tinker's Tankers" -- the 767-200s and ? KC-135's used as refueling tankers by the Air Force, that provide fuel to fighter jets and large craft alike.

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 5 2007, 06:57 PM

The E-4B over Lafayette Park video on You Tube has had more than 561,000 views.
Thats about 100,000 more since I last checked a couple of weeks ago.
Somebody out there is interested in what we are discussing.
It appears that the video used in the Disovery Channel film was a
different shot than the CNN raw news video. It is simlilar but the
CNN shot is much longer and the camera movement is smoother.
All of the cameramen had been moved to Lafayette Park so all the shots are from about the same angle and show similar trees.
CNN also has all the evacuation footage so the E-4B is definitely proven to be over the White House as this is happening and not later as some have claimed.
Secret Service people are in the same shot when the E-4B first appears.
The camera pans from Secret Service to evacuees pointing up at the E-4B and then zooms up to the E-4B itself in one continuous shot.
The evidence value of this footage is amazing.
Yet of course the 9/11 Commission never bothered to even look at it.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 5 2007, 09:45 PM

It almost doesn't matter where Dayton got his information--it is clearly from official sources or he would not have been talking about it in congressional record.

We have pictures, a congressman has records of it, USAF is in no position to deny it, but they've been caught with their knickers down before.

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 6 2007, 11:19 AM

Senator Dayton was quoting Bob Woodward, who is not an "official source" as far as I know.
Woodward wrote a piece in the Washington Post claiming the E-4B was launched after the pentagon attack which again seems to be a manipulation of the timeline since it was seen in the air before the pentagon was hit and videos of it were shot within three minutes of the official 9:37 am pentagon strike time while the jet fighters were still 20 minutes away.
My question is who told this to Woodward and why?
It was obviously designed to make people think the E-4B was part of the "response" to the attack, but then the whole story was buried along with
the videos and the 9/11 Commission makes no mention of any of this.
If Bob Woodward could write news stories, supposedly based on insider information, about the E-4B over Washington before 10:00 am on 9/11 than why does the air force, FAA and Secret Service now claim that this never happened?
I have been trying to get Woodward and the Washington Post to reply to the letters I have gotten from these agencies denying what they reported on January 27, 2002 and so far they have not.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 6 2007, 08:53 PM

In answer to your first question Pinnacle, because government agencies are notoriously that incompetent.

We know it was an inside job, so it seems logical to me that the aircraft assisted in completion of the mission. Perhaps some crew members onboard sincerely believed they were in a training exercise, but in all probability it was involved in the shenanigan.

Posted by: JackD Jul 7 2007, 11:22 AM

Any analysis of the E4B activities on the morning of 9/11 is incomplete without understanding who and what was aboard.

ABoard: The "federal advisory committee" -- and chair Brent Scowcroft.
Scowcroft has a lengthy career inside and outside the defense sector, and is an intimate of Kissinger.


QUOTE
Because of Global Guardian, bombers, missile crews, and submarines around America are all being directed from Stratcom’s Command Center, a steel and concrete reinforced bunker below Offutt. [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11/12/1997; Associated Press, 2/21/2002; Omaha World-Herald, 2/27/2002; BBC, 9/1/2002; Omaha World-Herald, 9/10/2002] This bunker is staffed with top personnel and they are at a heightened security mode because of the exercise. [Associated Press, 2/21/2002; Air Force Weather Observer, 7/2002 pdf file] Because of Global Guardian, three special military command aircraft with sophisticated communications equipment, based at Offutt, are up in the air the morning of 9/11. These E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes—nicknamed “Doomsday” planes during the Cold War—are intended to control nuclear forces from the air in times of crisis. They are capable of acting as alternative command posts for top government officials from where they can direct US forces, execute war orders and coordinate the actions of civil authorities in times of national emergency. The Federal Advisory Committee (whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft) is aboard one of these Doomsday planes...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Scowcroft

Posted by: Cary Jul 7 2007, 03:29 PM

Brent Scowcroft is an old time Bush hand. He was part of GHWB's administration. He was in on the events of 9/11.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 7 2007, 09:50 PM

An intimate of Kissinger & Bush Sr.

And Paul Bremer worked for Kissinger. And it was the office of his insurance company in the North Tower that was struck by American 11.

Posted by: SPreston Jul 9 2007, 10:29 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jul 5 2007, 06:57 PM)
The E-4B over Lafayette Park video on You Tube has had more than 561,000 views.
Thats about  100,000 more  since I last checked a couple of weeks ago.
Somebody out there is interested in what we are discussing.
It appears that the video used in the Disovery Channel film was a
different shot than the CNN raw news video. It is simlilar but the
CNN shot is much longer and the camera movement is smoother.
All of the cameramen had been moved to Lafayette  Park so all the shots are from about the same angle and show similar trees.
CNN also has  all the evacuation footage so the E-4B is definitely proven to be over the White House as this is happening and not later as some have claimed.
Secret Service people are in the same shot when the E-4B first appears.
The camera pans from Secret Service to evacuees pointing up at the E-4B and then zooms up to the E-4B itself in one continuous shot.
The evidence value of this footage is amazing.
Yet of course the 9/11 Commission never bothered to even look at it.

How is it that the US Military could get an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) 747 and a C-130 over the Pentagon on 9-11, both flying at low altitude in restricted airspace during an historic land every aircraft in US skies emergency national order, but not any fighter jets to protect the Military Headquarters? Assuming the C-130 was remotely piloting the alleged Flight 77 AND the airframe which actually hit the Pentagon way over on the nonsensical opposite side with the steel and Kevlar reinforced walls, what was the role of the NAOC? Or did it have a role? As Jack D pointed out, was the NAOC an element of a rogue operation within the US Military? Was the Bush Regime compromised explaining the Angel is next threat which apparently came from Cheney, and the Government is desperately trying to cover it up? But no, many scenes such as the smirking coward hiding in a classroom in Florida show us Bush was fully involved. Why did the US Government deny the NAOC was in the air over the Pentagon when cameras captured its images? The Government initially lied about the C-130 over the Pentagon and then capitulated after their lies were proven, and Lt Colonel O'Brien and the Defense Dept subsequently got caught in more lies. Perhaps four aircraft at the Pentagon on 9-11 plus a helicopter or two and then the same C-130 at the alleged Flight 93 crash site later; my how the story changes in just 5 years.

QUOTE (JackD @ June 27 2007, 08:48 PM)
The official silence on the E4B sitings would indicate it is making the PTB highly uncomfortable. THat, or it's just that no one has gone in Merc style and asked the SService or guards... or WH employees, other than Linda B.

suspicion:
E4B was hostile or 'rogue'
(not responding to chain-of-command, or obeying a different command center, not the NMCC....)

Pinnacle, get in touch with Tarpley on GCN radio, he goes on Thursdays I think, and this stuff is waaaay up his alley.


QUOTE
They also feared that Air Force One itself was a target. Cheney told the president there was a credible threat against the plane. Using the code name for Air Force One, Mr. Bush told an aide, “Angel is next.” The threat was passed to presidential pilot Col. Mark Tillman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/60II/main521718.shtml


E-4B Videotaped over Pentagon on 9/11


E-4B Videotaped over Pentagon on 9/11


C-130 pilot Lt Colonel O'Brien discusses witnessing two 9-11 crashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqbOgFiPDI



Witnessing, now remembering the 9-11 attacks
http://www.dma.state.mn.us/press_room/e-zine/articles/index.php?item=75



Pentagon Tries to Explain the C-130
http://www.911exposed.org/ExplainC130.htm

Posted by: JackD Jul 9 2007, 07:22 PM

The E4B does NOT need to fly low to do it's job. 40,000 feet maybe best.

Flying LOW and VISIBLE to Secret Service officers (who would know it on site, as well as they know AF-1) -- means it was sending a message to someone.

Were they saying "we'll protect you" or saying "we are now in control"

This is my speculation.

The C-130 is addressed at other threads by Merc also at loosechange911.com forum. O'brien story is inconsistent each time.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 9 2007, 09:27 PM

I would agree with JackD as to what possible meaning the low level flights might have.

I think LTC O'Brien is lying right through his teeth.

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 11 2007, 03:31 PM

The E-4B is specifically designed to stay at very high altitude away from the
target area so that it is survivable so flying low and slow in an area known to be under attack is a total reverse of it's standard protocol.
In viewing the CNN website clip on a better computer I was able to finally hear the
soundtrack.
It is spooky how the sirens of firetrucks heading for the pentagon begin to wail at the very same time we are zooming up to see the E-4B in a hard right bank over Lafayette Park.
Linda Brookhart told me she took her picture just before she began to hear these sirens.
This footage is so dramatic it is incredible that it was not broadcast when other less interesting footage has been shown hundreds of times.
I have still gotten no reply from the CNN Washington Bureau about who actually shot the video and what other E-4B footage they might have from that day.
Also no reply from Bob Woodward about his apparently incorrect report of the
E-4B being launched after the pentagon strike.
Also no radar records from the FAA yet.

Posted by: JackD Jul 12 2007, 12:13 PM

Sirens in DC may or may not have been for Pentagon -- likely for other events in DC -- Pentagon has it's own fire suppression at Ft Meyer in Arlington. Only if called for a 4 alarm_+ event.

Timeline of DC events--

9:30-32 -- reports of explosions at Pentagon
9:37-9:53 -- reports of aircraft crashing into Pentagon
?? reports of car bomb at State Dept, fire at Old executive bldng
?? time of E4B overflight of White House

My study of the E4B is that it is most useful as a very high-flying airborne command post -- allows for farthest over-the-horizon communications, and is safer from ground-based anti-air defenses. So a 3,000 low overflight would be deliver mostly a visual cue -- to show someone on ground what plane it was.

It is unclear of the purpose of this maneuver. equally unclear is where the E4B came from -- launched from Offutt earlier in day (or day before) or from Andrews AFB? This is speculation.

Note that the E4B is designed to stay airborne for days at a time. therefore, no one should assume it was launched on AM of 9/11 --- equally possible it was already airborne, and a possible war-game participant. Thus it was either ALREADY within class Bravo airspace over DC at 9:30am, or entered it, and the USAF is lying.

Thanks for getting footage and pics up, Pinnacle.

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 12 2007, 05:44 PM

I don't have any E-4B footage or pictures from CNN. I have only been able to watch the preview posted on the CNN Image Source website.
I tried for a month to buy a copy of the video for the express purpose of showing it to my Congressman and I still do not have it.
I wanted him to see the footage of the Secret Service guys and others on Pennsylvania Avenue looking up toward the E-4B since I have a letter from the Secret Service stating that no aircraft ever flew near the White House during the evacuation on 9/11.
I told CNN Image Source about all the letters I have from government agencies denying the existence of the aircraft that is clearly shown in their own videos, but they have shown no interest in this as a news story. They never even asked to see any of the letters. I also sent a bunch of information on this to the Chairman of Turner Broadcasting which owns CNN.
Nobody wants to look into this even though the fast-approaching sixth anniversary of 9/11 ought to be creating a lot of interest in reporting aspects of the story that have not yet been investigated, and even moreso when you have dramatic video material and recent official documents to back up the story itself.

Posted by: JackD Jul 19 2007, 01:07 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=odfZCi6PjlA&mode=related&search=

Watch this video -- refers to White Plane over DC... Secret Service pointing up ... looking very concerned... Timestamp = 9:51.

CNN can thus confirm reports of White Jet over DC airspace before 9:51am, at the time of Executive Office Bldg evacuation.

Posted by: pinnacle Jul 19 2007, 06:59 PM

I have all the CNN transcripts on all of their real time reporting of the
White Jet as well as the NBC and ABC news transcripts all before
9:55 am.
I also have the "Chronology of Terror" timeline CNN published on September 12, 2001 which already had removed all references to the white jet and made no mention of the video they got of the white jet flying near the the White House.
Wouldn't you think a video like that would have been big news and shown at least a hundred times on September 12, 2001 since the white plane had never been identified and they had great video of it?
Why would any news organization not want to show something that dramatic
and mysterious? It's mind-boggling.

Posted by: behind Jul 27 2007, 06:43 PM

Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?

Mark H. Gaffney

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/911MysteryPlane.pdf

Posted by: amazed! Jul 27 2007, 09:15 PM

pinnacle

For the people that pulled it off, the white jet was "dirty laundry" and that's why it was removed from the video you describe. Since they had the power, they edited it out, thinking people would connect the dots.

Well, we HAVE connected the dots, edited or not.

Posted by: waterdancer Jul 28 2007, 01:51 AM

QUOTE (behind @ Jul 27 2007, 11:43 PM)
Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?

Mark H. Gaffney

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/911MysteryPlane.pdf

Great article!

I found the following very interesting news story mentioned in the footnotes. Text search on Google revealed only one online source for it currently- 9/11 myths. So rather than give that govt. apologist site traffic, I'll just quote the article here in full... whistle.gif

(snip) The issue is sensitive not because of innocent mistakes by pilots or controllers but because of the ongoing threat of terrorism.(snip)
I think that bears repeating
(snip)The issue is sensitive not because of innocent mistakes by pilots or controllers but because of the ongoing threat of terrorism.(snip)
Can you say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bojinka_Plot#Phase_II.2C_CIA_plane_crash_plot? I knew you could...


QUOTE
Copyright 1998 The Washington Post
The Washington Post

View Related Topics

September 21, 1998, Monday, Final Edition

SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A12

LENGTH: 1634 words

HEADLINE: White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone; FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers

BYLINE: Don Phillips, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
An American Airlines jetliner flew directly over the White House two months ago, through some of the country's most sensitive restricted airspace, apparently because of a mix-up at Reagan National Airport's radar control facility.

The July 16 incident presented no danger to President Clinton or anyone else on the ground or in the air, and the aircraft was flying high enough that likely no one even noticed, other than air traffic controllers, the pilots and the Secret Service.

But it was one of a rapidly increasing number of White House airspace violations, which have more than doubled each year since fiscal 1996, despite precautions taken after a small plane struck the White House in 1994. The trend has concerned the Secret Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to new warnings to pilots and a recommendation by a task force to update maps and make other changes at National. The American Airlines incident alone apparently has prompted the FAA to consider changes in procedures for one National landing pattern.

The incursions range from "minor clips" of the airspace during takeoff and landing to high-altitude overflights by military, commercial and private planes. A moment of inattention or even an unexpected gust of wind can propel an aircraft into the fringes of the area.

Nevertheless, the issue is considered extremely sensitive by the FAA and the Secret Service, even though at the moment no one will officially label the overflights either a safety issue or a security problem. Neither the FAA nor the Secret Service will discuss any aspect of the protected airspace other than to confirm its boundaries, which are printed on publicly available maps. Neither agency would offer an explanation for the increase in intrusions.

The FAA has become sufficiently worried about continuing violations that it has sent memos reminding various aviation groups to avoid the area. The agency also has admonished controllers at National to do more to ensure that planes do not stray into the restricted area. This, in turn, has fueled a bitter labor dispute in which National's traditionally combative air traffic controllers union has claimed that local management is ignoring a union plan to solve the problem because it would cost money.

The restricted airspace, known as Area P-56, stretches from the north bank of the Potomac River to downtown Washington and from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. A separate small, circular area, P-56B, surrounds Vice President Gore's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory off upper Wisconsin Avenue. Other than approved aircraft movements, such as helicopter flights ferrying Clinton to Andrews Air Force Base or Camp David, no aircraft may fly through this area at less than 18,000 feet.

On March 4, the manager of the National Airport tower, Boyd V. Archer, issued a memo to all personnel warning controllers to "treat this area as a 'Granite Mountain' to be avoided in every possible way."

On July 1, the tower issued a letter to pilots saying that "avoidance of Prohibited Areas P-56A and P-56B is an essential and serious aspect of operating in the vicinity of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport."

The FAA and the Secret Service have declined to release documents and other material concerning the airspace that would normally be public. FAA documents provided by sources outside official channels, however, shed some light on the growing problem.

According to the documents, there were 13 incursions in fiscal 1996, six of them involving commercial air carriers. There were 27 incursions in fiscal 1997, nine of them involving air carriers. And in the first 4 1/2 months of fiscal 1998, there were 20 incursions, five of them involving air carriers.

The issue is sensitive not because of innocent mistakes by pilots or controllers but because of the ongoing threat of terrorism.

There have been serious threats to the White House from the air, the most dramatic coming on Feb. 22, 1974, when Samuel J. Byck, an unemployed Philadelphia salesman, attempted to hijack a Delta Air Lines jet at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Byck killed an airport guard and the plane's co-pilot. A police officer shot Byck in the chest, and Byck then fired a bullet into his own head.

Byck's plan to crash the aircraft into the White House was revealed in letters and tape recordings he mailed to public officials just before the hijack attempt.

On Sept. 12, 1994, Frank Corder of Aberdeen, Md., stole a single-engine Cessna from an airfield near Baltimore and crashed it onto the White House lawn, slightly damaging the executive mansion. Corder, high on alcohol and cocaine, was killed.

The Corder incident shocked both the Secret Service and the FAA because no one apparently had a clue the plane was coming until it was in sight over the White House lawn at about 1:49 a.m. Late at night the National tower has little air traffic to control and only a skeleton staff, and controllers apparently were not looking at radar screens. Officials later discovered that a special telephone link from the tower to the White House was broken that night, even if someone had tried to use it.

After a security review the two agencies developed a "memorandum of understanding" about air security threats. That document, in a red envelope marked secret, is locked in a safe.

Then-FAA administrator David Hinson refused to discuss the memorandum at the time, but on Oct. 8, 1994, he told reporters that if there had been a security coordination problem, "the problem has been addressed."

The Secret Service will not discuss what equipment it may have in the White House to monitor air traffic in the vicinity. But numerous sources said they believe the agency has a radar "repeater" allowing agents to watch radar images piped in from nearby FAA locations. Aviation sources said the agency now sometimes calls about airspace intrusions even before the FAA has noticed the violation took place.

The trend toward more violations became evident in 1996 and took a sharp upturn during late 1997 and early this year.

A "P-56 Work Group" was formed in November 1996, made up of representatives of the FAA, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, American Airlines, United Airlines, the U.S. Park Police, and the Secret Service. The group later added mapping and charting companies and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

The group developed a number of recommendations, most involving special warning language on charts and maps, as well as runway warning signs. Most of these recommendations are now being implemented.

A Feb. 23, 1998, FAA memo, made available to The Post by aviation sources, noted that "the number of aircraft incursions into this airspace has increased dramatically over the last two years and continues to escalate." Most of the 60 incursions during that two-year period -- 87 percent -- involved the tricky approach and departure route to the north of the National airport.

According to FAA documents, about half of the incursions involve corporate aircraft and a much smaller number involve commercial airliners, making the July 16 incident involving the American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-80, as well as a June 5 overflight above the vice president's home by a Boeing 737 jet flown by another airline, relatively unusual.

In light of the American Airlines incident, sources said the FAA is considering a change in National's procedures. The American jet was approaching from the south, and air traffic controllers were supposed to give the pilot a left turn toward Great Falls, where the jet was to have turned downriver to land from the north.

For reasons still being investigated, the controller did not turn the aircraft even though the pilot reminded the controller that he should be turning. Following standard procedure, the American pilot remained at 10,000 feet and flew directly over the airport. By the time controllers realized their mistake, it was too late to prevent a White House overflight.

Sources said one possible new procedure for such approaches would be for pilots to make the turn at a set point south of the airport, even if there is no contact with controllers.

The incident was considered especially unusual because it appears to have been a mistake by controllers, called an "operational error." Almost all incursions involve pilot error.

FAA air traffic managers and the National Airport local of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) now are battling over what to do about Area P-56. The labor-management dispute, which erupted early this year with an increasingly bitter exchange of letters between the union and local FAA management, has reached the desk of FAA Administrator Jane Garvey.

Andrew G. Acres, facility representative for the controllers union at National, charged that local FAA management is more interested in disciplining controllers than in solving the problem. Acres wrote Garvey on March 9, saying: "We realize that we are stepping outside the chain of command. However, we believe no one else within the FAA will listen."

Acres said the NATCA plan will cost money but will eliminate the problem. He said the FAA should assign an extra controller on each shift to do nothing but monitor the restricted area and steer aircraft away from it. Under current procedures it is solely the responsibility of the pilot to avoid the airspace, although controller mistakes can sometimes lead to violations.

To fix the problem, "you have to eliminate it," Acres said. "And the only way to eliminate it is staffing." Under current procedures, he said, "it's set up for failure."

The FAA would not discuss the NATCA plan.

Posted by: SPreston Jul 28 2007, 09:31 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle)
It is spooky how the sirens of firetrucks heading for the pentagon begin to wail at the very same time we are zooming up to see the E-4B in a hard right bank over Lafayette Park.

QUOTE (JackD)
Sirens in DC may or may not have been for Pentagon -- likely for other events in DC -- Pentagon has it's own fire suppression at Ft Meyer in Arlington. Only if called for a 4 alarm_+ event.

QUOTE (First Responder Fire Fighting Team Unwelcome At Pentagon)
B)  Serendipitous Arrival of Reagan National ARFF Team
According to the article, shortly before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, a Reagan National aircraft rescue fire fighting team was already on the road, attending a car accident on the upper level of Airport Terminal B.  (Aircraft rescue fire fighters don't usually respond to car accidents, of course and there is no mention that the cars involved were on fire.)  The ARFF team had their backs to the Pentagon.  At 9:38 a.m. they heard a dull roar, turned around, and saw the smoke.  The article does not mention how the Reagan National team knew the Pentagon fire was the result of a plane crash; however, they left the airport immediately for the Pentagon, which was three miles away.  They arrived in two or three minutes and put the bulk of the fire out in seven minutes.

Do the math.  The Reagan National team must have arrived at the Pentagon at approximately 9:40 or 9:41 a.m.  If they extinguished the bulk of the fire in seven minutes, the "bulk of the fire" was extinguished at approximately 9:47 a.m. or 9:48 a.m.

What serendipity!  An aircraft rescue fire fighting team, already on the road attending a car accident they normally wouldn't attend, hears a noise, sees smoke, concludes the fire was caused by an aircraft, and gets to the Pentagon in three minutes.  Using foam, they put out the fire in seven minutes! 

This was a fantastic news story.  The Reagan National ARFF team were surely national heroes;  surely we would expect their story to command immediate national media attention.
 
rolleyes.gif  No Contemporaneous Coverage
But, curiously, the story of their on-the-spot heroism and competence got no media attention whatsoever.  The local Washington, D.C. TV stations, the national TV networks, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, the National Inquirer, etc., all missed the story. 

The DoD photographers on the scene didn't record the Reagan National story on DoD websites; in fact, the photographs (and captions) on official DoD websites showed water being sprayed on the fire.  DoD journalists who wrote stories about the Pentagon fire and rescue didn't record the Reagan National ARFF story either.  Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton, Army Secretary White, the Arlington four County Fire Chief (who allegedly directed the fire fighting effort) -- none of them mentioned the amazing Reagan National story to news-hungry reporters during their press conferences.

With the nation grief-stricken and reeling over the loss of hundreds of New York firemen, the story of Reagan National ARFF team's heroism and effectiveness would have rallied our spirits.  Their story should have gotten top coverage.
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa.html

QUOTE (ARFF Crews Respond to the Front Line at Pentagon November 1 2001)
When a hijacked Boeing 757, skimming the street lights, smashed into the Pentagon on September 11, firefighters at nearby Reagan National Airport were the right responders in the right place with the right equipment.

Being among the first responding fire units, National's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF) crews were able to set up their apparatus directly in front of the gaping hole in the Pentagon. That was where their training in fighting aircraft fires and the capability of their foam units to extinguish jet fuel fires were put to the best use.

The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National.

"We applied the foam tactfully and kept the fire from spreading drastically," he said. "This allowed for self-evacuation of the Pentagon at a critical time, saving many lives, and eventually the building." Two Oshkosh T3000s spread approximately 600 gallons (2.2 kiloliters) of 6% AFFF with an initial fire flow of more than 3,000 gallons (11.3 kiloliters) per minute.
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/

The party crashers? By accident these two National Airport fire trucks were working nearby before the crash and rushed in bravely to put out the fires. Arriving at the crash site within 10 minutes, according to their report, they dutifully put out the Pentagon fires within 7 minutes. They saw NO SIGNS of an aircraft crashing there. No bodies. No luggage. No wings. No engines. No tail. No piece of fuselage sitting over in front of the helipad near them which looked like it had never been riveted to an aircraft frame.



"The DoD photographers on the scene didn't record the Reagan National story on DoD websites; in fact, the photographs (and captions) on official DoD websites showed water being sprayed on the fire. DoD journalists who wrote stories about the Pentagon fire and rescue didn't record the Reagan National ARFF story either. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton, Army Secretary White, the Arlington four County Fire Chief (who allegedly directed the fire fighting effort) -- none of them mentioned the amazing Reagan National story to news-hungry reporters during their press conferences."



How come these guys are not National HEROES, getting the Presidential Medal For Merit on nation-wide TV? They were heroes, doing their job. See the fire truck tracks across the lawn? These guys were among the first arrivals to the CRIME SCENE and put out the Pentagon fires themselves with foam. That's the 16' hole in the wall, which a 757 couldn't possibly make or fit through, between the fire trucks. But no aircraft debris of any kind to be seen anywhere on that lovely lawn right in front of the crash scene with the helipad just to the left out of the photo. This piece of fuselage which looks like it has never been riveted to an airframe and comes from the starboard (right) side of the aircraft, was allegedly found later sitting right in the middle of the lawn in front of the helipad, but these guys didn't see it. Why wasn't the left wing engine or engine parts found over in front of the helipad also? It could not possibly have gone through that 16' fuselage hole in the reinforced Pentagon wall and the engine certainly did not make its own hole through the wall, did it?



Posted by: Merc Aug 6 2007, 09:39 AM

Pinnacle, you are Mark Gaffney correct? Any relation to this guy...

QUOTE
WRIGHT-PAT AIR FORCE BASE GOES TO HIGHEST ALERT
Base activates national command posts
By R. Gaffney
Dayton Daily News
September 12, 2001

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base went on high alert and activated two national command posts Tuesday after terrorists carried out an air attack using hijacked airliners in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh.

The base beefed up gate security Tuesday after two hijacked airliners slammed into the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York City at 8:45 and 9:03 a.m. But the base went into higher gear when the Pentagon became the next target. A hijacked airliner plowed into one section of the five-sided building in Washington, D.C., at 9:43 a.m.

Minutes later, an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center - a white 747 Jumbo Jet often confused with Air Force One - took off from Wright-Pat for an undisclosed destination. It returned later in the day. Wright-Pat is one of a few designated bases for the flying command center.

Meanwhile, top generals on the base huddled and managers sent home nonessential personnel.

Col. Michael Hazen, 88th airbase wing commander, said Tuesday evening the base was operating on "the highest force protection standards" and "will continue as long as the Air Force directs us to stay at heightened alert."

Security police searched cars, causing traffic backups at base gates. Hazen urged the public to stay away from the base to reduce congestion.

F-16 fighter jets came and went during the day. Some belonged to the Ohio Air National Guard's 178th Fighter Group, temporarily based at Wright-Pat because of construction work at the Springfield airport.

Sounds widely reported as sonic booms rocked the Dayton area late in the afternoon, but base officials said they had no information on their origin.

"We are investigating those sounds. I cannot confirm they were sonic booms," said Lt. Col. Ed Worley, director of public affairs at Wright-Pat.

Hazen said only that fighters from Wright-Pat "flew missions, but not to a local emergency." The F-16 can dash at supersonic speeds, but supersonic flight is ordinarily prohibited over the United States.

Dressed in a combat uniform, Hazen kept his remarks brief and returned to the base's battle staff center, where top base leaders were meeting throughout the day.

Earlier Tuesday, a spokeswoman confirmed the command's headquarters at Wright-Pat also had activated its command center, a high-security war room used to manage worldwide support of Air Force combat units during war or times of high tension. "We are preparing to coordinate any assistance . . . that is requested" by military commanders, AFMC spokeswoman Lt. Col. Adrienne Campbell said.

Located inside the AFMC headquarters building at Wright-Pat, the command center operated around the clock throughout the Persian Gulf War to monitor the readiness of combat planes and manage the massive airlift that built up war supplies in the region.

The E-4B National Airborne Operations Center is a flying military command post that is often mistaken for Air Force One when it flies over the Miami Valley. Known as the "Doomsday Plane" during the Cold War, it serves the president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Under a special agreement, it also supports Federal Emergency Management Agency operations during major disasters.

The E-4B is a highly modified Boeing 747. Equipped with a conference room, briefing room, work rooms and living quarters, it can support crews of up to 114 people. It carries stockpiles of food and can be refueled in flight.

Base representatives had no immediate word on whether anyone from Wright-Pat was a victim of the Pentagon attack.

* Contact Timothy R. Gaffney at 225-2390 or e-mail him at timothy_gaffney@coxohio.com
Copyright, 2001, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 6 2007, 11:08 AM

I am not Mark Gaffney. As I said I only gave him some of the information I had discovered through my own research.
I have been investigating the E-4B since contacting Linda Brookhart in May 2006 and I continue to to do so as an independent researcher.
It is very interesting that so far none of the usual debunkers have
made any effort to explain the E-4B story.

Posted by: Merc Aug 6 2007, 11:45 AM

Doesn't that article kind of explain the where's and why's? Well not so much the "where", we simply can extrapolate that based on where it was seen...over DC...after the Pentagon attack.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 6 2007, 12:39 PM

What about the times, and how far away is Wright-Pat?

And none of that articles diminishes the need for disclosure of this very important topic.

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 6 2007, 03:51 PM

An E-4B launched from Wright Patterson after the pentagon attack at
9:37 am would not arrive over Washington DC until long after 10:00 am even if it flew at maximum speed.
This could not be the same E-4B reported and caught on video at 9:40 am
flying slowly over the White House.

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 7 2007, 02:09 AM

Hard to tell what the precise timeframe is on the 3 E-4Bs involved in Global Guardian from the only source I can find for that info- Joe Dejka's Omaha World Herald (Nebraska) February 27, 2002 article http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x87082#87146

QUOTE
Another part of the Global Guardian exercise put three military command aircraft packed with sophisticated communications equipment in the air.

The three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes, nicknamed "Doomsday" planes during the Cold War, are based at Offutt.

The airplanes give top government officials alternative command posts from which to direct U.S. forces, execute war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities in times of national emergency.

Aboard one of the three planes was the Federal Advisory Committee, whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft. The plane had been dispatched to bring committee members to Offutt to observe Global Guardian.

Military authorities canceled the exercise after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, but all three of the E-4Bs remained in the air.


It's not positively clear to me from that info (without a firmer timeline) whether or not the Wright-Pat E-4B might possibly have been one of the 3 or whether it was the 4th one. But, if I were a betting man, I'd probably have a small wager going that Brent S. was aboard the circling E-4B...

I wonder who the other members of the http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/fr030601.html are. I think I'll dig around a bit...

QUOTE
The six-person committee, which is expected to meet for the first time April 5, will be chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and includes three other former government officials and two current senior officials.
http://www.webcitation.org/5QuVpvD5l

http://www.seab.energy.gov/sub/bios_nwcitf.html? (not sure how frequently that site is updated)

http://www.webcitation.org/5QuWkL0fm

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 7 2007, 05:06 AM

A new article up @ 9/11 blogger:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10441

gives us the following info:

QUOTE
Important new evidence corroborates Gaffney's conclusion, and raises further questions about the role played by the E-4B planes on 9/11. This evidence appears in the 2003 book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism, written by Dan Verton, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and former senior writer for Computerworld magazine, who has written extensively on national security, the intelligence community, and national defense topics. Verton reported that, the morning of September 11, an E-4B was launched from "an airfield outside of the nation's capital." (He did not, however, state which specific base.) This plane was carrying "civilian and military officials," and was going "to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise." This exercise would involve "the use and testing of the aircraft's various advanced technology and communications equipment."

According to Verton, the E-4B launched from near Washington "had only just taken off" at the time of the Pentagon attack, which was at 9:37 a.m.


link for archived chapter 7 of Dan Verton's book:

http://www.webcitation.org/5QueD1mCx

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 7 2007, 11:18 AM

I notice there are no footnotes attached to any of the statements about the
E-4B so I wonder where he got this information. If this were such common knowledge why would the 9/11 Commission not have included it in their report and timeline?
Also he has the pentagon hit at 9:43 am and the E-4B was already over the White House at 9:40 am.
There is also the question of why Air Force One had to fly to Nebraska to give Bush the option of transferring to the E-4B if two of them were within one hour flying time of a point where he could meet them and change planes?
Why would the Air Force, Secret Service and the FAA all deny any knowledge of this if it were published in a book in 2003?

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 7 2007, 07:38 PM

dunno.gif

Posted by: JackD Aug 7 2007, 08:00 PM

QUOTE
The National Airborne Operations
Center that had converted literally on the fly from exercise status to
real-world crisis management also had its share of trouble deciphering
what was happening around the nation. Although the details are not
known, a classified after-action report was produced that, according to
one official who was on board the aircraft on September 11, does not paint
a favorable picture of the government’s overall crisis management capa
bilities.16 According to one government official, the nation was “deaf,
dumb, and blind” for much of that horrible day in September.  17


150 Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism
13 Steve Barrett, “Powell Asks NSTAC to Keep Nation Inside the Information Loop,”
Telecom News, Issue 1, 2002, p. 4.
14 Ibid., p. 5.
15 Ibid., p. 4.

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 7 2007, 08:13 PM

Nice find Jack D. Here are the relevant footnotes (from the next page)

QUOTE
16 Author interview with sources either aboard the NAOC or familiar with the events
of September 11.
17 Ibid.

Posted by: amazed! Aug 7 2007, 09:38 PM

Pinnacle

If it behooved somebody on the inside for that E-4 info to be excluded from the Commission's report, it would have been done.

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 7 2007, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 8 2007, 02:38 AM)
Pinnacle

If it behooved somebody on the inside for that E-4 info to be excluded from the Commission's report, it would have been done.

You got that right! They didn't call themselves the 9/11 Ommission for nothin' cheers.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 7 2007, 09:51 PM

spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif spinstar.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 8 2007, 10:58 AM

While I can see how this was excluded from the 9/11 Commission investigation I think it would raise a lot of questions about the so-called free press that
all reports of the E-4B were erased from news reports and timelines
almost immediately.
And I still don't see why the air force and the FAA would risk telling my congressman that they have "no knowledge" of the E-4B being over Washington DC on 9/11 when he sits on the House Appropriations Committee and votes on funding.
If they could tell a writer about this why would they deny all knowledge to a congressman making a formal inquiry?

Posted by: amazed! Aug 8 2007, 03:13 PM

Pinnacle

Have you ever worked for the federal government?

It is notoriously incompetent in ways you cannot even imagine.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 8 2007, 03:15 PM

Which has nothing to do with losing a E4B in the middle of the nation's worst attack on it's home soil.

The White Jet is not a typical federal government. It's at the very top.

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 8 2007, 05:50 PM

The E-4B is under direct control of National Command Authority, all of whom, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers etc. were supposedly unaware of the nature or extent of the situation at 9:40 am.
So who had the power to give this order to the E-4B to switch from a drill to "real world" command and control?
Why then fly low and slow over Washington when the primary concern was an attack on the White House or Capitol and the mission of the E-4B is to get as far away as possible from the target area to survive even a nuclear attack?
Why all the confusion about Air Force One being unescorted and under threat if we had two E-4B's close enough to meet Bush for a transfer within an hour?
Why keep all of this stuff secret for six years if it was all so innocent?
It just seems that there are way to many questions and the news media has been way to quiet about this even though they are the ones who put it on the record in the first place.
If one writer could get the story on this for a book why can't NBC, CNN, ABC and everybody else who reported on 9/11 and the all the details of the following investigations that completely omitted this story? What keeps them so
willing to pass up what most people would consider a very interesting new angle on 9/11 that would sell lots of newsprint?

Posted by: Cary Aug 8 2007, 07:07 PM

Great questions pinnacle. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 13 2007, 03:27 PM

I got an email today from the FAA.
They are going to hold a "meeting" tomorrow to decide what to do with my
FOIA request for radar records of Dulles airport which ought to show the
track of the E-4B, the C-130 and any other unaccounted for aircraft
flying over Washington DC during the 9/11 attacks.
I wonder how often this sort of meeting is required to respond to a FOIA request made 14 months previously?
If I actually get radar evidence out of this fiasco that actually shows the time referenced flight path of the E-4B matching the CNN video I wonder if my congressman will still consider this information not worth investigating?
If so I will be happy to provide this material to whoever runs against him in the next election.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 13 2007, 03:37 PM

Unbelievable.
I'd love to read the 'minutes' of this meeting.

Can we FOIA the records presented and discussed at this meeting? biggrin.gif
Or a record of the meeting itself.

Or is the meeting to decide which excuse to use for FOIA denial?

Hats off again pinnacle. Ground breaking effort.

Posted by: behind Aug 13 2007, 04:35 PM

Yes. This issue is always getting more and more interesting IMO.

But my guess is that they will not hand over the radar records.

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 15 2007, 12:11 PM

I just read a really bad attempt at debunking the "white jet" on the Randi website.
First they spend a lot of time telling us how "unimportant" it is that the E-4B was
in the air over Washington while the attack was still going on. But they do not explain how they know this since we have no idea how long the E-4B had been in the air and where it been earlier when the WTC was getting attacked.
They also do not explain why the Air Force, FAA and Secret Service all told me there was no aircraft flying of any kind near the White House at the time the videos and photos were taken of it.
They also have no explanation for the transcripts of Peter Jennings, John King, Kate Snow and Bob Kur all describing the "big white jet" circling the White House
between 9:40 am and 9:50 am., but instead asking "what time" the videos and photos were shot as if these transcripts were not time-stamped.
Then they start picking apart the various video images as if it does not really show the E-4B which it obviously does.
I am amazed at how undebunkable the E-4B over the White House has proven to be for the anti-truthers.
They then complain about Linda Brookhart's photo proving nothing because they "don't know" what building is in the picture. Apparently mastering Google maps is beyond their investigative abilities.
They also wonder where the CNN video is accessible on the internet?
Duh!!!
Maybe the CNN Image Source website would be a good place to look???
That's where I found it without anyone even telling me to look there.
Even CNN did not know they had it.
And these guys are the best sceptics and debunkers James Randi can come up with?
So far this is the only debunker site to even deal with the E-4B story so at least they gave it a try.
By the way no word yet from the FAA about the big "radar meeting" .

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 27 2007, 11:12 AM

I understand the History Channel debunkled the White Jet and had sone guy on wh was supposedly the pilot. Did anyone see this and what kind of plane was he supposed to be flying? If he was not flying an E-4B than how do they explain the video of it?
Also if he was a "civilian" plane told to search for possible hijacks why would he be allowed inside restrcited airspace and why do the air force, secret service and the FAA all claim to have "no records" of any aircraft in this location at this time?

Posted by: pinnacle Aug 29 2007, 11:19 AM

This may be nothing but I got an email from an Air Force
organization that might be able to shed light on the E-4B situation on 9/11.
I told them about the Dan Verton book and the CNN video.
I made it clear I am only interested in the facts and not pushing any theories
and any information would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: 911stealth Sep 1 2007, 06:50 PM

Encouraging the tireless work of Pinnacle.

Earlier reports:
Sky News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2crnOsx4Eks

BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gVEhvEnJzk

--------------

Plus a Collage of the CNN (1/2 of its speed - screen cam) - ABC Spain - Discovery Channel footage... :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs

--------------

Another clip of a jet near the WTC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV-zP707-WQ

"Don´t you think that a regular plane may have been very altered by seeing all that classified, black operations vehicles flying very near above of him? Only a plane "in it" may have gone that quiet with no report on what he saw above him. The criminal E-4B seen flying very low above Washington matches that silence."

By: http://www.youtube.com/911stealth

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 2 2007, 04:16 AM

Thanks for putting those clips together and welcome to the forum 911stealth.

Posted by: 911stealth Sep 2 2007, 10:46 AM

pilotfly.gif Thanks. Yes, they at YouTube deleted one of us. However, the perpetrators can not delete the truth, sooner or later it will catch them, even if they don't want to remember it at all. :ph43r:

Posted by: behind Sep 13 2007, 07:21 AM

Cnn Talking About The White Plane !!

http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19000

Posted by: investigate911.se Sep 13 2007, 08:03 AM

CNN start to raise important questions about 911.
The US government don't want to answer or investigate.
CNN made this coverage about the white mystery plane that flew over Pentagon.
But less than 2 hours ago they removed it from their website

We managed to save a copy from our cache...

http://investigate911.se/cnn_mystery_plane.html

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 13 2007, 08:05 AM

and even shows a screenshot of this Rense page:

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Wow!

original CNN coverage (instead of youtube version) was @

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN

until it "expired". Funny how that works... rolleyes.gif
Better back that baby up well before youtube yanks...

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Sep 13 2007, 09:20 AM

This is huge.

This can only be in direct response to the flyover theory. The E4B did not fly over the building directly after the explosion but we believe the plane that did was painted similar to the E4B.

We talked with at least 6 people who described it as white and some even said with a blue stripe and numbers on the tail.

The E4B and the C-130 were called in to help sow confusion and provide a cover story for anyone who may have seen the fly over.

They are talking about it now because they we are closing in on them.

This is obvious because they are focusing so heavily on "conspiracy theories" even though this has only been a mere footnote to the truth movement.

Why else would they bother with this story 6 years after the fact? They even interviewed Hamilton about it!

Total damage control.

Incredible.

Posted by: SPreston Sep 13 2007, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (investigate911.se @ Sep 13 2007, 08:03 AM)
CNN start to raise important questions about 911.
The US government don't want to answer or investigate.
CNN made this coverage about the white mystery plane that flew over Pentagon.
But less than 2 hours ago they removed it from their website

We managed to save a copy from our cache...

http://investigate911.se/cnn_mystery_plane.html

I can imagine the threatening call they got from the White House. nonono.gif

It is likely that quite a few of the younger and more investigative reporters in the mainstream press have come up with quite a few exposes of the 9-11 attack on America only to be squelched and sent to the trash bin by tyrannical editors or a call from the White House. cleanup.gif

[img]http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/images/when_we_do_it.bmp[/img]


Posted by: Oceans Flow Sep 13 2007, 09:56 AM

Unbelievable! They even pushed 911blogger. Here it is imbedded:


Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 13 2007, 10:13 AM

Man, and I can't even hear it because I am at work.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Sep 13 2007, 10:29 AM

Did you all notice that the reporter never said anything about a plane at the Pentagon? At the beginning it's "word of an explosion at the Pentagon" and at the end "as smoke rose above the Pentagon."

Maybe CNN is trying to get the jump on the '9/11 Story.' whistle.gif

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 13 2007, 11:19 AM

I just watched the CNN video on the website and it is still there.
They basically lifted all the information I gave them when I first contacted them in June 5, 2007.
They should give me a credit for doing their research since they did not even know they had this video when I made my initial inquiry to CNN Image Source.
They also failed to mention that the air force denial was not just to a member of the public but was a denial to an official inquiry from my congressman
to the Congressional Inquiry Division of the Department of the Air Force.
That is a much bigger deal than just blowing-off a taxpayer.
They should have contacted me and I could have given them a copy of the
official letter from the Pentagon.
Why can'y news media ever get the facts right?
At least they finally admitted there is a big mystery here, which strangely even Lee Hamilton is to dense to recognize.

Posted by: painter Sep 13 2007, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Sep 13 2007, 07:29 AM)
Did you all notice that the reporter never said anything about a plane at the Pentagon? At the beginning it's "word of an explosion at the Pentagon" and at the end "as smoke rose above the Pentagon."

Maybe CNN is trying to get the jump on the '9/11 Story.' whistle.gif

Yes, I did notice that. And I agree, Craig, this is 'damage control'.

However, since COG was in effect on 9/11, it does make "sense" that such a plane would be in position over DC. However, what is less explicable by them is the absence of ANY defense against the alleged flight 77 -- especially given the presence of an E-4B.

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 13 2007, 11:27 AM

CNN did not even know they had this video until I contacted them on June 5, 2007.
Now they have taken my FOIA and congressional inquiry data
and make it look like they did the research on this.
I think they should at least credit me with bringing this to their attention since they had nothing to do with my research on this for the past 18 months.

Posted by: JackD Sep 13 2007, 11:40 AM

Merge. The CNN story is an extension of Pinnacle's original research.

now that it's 'out there' and aired on CNN, it would be timely to 'follow up' with all the thigns that CNN did NOT talk about ----

C130
lack of air defense

why did E4B appearance cause a white house freak-out?
who was on E4B?
where did it take off from?

etc
(pls note that CoG was NOT activated until around time or AFTER E4B was observed. so the theory that CoG caused E4B to take off is eliminated)

Posted by: painter Sep 13 2007, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Sep 13 2007, 08:40 AM)
<s>
(pls note that CoG was NOT activated until around time or AFTER E4B was observed. so the theory that CoG caused E4B to take off  is eliminated)

Thanks.

EDIT: The two threads are now merged above

Posted by: riv Sep 13 2007, 11:49 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 13 2007, 09:20 AM)
This can only be in direct response to the flyover theory.  The E4B did not fly over the building directly after the explosion but we believe the plane that did was painted similar to the E4B.

We talked with at least 6 people who described it as white and some even said with a blue stripe and numbers on the tail.

Don't get me wrong, your E4B-like livery hypothesis makes sense but we still have 29 different accounts of people reporting an American Airlines, plus 4 reporting a silvery fuselage.
It's still a huge number, and is not just made of highly debatable testimony like ElHallan, Probst, Walter and so on.. it's also made of solid accounts like the radio dispatch by Cox and Foust who reported an American Airlines into the police radio seconds after the event.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Sep 13 2007, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Sep 13 2007, 09:27 AM)
CNN did not even know they had this video until I contacted them on June 5, 2007.
Now they have taken my FOIA and congressional inquiry data
and make it look like they did the research on this.
I think  they should at least credit me with bringing this to their attention since they had nothing to do with my research on this for the past 18 months.

That's great that your efforts got this story on the network. That is certainly a greater accomplishment than many of us here will ever manifest.

thumbsup.gif salute.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Sep 13 2007, 12:08 PM

Well, if you want to keep the record straight you better start.
Looks like Mr.PPFinal Rivero as posted and linked to some other site.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://nevernwo.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-details-of-911-mystery-plane-over-d.html

Posted by: riv Sep 13 2007, 12:19 PM

Is the 911blogger server down only for me?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Sep 13 2007, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (riv @ Sep 13 2007, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 13 2007, 09:20 AM)
This can only be in direct response to the flyover theory.  The E4B did not fly over the building directly after the explosion but we believe the plane that did was painted similar to the E4B.

We talked with at least 6 people who described it as white and some even said with a blue stripe and numbers on the tail.

Don't get me wrong, you're hypothesis about the E4B livery makes sense but we still have 29 different accounts of people reporting an American Airlines, plus 4 reporting a silvery fuselage.
It's still a huge number, and is not just made of highly debatable testimony like ElHallan, Probst, Walter and so on.. it's also made of solid accounts like the radio dispatch by Cox and Foust who reported an American Airlines into the police radio seconds after the event.


True. I've heard the police dispatch tapes and that was compelling. Obviously we can't assume that they are not complicit simply because they are cops or vice versa.

But in general the accounts vary quite a bit. Grey, white, silver, blue stripe, red stripe, no stripes.

Bottom line I give most weight to confirmed firsthand accounts and the highest corroborating factor is white with the people that I have personally spoken with.

Even genuine honest witnesses will embellish to fit the official story to give themselves "credibility" or to simply fill in holes of their memory. Lagasse is a prime example.

Most witnesses would only be able to see the plane for about 2 seconds.

I don't completely rule out that it may have been part silver/chrome but I have heard white more than anything from witnesses firsthand and I tend to lean towards details that are corroborated the most particularly when I have personally spoken with the witness personally.

All mainstream media accounts are hearsay and should be considered questionable until confirmed.

For all we know reporters may have even added "silver" in some of them.

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 13 2007, 01:43 PM

All eyewitnesses I have contacted saw a four engine white jet, very big, very slow and low altitude.
I checked out other sites with this material and they are all just
repeating information fromthe Gaffney stories and from Pilots for Truth.
Nobody else has original research on this and official documents with signatures.
If nothing else CNN has made this credible by finally showing the video
after six years, although why they did not post it on September 11
is strange. Why wait until September 12 when fewer people will notice,
unless you want it to go away.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 13 2007, 02:06 PM

http://dailymotion.alice.it/swf/3K7Z1nyYgXjsla2oz

"White with Blue downstairs (below)...it was a United plane, a United States Plane."

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Sep 13 2007, 03:21 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Sep 13 2007, 06:43 PM)
All eyewitnesses I have contacted saw a four engine white jet, very big, very slow and low altitude.

Well when I say "eyewitnesses" I mean to the plane that flew treetop level low over Arlington timed with the explosion.

That's what the witness is talking about in the video Aldo just posted.

I've never talked to anyone who saw the E4B.

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 13 2007, 03:46 PM

The E-4B story is all over the internet and bigger than any other 9/11
truth story I have seen yet.
This is very well documented and there is no way around it other than
ludicrous statements like Lee Hamilton assuming it was "not important" enough to investigate.
I talked to one network news journalist who saw the E-4B and several private citizens including our own Linda Brookhart who took the famous still picture.
What CNN leaves out of their story is why they been sitting on this video for six years and never asked any questions about it.
Also they fudge the time saying it was "before 10".
The actual time the E-4B arrived over the White House was 9:40 am, based on Peter Jennings on air report, a good 20 minutes before the jet fighters arrived.
Yet Lee Hamilton, who was charged with accounting for all military response to the 9/11 attacks, does not think it necessary to account for how and why the US air force got a huge slower plane like the E-4B over Washington 20 minutes before the first defensive jet fighter arrived. He also gave no explanation for why a
C-130 would be ordered to chase a jet airliner if an E-4B was sitting right on top of the White House at the same moment.
This really blows all credibility for the 9/11 Commission even for nontruthers because this absoutely demanded an explanation and was dismissed
and suppressed from September 12, 2001 onwards.
I am getting some interesting emails on this.

Posted by: JackD Sep 13 2007, 05:51 PM

bravo, Pinnacle.

Get the story out there, and get in front of it.

have you posted to 911blogger.com yet?

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 13 2007, 07:32 PM

I found that the link from CNN is currently functional. I'd back it up, just in case...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
This newly working link is for a video which appears to be 19 seconds shorter than the one they had earlier (which http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/mystery-plane-CNN-expired.jpg). Might be interesting to know what got left on the cutting room floor in version 2.0.

As to who was on this particular E-4B, odds are good that would have been Brent Scowcroft & the Federal Advisory Committee, originally scheduled to be picked up to go out to Offutt to observe the Global Guardian exercise. See quotes below:

QUOTE
And that fact was driven home at 9:43, when American
Airlines Flight 77 plowed throughthe thick concrete walls of the Pentagon.
There were thousands of airplanes still in the air and heading toward
airports all over the country. And one of them, a 747 code-named “Night
Watch,” had only just taken off and was immediately ordered to cease the
military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual
national airborne operations center.

QUOTE
While Greene was rushing back to the NCS operations center to get a
better understanding of what had happened in New York, civilian and
military officials were boarding a militarized version of a Boeing 747,
known as the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), at an
airfield outside of the nation’s capital. They were preparing to conduct
a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise.

QUOTE
As the crew of the E-4B was preparing to begin the regularly scheduled
training exercise, including the use and testing of the aircraft’s various
advanced technology and communications equipment, the Federal Aviation
Administration was ordering all New York City area airports to cease
flight operations.
above quotes from http://www.mhprofessional.com/downloads/products/0072227877/0072227877_ch07.pdf Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism
Footnote 16 in that book (which is not quoted above but relates to the E-4B as well)
16 Author interview with sources either aboard the NAOC or familiar with the events
of September 11.

QUOTE
Aboard one of the three planes was the Federal Advisory Committee, whose chairman is retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft. The plane had been dispatched to bring committee members to Offutt to observe Global Guardian.

Military authorities canceled the exercise after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, but all three of the E-4Bs remained in the air.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x87082#87146

I can never seem to comment at 911blogger for some reason anymore, but I think comparing a pre expired link version with the one up now might be of interest http://www.911blogger.com/node/11324?destination=node%2F11324.

Digg the story http://digg.com/politics/Mystery_9_11_aircraft_was_military_doomsday_plane

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 14 2007, 12:35 AM

Seems a bit odd for the military to be in total denial about it when all this info is out in the public domain already, doesn't it? Must be the nukuler factor...

Posted by: kiwisteve Sep 14 2007, 05:31 AM

Hi Pinnacle, fantastic work!

Please keep it up.

Perhaps the E-4B was there to ensure that the various air defences were switched off. Or as a distraction to the attack on the Pentagon.

Sounds like the skies above Washington that day were a little more crowded than the govt would have us believe. This would make it easier for "shocked witnesses" to be easily confused if the right questions were asked.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 14 2007, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Sep 13 2007, 08:46 PM)
Also they fudge the time saying it was "before 10".
The actual time the E-4B arrived over the White House was 9:40 am, based on Peter Jennings on air report, a good 20 minutes before the jet fighters arrived.

Anybody have a clip of this? Pinnacle? Do you have that?

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 14 2007, 12:50 PM

There was a clip posted of Peter Jennings announcing the "plane circling the White House" that has since been removed but I beleive it is in the internet archive.
I do have a printed transcript of this. The time on screen was 9:40 am
and the image was the WTC still standing and burning.
John Miller was talking with Jennings so he also knows about this and never brought it up again. Jennings speaks for two minutes about White House air defenses as he reports this, implying that an air force plane is what
is flying over the White House. He makes no mention of smoke coming from the Pentagon during this and the cameras stays on the WTC the whole time.
How can Lee Hamilton say this is not important?
According to Public Law 107-306 that created the 9/11 Commission they were required to make a "full and complete accounting" of "immediate response
to the attacks".
How does the most sophisticated and expensive air force command and control plane in the world not form a critical part of that "imediate response" that the 9/11 Commission was mandated to report on in full detail?
How can they preent a story of a clueless NORAD flying the wrong way
while the E-4B is right in the center of the action 20 minutes before the first fighter gets to Washington and claim they have given us a "full and complete accounting of the air force response to the attacks?
This is an insult to the intelligence of every American and these people
think so little of us that they act indignant and call us names when
we catch them in an obvious cover-up.
If the E-4B is unimportant why do I have a folder full of documents from
offical sources denying all knowledge of it?
Why did CNN do this story without even asking to see these documents when I offered to make them available back in June?
Don't they believe in checking there facts before broadcasting a story of this magnitude? Why did they not mention congressman Schiff making an official inquiry about this and getting the "no knowledge" response from the air force?
That is more than just a FOIA stonewall, that is a Legislative Liaison Officer
in the Pentagon telling a member congress the air force did not know about a 747
flying over the White House even when I gave them the pictures of it.
They literally are intentionally blind to factual reality. What really bugs
me is that Schiff accepts this denial even with the CNN storyall over the internet.
What does itbtake to get these politicians to stick up for the truth?

Posted by: Ashoka Sep 14 2007, 01:34 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Sep 14 2007, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (pinnacle @ Sep 13 2007, 08:46 PM)

Also they fudge the time saying it was "before 10".
The actual time the E-4B arrived over the White House  was 9:40 am, based on Peter Jennings on air report,  a good 20 minutes before the jet fighters arrived.

Anybody have a clip of this? Pinnacle? Do you have that?

I have that clip :-)

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1irxw_abc-white-plane-circling-white-hous_news

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GEAU99P9

Ashoka

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 14 2007, 05:39 PM

Thank you brother. You are always great help.

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 14 2007, 08:32 PM

I just found identifiable pics of #50125 (Carlo 82, Chick 52 etc.) and #31677 (Crisp 45 AKA Culpa 11 etc.) (thanks to http://fmc.dotnet-services.nl/nca.htm http://www.webcitation.org/5RrRYbufs for the nicks) to go with http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=483&st=113http://www.airtalk.org/e-4b-lana-28-departs-patrick-for-andrews-afb-vt71200.html. I now have a complete set, IOW. It's easier now than it was the last time I tried.




























Aw, heck. You didn't really think I wouldn't share, didya? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_EMP_sim.jpg http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/1982/Air_Force/DF-SC-82-04165.JPEG

http://www.berlin-spotter.de/usaf747-2.jpg
http://www.berlin-spotter.de/focus/2007/usaf747-3.jpg
http://www.berlin-spotter.de/focus/2007/usaf747.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1341171326&size=o
http://www.gearthhacks.com/downloads/map.php?file=11075
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=73-1677&distinct_entry=true
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=75-0125&distinct_entry=true
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=73-1676&distinct_entry=true
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=74-0787&distinct_entry=true

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 15 2007, 12:39 AM

Someone with the handle http://www.airliners.net/discussions/profile.main?username=AsstChiefMark over on a now defunct (and otherwise useless AFAIC) http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:5uZEjl0-J0oJ:www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3607977/+%22andrews+afb%22+e-4b+OR+nightwatch+OR+doomsday+OR+neacp+OR+naoc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us on the CNN story said

QUOTE
I recall watching a video on http://www.flightlevel350.com/ a few years ago. It showed the E-4B taking off from Andrews AFB soon after the WTC was hit. The people in the video were commenting on how steep it was climbing out. One of them said, "Oh no. That's not a good sign."

Does a video like that ring any bells with anyone?

None of the dismissers seem to realize that 3 of the 4 E-4Bs were participating in Global Guardian and the other one (presumably the alert aircraft) took off from Wright Patterson "minutes after 9:43 (sic)" Leaving zero E-4Bs to serve as a back up AF 1.

Andrews AFB certainly makes sense for the departure location being "an airfield outside of the nation’s capital". Unless 2 or more of the three Global Guardian E-4Bs were ferrying "military officials" to Offutt and were in the DC area between 9 AM and 9:40 I think we can be fairly certain that we are referring to one specific E-4B in a lot of different instances. So, going out on a limb here:

"Civilian and military officials"- (read: Scowcroft, FAC, probably others) were boarding an E-4B at (most probably- I wish I had that abovementioned video) Andrews AFB between say 9:05 and 9:20. After 9:20 seems a stretch given this quote:
QUOTE
While Greene was rushing back to the NCS operations center to get a
better understanding of what had happened in New York, civilian and
military officials were boarding

This E-4B was clearly already airborne at the time of the Pentagon event, though it had not been for long:
QUOTE
And that fact was driven home at 9:43, when American
Airlines Flight 77 plowed throughthe thick concrete walls of the Pentagon.
There were thousands of airplanes still in the air and heading toward
airports all over the country. And one of them, a 747 code-named “Night
Watch,” had only just taken off
.
This E-4B becomes the "national airborne operations center" after the Pentagon incident.

So:
Who = Scowcroft, FAC, possibly other unknowns
Where = board and depart Andrews AFB (likely)
When = boarded by ~9:20 if not before; airborne ~9:20 - 9:30 (partly the timing depends on when the Pentagon event occurred- and whether the E-4B might have been what the FAA's Scoggins was tracking at 9:36 as being 6 miles southeast of the White House- as http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm)
Why = ostensibly to head to Offutt/ participating in/observing Global Guardian exercise; possibly for other reasons related to the Pentagon incident.
...

about the time this same E-4B becomes the NOAC, it makes a low circling pass in restricted airspace allowing for its videotaped ID.
...

1.) How exactly does scaring the Secret Service help fulfill its role as NOAC? I thought it worked best at high altitudes...
2.) Why deny the existence of this plane in this airspace at this time?

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 17 2007, 11:11 AM

If the E-4B was "unimportant" why didn't Hamilton just tell us what it was doing there, who sent it, and when was the order given?
I would also like to know why it left so suddenly and never made radio contact with the Langley fighters who never even saw it and had no idea what they were supposed to be looking for when they got to Washington.
Why would the E-4B have been unable to contact these guys if it was
in Washington airspace monitoring the situation on the ground?
One E-4B would normally be relaying communications from Air Force One but
Bush was out of contact for long periods of time which indicates it was not doing it's job.
The whole premise of the 9/11 Report is that the air force was in total confusion
yet the most sophisticated communications platform in the world did nothing to
carry out it's "command and control" function and simply let the confusion reign.

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 18 2007, 12:27 PM

After reading the CNN transcript I notice Lee Hamilton actually
shifts the blame to the commission staffers for not considering the E-4B relevant, thereby if it turns out to be really important he can just say it was
anonymous staff people who failed to inform him. Of course since
he was ordered to provide a full and complete accounting of the
"circumstances" of the attacks I do not see how he could leave out
an expanation of any military aircraft in the area at the time of the attacks no matter how "irrelevant" it was to the attacks themselves since the whole issue under investigation was the state of the military situational awareness in the critical moments when action might have saved lives. To then say we are "ludricious" for asking why this information continues to be withheld from the public is insulting to the intelligences of every American.
Even if the E-4B turns out to be merely more proof of military incompetence in a crisis it certainly should have been fully investigated by the 9/11 Commission.
The mere fact it was there is a very unusual "circumstance" and they were
mandated to account for it.

Posted by: Ashoka Sep 23 2007, 11:02 AM

From the Norad tapes, channel 2

9:43
[Nasypany]: "Okay guys another aircraft spotted near the Pentagon"

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XNPNPCSV

Ashoka

Posted by: 911stealth Sep 26 2007, 02:05 PM

Interesting, the E-4B and the C-130 were flying there, the C-130 passed above the other.

We did the original discovery of the E-4B more than a year ago and we called it "white jet", we posted it first at:
http://www.archive.org/download/stealth911...whiteplane.mpeg

Then, we posted it at YouTube and it reached the 700,000 views in a very short time span; however, they removed it claiming copyrights for some other videos we had there (we had 165 clips with evidence of very advanced aircraft technology flying all over 9/11).

Now we posted again the context of the original clip where it was originally found, from the Discovery Channel, docu-drama Flight 93, narrated by Kiefer Sutherland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWbKYM2zUc

I think that was the first time ever the side signature of the E-4B was identified, CNN never aired until now its footage.

I believe every footage of the E-4B belly, with its back dot from the blue stripes signature, filmed by Arlington was censored in the U.S., correct me if I am wrong; however, in every other country outside the U.S., I believe it was aired and seen. This finding is important and we don't need to let the perpetrators to tone it down.

In this other one we contrast the "unimportant" (it was not significant to be dealt with) by Lee Hamilton with the very alarmed voices of the newscasters from Europe where that belly of the E-4B was seen first. Hamilton is lying! Don't let them get away with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHOx5_rBM0

Here are some of the last entries on our other link posted previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs

"THe strange thing is, no one, not the DoD, NSA, CIA, NTSB, WH or anyone else says they were in control of that plane. There is no log of it anywhere. Not even NORAD takes the responsibility. Besides, those SS guys on the roof of the WH? Don't you think someone would have told them about it?" by socratescafe

"If they get away with this, we are doomed. Please don't let them. Find the facts and spread them..." by RegressLess

Again, here we honor the tireless efforts of Pinnacle and Gaffney.

Posted by: pinnacle Sep 26 2007, 04:18 PM

Well we know theat Lee Hamilton still won't tell us what the
"insignificant" mission of the E-4B was on 9/11, and it is really to bad CNN
never asked me to provide them with copies of the letters
from the Air Force, the FAA and the Secret Service so they could have shown them to Hamilton and ask him to explain why such denials of all knowledge of an "unimportant" aircraft.
Of course it would also have been good journalism to show the video to the
various agencies who denied knowledge and as them for an on-camera explanation as well but I guess all CNN wanted Anderson Cooper to do was say "interesting" at the end of the story and not bother to actually do any of that pesky "investigative journalism" stuff.
Hey Anderson how about interviewing those 9/11 Commission staffers who apparently made all the decisions on what "rose to the attention" of the commission and got into the report. Surely they would have no objection to answering some questions about such a "trivial" matter as the E-4B
if it really was no big deal as they claim.
Why are the staffers immune from answering questions if Hamilton can be interviewed on this?

Posted by: waterdancer Oct 2 2007, 04:15 PM

Looking around for more info on the Scowcroft chaired Federal Advisory Committee (which I suspect was on board our E-4B) I found this link
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/mar/m07-009.shtml

QUOTE
NEW ADVISORY GROUP ON NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL

The Defense Department has established a new private sector
Advisory Committee for the End-to-End Review of the U.S. Nuclear
Command and Control System.  The command and control of nuclear
weapons is perhaps the most sensitive topic in the U.S.
government.

"This advisory committee will provide advice and recommendations
to the Secretary of Defense ... regarding the full range of U.S.
Nuclear Command and Control System (NCSS) policies,
responsibilities, functions, management structures and
capabilities...," according to a March 6 Notice in the Federal
Register.

"The Advisory Committee will consist of a balanced membership of
approximately four senior members from the private sector,
appointed by the Secretary of Defense," the Federal Register
Notice said.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/fr030601.html

For the Pentagon to solicit advice from the private sector on
ultra-classified issues of nuclear command and control seems
rather extraordinary.

But considering the identities of the newly appointed private
sector members, it is not so much of a stretch after all.  The
members are Gen. (ret.) Brent Scowcroft, chair; Gen. (ret.)
Michael Carnes; John Crawford, former vice president of Sandia
National Laboratories; and William Crowell, President and CEO of
Cylink, Inc.  Assistant Secretary of Defense Art Money and a yet
unnamed Energy Department official will also serve.

The Committee is established under the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, but all or most of its meetings are
expected to be closed and its minutes classified, Pentagon
spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Campbell told Secrecy News.  The first
meeting is scheduled for April 5.


I can't independently confirm any of the names besides http://www.seab.energy.gov/sub/bios_nwcitf.html. ("Dr. Crawford was recently appointed to serve as a member of a Federal Advisory Committee for the End-to-End Review of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS).")

Looking at the names listed and poking around for more info on them, they look like quite viable candidates. I think Michael Carnes should instead be Michael Carns.

NSA, Sandia, DoD, if it is Carns then Dyncorp/Rockwell Collins ties etc.

possibly the missing name from the list is http://www.webcitation.org/5QuWkL0fm
QUOTE
Neary has more than 30 years experience in
nuclear operations, planning, and policy. His last
Air Force assignment included command of the
20th Air Force element of the US Strategic Command,
and he previously commanded two ICBM
wings. He played a major role in the Scowcroft
End-to-End Review of the US Nuclear Command
and Control System, a comprehensive review of
nuclear weapons security.

Posted by: 911stealth Oct 4 2007, 08:58 PM

Pinnacle,

I suggest you scan (obscuring any personal name or address) every document you have received and submitted and post it on line, for us to link and track the case more rigurously. Thks!

Posted by: pinnacle Oct 5 2007, 05:59 PM

I gave copies of the documents to David Ray Griffin and they
will probably appear in his next book.
He will have a lot of information on the E-4B story and other
mysteries.
I am still being told the FAA is going to release the radar records but I
can't get an estimate on when that will happen.
I have made another inquiry to the Department of Defense
based on the CNN story and the fact that the "no knowledge" reponse from the
US Air Force was literally faxed from the Pentagon about two hours before Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: JackD Oct 5 2007, 06:13 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Sep 18 2007, 12:27 PM)
After reading the CNN transcript I notice Lee Hamilton actually
shifts the blame to the commission staffers for not considering the E-4B relevant, thereby if it turns out to be really important he can just say it was
anonymous staff people who failed to inform him. Of course since
he was ordered to provide a full and complete accounting of the
"circumstances" of the attacks I do not see how he could leave out
an expanation of any military aircraft in the area at the time of the attacks no matter how "irrelevant" it was to the attacks themselves since the whole issue under investigation was the state of the military situational awareness in the critical moments when action might have saved lives. To then say we are "ludricious" for asking why this information continues to be withheld from the public is insulting to the intelligences of every American.
Even if the E-4B turns out to be merely more proof of military incompetence in a crisis it certainly should have been fully investigated by the 9/11 Commission.
The mere fact it was there is a very unusual "circumstance" and they were
mandated to account for it.

This thread is nearly a year old (Oct 21) -- and 15,000+ views means nearly 50 per day.

High-visibility!

Some Pentagon authority must own up to knowledge of this E4B's flight plan, pilots, staffing, and mission on 9/11/01.

It is possible it was ALREADY airborne at 9:40am on 9/11/01 --- E4B can fly for weeks at a time w/ mid-air refueling from a KC-135 or a 767-200 tanker --

or it scrambled and took off that morning (likely from Andrews AFB, where it is frequently based so that Rumsfeld can use it for transport)

We already know that one of the OTHER 3 E4B took off at 10:30 (confirm) from Wright-Pat near Dayton, so, that rules out that one. THe other 2 E4B unaccounted for.

Three were said to be participating in Global Guardian, a multi-level war game which interfaces with nuclear command and control, and at least in one year (1998) featured a red-team vs blue team (blue = good guys) exercise in which there was a "rogue insider" -- !!!

could you define 9/11/01 any better than "terror drill with a rogue insider" ???

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Oct 5 2007, 10:17 PM

The E4B's primary purpose was to create a cover story for the flyover jet which was also white.

We have enough testimony to demonstrate this as solidly as the north side claim and will be releasing a 38 minute short presenting all the evidence within a week.

cheers.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Oct 6 2007, 03:51 PM

Topic now reopen. Debate posts have been split and moved to Debate forum.

This thread is for research purposes only and we will keep it sanitized as such. Any and all off-topic debates that are less than civil will be moved to debate forum. Please try not to start off-topic debates here as a split takes a long time to process for a large thread. Thanks for your understanding.


Rob

Posted by: Ashoka Oct 12 2007, 11:49 AM

Ok here's a serious candidate for being the E4-B

This plane took off from Andrews at approximately 9:44 a.m.

Source: http://files-upload.com/files/557041/white%20plane.xls

Flight path (Google Earth)



Detail of the maneuver over Washington D.C.



Ashoka

Posted by: pinnacle Oct 12 2007, 05:31 PM

The link to 84th rades data does not work. It says there is
nothing there to download.
Was this information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act or some other way?
I have been stalled for 18 months by the FAA trying to get radar information of Washington airspace for the 9:30 am to 10:00 am period and I would really like to know how anyone could this from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron when my Congressman made an official inquiry last November and was told by the Pentagon that such radar data of a plane over Washington before 10:00 am on 9/11 did not exist.
Either it is classified information or it is not. Even records exempt from FOIA must be acknowledged as existing.
I am surprised such potentially important information was posted with so little explanation or sourcing.

Posted by: rob balsamo Oct 12 2007, 07:53 PM

Wasnt the E4B filmed flying over Arlington Cemetary? If so, that radar track is not of the E4B.

Posted by: pinnacle Oct 15 2007, 11:47 AM

All video I have seen of the E-4B was shot in Lafayette Park just north of the White House where all the media people were hearded by the Secret Service.
The track could be correct although the Linda Brookhart photo was taken on Pennsylavia Ave. about a block west of the White House and it appears to be almost directly overhead shooting right up the side of the building on the south side of the street.
Even if this is not the E-4B track it certainly proves that something was flying near the White House at 9:45 am and that the "records" do in fact exist even though
the air force, FAA and Secret Service have all officially stated they do not.

Posted by: pinnacle Oct 22 2007, 01:45 PM

I have noticed that the radar track from 84 RADES does not correlate with the
CNN video.
In the shot of the E-4B flying past the Capital building the camera is on the
west side of the Capital which has eight large columns topped by a frieze.
Also the he Statue of Freedom faces west. This means the E-4B had to fly east in this shot, but the radar shows no pass to the south of the Capitol in an easterly direction.

Posted by: pinnacle Oct 23 2007, 04:33 PM

I sent the radar track image to one of the journalists who reported the E-4B
on air on 9/11.
He says it looks to far north.
He remembers it being very large and closer to his position in Lafayette Park.
Also the CNN video of the return pass seems much closer than the first shot
both of which used the same camera and lens.
In order to make the pass by the Capital dome it may have made a tighter
turn taking it back closer to the White House and then gone left to fly due east over the Capital.
None of this appears in the radar data.

Posted by: KILL YOUR TV! Oct 25 2007, 05:47 AM

From 9/11blogger:

"The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a brief but important letter: Update on Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11? By Mark H. Gaffney..."

click for pdf:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Gaffney_911Mystery%20Plane.pdf

Posted by: waterdancer Oct 25 2007, 07:44 AM

Good stuff, recommended. Some new info on Scowcroft's FAC as an example of new material therein.

QUOTE
Maj.
General Michael Carns, Dr. John Crawford, William Crowell, John Gordon,
and Art Money, although in April 2001 the latter was replaced by Linton

Posted by: 911stealth Oct 25 2007, 08:53 PM

On the 9/11 news Nanoprobe73 found another plane completely white, except for its small signature at the side and a bump on Bush's 9/11 trajectory, it says that Bush stopped to greet airforce personnel at two different moments on that awful day, this is that plane (Involved somehow on the "9/11 operation"):



[Side note: Nanoprobe73 also found that the footage of the purported "Air Force One" with those F-16 escorts was not "Air Force One", check the telling symbol by the wing at the right side: http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd15/911stealth2/fake-af1.jpg]

Posted by: 911stealth Oct 25 2007, 09:36 PM

The importance of the previous footage and the next is that Gaffney declares:

"This agrees with the story in the Omaha newspaper. Verton also identified the airport as Andrews AFB. Later, this same E-4B joined President Bush at Offutt AFB, where Verton says he spoke with his informant by telephone the day following the attack."

Also, Gaffney wrote:

"At 9:06 AM Andrew Card, Bush’s Chief of Staff, came up and whispered in Bush’s ear: “A second plane hit the other tower. America is under attack.” At which point the Secret Service should have immediately hustled Bush out of the school to
safety."

However, what is more astounding is that two networks at least, CNN and ABC reported that Bush was informed of the "9/11 Operation" going on even before entering his limo to go to the Booker Elementary School:

From CNN Harris - Furman conversation:

HARRIS: I want to bring up a couple points if I may. We have been told that President Bush has been informed of this incredible tragedy happening in New York. He did have an event scheduled at 9:00 this morning, which we were going to cover here, and he has just canceled that event...

[Evidently he knew immediately, just when he was leaving his hotel, but evidently he did not canceled his 'Booker Elemetary PsyOp Mockingbird Coverage']

From ABC's Peter Jennings and John Cochran:

Want to check in very quickly with the president of the United States. John Cochran with the president in Florida. John:

JOHN COCHRAN reporting: Peter, as you know, the president's down in Florida talking about education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later. His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida.

JENNINGS: Thanks, John. John Cochran with the president. The president's in Florida today pushing his education reform. It will get wiped off of the agenda today in view of this extraordinarily serious accident.

[Again it did not got wiped off Bush's crooked 'agenda']

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html [thanks to killtown's tireless work to nail one by one every news transcript from that day and every perp.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4rkfgHTK-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlvlNiTuqAI

Come on America, wake up!

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 6 2007, 04:03 PM

Did anyone notice that John Farmer mentioned on Coast to Coast AM the fact that the RADES data shows the Langley jet fighters actually pursued the E-4B before heading for the Pentagon?
What was that about?
Also why do the stories about Bush in Sarasota never mention his military communications officer who would have been the first to get word of what was happening?
If this had been a nuclear missile attack with only seconds to respond would Andy Card have been Bush's only line of communication?

Posted by: JackD Nov 6 2007, 06:39 PM

at what time did langley jets pursue E4B?
when did they arrive on scene?

What unit did they belong to?
were Langley jets loyal, or rogue>?
was E4B loyal, or rogue>?

how did John Farmer get to see the RADES reconstruction of Langley jets, and we havent?

Very interesting.

Posted by: Ashoka Nov 7 2007, 05:08 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 7 2007, 01:39 AM)
at what time did langley jets pursue E4B?
when did they arrive on scene?

What unit did they belong to?
were Langley jets loyal, or rogue>?
was E4B loyal, or rogue>?

how did John Farmer get to see the RADES reconstruction of Langley jets, and we havent?

Very interesting.


Posted by: pinnacle Nov 7 2007, 02:54 PM

The GIF is very good and shows that there was an attempt at an intercept that was apparently called off at 9:55.
In the 9/11 Report one of the Langley pilots says he never saw any airplanes and was not told anything.
It makes you wonder why they chased a plane they never saw and were not ordered to go after.
Also it adds to the long list of unaccounted for activity by the air force
that was all censored out of the 9/11 Report.
At this time the only supposed threats were Flight 93 and the phantom Flight 11 approaching from the north so why were the only three jet fighters available all flying south after the E-4B?
By the time they get back to Washington at 9:59 the Pentagon has been burning for 20 minutes.

Posted by: JackD Nov 7 2007, 07:19 PM

IF the Langley jets were pursuing the Knee-cap E4B doomsday plane, (which they would know damn straight up as readily identifiable) --

then perhaps the "US military" was responding to a silghtly different threat than the one the public was "understanding" -- meaning WE were TOLD about "HIJACKED PLANES FLOWN BY ARABS" and the military was responding to a perceived coup by a powerful rogue faction capable of flying an E4B in a low pass over white house...

if combat jets get too close to E4B, it is rumored that it is well defended not by missiles but by microwave directed energy that can either 1) fry combat jet radar and communications 2) EMP and other directed energy that can knock out on-board electronics -- langley jets would crash to ground, out of service.... rumor of course...

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 9 2007, 01:49 PM

After viewing the entire RADES video of the Washington DC area now posted on Google I found it interesting that the three fighters decelerate significantly
and appear to wander around for two minutes after they break off pursuit of the
E-4B and hesitate before heading to Washington almost as if they are not sure what to do.
Presumably they were ordered to intercept the E-4B and then ordered to call off the chase.
They then fly over the Pentagon at 9:59 am, but instead of setting up a "combat air patrol" over Washington they make a turn to the west and are several miles away from Washington when the radar data ends just after 10:00 am.
All of these actions appear to be directed by somebody but the pilots claimed they saw no aircraft and were given no instructions.
The lead jet is transmitting a "7777" transponder code so this was definitely an intercept operation even though I have already had news media people dismiss this data as merely showing an "escort" for the E-4B.
Yeah right, an escort that closes in from 60 miles away and than makes a 180 degree turn away from what they are "escorting".
How much evidence does it take to make journalists wake up?

Posted by: KILL YOUR TV! Nov 9 2007, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Nov 9 2007, 06:49 PM)
After viewing the entire RADES video of the Washington DC area now posted on Google I found it interesting that the three fighters decelerate significantly
and appear to wander around for two minutes after they break off pursuit of the
E-4B and hesitate before heading to Washington almost as if they are not sure what to do.
Presumably they were ordered to intercept the E-4B and then ordered to call off the chase.
They then fly over the Pentagon at 9:59 am, but instead of setting up a "combat air patrol" over Washington they make a turn to the west and are several miles away from Washington when the radar data ends just after 10:00 am.
All of these actions appear to be directed by somebody but the pilots claimed they saw no aircraft and were given no instructions.
The lead jet is transmitting a "7777" transponder code so this was definitely an intercept operation even though I have already had news media people dismiss this data as merely showing an "escort" for the E-4B.
Yeah right, an escort that closes in from 60 miles away and than makes a 180 degree turn away from what they are "escorting".
How much evidence does it take to make journalists wake up?

I guess you mean this:


Posted by: JackD Nov 9 2007, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Nov 9 2007, 01:49 PM)
After viewing the entire RADES video of the Washington DC area now posted on Google I found it interesting that the three fighters decelerate significantly
and appear to wander around for two minutes after they break off pursuit of the
E-4B and hesitate before heading to Washington almost as if they are not sure what to do.
Presumably they were ordered to intercept the E-4B and then ordered to call off the chase.
They then fly over the Pentagon at 9:59 am, but instead of setting up a "combat air patrol" over Washington they make a turn to the west and are several miles away from Washington when the radar data ends just after 10:00 am.
All of these actions appear to be directed by somebody but the pilots claimed they saw no aircraft and were given no instructions.
The lead jet is transmitting a "7777" transponder code so this was definitely an intercept operation even though I have already had news media people dismiss this data as merely showing an "escort" for the E-4B.
Yeah right, an escort that closes in from 60 miles away and than makes a 180 degree turn away from what they are "escorting".
How much evidence does it take to make journalists wake up?

i can't find the link, or source (mayeb http://cooperativeresearch.org) -- but one issue that both White House officials and the military dealt with was multiple chains of command -- as one put it "orders were coming in from several places" --

The pilots may have been given one mission at take off, only to have it countermanded, or re-written , in flight.

This would help explain the erratic path of the langley F-16s, first chasing the E4B, then coming back ,but not setting up a CAP over DC.

"do the orders still stand?"

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 13 2007, 12:12 PM

In the NORAD tapes the Langley fighters, identified as flight Quit 2-5,
are ordered to go directly to Washington at 9:36 am.
No explanation is given for the 23 minutes it takes them to get to the Pentagon.
Meanwhile Andrews Air Force base does not bother to put up a single fighter even though the Secret Service is supposedly asking for air cover during this entire
time period.
The 9/11 Commission never mentions that the Langley fighters flew within 20 miles of the burning Pentagon at 9:50 am and continued flying 60 miles southwest after the E-4B only to "arrive" over the Pentagon at 9:59 am.
The E-4B certainly seems to be central to all of these events despite the continuing
lack of interest from congressmen, presidential candidates and the news media.

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 14 2007, 06:48 PM

Apparently the Langley fighters were ordered to a "CAP" point
south of Washington at 9:45 am just two minutes after the launch of the
E-4B. Then the E-4B flew to the same position just ahead of the fighters.
All of this results in about a 13 minute delay in getting air cover over Washington
DC as several suspected hijacked planes are believed to be heading there.
Kevin Nasypany stated he "put his planes over Washington" while tracking Flight 93 as it still came in from the north, yet his planes do not actually get to the Pentagon until 9:59 am and then they turn west away from Washington.
Yet the NORAD tapes make no mention of the E-4B or why Nasypany's order to "crank it" straight to Washington at 9:36 am is effectively rendered
meaningless by this flight to the "CAP" point 40 miles to the south.
This also results in a huge waste of jet fuel for no apparent reason.
Andrews Air Force Base does not send up any additional fighters until
10:38 am., 55 minutes after launching the E-4B.

Posted by: pinnacle Nov 23 2007, 05:23 PM

I just checked Google Video and the RADES data video has only been
viewed 127 times.
Yet the White Jet forum has been viewed over 17,000 times.
I don't understand why nobody is looking at this important data.
I am also curious why the C-130 seems jump sideways just before Flight 93
disappears from radar. Did they observe what was happening while it was still in flight and get out of the way in expectation that it might crash into them?
Why else would they pull a sharp right turn in a sky that had already been cleared of aircraft?

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 3 2007, 12:41 PM

I just noticed that CNN has put up the E-4B video again as of December 1, 2007.
Why would they want to bring that back now?
I am wondering if my letter to Robert Gates got some kind of reaction within the Pentagon.
Congressman Adam Schiff still has nothing to say about the CNN video or the 84th RADES radar records which he was told by both the air force and the FAA did not exist. I have tried repeatedly to get a reaction from him on all of this but nothing has been forthcoming.

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 3 2007, 06:58 PM

I just checked out John Farmers latest post.
He has discovered that two jet fighters took off from Andrews AFB at about 8:36 am on 9/11 and flew directly to Langley, away from Washington, at the very time
when the first reports of the attack were being broadcast.
This flight includes M3_7014 which later took off again at 9:30 am.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 4 2007, 06:32 AM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Nov 6 2007, 04:03 PM)
Did anyone notice that John Farmer mentioned on Coast to Coast AM the fact that the RADES  data shows the  Langley jet fighters actually pursued the E-4B before heading for the Pentagon?

I didnt listen to Farmers interview, however i noticed the same in the radar data. I figured it was an escort and not an intercept. Does Farmer have anything confirming it was an "intercept", or is it speculation? Farmer seems to be inaccurate on alot of his work. I'd take what he analyzes with a grain of salt. Although he has produced some gems (many of which he doesnt realize he has uncovered), its rare.

If it was an intercept and is confirmed. That is something which needs to get out there. I dont think it can be confirmed unless you talk to the operating facility. I'll see what i can do.

I'll be spending more time researching this issue over the coming months now that im done with PBB3. My apologies for being absent from this thread.

As usual, keep up the great work pinnacle and others.. and thanks for being here.

Rob

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 4 2007, 12:04 PM

In view of the fact that Major Kevin Nasypany ordered the three Langley fighters to go "directly to Washington" at 9:36 am I do not see why way they would ignore that order and go on an "escort mission" following the E-4B only to then break off and go back to Washington after being diverted south for 10 minutes during an
OPREP-3 PINNACLE emergency situation.
At this time Flight 93 and the phantom Flight 11 were both approaching from the north so why would anyone fly south away from the threat?
The pursuit of the E-4B begins at 9:50 am and breaks off at 9:55 am
then the three jets make a very slow turn to the north taking about two more minutes and finally arrive over the Pentagon just before 10:00 am.
Also one of the three jets had actually flown from Andrews south to Langley at
8:50 am with a second fighter.
If these two armed jets had been kept at Andrews they could have easily intercepted "Flight 77" before it hit the Pentagon. At least one of them, M3_7014, had machine gun ammunition according to the 9/11 Commission. Obviously they had enough fuel for one to be sent up again from Langley at 9:24 am.
The lead plane is M3_7777 which is the transponder code for a hot pursuit intercept mission so he must have considered the E-4B a target to be intercepted for some reason.

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 4 2007, 07:55 PM

It appears that the Langley fighters do head west toward Washington as
ordered until 9:51:30 am and then turn southwest directly toward the E-4B
which they follow until 9:55 am.
When they finally do get to the Pentagon at 9:59 am they do not circle over Washington but instead turn west and fly about ten miles before the radar
record ends at 10:00:05 am.
It does not appear that they even entered Washington airspace until some time after 10:00 am.
Whether this was an "intercept" mission or an "escort" mission the fact is that
the result was a significant delay in the air defense of Washington that is once again totally unaccounted for by the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by: 911stealth Dec 13 2007, 09:35 PM

I received the next personal message:

"Did you know that FOX News ran video of the E-4B back in late April or early May 2007 during a 5 minute report on Greta Van Susteren's show? The story was all about the Doomsday plane. FOX was allowed to ride on the plane on a trip to Europe. In the middle of the report video comes on of a big white plane flying over trees and a caption appears saying "The Doomsday Plane was sighted over the White House on 9/11".

Tried to find the Greta Van Susteren report on the Doomsday plane on the FOX News website and could not find it. It was there for several months this summer. I did find some 9/11 video from FOX News that they feature, and noted that FOX News mentioned bin Laden as a likely perpetrator within seconds of the second plane hitting the second tower of the WTC at 9:03 am. Which must be one of the quicker solutions of a major crime in history, or more likely fed to them by high sources?"

Does anyone have that footage to post it at YouTube?

Posted by: pinnacle Dec 14 2007, 12:48 PM

I have heard about this FOX report before and Mark Gaffney was told FOX owned the E-4B video used in the Discovery channel Flight 93 program, but FOX told him they could not locate it.
It was the failure to find the FOX video that got me searching the CNN archives
since I knew one of them had to have the footage and now it looks like they both did.
In February and May of 2007 I was getting letters from the FAA and Secret Service saying they had "no records" of any aircraft near the White House on 9/11, so maybe FOX knew questions were being asked about this and put it out
quietly as if it were "not important" to diffuse the whole issue.
But I still cannot understand why the FAA and Secret Service would
deny any records when they had to know that there was plenty of
news media video proving the E-4B was there. They also knew that 84th RADES
had lots of radar records that were likely to become public as they recently did.
Why not just admit it?
Also if FOX knew all about the E-4B in April why did CNN make a big deal out of it
in September and again within the past few days?
Anderson Cooper should have interviewed the Greta Van Susteren since apparently she had inside information.
I wrote Robert Gates about all of this two months ago and he has not responded so I guess he is not as much of an improvement over Rumsfeld as I had hoped he would be.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 2 2008, 12:26 PM

Happy Election Year!
Now that we are finally in 2008 and S 2488 has been signed into law I am
requesting reviews of all of my "no records" responses to FOIA requests concerning the White Jet.
I am struck by the paradox that our government claims to want us to be able to ask questions under FOIA and then at the same time passes legislation like
HR 1955 which seeks to casts suspicion on anyone in the 911 truth movement who actually asks such questions under the FOIA.
Talk about sending contradictory messages.
I intend top bring this up with all the congressional candidates this year.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 15 2008, 01:02 PM

It appears that the 9/11 Mystery Plane book will be published in time
for the 7th anniversary of 9/11.
I wonder how the debunkers will explain this one.

Posted by: rivers Jan 18 2008, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (pinnacle @ Jan 15 2008, 01:02 PM)
It appears that the 9/11 Mystery Plane  book will be published in time
for the 7th anniversary of 9/11.
I wonder how the debunkers will explain this one.

A book? What kind of arguments - except the obvious E4B reports and proofs - are you going to cover?

Posted by: 911stealth Jan 22 2008, 02:09 PM

Pinnacle:

Hopefully it comes soon before the perpetrators leave Office.

Nanoprobe73 found another brief clip of the e-4b in the BBC documentary "Clear the Skies": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe7LIfmKLEw
New Airing of the e-4b by BBC "Clear the Skies" Documentary.

Gaffney mentioned this documentary in his next statement:
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/09a.htm

"...Langley fighter pilot Major Dean Eckmann, who, according to the BBC, received a radio transmission at 9:33 AM while piloting his F-16 over the Atlantic. In Eckmann's own words: "They said: All aeroplanes, if you come within 30 miles of Washington DC, you will be shot down."[66] Who sent this order? Was this the E-4B, warning off all planes, military as well as commercial, in order to conceal its presence over the Capitol? Not surprisingly, the BBC news story is nowhere recounted in the 9/11 Commission Report."

"The fact that the US military denies to this day that an E-4B circled over Washington on 9/11 suggests a likely motive for a cover-up: to conceal the E-4B's presence, hence, the role it played."

[66] "Clear the Skies," BBC, September 1, 2002.

However, I'm worried that co-author David Ray Griffin apparently Calls For Global Government, he must clarify that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotfi1L3JgU

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 22 2008, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (911stealth @ Jan 22 2008, 02:09 PM)
However, I'm worried that co-author David Ray Griffin apparently Calls For Global Government, he must clarify that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotfi1L3JgU

I have asked and spoken to David Ray on this issue directly. He is opposed to a elite controlled one world govt. He feels there should be a global democracy in which the people of the world would be self-governing. Very different from a 'globalist'. His ideas are briefly outlined in "American Empire and the Commonwealth of God".

Please keep this thread on topic. If anyone would like to discuss DRG, please open a new thread. Thank you.

Posted by: 911stealth Jan 23 2008, 01:44 AM

Rob,

Thanks! That clarifies it. We'll keep our support for that enterprise with the hope it reaches the biggest audience possible.

As you know, we are literally sleepless waiting for the true kind of justice to be served for the 9/11 issue.

So, cheers to Pinnacle and DRG for their upcoming work.

Posted by: pinnacle Jan 30 2008, 12:57 PM

Why has the White Jet Analysis forum been renamed "delete"?
That seems a little weird.
The book about the 9/11 Mystery Plane is being written by Mark Gaffney.
I am re-contacting people at the Pentagon and the FAA
trying to get some kind of official feedback on several issues.
The David Ray Griffin book might include some of the documents I received from
the Pentagon, Secret Service and FAA but I am not sure what will be in it.
White Jet Analysis should hit 20,000 views any time now.
Hopefully the name will be changed back again.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)