Mystery White Plane Over Whitehouse

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Here is the Mystery White Plane. Thought it best to start a thread as It doesn't seem to have one.

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






Content from external source
The plane is a modified Boeing 747-200. Notice the white color, the US flag painted on the vertical stabilizer (i.e, the tail), and the blue stripe and insignia on the fuselage. The clincher, however, is the "bump" directly behind the bulging 747 cockpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B, and is integral to the plane's military role as an airborne command center.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What's the mystery exactly?
I find it a mystery as to why 'they' denied it was there... when clearly it was.
Also, if 'they' can get 'it' there... why couldn't they get the airforce jets there before hand?

Incidentally, the pentagon has also dismissed the news reports cited above. To this day the US military claims that it knows nothing about a large plane circling over Washington on 9/11. So, what is going on, here? Did a large unidentified plane circle over Washington, or not? And if so, what does it mean?
Content from External Source
Just another coincidence?

In previous years the military always staged Global Guardian in October or November; and the 2001 exercise was likewise originally scheduled for October, according to various reports.[15] Curiously, however, for reasons never disclosed, the Joint Chiefs changed the plan and conducted the 2001 exercise during the week of September 11. The following year the date reverted back. The 2002 Global Guardian came off in October, as in previous years, and this has continued to be the case.[16]
Content from External Source

All of which raises disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world's most sophisticated electronics warfare plane circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack? Recently, when the investigator who contacted me filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the presence of the E-4B over Washington on 9/11, the FAA responded that it "had no knowledge" of such a plane. My contact also shared the basic information presented in this article with his Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and requested that he look into the matter. Schiff then made a formal inquiry through official channels, but was told that the Air Force knows nothing. Obviously, the pentagon is lying. If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission on September 11, why does the military deny its presence? Why would they do this? When people lie it is generally because they have something to hide. Is the US military any different?
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://rense.com/general76/missing.htm
Unlike Air Force One, however, the E-4B can be refueled in midair and so has considerably greater range.
Content from External Source
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/air-force-one
Capable of refueling midair, Air Force One has unlimited range and can carry the President wherever he needs to travel.
Content from External Source
http://rense.com/general76/missing.htm
The mysterious "white plane" seen flying over the D.C on 9-11 by Mark H. Gaffney. He may have correctly identified the aircraft in the pictures as an E4-B, but the article goes on to incorrectly state that "Unlike Air Force One, however, the E-4B can be refueled in midair and so has considerably greater range". Think about it that statement. If the President is on Air Force One and a national emergency occurs, will he have the time or the safety to land and change planes? If he is on Air Force One and has to stay airborne past the takeoff fuel load, don't you think Air Force One would have the capability to be refueled? Nah, they will just let him run out of gas and crash. I hate to break the news to you, but Air Force One can also be refueled air to air. Another fact for you .. both aircraft can also refuel their fighter escorts.
Content from External Source
Fighter escorts? I didn't see any of those.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I don't find it at all unreasonable to think that during a national emergency like 9/11, when the government doesn't know if or what kind of attacks could be coming next, that they would have a command aircraft like this in the air over the capitol. Just another line of communications if needed. Is that not what it is intended to do?
But the aircraft is more commonly known as the "doomsday plane," because its premier function is to serve as a flying command, control and communications (C3) center in the event of a national emergency or nuclear war.
Content from External Source
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I don't find it at all unreasonable to think that during a national emergency like 9/11, when the government doesn't know if or what kind of attacks could be coming next, that they would have a command aircraft like this in the air over the capitol.

I find it unreasonable to leave the president sitting around reading about pet (scape)goats when elements in the MIC seemed prepared enough to have other planes in the sky. I guess there wasn't any "drill" running simultaneously with the real world events of 911 called: "Getting the president to his command center on time." Huh? Apparently the only drill running with Bush in mind was the "Leave him to read about pet goats." drill, if that.

I also find it unreasonable that they never really tracked down the threat of "Angel"/Air Force One is next and found its source, as far as I know. How did someone in Al Qaeda know the code for the day or have a way of contacting the pilots and so forth?

So for all we know (and given the level of penetration knowing the code for Air Force one might demonstrate) that command aircraft could have been the place where the command to make a threat originated. Or the fact that it was there could have been another aspect of "drills" already in progress. Something along the lines of: "Say, we were just having a drill up here... or somethin'." Because the whole thing seems reminiscent of Operation Valkyrie, where emergency drills were co-opted by people within the military industrial complex with world altering events in mind and so forth. Except in this case, if that's what happened then there is a faction willing to risk thermonuclear war.

(9:06 a.m.-9:16 a.m.) September 11, 2001: President Bush Reads Pet Goat Story for Nearly 10 Minutes; Warned Not to Talk
Content from External Source

Versus how quickly this plane must have been in the air:

At 9:41 a.m., Peter Jennings of ABC News reports that “there is a plane circling the White House at the moment. And they’re clearing the grounds there.… And this plane circling the White House adds to the trauma that people are feeling today, but we have no idea precisely what the means.” [ABC News, 9/11/2001]
Content from External Source
Versus:


The pilot of Air Force One has revealed for the first time how they feared the presidential jet would be rammed by hijacked jet in the hours after the 9/11 terror attack.
Colonel Mark Tillman said he and his crew received a radio message saying 'Angel is next' as America reeled from the attack on the twin towers.
Angel was the secret call sign for Air Force One as it left Sarasota, Florida, where President Bush had been told about the attacks on the Twin Towers. (Daily Mail)
Content from External Source
No word yet on whether those in the command aircraft in that pic also had their security penetrated or stripped and were also receiving radio messages threatening them with assassination. After all, members of Al Qaeda could apparently do anything on 911 once Osama gave them a call from his cave complexes to match their actions to the drills of the day and so forth.

Anyway... the question remains, who was in that plane? We don't know.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
But the aircraft is more commonly known as the "doomsday plane," because its premier function is to serve as a flying command, control and communications (C3) center in the event of a national emergency or nuclear war.
Content from External Source

Were there similar reports of fighters over D.C. and so forth, or not? Because if there weren't any, it might indicate that people in command centers that day knew that they wouldn't need any. Safety first... and all that.

Some fighters were too busy chasing phantom flights, apparently:
9:23 a.m. September 11, 2001: NEADS Wants Fighters to Track Phantom Flight 1
According to the 9/11 Commission, NEADS has just been told that the hijacked Flight 11 is still in the air and heading toward Washington. [....]
In 2004 the 9/11 Commission will state, “this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11, is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by FAA or [Defense Department]. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley fighters has been described as a response to the reported hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two.” Yet the “report of American 11 heading south as the cause of the Langley scramble is reflected not just in taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations at FAA centers, on chat logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD, and in other records.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]
History Commons
Content from External Source
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I find it unreasonable to leave the president sitting around reading about pet (scape)goats when elements in the MIC seemed prepared enough to have other planes in the sky. I guess there wasn't any "drill" running simultaneously with the real world events of 911 called: "Getting the president to his command center on time." Huh? Apparently the only drill running with Bush in mind was the "Leave him to read about pet goats." drill, if that.

I also find it unreasonable that they never really tracked down the threat of "Angel"/Air Force One is next and found its source, as far as I know. How did someone in Al Qaeda know the code for the day or have a way of contacting the pilots and so forth?

So for all we know (and given the level of penetration knowing the code for Air Force one might demonstrate) that command aircraft could have been the place where the command to make a threat originated. Or the fact that it was there could have been another aspect of "drills" already in progress. Something along the lines of: "Say, we were just having a drill up here... or somethin'." Because the whole thing seems reminiscent of Operation Valkyrie, where emergency drills were co-opted by people within the military industrial complex with world altering events in mind and so forth. Except in this case, if that's what happened then there is a faction willing to risk thermonuclear war.


Anyway... the question remains, who was in that plane? We don't know.

Gen Jack Ripper is dead, Col Bat Guano warns us of the future - don't you go tryin' any deviated preversion (like thinkin')


And remember - No fighting in the war room.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It seem entirely reasonable that the plane would be there at that time. This is a contrived "mystery".

Is there any evidence for that? 'Evidence' in the way it's generally understood. Or 'seem' it could just as well be a conspiracy (in the way it's usually understood here, ofcourse). Or it's opinions-a-go-go, again; opinion in the dictionary definition as indicated by that particular arrangement of letters, biensur.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes. It was an emergency national command center. There was both an exercise and a national emergency. So it's perfectly reasonable it was there.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
It seem entirely reasonable that the plane would be there at that time. This is a contrived "mystery".

It's not reasonable from within the context of the overall picture and history of the day. It's only reasonable from within da bunker, where every conspiracy theory is bunk.

Just to be clear, apparently the clowns running the military industrial complex couldn't manage to get some fighters in the air or get Bush in the air... but they could manage to get a command center in the air over DC to see which way all the drills of the day might go or not go based on different contingencies?

It's as if you believe that a collection of bumbling fools and clowns would happen by happenstance along to a certain conclusion that happens to benefit their circus act in general too. Perhaps it seems "reasonable" if each point or fact is taken in isolation that a group of bumbling fools would come to the conclusion or endpoints of: "Command center aircraft over DC, not bumbled." "No fighters in the same airspace, successfully bumbled." "The person who is supposed to command the country has been left to read about pet goats and sent on a wild goose chase around the country... uh, I wish we could quit fumbling and bumbling here!"

One could almost imagine it as a conscious conspiracy of a faction with endpoints* in mind instead of trying to imagine that it all came about by happenstance or the work of "the base"/Al Qaeda.... or the work of the group of apparent clowns and incompetents running the military industrial complex in general. I can stretch my imagination pretty far to imagine how incompetent and dumb people probably are (e.g. Bush). But I'm not sure I can stretch it as far as you seem to be able to stretch. They seem to be pretty competent sometimes, especially when it's time to have tanks rolling down the streets and so forth. But maybe it was the reptilians resonating with the radio frequencies that threatened Air Force One and so forth, huh? They probably knew the code because they had been listening into the military industrial complex.

I thought of something, why doesn't the military industrial complex have more drills with respect to being ready for the possibility of a faction within it co-opting their... drills? It could have a big budget, with freedom and donuts for all. Something along the lines of: "Today we're having a drill about drills. Now bring in the donuts!"

*"911 was a policy coup!!!" --General Wesley Clarke (Seriously. It also seemed a little like a real coup there for a second. Must be my vivid imagination. Anyway... who was in that command center plane, again?)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Who cares? It was just a military plane in the air after the initial 911 attacks.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.html
I suppose that is one way of dealing with it... 'can't debunk it so dismiss it as who cares'.

It happens rather a lot with 9/11 and also other issues like 'bankers and elite have all the money... who cares'... 'we are all spied on ... who cares' 'the elite cavort around at bohemian grove and bilderberg... who cares. etc etc.

Well some people do care and a lot more people should care.

I read your article (and the thread), on V3solar... I thought it was very good. Disappointing that it doesn't appear to extend to criticism of banksters and secret government IMO.

Shortly before 10 am on the morning of September 11, 2001, amid rumors of a fourth hijacked plane headed for Washington, DC, a mystery aircraft appeared in restricted airspace over the White House. There has never been an official explanation for this incident, which has provided abundant fuel for 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Content from External Source


CNN acknowledges that, despite its identification, the absence of the aircraft from official investigations, together with the Pentagon's denial that it was a military plane and the insistence by the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA that they have no explanation for the incident, may continue to raise suspicions.
Content from External Source
Considering The hijackers flew the plane into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., which was the same time the Mystery White Plane arrived was seen at the scene... I think it important.

They managed to get there in the MWP, but no interceptors and no fighter escort?

As to 'what it was doing there'... who cares?

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Who cares" is because there seems to be perfectly reasonable reasons as to why it was there, so I'm saying "who cares" about the precise reasons. The precise reasons just seem like trivial details.

I know some people say things like "who cares if 9/11 was an inside job". That's not what I'm saying at all. I care immensely about if it was an inside job or not. I'm just not seeing anything to care about these particular questions. It just seems like meaningless minutia. That why I don't care. You need to demonstrate the significant more clearly.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
A hijacked plane was headed to DC and It could have taken out the capital and hundreds of our elected and appointed leaders. The government had to be ready for a disaster like something out of a movie. Getting all the command center planes up and off the ground would have been reasonable, logical and most important, the RIGHT thing to do.

I know that some have disparaged the fact that Pres Bush was kept in the air for hours and away from DC. That was a smart call that day.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I am struggling to see the importance being attached to this either. Not know the protocols involved in a situation like this, and not knowing whether the aircraft was simply on a training mission when the terrorists hit, I think it is drawing a long bow to infer anything out of the ordinary at all.

Wasn't there an Air Defence Exercise being held that day? If so wouldn't this aircraft be involved in that? If F-15's were being vectored towards Washington, wouldn't that also be a good place to send it once they realised what was happening?

Contrary to what you often see on TV, putting a fighter aircraft right next to a HVA (High Value Asset) like this is NOT the place to be if you want to defend it. The fighters you see escorting airliners with security problems on board are there to shoot it down as a last resort if necessary, not defend it.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Versus how quickly this plane must have been in the air:
Content from external source

At 9:41 a.m., Peter Jennings of ABC News reports that “there is a plane circling the White House at the moment. And they’re clearing the grounds there.… And this plane circling the White House adds to the trauma that people are feeling today, but we have no idea precisely what the means.” [ABC News, 9/11/2001]​

Oh, would that be the mainstream media reporting this? The same mainstream media that always lies and has been accused of trying to instigate riots recently? Maybe Peter Jennings was just trying to scare everyone. Isn't it odd that CTers don't trust the mainstream media unless they can use it to back up their theory?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Oh, would that be the mainstream media reporting this? The same mainstream media that always lies and has been accused of trying to instigate riots recently? Maybe Peter Jennings was just trying to scare everyone. Isn't it odd that CTers don't trust the mainstream media unless they can use it to back up their theory?

It's fairly clear that the corporate media does what it is told in some cases. So if someone takes a leak on them that something has to do with national security or that they can or can't report on something for the good of national security, then sometimes they don't/can't pursue that angle. Not that it necessarily does much good for them not to report on it when it's all over the internet anyway. Maybe there's more and more interplay emerging between CTers/the internet and the mainstream or military industrial/corporate media.

It seems like the corporate media is losing too. Losing in ratings, losing given the position that they've taken and how they've incorporated themselves into existing power structures and so forth. I view it as people being shaped by their own technologies. The internet is still basically decentralized for now (RIP Aaron Swartz), so anyone that's closer to the top of existing structures or centers of power is probably going to begin to feel its impact.* I'm kind of surprised that a faction hasn't emerged to just pull off a big false flag to centralize more control over the internet. There again, too many people like their funny cat videos or Justin Bieber videos.... and connecting with friends and so forth so it's probably hard to find enough conspirators, I'd imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some talk of that in some circles where they debate what false flag attacks to use and so forth, though. (I saw reports on the way some factions debate what type of false flag attacks to use next on Youtube. From their geopolitical/psychopathic perspective, Brzezinski said that they didn't see the impact of instantaneous communications and the rapid formation of new social networks coming. So there is that. Given that, maybe the psychopaths running things in general don't quite know what to do about the internet. At least, not yet. They'll probably come up with something eventually, especially in light of Snowden and so forth.)

*Something along these lines:
In other words, among people who comment [the decentralized media of the decentralized media] on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. [....]
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. [....]
....these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. Link
Content from External Source
A satire of those supporting the official story: "Quick, everyone get to the bunker and rally around our false flag more! The American way of life is non-negotiable."

I sometimes wonder if the imaginary scenarios about troupes of bumbling clowns in the military industrial complex putting on quite the three ring circus act while three buildings collapse at free fall speeds in the background and so forth might be correct... all by happenstance and coincidence. But even when I try to imagine things from within a more patriotic "bunker mode" perspective that still seems unlikely... given the context and history of such things. (A context that you would never be able to see if you invented excuses to atomize the big picture point by point, etc.) History shows that there are usually a lot of pretty intelligent psychopaths drawn to power, so they're probably not exactly the incompetent and forgetful group of bumblers that they often seem to make themselves out to be in modern democracies these days.

From that article: "DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context."

Indeed.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
That's all wishful thinking on conspiracy theorists' part. The flip side of your brave new world of robots who do what they are told is world of rag tag paranoid anarchists shooting each other.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I am struggling to see the importance being attached to this either.

Imagine it from the perspective of a small faction of hypothetical conspirators within the military industrial complex seeking to co-opt and redirect some drills. After all, all you'd have to imagine is the same thing that usually happens when nations want to go to war with each other and so forth. They "drill" right next to each other and then it might happen by happenstance to go live more and more and so forth. The same thing that sometimes happens in coups and assassination attempts, where continuity of government drills and so forth go live. Or perhaps they don't go live, if someone lives. Bummer.

From the perspective of a small faction making use of or following standard operating procedures and flow charts within a MIC and so forth, it would be important to have a command center from which they would know what contingency plans to follow and flow along their flow charts within any "con... highly organized plot." What's the difference between a conspiracy, a highly organized plot or a training exercise or drill that everyone conspires to bring about but only the little all seeing eye at the top sees from a "big picture" perspective... again?

In any event, who was on that plane? And from the perspective of those in "the base" or deep down in da bunker mode, why does everything always supposedly need to be highly classified? From your perspective it's all for your own good and the health, wealth and safety of your family... and to protect you from Al Qaeda/"the base" over there in Syria and so forth, I'd imagine.

Seriously, though.
Not know the protocols involved in a situation like this, and not knowing whether the aircraft was simply on a training mission when the terrorists hit, I think it is drawing a long bow to infer anything out of the ordinary at all.

From the perspective of conspirators, it might be important to have training missions and drills to hide their actions in. As usual. Otherwise people who are patriotic and don't understand a more psychopathic/geopolitical perspective might wonder: "Uh, exactly what the hell is going on here?"

Sort of like patriotic CIA agents in Benghazi that don't get the memo not to get a little too patriotic about things... for hour after agonizing hour, I'd imagine. If only the memo from their chain of command of the geopolitical Psychopaths Inc. closer to the top would have gotten to them with respect to the proper attitude to have about their fellow Americans, huh? Shrug. It would probably be a conspiracy theory to mention that the preening peacock Petraeus attended Bilderberg after Benghazi and the failure of that "911" to replace Obama* with Romney and the Masons/Mormons. So, back to da bunker?

*Sometimes puppets want to be real boys, it would seem. Too bad Bush didn't want that, judging by his reaction to his own 911. He probably took the advice of his dad.


Wasn't there an Air Defence Exercise being held that day?


Yes, there were many drills and so forth:

The military exercises (war games) planned for September 11, 2001 included:
  • Global Guardian, an annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and NORAD. Primary purpose is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures. Global Guardian is performed in conjunction with NORAD's Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior, as well as exercises sponsored by Air Combat Command (Crown Vigilance) and Space Command (Apollo Guardian).[3][4]
Vigilant Guardian, the semiannual NORAD exercise that had been running in conjunction with Global Guardian for several days and which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. Vigilant Guardian is a Command Post Exercise (CPX), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. The exercise involves all NORAD command levels.[5]Out of a range of scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, one was a "traditional" simulated hijacking. [....]
Aside from military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters after experiencing a mechanical failure. The NRO is the branch of the Department of Defense in charge of spy satellites. According to its spokesman Art Haubold: "No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building." He further explained: "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility, as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise." Most of the agency's personnel were sent home after the attacks. --Wikipedia
Content from External Source
If there was an element of a more nefarious (at least, from some perspectives) geopolitical conspiracy to the highly organized plots of 911, at least emergency workers and so forth were allowed to be there on time:

September 10, 2001: FEMA Representatives Arrive in New York, Ready for Training Exercise
Personnel from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrive in New York for a forthcoming training exercise and, as a result, their equipment is available to be used by members of the New York Police Department’s Emergency Service Unit (ESU) who are involved in search and rescue operations at Ground Zero the following day. [Appel, 2009, pp. 195-196] The FEMA representatives are among hundreds of people scheduled to take part in a terrorism training exercise on September 12 that is being organized by the New York City Office of Emergency Management (see September 12, 2001). The exercise, called “Tripod,” is set to take place at Pier 92 on the Hudson River. [New York Magazine, 10/15/2001; City of New York, 5/22/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/19/2004]
FEMA Personnel Set Up Equipment for Exercise - The FEMA personnel arrive in New York at some time on September 10 and begin setting up their equipment at Pier 92 for the forthcoming exercise, according to a book by NYPD police officer Anthea Appel. [Appel, 2009, pp. 195]
Content from External Source
That's Al Qaeda/"the base" or happenstance for you, happening by happenstance to attack on the day of drills so that the emergency workers happened to be there and so forth. Too bad about most counter terrorism agents being halfway across the country and so forth by coincidence too, though.


If so wouldn't this aircraft be involved in that? If F-15's were being vectored towards Washington, wouldn't that also be a good place to send it once they realised what was happening?

F-15s weren't being vectored to D.C., as far as I know.

In fact... in some cases, they weren't being vectored anywhere at all. Not even in the general direction of a person playing the part of a President that was left to read about pet goats:

(10:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: 1st Fighter Wing Cannot Assist NORAD as It Has Been Told to Stand By
Logo of the 1st Fighter Wing. [Source: US Air Force]
The 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, notifies NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) that it is unable to provide fighter jets to escort the president’s plane, Air Force One, because a lieutenant general at the Air Combat Command (ACC) has instructed the wing to stand by. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 239-240] The White House has requested a fighter escort for Air Force One (see 9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001), and officers at the headquarters of the Continental US NORAD Region in Florida have been calling around to find any available jets that might be able to provide that escort, irrespective of what branch of the military they belong to. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 38; Spencer, 2008, pp. 239]
Wing Told to Stand By - As a result, a colonel from the 1st Fighter Wing now calls NEADS. He says that although his unit would love to help, the lieutenant general at ACC has told it to stand by, as, technically, the wing belongs to ACC, not NORAD.

Content from External Source


There's also this report:
Wing's F-15s Take Off Following Attacks - F-15s from the 1st Fighter Wing will take off later on—“within two hours” [?] of the terrorist attacks, according to one account—to provide “protection for the National Command Authority and the rest of the nation’s civilian and military leadership,” and to patrol the skies of the East Coast. [Air Force Association, 10/2/2002; Langley Air Force Base, 1/2005; 1st Fighter Association, 3/14/2006] Eventually, fighters from Ellington Field in Texas and elsewhere will escort Air Force One (see (11:29 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Code One Magazine, 1/2002; Filson, 2003, pp. 87]
Content from External Source
Are those clowns from the CIA again... just in time for a circus act where some network nodes within the chain of command seem to turn into bumbling fools?

I'm not sure when the mystery plane took off. Maybe there was a training exercise to have it in the air, yet apparently there wasn't a drill to have more F-15s in the air? Instead: "Hang on, we have to get rid of enough fuel to land... why does it seem like we're caught in a circus act today? Today, of all days! Just give me a plane to shoot down, here. No, not the simulations and the phantoms... where are the real ones?"

Perhaps it seems like you're caught in a circus act and a simulation in which you're chasing phantom planes sometimes due to a lack of imagination with respect to your chains* of command.

But that's probably just me and my imagination, in theory.

*Look at it this way, at least you're not wearing a big stop sign your head like the "police men" incorporated into the polis usually have to. There again, that's probably all been changed to militaristic SWAT Team gear by now? Symbolism is dead, long live symbolism... watch for it, as it seems bound to emerge from the occult/hidden again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynym

Banned
Banned
That's all wishful thinking on conspiracy theorists' part. The flip side of your brave new world of robots who do what they are told is world of rag tag paranoid anarchists shooting each other.

I hear you. There are two sides to a coin.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The 'circus act' to me, seems to be folks that insist that the CIA and the government are 'clowns' and at the same time insist that those same folks could pull off 9/11 without a hitch and without any proof linking them to it for over 12 years.

It sounds like someone ate a cake and are still insisting that it is on the table. That doesn't work for 5 year olds or my dog.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
The 'circus act' to me, seems to be folks that insist that the CIA and the government are 'clowns' and at the same time insist that those same folks could pull off 9/11 without a hitch and without any proof linking them to it for over 12 years.

“Satire that the censor understands is rightly censored.” --Karl Kraus
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Does anyone else have trouble understanding many of mynym's posts? I don't understand them and when I tried to see if my hubby could make sense, his response is not postable. It started out with 'esoteric' and then got unpostable.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I have read a post of his that made sense start to finish once.
Mostly I think he just writes for shits and giggles.
Or the things he looking at require altered consciousness to appreciate, which is why he doesn't do simple details.
It's big picture, broad brush-strokes only, if you look at the paint strokes up close it's just a blur. Which is the opposite to how reality works. The minutiae must be as coherent as the whole.
Ooh, groovy, like fractals.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The 'circus act' to me, seems to be folks that insist that the CIA and the government are 'clowns' and at the same time insist that those same folks could pull off 9/11 without a hitch and without any proof linking them to it for over 12 years.
Yes sounds a bit far fetched doesn't it. Clowns do the most outrageous and ridiculous things don't they. Fall around all over the place, fall off things, drop things, get run over and explosions going off etc, you would think they would be lucky to survive a night, let alone to go on and and repeat these crazy antics night after night whilst hardly ever hurting themselves. A bit like the crazy wrestlers beating each other to pulp each night.

Whats' that maxim again... Oh yes... The show must go on.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I guess my problem is that I look at details and y'all enjoy huge swooping vistas of conspiracy theories. I ask HOW they could be that vast and y'all come up with stories that are nothing more than modern myths.

Ancient folks couldn't explain things so they came up with wolves eating the moon and Atlas shrugging his shoulders, today some folks choose modern myths to explain things.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I guess my problem is that I look at details and y'all enjoy huge swooping vistas of conspiracy theories. I ask HOW they could be that vast and y'all come up with stories that are nothing more than modern myths.

Ancient folks couldn't explain things so they came up with wolves eating the moon and Atlas shrugging his shoulders, today some folks choose modern myths to explain things.
Please give some examples of the 'modern myths' you are referring to, (in particular insofar as you think that is the basis of any conspiracy theory that I have supported)?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Mystery plane identified as Venus77, (which is one of 4 E 4B's)


It appears that its purpose was to support Air Force One. After departing Andrews, it was headed directly south toward Florida until Air Force One turned west to Barksdale Air Force Base. Once Air Force One turned west, VENUS77 made a few orbits around the Richmond area and then headed to Offutt and later returned to Andrews approximately 30 minutes before President Bush.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=3d90c030b97071e5a74cde034d86de30&showtopic=483

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/...ks/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.dow...n/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/timelin...ress091501.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/timelin...ress091401.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/2001/0...irst-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/g2deman...1sucherman.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
Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The Gods of Olympus have been replaced, in minds of many of the conspiracy folks, by the shadowy figures of the Illuminati, the Bilderburgs and such.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Seems that that all that is required to create that which is mysterious is the addition of the word "mystery". With that profound thought, I'm off to the pub for a mystery Jack Daniels.
 

Drew

Active Member
Does anyone else have trouble understanding many of mynym's posts? I don't understand them and when I tried to see if my hubby could make sense, his response is not postable. It started out with 'esoteric' and then got unpostable.

This is massively, digressively OT, becomingly meta-meta-meta, but since you asked...

Here's the thing:

Paul Grice, the philosopher of language, proposed an influential view that conversation can be idealized as a "cooperative" endeavor. Accordingly, he formulated a set of maxims people conversing in good faith follow. They're not rocket science — in most everyday cases these norms are tacitly understood and generally adhered to.


Maxims of Quantity:

  1. Make your contribution to the conversation as informative as necessary.
  2. Do not make your contribution to the conversation more informative than necessary.
Maxims of Quality:

  1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
  2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of Relation:

  1. Be relevant.
Maxims of Manner:

  1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
  2. Avoid ambiguity.
  3. Be brief.
  4. Be orderly.


Alas, our friend mynym routinely violates each and every one of these points. His conversational output thoroughly fails with respect to quantity, quality, relevance, and manner of expression.

This leaves one to wonder about two possible conclusions:
1) Mynym does not understand the norms of conversation, or is deeply confused about their application. He doesn't know how to be cooperative.
2) Mynym does not care about the norms of conversation, or is not really here to have a conversation. He doesn't wish to be cooperative.

And while I suppose 1) is possible, I tend to think 2) is the more likely.

He disguises some pretty vague and sketchy claims under layers of gussied-up stylistics, pseudo-scholarly block-quoting, and incomprehensible nonsense, and then when you criticize that, he can always say "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot."

And unlike guys like Grives and Oxy, whom I tend to disagree with, but who are at least friendly guys who are here to have a conversation in good faith and to speak to the community, Mynym only wants to speak at the community. It amounts to a monological monologue, and yes, it's for his own shits and giggles. Notice how in his rambles, he has begun to link to his own blog to continue the ramble. He saves some of his choicest zingers about how tribally stupid Metabunk is (or at least I think he thinks they're zingers). It's not clear for whose gratification any of this is done other than his own.

Which is all a shame, really. I'd be interested in talking with a guy like mynym, because I'm honestly curious how an apparently thoughtful and intelligent person can come to believe the things he does. There's an earnest, interesting conversation to be had there. But mynym doesn't seem interested in having it.

So until he changes his tactics and his attitude, I'd say you're pretty safe ignoring him, because for all he writes, he has so little to add. He's definitely wasting his own time, I'm just not particularly interested in letting him waste any more of mine.



Edited To Add:
And yes: I can admit to anticipating tomorrow morning's rejoinder from Mynym in which he compares my intelligence unfavorably to that of Justin Bieber, in which he pontificates about "da bunker" herd tribalism (why does he think his puns are so goddamn clever?), and a gross misunderstanding of the concept of satire introduced by the words, "A satire:..." Wait for it...
 
Top