Mystery White Plane Over Whitehouse

[jvnk08]

So, why is this worthy of note? I presume because it could be (dubiously) used as evidence that "they" had foreknowledge and thus.... did exactly what they would have done in an actual unexpected national emergency?!

If we pretend for a moment that the attacks really did happen as described in the "mainstream" account, wouldn't we expect this plane to be in the air in order to be able to meet the President wherever he may be or ends up? Given that the first plane hit at 8:46AM, I'm curious why it would be out of the ordinary for what is effectively the flying C&C center of the US military to be in the air near DC roughly around the time the plane hit the Pentagon an hour later(as supported by the witness accounts Oxymoron posted).

 

[Oxymoron]

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.

I don't think that and I don't think Conspiracy Theorists in general, think that. I think that the priests and elite rulers of long ago have of necessity, (due to the myth of democracy), been replaced by the shadowy figures of the Illuminati, the Bilderburgs and such.

I don't even see it as a stretch... it is historically documented; the power elite have always wanted, (and managed) to use and abuse the proletariat for their own ends and gratification. It is in the dna, from the small child ripping the wings off of flies and suffocating cats in an abandoned fridge to usage of animals as beasts of burden right up to fabulously wealthy despots wallowing in luxury whilst the peasants starve in the fields/mines/factories, whatever.

Nothing has changed other than the illusion of democracy... the two party system being really a one party system controlled by the powers that be, under any name you may wish to call them.

The trick is, not to push things too far such that the rabble are roused. It is pretty close to that in places like Greece and Spain and history shows examples such as the French and Russian revolutions and latterly the Arab Spring etc where people have said enough is enough. The problem being that those who take control are normally no better than those who are deposed or the 'real powers' behind the deposed mold the new face of the revolution to fit into their greater design.

The key is, in apportioning blame to the masses and particularly to the weakest members of the masses so the masses blame themselves and beat themselves to work harder and longer for less so that things can be put right for a 'better future' for their kids and that the masses also turn on the weakest and reduce what little they have even further.

An analogy being, the drive for everyone to do their part in controlling carbon emissions for the benefit and safety of the planet. (We are to blame)The masses are urged to recycle and use less energy and stop polluting by driving their cars and to spend money on new technology to achieve these ends... but the difference made is miniscule and a drop in the ocean.

However, Koch bros raiding Canada's tar sands and transporting it all across America resulting in massive pollution still goes on. Ships in their thousands, 16 of which put out as much pollution as the entire world pollution from cars, carry on polluting. Yet how often do you hear the call for the ships to be fitted with effective emission filters.

The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world's largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world's cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reate-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz2SBYaudsm

 

[Oxymoron]

So, why is this worthy of note? I presume because it could be (dubiously) used as evidence that "they" had foreknowledge and thus.... did exactly what they would have done in an actual unexpected national emergency?!

If we pretend for a moment that the attacks really did happen as described in the "mainstream" account, wouldn't we expect this plane to be in the air in order to be able to meet the President wherever he may be or ends up? Given that the first plane hit at 8:46AM, I'm curious why it would be out of the ordinary for what is effectively the flying C&C center of the US military to be in the air near DC roughly around the time the plane hit the Pentagon an hour later(as supported by the witness accounts Oxymoron posted).

Yes I agree to a point but my concern/skepticism pertains to, it is 1) strangely associated with the flight path of flight 77, 2) Apparently the 'doomsday planes' normal function is to keep away from areas of danger, 3) If that, much slower plane, can get there, why could intercept fighters not get there and 4) Why officially deny any knowledge of it, even to date?

 

[Mick West]

I don't think that anyone doubts that many powerful people exploit weaker people.

The questions here are about how much is from a homogenous conspiracy that sits at the top, and how much is simple emergent behaviour from people following their own self interests - a large number of much smaller conspiracies.

My opinion is that conspiracy theorists tend to see intent where there is no intent. This does not mean the rich are now screwing us, simply that they are not really plotting together to screw us with some kind of long term plan.

 

[mynym]

Or the things he looking at require altered consciousness to appreciate, which is why he doesn't do simple details.

I do details. But when you do that, a "big picture" multiplies out into thousands of words and so forth. "Too long, didn't read." vs. "Looks like hieroglyphics to me."

I'm fine with that. Communication and the existence of information is a matter of will anyway.

It's big picture, broad brush-strokes only, if you look at the paint strokes up close it's just a blur.

Example.

Apparently she didn't understand the use of clowns as a metaphor (brush stroke) for bungling and incompetence that probably isn't what it seems within the context of the theatrical production of what appears to be a big circus act. She thought I meant that the people most likely to have pulled off 911 were actually a bunch of clowns or incompetent, apparently.

Which is the opposite to how reality works. The minutiae must be as coherent as the whole.

The minutiae isn't coherent without the whole, just as facts reside in theories and so forth. The problem with your whole worldview seems to be that it reduces to a hole... a void or an abyss.

 

[mynym]

Alas, our friend mynym routinely violates each and every one of these points.

You seem to be assuming that you and your entire community wish to have a conversation. I doubt that's the case. But there's always tomorrow, either way.

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.

Or perhaps it leaves one to wonder why you as the voice of a collective sound like a technician working for a scientific dictatorship instead of a person that honestly wishes to try to have a good faith based conversation with a prankster or someone violating the rules. Are you sure that you're trying to communicate with me on my terms? I believe in honesty, so I don't play pretend that's always the case on my end.

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.

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Usually when people seem to have confused the distinction between manipulation and conversation, I tend to lose interest in communication.

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...

I doubt that it's a matter of intelligence.

....in which he pontificates about "da bunker" herd tribalism (why does he think his puns are so goddamn clever?)...

Mainly because it's better than thinking that they're stupid. But I blame Joe for that one. I must have thought it clever though, otherwise I wouldn't have imitated it. Just think if we got a group mind going, huh? I have to say, it's a little better in its connotations and layers of meaning than "quote mine" and "gallops" and so forth. You know: "Safety first, everyone into da bunker!" and so forth.

 

[TEEJ]

Oxymoron,

The C-130 witnessed above the Pentagon was call sign "Gopher 06" flown by Lt Col Steve O'Brien.



http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/31_catlinb_airguardmuseum/

Gopher 06 was tasked by ATC to look out for traffic in the vinicity and to identify it.

Comms between Gopher 06 and ATC.

 

[Boston]

Im unclear as to what the mystery is, its a US gubment plane, small wonder they're not copping to where when or why they fly it.

Show me picture evidence of what does and doesn't fit a given explanation and I'm all over it. But I see no mystery in the existence of this plane

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxymoron,

The C-130 witnessed above the Pentagon was call sign "Gopher 06" flown by Lt Col Steve O'Brien.



http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/31_catlinb_airguardmuseum/

Gopher 06 was tasked by ATC to look out for traffic in the vinicity and to identify it.

Comms between Gopher 06 and ATC.

So you are saying what? This plane is the C 130? This plane wasn't there?

(Well that's annoying, can't copy pic from first post) Anyway it is the Doomsday Plane pic over DC

 

[Boston]

doomsday plane ?

Did I miss something, I thought I'd skimmed the thread before I posted but maybe I missed something

 

[TEEJ]

So you are saying what? This plane is the C 130? This plane wasn't there?

(Well that's annoying, can't copy pic from first post) Anyway it is the Doomsday Plane pic over DC

I'm referring to your post that contained eye-witness reports with the header

'OTHER WHITE JET WITNESS REPORTS:'

These are listed as the following

Brian Kennedy, Meseidy Rodriguez, Kelly Knowles, Keith Wheelhouse, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman and unnamed worker at Arlington national cemetery

That list of eye-witnesses were all referring to the events surrounding AA77. They witnessed the C-130 'Gopher 06' and not the E-4B.

See following

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=brian_kennedy

The link that you posted.

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

 

[Oxymoron]

I'm referring to your post that contained eye-witness reports with the header

'OTHER WHITE JET WITNESS REPORTS:'

These are listed as the following

Brian Kennedy, Meseidy Rodriguez, Kelly Knowles, Keith Wheelhouse, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman and unnamed worker at Arlington national cemetery

That list of eye-witnesses were all referring to the events surrounding AA77. They witnessed the C-130 'Gopher 06' and not the E-4B.

See following

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=brian_kennedy

The link that you posted.

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

Thanks, good researching there. So there were 2 'Mystery Planes', (both identified but still mysterious).

Here is some more on the C 130, (Hercules)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_O'Brien

Steven O'Brien is a lieutenant colonel in the Minnesota Air National Guard's 133rd Airlift Wing.

O'Brien has become known because of a notable coincidence on 9/11, when he and his crew flew close, in space and time, to the crashes of two of the four airliners hijacked that day, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93. The former hit the Pentagon, while the latter later crashed in a field in western Pennsylvania.

BTW, The historycommons site is very interesting... never encountered that before.

 

[Cairenn]

Why would you consider a cargo plane taking off from a military base a 'mystery' ?

On September 11, 2001, O'Brien was flying a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130H (Hercules) cargo airplane. He and his crew were on a return journey to Minnesota after having delivered supplies in the Caribbean. He took off from Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of Washington DC, at about 9:30 am (EDT), and headed "north and west". "[We] had a beautiful view of the Mall", he remarked.

 

[Joe Newman]

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.

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Part of the frustration is seeing how often incompetence is used as an excuse when things go awry. If these folks were as incompetent as we are led to believe, they wouldn't be able to run a car wash, never mind a country.

 

[muttkat]

So, why is this worthy of note? I presume because it could be (dubiously) used as evidence that "they" had foreknowledge and thus.... did exactly what they would have done in an actual unexpected national emergency?!

If we pretend for a moment that the attacks really did happen as described in the "mainstream" account, wouldn't we expect this plane to be in the air in order to be able to meet the President wherever he may be or ends up? Given that the first plane hit at 8:46AM, I'm curious why it would be out of the ordinary for what is effectively the flying C&C center of the US military to be in the air near DC roughly around the time the plane hit the Pentagon an hour later(as supported by the witness accounts Oxymoron posted).

There are certain videos where it shows the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, you can see a white plane in the background which I think isthis plane. its been about 5 years since I've probably have watched thos e videos. I was wondering when they are showing it fly over DC if that is before or after the Pentagon crash?

 

[Landru]

There are certain videos where it shows the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, you can see a white plane in the background which I think isthis plane. its been about 5 years since I've probably have watched thos e videos. I was wondering when they are showing it fly over DC if that is before or after the Pentagon crash?

This seems off topic. It would be interesting to see the plane you claim is a mystery over WTC started in another thread.

 

[Cairenn]

There are a LOT of white planes in the US. NYC has 2 major airports, one would expect to spot a plane or 2 in the air when the attacks hit.

I agree that this is off topic.

 

[TEEJ]

Thanks, good researching there.

No problem. Thanks for the reply.

BTW, The historycommons site is very interesting... never encountered that before.

No problem. It is a good research tool.

 

[JRBids]

From the history commons site:

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien, will later be interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He will claim that just before the explosion, "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out," implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, "I could see the outline of the Pentagon," again implying he is not nearby. He then asks "the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building," but he is told "to get out of the area as quickly as possible." He will add, "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."[STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002]

Why can I not find this anywhere on the Star-Tribune website? Why are the only hits I get conspiracy sites? Can someone else do better? Am I doing something wrong? I searched because I was puzzled by the comments I've bolded. I don't know why a newspaper would do that.

Here's the Star-Tribune site if anyone would like to try:

http://search.startribune.com/search?content_updates=A&as_q=&num=10&as_epq="Brian Kennedy"&as_oq=Pilot&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&sort=date:S:d1&as_lq=&btnG=Google Search

 

[Oxymoron]

From the history commons site:

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien, will later be interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He will claim that just before the explosion, "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out," implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, "I could see the outline of the Pentagon," again implying he is not nearby. He then asks "the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building," but he is told "to get out of the area as quickly as possible." He will add, "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."[STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002]

Why can I not find this anywhere on the Star-Tribune website? Why are the only hits I get conspiracy sites? Can someone else do better? Am I doing something wrong? I searched because I was puzzled by the comments I've bolded. I don't know why a newspaper would do that.

Here's the Star-Tribune site if anyone would like to try:

http://search.startribune.com/search?content_updates=A&as_q=&num=10&as_epq="Brian Kennedy"&as_oq=Pilot&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&sort=date:S:d1&as_lq=&btnG=Google Search

Perhaps they have 'pulled it' from the net. I expect if you buy the edition it will be in that.

 

[jvnk08]

From the history commons site:

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien, will later be interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He will claim that just before the explosion, "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out," implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, "I could see the outline of the Pentagon," again implying he is not nearby. He then asks "the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building," but he is told "to get out of the area as quickly as possible." He will add, "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."[STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002]

Why can I not find this anywhere on the Star-Tribune website? Why are the only hits I get conspiracy sites? Can someone else do better? Am I doing something wrong? I searched because I was puzzled by the comments I've bolded. I don't know why a newspaper would do that.

Here's the Star-Tribune site if anyone would like to try:

http://search.startribune.com/search?content_updates=A&as_q=&num=10&as_epq="Brian Kennedy"&as_oq=Pilot&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&sort=date:S:d1&as_lq=&btnG=Google Search

site:startribune.com "c130"

and subtle variations thereof should yield results in Google if they existed. There are a couple of possible explanations: the article has not been digitized, Google was not indexing their site(or the entirety of it) in 2002, or that it is not in fact an article from the publication at all.

 

[Boston]

I'm unclear as to a question about military aircraft being in the air during a military operation ?

 

[muttkat]

No problem. Thanks for the reply.



No problem. It is a good research tool.

I send alot of people there too, so they can see how our officials reacted on 911, prior to 911 and how they prevented investigative efforts in preventing 911.....Able Danger, FBI Robert Wrght.

Also pay attention how the 911 Commission changes the timing of events from the other sources to fit the govt version of 911.

 

[muttkat]

site:startribune.com "c130"

and subtle variations thereof should yield results in Google if they existed. There are a couple of possible explanations: the article has not been digitized, Google was not indexing their site(or the entirety of it) in 2002, or that it is not in fact an article from the publication at all.

Thanks for answering that, cause I didn't know the answer.

 

[muttkat]

This seems off topic. It would be interesting to see the plane you claim is a mystery over WTC started in another thread.

Its something I noticed about 5 years ago and I have to dig up the timing as to when the white plane is passing by so you don't have to watch the whole video.

 

[muttkat]

From the history commons site:

The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien, will later be interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He will claim that just before the explosion, "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out," implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, "I could see the outline of the Pentagon," again implying he is not nearby. He then asks "the controller whether should set up a low orbit around the building," but he is told "to get out of the area as quickly as possible." He will add, "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."[STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002]

Why can I not find this anywhere on the Star-Tribune website? Why are the only hits I get conspiracy sites? Can someone else do better? Am I doing something wrong? I searched because I was puzzled by the comments I've bolded. I don't know why a newspaper would do that.

Here's the Star-Tribune site if anyone would like to try:

http://search.startribune.com/search?content_updates=A&as_q=&num=10&as_epq="Brian Kennedy"&as_oq=Pilot&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&sort=date:S:d1&as_lq=&btnG=Google Search

When you state you only get hits on conspiracy sites, does that mean that all the information is wrong? I do know there are mistakes, falsified data, but then we get that from official govt sites.

 

[muttkat]

There are a LOT of white planes in the US. NYC has 2 major airports, one would expect to spot a plane or 2 in the air when the attacks hit.

I agree that this is off topic.

Thanks for letting me know there are ALOT of white planes in the US but there are ONLY 4 E-4 planes that are used. I've been to both airports. If the E-4 were flying past the WTC when the 2nd plane hit, then that should apply to this forum instead of making another "Did we see other white planes flying past the WTC....It's not off topic.

 

[muttkat]

This seems off topic. It would be interesting to see the plane you claim is a mystery over WTC started in another thread.

There was another plane involved as to when Flight 93 was shot down. A witness from Shanksville ,Penn stated the was a plane following Flight 93 but when they were trying to identify it, it flew towards the sun obstructing that. Thats a good ploy. I guess that could be in another forum as to if Flight 93 was shot down.

"Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes… I–it was my advice. It was his decision."(Vice President Dick Cheney, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

"That's a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the–given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was–I didn't hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done."(President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

Of course, the 911 Commission has another version:

"The airplace rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the Greatest'. With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour…." (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 2004, Chapter 1)

 

[muttkat]

I don't think that anyone doubts that many powerful people exploit weaker people.

The questions here are about how much is from a homogenous conspiracy that sits at the top, and how much is simple emergent behaviour from people following their own self interests - a large number of much smaller conspiracies.

My opinion is that conspiracy theorists tend to see intent where there is no intent. This does not mean the rich are now screwing us, simply that they are not really plotting together to screw us with some kind of long term plan.

I know this off topic but being I have insufficient privileges to comment on the WTC 7 Fires...site, I would like to know why Metabunk uses NIST as a reference when its data is seriously flawed when it should be using the USGS or FEMA's version, especially as far as the "High Temperatures" are concerned?

 

[Oystein]

I am reading old threads on my phone out of boredom. This here seems to lack the solutions: all "mystery" planes are exactly accounted for. It has been mentioned that the C130 had taken off Andrews AFB near DC a little before 9:30 and had been vectorer by civilian Air Traffic Control to identify the unknown radar target that turned out to be AA77, crashing into the Pentagon at 9:37.

The white "doomsday" plane, call sign VENUS77, also took off from Andrews, a little later, and was seen turning above DC around 9:45. When I return home later today, I'll provide links, radar screenshots etc. If you want to find stuff earlier, try to find Miles Kara's blog "oredigger" (I don't recall the exact name). Kara was a staffer for the 9/11 Commission, part of the team that analysed the responses by FAA and Air Force.