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

[Sam.I.Am]

You still run into the issue of an enemy taking little pieces of seemingly harmless information and putting them all together and finding out that which you don't want them to know. Triforcharity already mentioned an example I used a few months ago about the food stores a submarine takes out to sea. Who cares, I mean it's not a secret that people need to eat food right? Well then why not have the "Grocery bill" available to the general public?

The reason is that you can infer how long that boat intends to be out to sea by how much food they bring along. From there you can infer what their mission might be. A larger than normal stores loadout usually means that they intend to not pull into a friendly port and that usually means that they aren't planning on being near a friendly port. You then might decide to heighten your security around areas that a boat might be interested in sitting at collecting information for a long period of time thereby jeopardizing the mission and the lives of the crew.

All from a grocery bill*.

That's why seemingly mundane bits of information are routinely classified Confidential/NOFORN.

*this actually happened back in the 1980's to a boat headed to the Barents Sea to monitor Soviet missile testing

 

[Kestrel]

Still waiting for one of you guys to think up a real reason why confirmation of the sighting this specific aircraft on 9/11 would damage national security.

 

[bill smith]

You just quoted the explanation of what the risk is: that little bits of information that may seem not important at all, might be put together to uncover vital information.

Which little bits, you ask? Well, know one knows for sure. That's why you don't release anything if you can avoid it. That's the whole point.

"You're locking your front door when you leave the house? Who, specifically, do you expect would enter your house and damage or take things?"

Respectfully,
Myriad

I started a file early in my 9/11 researches called 'big fat clues '. In it were things like the E4 and Bush staying in the school. These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation I reckon.

 

[Kestrel]

I started a file early in my 9/11 researches called 'big fat clues '. In it were things like the E4 and Bush staying in the school. These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation Ireckon.

I don't see a conspiracy.

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

As for Bush staying in the school, that was simple incompetence. The situation required Bush to think on his feet and he is lost without a script. If he had been in on a conspiracy, he would have had a script to follow and wouldn't have looked like a complete dolt.

BTW - I would like to see the photos of the Pentagon taken from that E-4, but in this case I do understand the reasons why they are kept under wraps.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Still waiting for one of you guys to think up a real reason why confirmation of the sighting this specific aircraft on 9/11 would damage national security.

It's not that that discussing that particular sighting (or any other one for that matter) is going to be some ground breaking revelation. It's more along the lines of they don't discuss anything that it does at all. This is common practice in almost everything the military does regarding strategic assets. "Loose lips sink ships." and all of that.

 

[bill smith]

I don't see a conspiracy.

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

As for Bush staying in the school, that was simple incompetence. The situation required Bush to think on his feet and he is lost without a script. If he had been in on a conspiracy, he would have had a script to follow and wouldn't have looked like a complete dolt.

BTW - I would like to see the photos of the Pentagon taken from that E-4, but in this case I do understand the reasons why they are kept under wraps.

Give me one possible worthwhile thing an E4 circling the Whitehouse on 9/11 could do other than arouse suspicion ?

 

[triforcharity]

Figure out what an E-4 does, then it might give you a clue.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Anyone to access to Jane's in 2001 had the ability to learn what the E-4 was, and its general mission profile WRT continuity-of-government plans.

What isn't public knowledge and for good reason is a fundamental cornerstone of OPSEC called EEFI (Essential Elements of Friendly Information.) These rules are second nature to anyone that works with the military in a C4ISR capacity. While the existence of the E-4 and general descriptions of its mission does not compromise EEFI, information vital to the conduct of its mission is. We're talking about things like flight profile plans, receiver sensitivity/frequencies transmitted/crypto gear used, specific EMI/EMP hardening defenses, personnel manning, and other similar information.

The airspace over Washington DC is not restricted for the E-4B or any other USG aircraft engaged in performance of its duties.

It was supposed to be there, and any warfighting organization in the world would be simply daft if they were to bloviate on specific operational contingency plans to assuage nervous nellies and Internet sleuths.

None of you need to know where the E-4B goes or the specific methods it uses to accomplish its task. You are not owed that explanation.

 

[Dog Town]

These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation I reckon.

I reckon? Do you get this...at all?

 

[gumboot]

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

It wasn't a military response, it was a government response. And it didn't "show up above DC". It was based near DC, and by virtue of that fact had to pass over DC in order to leave.

As for denying? Please provide evidence of any US government official ever denying the presence of the E-4B. All they ever did was refuse to discuss it, which is a blanket policy applied by every government and military in the world to every sensitive asset. There is nothing even remotely interesting or noteworthy in this situation.

You've had the reasoning for this policy explained to you numerous times, so if you cannot grasp it perhaps the problem does not lie with those explaining it, but with you.

 

[gumboot]

Figure out what an E-4 does, then it might give you a clue.

Except it doesn't. The E-4B is essentially an airborne command and control centre. It's designed for situations in which static ground-based command and control centres might be compromised. Given any sort of US government involvement in 9/11, there's no plausible reason for using the E-4B because a static ground-based command centre would not only provide a far superior service, but would avoid attracting attention.

There are a whole host of issues that arise if you attempt to use something like an E-4B to stage an attack, and doing so offers no benefit whatsoever. Further, the notion is compromised by the fact that the E-4B didn't turn up until after the attacks took place.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

There are a whole host of issues that arise if you attempt to use something like an E-4B to stage an attack, and doing so offers no benefit whatsoever.

Such as once again bloating the Impossibly Large Conspiracy^TM to now include the officers/enlisted crew of the E-4B. And the secure R/T talkers on the other end of the circuits coordinating the "attack." And whoever they passed that on to. And whoever they tasked with executing the...

Oh, **** it. I'm tired of thinking.

CTers must think all military personnel are androids with no conscience whatsoever.

 

[bill smith]

I reckon? Do you get this...at all?

The Keystone Cops strike again. ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE ? HERE-IS-A-C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y..!..lol

Remember the van they found on 9/11 at the WTC with the mural of the plane crashing into the WTC on the side and the two guys who ran away from it when approached ?

http://www.whale.to/b/mm6dlz.jpg

 

[Harpo]

The Keystone Cops strike again. ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE ? HERE-IS-A-C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y..!..lol

Remember the van they found on 9/11 at the WTC with the mural of the plane crashing into the WTC on the side and the two guys who ran away from it when approached ?

http://www.whale.to/b/mm6dlz.jpg

That picture is a badly photoshopped fake and without a source is completely worthless anyway. Try again!!

(and by source I don't mean a truther forum, blog or Youtube channel)

 

[bill smith]

That picture is a badly photoshopped fake and without a source is completely worthless anyway. Try again!!

Suppose I can prove it ? Can you explain it then ?

 

[Harpo]

Provide proof first bill - you know how it works by now.

This forum has a "Put up or shut up" policy on evidence - seemingly you have none to support this fake photo.

 

[bill smith]

Provide proof first bill - you know how it works by now.

This forum has a "Put up or shut up" policy on evidence - seemingly you have noen to support this fake photo.

Well I'll see if i can locate it a bit later. In the meantime your fellows may help you to the Truth.

 

[Oliver]

It wasn't a military response, it was a government response. And it didn't "show up above DC". It was based near DC, and by virtue of that fact had to pass over DC in order to leave.

As for denying? Please provide evidence of any US government official ever denying the presence of the E-4B. All they ever did was refuse to discuss it, which is a blanket policy applied by every government and military in the world to every sensitive asset. There is nothing even remotely interesting or noteworthy in this situation.

You've had the reasoning for this policy explained to you numerous times, so if you cannot grasp it perhaps the problem does not lie with those explaining it, but with you.

Ditto.
Also: Aren't E-4B's supposed to fly - especially in case of an emergency?

 

[DGM]

Suppose I can prove it ? Can you explain it then ?

So U-haul had advance knowledge now. Why don't you just include everyone BUT you, It would make it easier.

 

[Kestrel]

It wasn't a military response, it was a government response. And it didn't "show up above DC". It was based near DC, and by virtue of that fact had to pass over DC in order to leave.

As for denying? Please provide evidence of any US government official ever denying the presence of the E-4B. All they ever did was refuse to discuss it, which is a blanket policy applied by every government and military in the world to every sensitive asset. There is nothing even remotely interesting or noteworthy in this situation.

You've had the reasoning for this policy explained to you numerous times, so if you cannot grasp it perhaps the problem does not lie with those explaining it, but with you.

What I have been saying is this policy does not have to be static. Confirming that the E-4 B belonged to the Air Force in this specific case best serves the interests of our nation. In this case, the overriding concern is providing the public with a complete and accurate account of what happened on 9/11. Keeping secrets where there is no need for secrets, especially when it involves 9/11, fosters conspiracy theories and mistrust.