Merged E-4B flying around pentagon / Norman Mineta timeline

[fess]

i dont know the full capabilities of an e4b but i do know it should have been on his butt like white on rice considering it was an unknown and 2 planes already crashed into the towers.

If I might ask, for what reason? To be another eye witness?

 

[Reheat]

i dont know the full capabilities of an e4b but i do know it should have been on his butt like white on rice considering it was an unknown and 2 planes already crashed into the towers.

Is there any other group of people who celebrate ignorance like twoofers? Even when told plainly enough for a 6 year old to understand they continue to make stupid statements such as this example.

Psssst Senenmut, The E4B has NO OFFENSIVE WEAPONS/NO shoot 'em up bang bang..... Not even a "jack-in-the-box" with a boo flag! Got it yet?

Quite frankly, I doubt it.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

OMG...

No even a "jack-in-the-box" with a boo flag! Got it yet?

 

[Senenmut]

No comment re: the one or two White House evacuations, then, Senenmut? Okay, let's move on.

Apart from the supposed 9:26 evacuation (which, even if it were true, contradicts Mineta's story), the main other piece of evidence you've presented to support Mineta's timeline is Belger's statement, and in particular this quote:



But of course this doesn't really support Mineta at all. Here Belger says that he "got on the phone" with Mineta after the Pentagon crash. Mineta's story is that he was talking to Belger long before then, and in fact it was Belger who told him about the approaching plane.

You will want to look for excuses, of course, and I guess in this case you'll say that Belger "getting on to the phone" after the crash, doesn't mean he wasn't talking to Mineta beforehand. It would be an odd omission, but that's at least possible.

However, fortunately Belger makes things more explicit in this interview (my emphasis):



So, in one interview Belger only mentions getting on the phone to Mineta after AAL 77 hit; in the other, he says he doesn't recall speaking with Mineta about the approaching "high speed VFR".

And so, once again, something that's supposed to support Mineta actually contradicts a key part of his timeline.

why dont we just wait for cheapshot to answer the question about if the track mineta is describing is a radar track or a tsd. that might answer the timeline dilemma. how hard would it be to get a tsd track on a different machine confused with a radar track?

 

[MikeW]

why dont we just wait for cheapshot to answer the question about if the track mineta is describing is a radar track or a tsd. that might answer the timeline dilemma.

No, it won't: you're just trying to use Mineta's story to support Mineta's story, with some personal incredulity added ("I can't believe he would have got that wrong") and that's not the way it works. What you need is corroborating evidence from elsewhere. And the problem is you have vanishingly little.

 

[Senenmut]

Is there any other group of people who celebrate ignorance like twoofers? Even when told plainly enough for a 6 year old to understand they continue to make stupid statements such as this example.

Psssst Senenmut, The E4B has NO OFFENSIVE WEAPONS/NO shoot 'em up bang bang..... Not even a "jack-in-the-box" with a boo flag! Got it yet?

Quite frankly, I doubt it.

and you know this how? have you ever worked on an e4b? it took 3 mins for 77 to do the loop de loop. just imagine if the e4b had communications with the pentagon (which im sure it had) and could warn the people inside of the impending attack. maybe it could have saved some lives......

 

[Senenmut]

No, it won't: you're just trying to use Mineta's story to support Mineta's story, with some personal incredulity added ("I can't believe he would have got that wrong") and that's not the way it works. What you need is corroborating evidence from elsewhere. And the problem is you have vanishingly little.

so do you think one could mistake a tsd track on a seperate machine from a radar track on another machine and call that track a "targer" or "bogie"? i showed you evidence. your just closing your eyes and covering your ears.

 

[MikeW]

so do you think one could mistake a tsd track on a seperate machine from a radar track on another machine and call that track a "targer" or "bogie"? i showed you evidence. your just closing your eyes and covering your ears.

In the context of Mineta's timeline you have done NOTHING but make excuses. There's a mountain of evidence against it. You close your eyes or make feeble excuses to it all.

And now your big reveal is, what, there could be no confusion re: a TSD track, therefore - what? Go on, Senenmut. Spell out your logic. Suppose we accepted this. Tell us what it proves re: Mineta's story.

 

[Reheat]

I'm clairvoyant

lol, an E4 has no weapons. You are clear to engage? What does he do? Ram him? Engage what? They did not know it was 77, or it was a terrorist weapon. Your point is what?

Psssst Senenmut, The E4B has NO OFFENSIVE WEAPONS/NO shoot 'em up bang bang..... Not even a "jack-in-the-box" with a boo flag! Got it yet?

Quite frankly, I doubt it.

and you know this how? have you ever worked on an e4b? it took 3 mins for 77 to do the loop de loop. just imagine if the e4b had communications with the pentagon (which im sure it had) and could warn the people inside of the impending attack. maybe it could have saved some lives......

Beachnut and I are clairvoyant just like the E4B crew would have been to know that the unknown aircraft west of Washington, DC was a terrorist weapon and it's intended target was the Pentagon.

After this exchange it's no wonder you're a twoofer. Can you guess how I know? Are you closely related to bill smith?

 

[funk de fino]

so do you think one could mistake a tsd track on a seperate machine from a radar track on another machine and call that track a "targer" or "bogie"? i showed you evidence. your just closing your eyes and covering your ears.

The Flight 77 "bogie" was not picked up until around 09:26 by the ATC guys. They watched it fly a loop and dissappear. This was not the track called out to Cheney. Cheney saw smoke from the crash at the Pentagon on a TV in the tunnel outside the PEOC before he entered. Mineta saw Mrs Cheney in the PEOC when he arrived. He arrived after her. She arrived after the crash at the Pentagon.

Simples.

I cannot believe you just posted that about the E4B. Too funny.

 

[BCR]

so do you think one could mistake a tsd track on a seperate machine from a radar track on another machine and call that track a "targer" or "bogie"?

You really have no idea how all of this works do you?

 

[Andy_Ross]

and you know this how? have you ever worked on an e4b? it took 3 mins for 77 to do the loop de loop. just imagine if the e4b had communications with the pentagon (which im sure it had) and could warn the people inside of the impending attack. maybe it could have saved some lives......

it's an airliner stuffed full of communications equipment and staff. It isn't an AWACS or a fighter.

How was it suppoesed to know what 77 was intending to do? If it did know what was it supposed to do?

It's like expecting an Oil Tanker to do anti piracy patrol in the Indian Ocean.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut and I are clairvoyant just like the E4B crew would have been to know that the unknown aircraft west of Washington, DC was a terrorist weapon and it's intended target was the Pentagon.

After this exchange it's no wonder you're a twoofer. Can you guess how I know? Are you closely related to bill smith?

We could whack him with the boom; "BOOM, Pilot", "whack that airliner", boom to pilot, "ace, the fool will not stabilize!" pilot, "boom, whack him!".

 

[Oystein]

it's an airliner stuffed full of communications equipment and staff. It isn't an AWACS or a fighter.
...

Actually, the E4B is comparable to an AWACS (E3) minus the radar dome. E3s are full of communications equipment, and carry no weapons of their own.

Unlike the E4, the E3 are at least designed to operate in the vicinity of an enemy.
The E4's best plan will always be to stay as far away from any battlefiled as possible. There is no use for on-board weapons, you can't see any on any photos of E4Bs, they are not mentioned in any specs, and indeed, a 747 frame is the worst possible choice to lauch offensive weapons. At most, the E4B may employ passive means of repelling attacks (radar decoys maybe).

 

[Senenmut]

You really have no idea how all of this works do you?

cheapshot stated that the tsd is on another machine. one would not call a tsd track a "target" or "bogie". so whats your problem?